I must say the historical intro was most useful to me. Actually, the same happened to me in other videos of yours, I recall. I appreciate it!

When I first started using Hock irons, which I like, I assumed the thickness of the blades was the reason I liked them and that they would solve my hand planing problems. I was just learning to use hand planes. I had a lot to learn. With more experience, I came to the conclusion that the quality of the Hock steel is excellent, both for edge sharpening and edge retention, and I am glad I have a number of Hock blades. Nonetheless, the traditional Stanley blades work very well, just as long as they are not warped or out of square AND as long as they are kept sharp -- which will be true of ANY plane blade. Also, with more experience using hand planes, I came to another conclusion that -- in my opinion -- blade thickness has little do do with either the common problems OR the solutions to those problems that people encounter -- that I encountered -- when using hand planes. Most of the issues with hand planes can be resolved as follows: (1) Learn to properly tune up and dial in a hand plane, whatever brand of plane or blade is used. (2) Learn to initially flatten and to hand sharpen plane blades. Sharpen them frequently. Get and keep them razor sharp by stropping them. (Hand sharpening is faster and cheaper.) (3) Develop a good, solid stance over the wood and learn to stroke the plane with a "scooping" motion using the whole body, not just the arms. (4) Practice using the plane in various types of wood. Ease the plane blade into the wood gently by adjusting the depth of the cut. Learn to read the grain direction before you start planing and carefully observe the shavings as they come off the wood. Make adjustments in light of what the shavings indicate. (5) Keep your plane soles lightly lubricated with wax or oil. Did I mention keeping your plane blades sharp? If you do each these things, then blade thickness will not matter much. If you don't do any of these things, then blade thickness will not matter at all. Guaranteed. A tuned-up and dialed-in plane matters a ton. Blade sharpness matters a ton. Blade steel quality? Yes, it matters quite a bit, actually, and Stanley blades are made of good steel. Blades thicker than Stanley blades? Meh. I happen to love and use old Stanley planes, especially those I have restored, but I use others, as well, including Lie Nielson, Veritas, Wood River, and Record. All are excellent planes. I treasure each one. However, if I had only my refurbished Stanley planes with their original blades, my work would not suffer one bit -- and I use hand planes a lot. One interesting thing about Stanley Bailey #4s and #5s is that they are relatively light in weight compared to other "high end" planes, including the Stanley Bedrock planes and others built on that design. This lighter weight can make quite a positive difference when you are doing a lot of wood planing. Don't thumb your nose at a Stanley Bailey. They are effective, they are available, they are affordable AND they are beautiful. Just saying... (But I beg you not to use one with plastic knobs and totes. OMG. Don't even go there. 🙄 In any case, you an easily and enjoyably make your own knobs and totes.) Oh, did I mention keeping your blades sharp? One person's opinion, FWIW. Thanks, Rex, for another good, thoughtful, and helpful video. 👍👍

Evertime I see Rex using the hand plane, I get an overwhelming desire to go and make some shavings, its quite therapeutic, thin shavings = stress relief.

just for the purposes of propper testing you should try the irons in opposite planes, might be a subtle design issue

When most of us were born you would quickly hear a “Whaaaa.” When Rex and his other brother Rex were born, you’d quickly hear a “Whyyyyy???” With great videography and great answers to Rex’s questions, one has a great way to learn with a gallon of common sense thrown in. Thanks Rex, thanks videographer, and thanks patrons.

I have nothing to say really, but I appreciate your content, and wish to help with the yt-algorithms.

I have bought planes with almost no useable iron left and replacing it with a Hock was a good way to go for me.

So ... stuff that worked for decades and decades still works and a well made modern equivalent also works well. It's great that good replacements are available though, because not all old irons will be in good condition, they can be lost, etc.

Its the craftsman behind the tool that makes the difference.

