Kinex squares are a fantastic value. Not well known to U.S. woodworkers, Kinex’s website states, “Swiss quality made in the Czech Republic.” Their tools are made to German DIN standards for accuracy. That’s the Deutsches Institut für Normung, which just sounds accurate to my ears.

Their all-steel “Precision Universal Squares,” which are designed much like a regular try square, are available in DIN 875/1 or the even stricter DIN 875/0. Each square comes with its own signed inspection certificate.

As examples, a 150mm (6″ blade) square in the DIN 875/1 standard has a deviation-from-right-angle tolerance of .018mm (.0007″) and costs $15.99 on Amazon, sold by Taylor Toolworks. The 150mm DIN 875/0 has a tolerance of .008mm (.0003″ – about a quarter thou!) and costs only $19.99. You can also order Kinex tools directly from Taylor Toolworks.

The handy 100mm x 70mm square (model #4026-02-010, DIN 875/0) that I bought is nicely balanced, and well finished with all edges relieved. There was a tiny nick on the blade and a tiny burr at the end of the blade, both of which I easily removed with a fine diamond touch-up hone. There were also a few insignificant surface scratches.

I cannot truly assess this level of accuracy in my shop but testing against my Starrett showed virtually light-blocking consistency in all parameters. I’m happy because, as someone quipped in an article that I read somewhere, long ago, “I like to be the only one adding inaccuracy to my work.”

Kinex makes other models of squares – flat, stand up, knife-edge, large, and lightweight – and an extensive line of other precision tools. As far as I know, Kinex squares are not sold by any traditional or online woodworking stores in the U.S. except Taylor Toolworks. Kinex has an online store but shipping is from Europe.

As usual, this review is unsolicited and uncompensated. I have no relationship with Kinex or its distributors.

Update 12/19/20: I came to dislike and ultimately reject the 100mm Kinex square that I was using because of the relieved edges, especially on the blade. I found that these minute chamfers make it more difficult to see tiny deviations from square when placed against the work. By contrast, Starrett squares have crisp unrelieved edges that allow more sensitive assessment of the work. The Kinex are still very good squares at an incredible price, and the slightly relieved edges may not bother you at all. However, based on the edge treatment, I no longer can recommend them despite their several other merits including extreme accuracy.

Some readers have asked about the blue ring in the top of my workbench. It is the collar for the Record Bench Holdfast #146 (Marples M146).

The #146 is an excellent tool. It holds more firmly than any other holdfast that I’ve tried, due to the grip of the notched stem in the collar, as well as the heavy threaded clamp screw. The maximum reach at its lowest height is 6 5/8″ to the center of the aggressively textured clamp pad, while the maximum holding height is about 10 1/4″.

The downside of the design is having a metal collar in your benchtop, which could present a hazard to sharp tools, even though it is slightly recessed below the bench surface. Despite this, I cannot recall ever crashing a tool edge into it. Still, you would not want to have many of these collars in your benchtop. The placement of my one collar has served well, particularly for chopping dovetails over the right front leg of the bench.

In the photos, you can see some of the several 3/4″ holes used for shop-made low bench stops, Veritas Bench Pups, Wonder Pups, and Bench Anchors. These holes also accommodate the two excellent Gramercy holdfasts that I also use, which greatly expand the range for holding down workpieces. With all of these options and more, this old Ulmia can hold just about anything I ask of it.

As far as I know, the #146 has long been out of production, as has the slightly smaller version, the #145. Old ones can surely be found from time to time on EBay and vintage tool websites, and they are likely to be in very serviceable condition because it is an almost indestructible tool. I bought mine new about 35 years ago.

Commenting on a recent post, a reader asked:

Do you typically use your DeWalt 735 for planing, and your Hammer A3-31 for jointing? I am starting to look at combo jointer-planer units, and would be interested in knowing if you typically use separate machines for these two functions. You mentioned in a previous article you have a Byrd Shelix cutterhead on the DeWalt and straight knives on the A3-31.

My reply follows-up on, and reinforces the large amount of material on this blog regarding jointer-planer combo machines, the Hammer A3-31 in particular, the Byrd Shelix spiral cutterhead on the DW735, and options for the first machine a woodworker should buy. Thanks for asking!

The big factor is the wood. For easy-going boards – tame species, not rowed, no curl/blister/birds eye, etc. – I will usually go ahead with the thicknessing on the A3-31 because it is already up and running, and I know the results will be good. For figured wood, I will definitely go to the Shelix because it performs magnificently for that. For very hard or abrasive species, even without figure, I prefer the Shelix to save wear on the straight blades in the A3-31.

A couple of other factors also come into play. The DW735 has a longer snipe than the A3-31, though the depth of both is very small. Snipe can be avoided altogether with continuous feeding, but that can be awkward in a one-person shop.