Thin irons were laminated too. I own several older Stanley's and Records where you can clearly see the two different pieces of steel when you polish the bevel. The thick,tapered irons in woodies were made that way because the taper helped wedge them in place and made adjustment easier.

I’m an old man and have so many planes I’ve picked over the years I’ve started giving some away. But, to me, besides a properly sharpened blade, the most important feature in a plane is a proper fitting frog, and chip breaker. That’s my 2 cents. BTW I just picked up another Stanley 9 1/2 block plane yesterday. It’s a sickness I tell you. Thanks Rex!

Another great video Rex.

I had now idea this was even a thing. Watching your videos and collecting, studying and using Stanley planes I’m perfectly happy with them. I’m not fixing something that’s not broken. Love your videos!

Excellent video, excellent discussion of the pluses and minuses. Thanks!

Great video! Buying a Hock blade to replace a damaged blade is exactly what I did a couple off years ago. Good to know I made a wise choice. 😊👍

I'm a retired 49yrs being a carpenter from the UK I love your very informative programs, I just don't like how you put your planes down justs in case you don't notice the odd screw that's on the bench and inevitably your plane iron lands right on it meaning another sharpen up, I always put my planes down on the side, less chance in the workshop but more on site of hitting the iron because no bench usually the concrete floor.

It would be interesting to try the Hock cap iron on the Stanley blade and vice versa.

Ron Hock is also a great guy. Always love doing business with him

The abrasives we have are revolutionary. I have read that when Norton invented much of it, they thought abrasives would replace all milling machines.

Hi Rex! I think that for the new chip-breaker that does not "tense" on the tip of the iron, if you sharpen only half an inch on the iron you are creating the gap for the shavings to jam in... If you would have sanded the whole thing (or at least a much longer than half an inch) the chip breaker would have probably sat even better and not allowed any shavings to get in. Love the video and tips!

unrelated: just discovered that one of my projects got published by the company that made the feet! it appears they think that what I put their feet onto was pretty enough to help them sell more. I give you a LOT of credit for this result - your tutorials have taught me HEAPS of skills.

IMO, the big advantage of the newer blades isn't their thickness, but the quality of the steel. The edge holds longer and doesn't fall off a cliff quite as fast. I doubt if the thickness has anything to do with that. Although one advantage of a thicker iron is when learning to freehand sharpen. If you don't do a secondary bevel that wider bevel to register on makes a huge difference. Would be interesting to see a traditional dimension blade made with some of the newer steels. Could be the best of both worlds.

Wish I could see ya more often. What about 10 min videos about tool history?

8:37 - Two Rexes? The world is not ready for that!! 😂 Excellent video and excellent advice! 👍👍 ❤❤❤

I accidentally put a ding in a PMV-11 blade and I don't have a mechanical grinder (yet). My Lord was it a pain in the buns to get that out of the blade!

A solid conclusion.

It sounded and looked like the Hawk took just a little more effort to use. Also I wonder if the Stanley was just slightly rounded at the corners - resulting in a little less full shaving. Great video - I sure like how Rex figures it out!

The great thing here in New Zealand is due to the Shipping cost Hock blades get costly. Which makes you sit down and make your own blades.

Didn't know about that bit of history about the reason Stanley blades were purposely made thin because of the difficulty sharpening in the field caused. Very interesting. Well made video Rex

I did this with my great grandpa's old wood-bodied jack plane and am really psyched! Now I just need to make the wedge

Back in the day, we were thrown in at the deep end to work with what was available - and at that time, the Stanley with it's thin iron was the trade standard. We worked Mahogany (what little was left of it in UK), Beech, Oak (horrible), Ash (my favourite wood to work with) and a few others. My point is that a true craftsman (those who taught me) that worked everyday with a standard Stanley plane would consistently outperform anyone else with a fancier plane or blade. You could spend hundreds - thousands - on fancy upgrades but it's not going to make you a better woodworker. The only way you can do that is to do it the way they did it - day in, day out. I'm 62 now and I'm still not as good as the guy who taught me in my teens.