Also, a tiny bit of thickness cannot be removed well on the final pass with big planers because the impressions created by the metal pawls will often not be entirely removed by the shallow depth of cut. Sometimes I do want to remove just a very small amount such as for matching another piece that I’ve messed up. I can remove as little as I want on the final pass with the 735 because the rubber rollers do not create impressions (assuming they are reasonably clean).

As for width, the A3-31 cuts 31cm wide (hence its name), about 12.2 inches. I want every bit of that. A wide jointer is a wonderful thing in the shop!

I installed the Shelix in the DW735 about one year before I bought the A3-31. Then I did not want to spend the extra money for a second segmented spiral cutterhead, this time on the A3-31. I expected to use the 735 with the Shelix for almost all of my thicknessing, but in time I have come to use the A3-31 with its straight blades for plenty of my thicknessing too.

I think for most of us, shop equipment evolves with our resources rather than follows a master plan. I am content with my current setup. However, if I were to start fresh and buy one machine, it would be an A3-31 with their “Silent Power” spiral cutterhead.

For an option that is less expensive than a big jointer-planer combination machine, but is still highly versatile, start with a good portable thickness planer as your first machine in the shop. I still recommend the DW735. Then apply the following process:

Jackplane and/or scrub plane a rough surface on one side of a board. It should have no cup, twist, bow, or flex. It will not be pretty, but it only needs to register on the planer bed. Draw pencil lines every few inches across the opposite side of the board, including close to the ends.

Send the board through the planer with the worked side down on the bed. Take the passes necessary to remove the pencil lines, indicating that the blades have touched all of that surface. Then, flip the board and clean up the side that you worked with the hand plane. Then joint an edge by hand, rip to width, and clean up with a hand plane.

I do not recommend a 6-inch jointer as a fundamental tool for a serious furniture maker. It is limiting from the start and will very likely be obsolete later. On the other hand, wouldn’t it be nice to have a 16-inch Felder jointer-planer with a spiral cutterhead? Yes, yes it would.

Before making my point, here is a synopsis of the differences between A2 and O1 blades, as I understand them, and have experienced in using them. Better however, you should also read a much more learned discussion by the Man of Steel himself, Ron Hock.

In general, for comparable quality blades:

• O1 is finer grain steel and can be brought to a sharper edge than can A2. It is not a big difference but may be important depending on the application. Some dispute this; perhaps O1 only seems to get sharper because it is easier to sharpen, and because of this next point.
• Due to the difference in grain size, the honing angle for A2 should be a few degrees higher than for O1.
• A2 is more difficult to sharpen than O1, both in speed and in feel on the stone. However, both are well within the range of a basically skilled sharpener.
• Owing primarily to its tough chromium carbide particles, an edge in A2 is more durable than in O1. However, that is not the whole story because . . .
• They may dull differently. The O1 edge is likely to slowly and simply round over, while A2 may chip. Ron explains that chipping occurs when oversized chromium carbide particles in A2 steel pop out of the edge.

This last point is the one I would like to explore, specifically with regard to differences among A2 blades. We would expect some differences among manufacturers because they vary in their formulas and processes. However, I suspect there can also be significant variations in edge behavior – the tendency to chip – among blades of a given brand, and even within a single blade.

I want slow and steady dulling wherein the edge simply rounds over increasingly. I do not want precipitous edge break down – chipping. It is unwelcome, though I suppose tolerable, in a jack plane, but downright infuriating in a smoothing plane. Everything is going fine until, ugh, those little ridges suddenly appear on the wood surface that I am trying to finish plane to otherworldly exquisiteness. And so, a certain Bad A2 Blade (pictured above) has been banished from my shop. It got those hideous chips as I planed not teak, but affable poplar, and only for several minutes.

I have sharpened this blade exactly the same (same stones, 33° secondary bevel) as other A2 blades which hardly ever chip in typical use. Even more annoyingly, the bad blade has behaved worse after some sharpenings than after others. I would think 33° is high enough for the grain structure of A2, and anyway, going a bit higher gave little or no better results.

Perhaps chipping is not a problem with any blades of one or more brands, and thus the problem could be avoided simply by choosing a good brand. Interestingly, I have two other A2 blades of the same brand as the Bad Blade that do not have this tendency to chip. I also have two Hock A2 blades that give me no such problems, and I had another blade of another brand that exhibited a milder but still troublesome tendency to chip.

This is not a tool test, so I cannot fairly generalize from this sample size as to which brand, if any, is best in this respect. I can only relate my experience. There is some test evidence that Hock A2 blades are indeed better in avoiding chipping, but this is based on testing a single blade. I wonder if one of the magazines might explore the issue using adequate sample sizes to account for potential variability within, as well as among, brands.