I can tell a difference in vibration on very hard wood. The Stanley "sings" while the thicker irons leave a smoother finish. I was very happy with my Stanley irons. I only replaced one because it was worn out.

This will be a great one .

Many (if not most) of the pre-WW2 irons were laminated. I’ve seen several references to this, but have also recently flattened two blades, one a V-logo (1912-1918) and a current logo (1933 to present), and both had a clearly visible lamination extending about 2” up the iron. I expect they made them this way because it allowed them to heat treat the whole blade in a way that would leave the laminated piece very hard without making the rest of the iron brittle. Great video, as always.

After watching Rex’s video, and taking in the commentary, the axiom of KISS is still a good direction. For those that have the funds, and want the best or newest, then by all means go with a Hock blade, and use a Woodriver or Lee Nielsen with the newer tech iron if you have the funds.. If starting out in the wood finishing/construction trade, then rehabilitate a few Stanley planes, use a typical iron and make money the old fashioned way., and gain experience with the craft. I was a professional photographer for 35 years and worked my way up into using Hasselblad cameras as I acquired the knowledge and ability to fine tune my profession. Thanks Rex.

I dont think you mentioned which steel was in your hock kit O1, A2 or powder steel, each has different characteristics. I upgraded a not so vintage Stanley with an O1 kit not so long ago, I think the chip breaker made a bigger difference than the blade as the original was damaged. There are 2 other tests I would do. 1) the thicker blade should help with chatter. See how thick a shaving you can get on a piece of wood without getting chatter. 2) time needed between sharpenings.

I have no complaint with the thin blades on Stanley 3, 4, and 5 and one-half. Also, my wooden Baileys work great with the thin blades. I did buy the Hock blade for my Stanley roughing plane for crossing the grain

You should look into the cheap HSS replacement blades they sell on amazon. I bought some for less than 15 dollars, those are worth the money. Ron Hock irons are very good, key is getting them very sharp

I do believe that the slight difference you noticed between the irons (wider and more consistent shavings with the new one) could be attributed to the fact that you probably have sharpened by hand your Stanley iron a lot more, so it won’t have the perfect straight and square edge that the factory machined iron has, so, even after honing, it could have had an ever so slightly different blade geometry giving you different results. Anyway I think the most useful part of the video for me was at 14:20 when you showed the iron jamming, when people talk about fitment of the chip-breaker they tell you that “the fitment must be perfect or your plane will jam and get clogged up” so when I had problems with planes getting clogged up with shavings I unsuccessfully obsessed about getting a perfect fitment of the chip-breaker but I realized just now that nothing like what you showed ever happened to one of my planes so that wasn’t the problem and I should instead have searched a solution elsewhere…

Very practical and informative, but I love the historical context.

I got hock match blade n breakers in 2 planes n they're lovely!

Interesting test. I just replaced the old crooked Stanley iron in my vintage #4 for a Hock and at the same time the skewed chip breaker (jamming constantly, despite flattening etc.) on my modern Stanley #4 1/2 for a Hock. Both turned out to be a massive improvement.

I just tried a hock and really like it, my og iron was pitted on my recent plane purchase, i think i will get more hock irons in time,

I picked up a much used 28" transitional with a word and abused iron. Cleaned and oiled it up and put a Hock in it. Oh my what a joy to use.

Rex, I would say it is about mass and resulting vibration frequencies - but unless the fundamental of hand planing are down it won't do a thing. It probably wears even more on one as mass was added to the given plane. To really show the difference one would need a levered machine setup with motor torque output and some macro camera or microscope setup to analyses the surfaces produced. Any properly set thick blade will outperform thinner blades, as they retain the momentum better as keep in the cut line more.

Keep teaching. Excellent back story on steel.

Q: Why do people say you have to replace the iron? A: Because they sell irons.

I have 3 irons for my plane and one is a Hock blade. When a blade needs to be sharpened I swap it out for a sharp one then sharpen all the blades and chisel at the end of the day. I say all of that because when I swap blades of different thicknesses, then I need to adjust the opening and if you are doing what I do then you will definitely appreciate the bedrock style. It is way easier get the throat closed down just right with a bedrock plane. Get that throat closed down and blade sharp and you can get rid of the tear out on that piece of oak. I enjoy using my plane, not sharpening or setting it up…

I tried thick irons. The thick irons, I thought had an advantage initially. But with further experience, I was seeing the difference between a 25 degree flat (planar?) sharpened edge and a Hand sharpened edge with it unavoidable bevel... ( the flat edge is better). Particular with the a reverse grip (unplugged workshop) a honing jig is worth is with the time..

Sure, thick blades are better. It doesn’t mean thin Stanley’s can’t do the exact same job though. Or that chip breaker are useless. Or that bevel up planes are better. Nor Japanese.

I put a hock iron and chip breaker in a second hand No 4 and it jammed. When I learned a little more, I flattened the front edge of the chip breaker and the front of the cap iron. Absolutely a different plane after that and no clogs. Until I got that done I was more than a little disappointed as a novice woodworker trying to become friends with my plane.

I have a Hock iron on my Woodriver #4 and it works very well, better than the original.

Love my hock irons n if course bought the chip breakers to match. Got one on my#4 and my #5 1/2

I have found that the thicker blades give me a longer time in use, smoother run and less chatter- even with oil/wax. Most of my planes are old and well used/abused so I had to replace the blades anyway (Beat up, warped, etc...).

Can you please make videos on string-rope clamping verses wedge and string-wedge clamping and best applications for each​ for regular type and outside-the-norm projects...??

This is something I've tested extensively in my own shop, and came to a similar conclusion. There's no doubt that the newer Irons are better made, but the performance difference is generally pretty subtle yet still noticeable. The interesting thing I found is that what really makes a difference is not the iron at all, its the cap iron. Swapping out the old Stanley chip breaker for a proper machined cap iron will give you the same chatter reducing results, and only costs about $35 for a premium option like the Hock or the Veritas.

This is the last place I expected a Bethesda reference, but I sure did appreciate it.

good content. Picked up two #5's that both date to about 1910 at a yard sale. One I'll replace the blade only because it ground nearly to the slot. Other than that, I just use stock irons. I also have a #7, dating to 1890 and a #8 from the 1980's. The plan fromt he 1980's pretty much sucks, while the 1890's plan with a replacement bi-metal blade is a real winner. There's more than the blade to the great plane, but the blade does make a difference.

I really like original Stanleys but when I'm putting a parts plane together I love the Hock blades. I have one on my only 4 1/2 and it has become my favorite overall plane.

That was actually pretty informative. Thanks.

I find the chip breaker to be the important piece of the puzzle. Due diligence is required as I have found the notch for the adjuster is not cut the same distance from the bevel, brand to brand. Case in point, Lie-Nielsen makes a fine CB, but it will not work on my favorite planes by Millers Falls. On a budget? My best suggestion for replacement blades is Record. Most of my go to's have Record blades with an aftermarket CB.

I noticed a big difference with the hock on my number 5.