Which brings me to my main point: There seems to be considerable inconsistency among A2 plane blades – among brands, within at least some brands, and perhaps even within individual blades. To me, this uncertainty is a disadvantage of the A2 genre as a whole. That is not to dismiss A2 altogether, but simply to recognize this among its disadvantages

So, for my bevel-down smoothing plane, it’s O1. A2 is just not worth it in that role; the uncertainty plus its inherent disadvantages outweigh its advantages. By the way, PMV-11 is another matter for another day, but I do currently use it in my bevel-up planes. And the Hock A2 in my good old bevel-down jack is going to stay there because the edge is wonderfully durable and it does not chip.

I was pretty much content with my Tormek for grinding tools for 16 years. It sacrificed speed for relaxed and reliable grinding with excellent jigs, especially the SE-77. Though that tradeoff suits me, I like woodworking a lot more than sharpening, so a faster pace at the grindstone was always welcome. Thus I was drawn to try a CBN grinding wheel available from Woodturner’s Wonders.

After working with a CBN wheel for several months, I am completely sold. The main reasons are simple: It is much faster than the Tormek OEM wheel, and it never needs dressing. For my sharpening system, detailed in an earlier post, the 200-grit wheel works extremely well.

I can grind the primary bevel out to the edge, such as for completely reshaping the edge, with no worry about drawing the temper, even using the wheel dry. From there, I will usually do a bit of work on the 45µ DMT DiaSharp stone, and progress from there. If I stop grinding the primary bevel short of the edge, I may go directly to the 9µ DiaSharp, or touch up on the 45µ, depending on what I am dealing with. In any case, I then move from the 9µ, to the 3µ DiaSharp, and finish with the 0.5µ Gukomyo. Creating even substantial camber on a plane blade using the CBN wheel, particularly with the SE-77 jig, is so easy that it feels like cheating.

Woodturners Wonders sells these Tormek replacement wheels, called “Tornado Waterless CBN Wheels,” in grits from 200 to 1200. Depending on your sharpening system, you may want to consider the finer grits. Of course, finer grits are slower but leave shallower scratches. I found the 600 to be slower than I wanted, but it still beat the Tormek OEM wheel.

The Tornado wheel is two inches wide, flat and true, 10″ in diameter, with one-inch sidewalls. If I were a piece of tool steel, I’d wave a white flag at first sight of this thing. CBN, cubic boron nitride, is a crystal lattice of boron and nitrogen molecules, with a hardness near that of diamond, but with superior chemical and thermal stability, which increases its durability. Ken Rizza of Woodturner’s Wonders, the same guy who sells this great lamp, also sells a wide variety of other CBN wheels for regular bench grinders, including radius-edge wheels.

By the way, fellow Tormek users, I do not miss the touted dual-nature (220/1000-grit) of the Tormek OEM wheel, which is achieved by using the grading stone. I have always found this to be of marginal benefit and just not worth the hassle. Incidentally, the Tormek leather honing wheel does not get much use in my shop; it is not part of my main sharpening system.

The Tornado wheel can be used dry on the Tormek. Aggressive sharpening will produce some heat but I have not found this significant because the work is done so quickly. However, I prefer to use a little water to reduce the spread of the steel dust, including into the air. I just wipe off the accumulated steel dust on the tool itself.

[UPDATE: Based on Ken Rizza’s comment (see below), I did some more experimenting and found that just two or three light spritzes of water on the wheel is sufficient to keep the steel dust contained. I’m done grinding before this small amount of water evaporates a few minutes later, leaving the stone dry. I will not use water in the trough at all. To emphasize, heat build-up on the tool is not an issue and is not the reason I use the water.]

One more thing. If your Tormek wheel, like mine, has been on since the pre-smart phone era, it may be tough to get off. The folks at Tormek advise us to remove the stone with the shaft, use penetrating oil on both sides of the shaft, and let it work in overnight. Tap the shaft with a mallet. Repeat. It may take days. Don’t ask me how I got the wheel off my Tormek because it wasn’t pretty.

This review of the WTW CBN wheel is unsolicited and uncompensated. I just want you to have great tools . . . so you can make great stuff from wood.

Here’s a question just for fun. In the past 30-40 years, which advance in tooling has made the biggest practical change in small shop furniture making? An individual tool, a type of tool, or a major upgrade in a tool category, hand or power, all qualify.

The answer will depend on the definition of “small shop.” What I have in mind is what I most relate to, which is the one-person shop making high-end furniture and accessories. Such a shop produces one-of-a-kind pieces or very few repeats, and may be an amateur at home, or a professional, whose furniture making is only part of his income.