When my father passed, I inherited his sizable collection of vintage iron planes, (various eras, makes and sizes). Most of his wooden body and transition planes went elsewhere. I've got three 5 gallon buckets full of block planes that I haven't even had the chance to look at. My father acquired most of these planes from flea markets and garage sales, so their user history is mostly unknown aside from what I can infer from close examination. Of all the irons I've so far inspected, I only came across one that had any indication there was any evidence that anyone had attempted to lap the back of the iron, (which I think makes sense because I believe that it's only been within the last 20 years or so that the practice has started to become widespread, and even then, it really a hobbyist thing since there really isn't a lot of carpenters with hand planes on job sites anymore). When my father taught me to sharpen an iron fifty years ago, he was using a single, cheap, 250 grit stone that was never lapped, but it was good enough for the carpentry work he did, and to tell the truth, that's all I ever needed when I jobbed out as a trim carpenter. Most of the irons were rather coarsely sharpened (compared to what we now see via the internet), and only the ones that had no obvious evidence for having ever been sharpened, (i.e. "new in the box"), could have ever hoped to have made a full width shaving. Of the irons that I've taken the time to reshape and resharpen to 4,000 grit, they've all performed well enough, (on pine at least), that I can get full width, thickness readings of '0.0', when using cheap digital calipers, (yes they work, but are inadequate for the test at hand). I did try a Veritas A2 iron but other than it needing to be adjusted for a slightly thicker iron, I can't devise a home brew test to tell if it can make a finer cut than a vintage iron. I did some sporadic planing with hard maple, teak, jatoba, purple heart and oak, but not enough to say anything other than, "yeah, I can plane it". Regardless of size, be it 3, 4, 4-1/2, 5, 5-1/2, 6, 7, or 8, be they Stanley and/or Miller's Falls, Record, Union, Sargent, etc, or whatever vintage, if I sharpened and tuned them up, they all performed satisfactory. As I continue to sort through the pile evaluating their condition, I keep looking for something in poor enough shape that I don't mind converting to a scrub plane, but so far, no matter how bad of condition, I haven't come across one that I haven't been able to bring back from the dead. Even planes that had been broken and brazed can still be made to perform flawlessly. There are some differences between manufacturers that were likely touted at the time as being 'superior' for one reason or another, but to me, didn't appear to make a difference to outcome. There were some interesting innovations from competitors, eg. the jointed cap iron of the Millers Falls and the Record SS, (stay set). These innovations didn't necessarily improve outcome of planing, though might have benefited other users in terms of saved time, or some other relative value that may be unknown to me, or not relevant to me. I also couldn't tell any difference in outcome between smooth and corrugated soles. I suspect however, that subtle differences if any, might really only become apparent if you're planing day in and day out. In such cases, I can imagine that heavy users will find huge differences between even seemingly identical planes, but suffice to say, I don't have enough experience to appreciate subtle differences. I do admit to being curious as to how contemporary irons and contemporary, premium planes would perform in my hands.

Nice demonstration. Impressive. Thanks

i make a lot of planes and all the blades are made out of old circle saw blades. they are all great.

I really liked picture of carpenters on site, they were using a bench similar to yours. Also looked like they had Stanley mitre box.

Great video Rex. Very informative !

Honestly same, I got a Hock iron for my no. 4 because I didn't want to deal with a small cluster of light pitting that's nearing the edge of it's original iron. Plus little work flattening the back a little. The other positives, however subtle, were a plus. I just have the iron with the original chipbreaker. That said, I still love the thin, laminated Marsh iron that's in my no. 5 or 1940's no.26 transitional. I like to swap irons a lot just to delay sharpening just a little bit longer. Whiich reminds me to finish restoring that Marsh M4 that the iron came from. Still disassembled and neatly organized in a box. Just need to repaint the sole after the japanning came off from the evaporust.

Just watched this and laughed, I have just purchased a marples no 5 with a stanley blade and a woden lever cap and it works fine and cost £28 (uk pounds)

Pretty interesting indeed, Rex! 😃 Thanks for testing it! Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊

I've been mulling Hoch blades for quite some time, but so far my old Stanley blades have stood the test of time. When and if I ever find the need and can afford it I'll bite the bullet. I'm still spending the lions share of my tool budget on high quality saw blades since I do spend a lot more time ripping thousands of feet of lumber than planing by hand. For me it's production vs super smooth finishes.

As someone who has sharpened and used knives for a living, I can tell you that the only difference in performance you get from thickness is basically just the stiffness - provided that the steel is the same and the treatment of the steel is the same. You wouldn't want a plane out of anything thinner than about 1mm in something like a plane, above 1.5-2mm, you won't see much difference in most woods. So, yeah. The results were expected(including the back-and-forth in your oppinion as you sharpened and set the irons).

Great video! Interesting topic that I have not seen covered before.

Interesting editing. Keep up the great work.

A number of my vintage Stanley blades had a short section of tool steel about 1/2in long swaged into the end of the blade. Once this section is worn away by grinding, the rest of the blade is soft and will not hold an edge. The Sweetheart blade may be all tool steel. This was clearly done to reduce the cost of the blade. Some of my vintage Stanley blades were also warped across the blade making a challenge to flatten the back. This can happen over time. I upgraded my Stanley planes with Veritas blades and chip breakers from Lee Valley. I get fewer chip clogs between the blade and chip breaker with the Veritas chip breakers. I think the Hock blade will likely hold its edge longer than the Sweetheart blade. Dave.

It would be good to replace a worn out iron with the hock but I don't see buying one to replace a good iron. Maybe getting one for a scrub plane setup would work.

I wonder if the differences are more to do with improvements in material technology over how thick the iron is. James Wright went crazy a while ago with spreadsheets and all sorts of tests on plane irons.

I'm pausing at the intro... Yes, you can sharpen a stanley blade and make it cut great. For a little while. Getting a stanley to what I would consider an acceptable standard can be a lot of work, especially on the chipbreaker. Stanley blades will, absolutely, dull far too quickly to be what I consider useful. I don't want to be sharpening before and during jobs. A2 is the only other steel I've used in planes so far, and is far superior at edge retention, and an acceptable steel for plane blades. I'm keen to use PM-11, and will get some to try when the next batch is made available.

I find it easier to sharpen the thicker irons since there's more bevel surface area to 'feel' for the bevel. Bit that's about all of the difference as fast as I can tell. I think it'd make more of a difference what quality steel the iron was made from.

That ad for Arkansas Stones with "natural" in quotes. xD Geeze, they were already playing that game back then.

Great and interesting video. You helped me make a decision on plane blades. Thanks !

Nice video Rex! I will remember if I come across a Stanley plane that needs help :)) I have a stanley no 4, and I use it almost every day. it never gets old, using it. Get that thing razor sharp and go to work :D

I wonder how a new Stanley replacement iron compares against the Hock or even a vintage Stanley iron? Like yours, my irons in my vintage Stanley’s are well..vintage also. I do have a Hock in my #4 and love it. Being honest with myself, the difference between vintage OEM and new Hock is subtle. I guess what I am saying, is that when it is time to replace an iron, splurge a little and get a Hock. Total aside, while on vacation in Fort Bragg 15 years ago, I met Ron Hock and visited with him in his shop. He was tuning a #4 for a friend. He clearly is a plane user and not just a blade maker. The end result of the tune of an old beater Stanley was a micro thin, un torn, looong shaving. I bought an iron and chip breaker setup and he autographed one of his books and gave it to me. Hella nice guy.

Excellent comparison. I love your plane videos!

Hey Rex, I think your Hock setup got shavings between the Cap Iron and the blade because there’s a gap between the two. David Charlesworth recommends that one should “sharpen” the Cap Iron to eliminate the gap. It works flawlessly.

It would be interesting to have a machine shop grind the thicker iron down to the thickness of the Stanley and retest to see if it was in fact the thickness of the blade or the type of steel used that made the difference.

It would be interesting to see if it is a bigger difference for someone who is less experienced?

I just picked up a no. 4 plane from kobalt (the Lowe’s house brand) and its pretty nice I would recommend checking it out

I just found your channel and IT IS the real deal! Congrats and thank you for sharing with us :) Do you wanna make a video about 'traditional' american vertical slide windows? These are iconic and very exotic in Europe

Forget the modern thicker replacement, I'm going full thick antique coffin plane blade style.

thanks

Came to criticize, but ended up not only educated but became an educator on plane irons now lol

I purchased a Winchester W4 a few months ago, the previous owner widened the mouth and it just doesn't smooth very good, I thought about getting the Hoch blade to fill in some of that space to make it work.