OK, with that in mind, drum roll . . . my vote is for the Ryobi AP-10 portable thickness planer, which was first made in about 1985 or 1986, as best I recall. This humble machine, which I owned back then, was the first lightweight, portable, low-cost way to easily and quickly thickness large quantities of wood. The Ryobi begot improved competing models, such as the much later DeWalt DW735.

For the small production shop, I am guessing CNC, along with CAD, has made the biggest difference. For shops of any size, the overall improvement and proliferation of carbide-tipped tooling – router and shaper bits, table saw blades, bandsaw blades, jointer/planer cutters, etc. – may be the biggest advance.

To impart the touch of quality that is only possible with hand tools, we must, of course, acknowledge the roles of first, Lie-Nielsen, and then, Lee Valley/Veritas. More than with vintage tools, new Mercedes-quality handplanes became readily available and indeed, the standard, which elevated everyone’s work. As a tool category, this may be the most significant advance. The same evolution occurred in Western hand saws, culminating, in my opinion, in the Bad Axe line.

Other tool categories that came to mind in thinking about this include: greatly improved tool batteries for cordless tools, the wider availability of high quality steel-frame bandsaws sized for the small shop, the wider availability of wide over-under jointer-planers, and the availability of excellent Japanese hand tools. For individual tools, the biscuit joiner, Saw Stop table saws, and Japanese waterstones deserve some notice but I would not consider these pivotal.

Oh, and there is one more “tool” that, come to think of it, probably has made the biggest difference of all: information! Books, magazine, video/Internet, classes, and so forth have tremendously advanced the joy of good woodworking.

It’s all good. We are fortunate.

Years ago, Japanese saws were the staples of my saw armamentarium. They offered very good quality and value.

However, another big reason for using them was to save myself the trouble of maintenance. The replaceable blades, especially those by Gyokucho and Z brand are of remarkably consistent and high quality, especially for their prices. Back then, alternatives were to rehabilitate vintage saws, or try to soup up a new, but low quality, Western saw.

Times have changed.

The renaissance of saw making that started in the US in the 1990s with Pete Taran and Patrick Leach’s Independence Tool Company (since folded) was followed by several fine saw makers producing at artisan volumes. Equally important, more sources of excellent information became available to help us with understanding, using, and maintaining Western handsaws.

At the head of the class, in my opinion, is Bad Axe Tool Works. Their combination of quality, performance, and range of options exceed any maker in the world today. If you read this blog much, you know that I am not given to overstatement. I also have had the opportunity to try out saws from a substantial majority of the artisan makers around today. I use Bad Axe saws.

I have seen Mark Harrell and his crew work their apparent magic in his Wisconsin shop, making, sharpening, and fixing saws, and I can tell you that it is no magic at all. They simply work with incredible care from an awesome base of knowledge and skill.

Now, back to the saw maintenance issue. Mark has made that a much more accessible job by producing solid, clearly written information on saw sharpening, repair, and restoration. Short of visiting his shop, please see the trove of instructional information available on the BATW site. It will elevate your skills and understanding tremendously.

First-rate tools, knowledge, and skills – that’s what we want. Times have indeed changed in woodworking.

Ulmia used to produce this auxiliary vise, model #1812. I first saw it many years ago on page 145 of my copy of the 1977 hardcover Van Nostrand Reinhold edition of The Fine Art of Cabinetmaking, where the author, James Krenov, commented that it is “well made and very useful.”

I wish I bought one before Ulmia discontinued production. I have tried with some success to use a modified small drill-press vise, a shop-made wooden vise, and handscrews to gain some of the functionality of the Ulmia. Still, I coveted a real #1812 hilfs-spannstock.

About three years after posting the above links, and missing out on Ebay in the meantime, someone from Germany contacted me to offer a new-old-stock #1812. I jumped at it and have since found it to be every bit as useful as I had anticipated.

The vise jaws are 2 3/8″ x 1″. The fixed jaw is further from the knob, while the other jaw moves on a 9/16″-diameter, acme-threaded screw feed to produce a maximum opening of 2 1/8″. The wooden base is 5 3/4″ x 3 1/4″ x 2 1/2″. The vise is surprisingly beefy for its size.

The hole in the base makes it convenient to clamp to the bench top, as shown in the top photo, for a wide variety of small-scale tasks. With the #1812 held recessed in the tail vise, as in the photo just above, the jaw still travels freely. You can adjust the protrusion of the jaws above the bench surface to keep them out of the way while planing or paring small work pieces.

It would be good to have this very useful tool back in production. I wonder if Ulmia would consider making it again, or, depending on patent restrictions, if another toolmaker, such as Veritas, would be interested in producing it. I am sure that woodworkers who would own one would turn to it often, as I do.