Great video! To add to the modern blade thickness hype, I found modern steel's performance to also be mostly speculation. I tested PM-V11 irons to see if I wanted to switch over for my vintage Stanley planes. On maple end-grain with a no.6, they ended up chipping after 40 seconds of use, consistently. The vintage Stanley ones dulled a little faster but never chipped. I talked to some experienced woodworkers about this and after asking around, I found most people went for pm-v11 over A2 or 01 steel because they assumed it was better and "why not spend a few extra dollars if they may be better." But no one seemed to actually be able to say they could notice a real difference with the pm-v11. Another thing to note is that some planes brands have pour blade support. If you have less support at the edge you end up with chatter unless you compensate with a thicker iron. This is, apparently, why Lie Neilson uses such thick irons. Stanley planes were always some of the best planes in this regard. Their Bedrocks have so much support there's hardly no overhang; but even their baileys are half of most of the competition. Also, I loved the history stuff at the start, didn't know all that!

I'd have to go in hock to get a Hock iron. They're pretty expensive. The most I've ever paid for any plane is about half the price of just an iron.

I have a hock iron in both my Bailey no 4 (I think a type 13) and my Bailey no 7 (type 7). Noticed a minor improvement in the no 4; less tear-out on figured and dodgy grain, slightly smoother operation overall. I will say, it took some work to set the frog properly to get the right amount of blade protrusion. But the no 4 as I've set it now with the Hock iron takes whisper thin shavings with almost no tear-out, even on knotty Birdseye maple. The no 7 was just astounding though. I will always find an excuse to use that plane because it cuts so well with the Hock iron that I almost didn't believe it at first. I have it set up to take a shaving that's almost as thin as a no 4, and it leaves a finish that's almost as nice. For the bulk of my work, it's turned my operations from roughing with a 5, jointing with the 7, then smoothing with the 4 to just roughing with the 5 and simultaneously jointing and smoothing with the number 7 and doing minor touchup work with the no 4. I'll say I'm not a replacement iron evangelist, but given the choice between them and the vintage stanley irons, I'd choose Hock irons any day

Good point made quietly. We're living in an age of overavailability, hence why we use multi-stone sharpening setups. We do more work worrying about the last 5% than we do working and profiting from the 95%. I seldom sharpen my chisels and planes, and strop them regularly during use. Even when I do sharpen them, a combination stone _with good technique_ gets them 95% of the way towards being sharp. Getting work done puts money in the bank, and there's only so many hours in the day to waste gazing into one's navel! Ron Hock's blades are a better tool than stock if your setup can handle the more demanding sharpening. I wouldn't swap out a good stock blade on that basis though.

I couldn't agree more with Rex's final verdict. Don't change what works for you. If your blade isn't working, and you can only know that after a great deal of fettling, a new blade is an excellent investment. Next question, should you also buy a new chipbreaker with the new iron, or just pair the new iron with an older chipbreaker? I believe Ron Hock has stated that you can use the old Stanley chipbreakers with his irons.

just great content

I would venture a guess that the reason some people proclaim how much difference a "modern" plane iron makes is that it may (in theory) make much more of a difference in a less well tuned plane - given your skills and experience in plane restoration, I would expect that just about *any* iron put into one of your planes would work well. However, if the restorer or manufacturer or tuner aren't on your level, and the bedding of the iron does still have a tiny little bit of play (or atleast tendency to vibrate) in it, then I would imagine that the thicker and stiffer plane iron would actually make much more of a difference to the performance than it would in a better tuned one, doing more of the work of damping movement in the cut with the blade itself rather than the body of the plane.