# Clifton 3110 3-in-1 Shoulder Plane



## RodN (1 Sep 2008)

Is there any good reason why the Clifton 3110 3-in-1 Shoulder Plane shouldn't be a good tool for me? I don't own a shoulder plane or a bullnose plane at the moment. (And I am a believer in buying good tools).







Rod


----------



## marcus (1 Sep 2008)

Hi Rod, I can't think of a reason  

Marcus


----------



## RodN (2 Sep 2008)

Thanks. I am thinking seriously about pulling the trigger on one of these while I can still get one at the "old price".

Rod


----------



## WellsWood (2 Sep 2008)

I have 2 (long story - don't ask) and love them to bits. It fits the hand so well I predict you'll actively look for excuses to pick it up and use it, rather like a really good block plane. If you don't have anything similar this is about as good as it gets as a starter as it's just so versatile.
And of course, it's a Clifton, so not only is it British made you also get the lifetime warranty and legendary customer service.
Get one quick before the price goes up!


----------



## RodN (2 Sep 2008)

That's good enough for me!

Done.... Trigger pulled.

Thanks for your help folks. I must admit to having a liking for Clifton planes, although I only have one other so far, a No 4 smoothing plane, and it is just... well..... exactly right. 

Rod


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Sep 2008)

It's a great plane, Rod - made to a much higher standard than the old Record one on which it's based. I'm about to get one myself  Bull nose and chisel planes can, at times, be useful but it's hard to justify their purchase because they are not something that you use that often, so it makes good sense to buy the #3110 which have those features thrown in as a bonus.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## custard (2 Sep 2008)

I've owned a 3110 for many years. It's a good plane but not quite as good as the Lie-Nielsen and Veritas alternatives. Three reasons. 

1. The blade is far too wide, it protrudes past the edge of the plane by an excessive margin which prevents planing flush up to the inside corner of a tenon. The blade on the 3110 needs a lot of grinding back, so that it protrudes by just a few thou. This is a long job, the final grinding is done by laying two pieces of paper on top of some sanding paper with a thin, parallel gap between them, and stroking the edge of the blade in the plane in the gap to bring it down to the required clearance. 

2. I can't ever remember using the chisel or bull nose plane settings, so that was wasted money which introduced a design weakness into the plane. Your usage may of course be different, but whenever I've spoken to other users they say the same.

3. When I bought mine (fifteen years ago) the steel for the 3110 blade was inferior in edge holding to the latest generation used by LV and LN, maybe this has changed now.


----------



## bugbear (2 Sep 2008)

custard":2b1bcaqh said:


> I've owned a 3110 for many years. It's a good plane but not quite as good as the Lie-Nielsen and Veritas alternatives. Three reasons.
> 
> 1. The blade is far too wide, it protrudes past the edge of the plane by an excessive margin which prevents planing flush up to the inside corner of a tenon. The blade on the 3110 needs a lot of grinding back, so that it protrudes by just a few thou. This is a long job, the final grinding is done by laying two pieces of paper on top of some sanding paper with a thin, parallel gap between them, and stroking the edge of the blade in the plane in the gap to bring it down to the required clearance.
> 
> ...



I think virtually everything you say _*may have changed*_ - 15 years is quite an interval.

That was a long winded way of grinding the blade width, BTW.

BugBear


----------



## jonbikebod (2 Sep 2008)

Rod,
I got one of these a good decade ago. This is a plane that was made before the current bench planes when quality control was very poor. I ended up taking mine back to the shop. The shop owner showed it to the Clifton rep who agreed it was poor. In the end I selectively assembled one plane from the 3 the shop had in stock. The problem was the two dowels that should positively locate the front sections did nothing of the kind, the holes being way oversize. The mating surfaces appeared to have been finished with an angle grinder. I still have the plane but seldom use it as it has a bad azimuth error. I would like to think the QC of these planes has improved as it clearly has since their early bench planes - but the 3110 does predate them. For me it was an expensive mistake but the only alternative then was a Stanley. Once bitten twice shy, I now use L-N which as a traditional shoulder planes I thoroughly recommend.
Jon.


----------



## RodN (2 Sep 2008)

That's an interesting array of experiences. One extreme or the other it would seem, but with the older versions appearing to have problems. I would like to think, based on my experience with the smoothing plane that I have, that the Clifton quality is nothing short of excellent nowadays, especially at that sort of price.

So I am looking at:
1) protruding blade at the sides
2) poor registration in the nose section? (Surely that would result in the sole being misaligned too?)

I expect delivery tomorrow, perhaps.

Rod


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Sep 2008)

From what I've seen of Clifton shoulder planes at shows in recent years, they seem to be of very high quality. At West Dean, Mike Hudson even had a granite slab so that you could test how flat the soles were.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Woody Alan (2 Sep 2008)

> I've owned a 3110 for many years. It's a good plane but not quite as good as the Lie-Nielsen and Veritas alternatives. Three reasons.
> 
> 1. The blade is far too wide, it protrudes past the edge of the plane by an excessive margin which prevents planing flush up to the inside corner of a tenon. The blade on the 3110 needs a lot of grinding back, so that it protrudes by just a few thou. This is a long job, the final grinding is done by laying two pieces of paper on top of some sanding paper with a thin, parallel gap between them, and stroking the edge of the blade in the plane in the gap to bring it down to the required clearance.
> 
> 2. I can't ever remember using the chisel or bull nose plane settings, so that was wasted money which introduced a design weakness into the plane. Your usage may of course be different, but whenever I've spoken to other users they say the same.


I have had a recent version 2 years ago anyway and agree with these two statements exactly. I actually returned my first one to clifton (after a "discussion") because the handle casting was out of shape and put pressure to one side of the blade. The blade was far too wide and much faffing time taken to get it correct(never mind the method it rquires constant checks)
3) steel quality of blade is OK but registration of the nose was out of kilter and required side flattening.
I have to say I have a clifton 51/2 which is superb but a 41/2 which was so out of flat nose and tail that I had to work on it to flatten and then had it checked by Mike Hudson and he told me it was perfect "despite" me flattening it, you make your own decision on that.
I know there are staunch supporters of clifton here, and that's fine you have to speak as you find. I have Veritas and Lie Nielsen planes also and I have not had issue with either, I know where I would ...and have put my money considering the difference in price.
But at the end of the day it's your choice isn't it.

Cheers Alan


----------



## bugbear (3 Sep 2008)

Paul Chapman":1n208pmy said:


> At West Dean, Mike Hudson even had a granite slab so that you could test how flat the soles were.



That was no granite slab. That was a Grade 'AA' surface plate!

Given that my 9"x12" grade B surface plate has a error of around 1/10 thou, you might be suitably stunned (as I was) at the implications of that 'AA'.

BugBear


----------



## RodN (3 Sep 2008)

Well..... it arrived this morning.

Naturally, after reading some of the stuff here I checked the blade width at the mouth and the flatness.

I don't have an AA surface plate, or any precision surface plate at all, so the nearest thing was the sole of my trusted smoothing plane. Yes, I can see the merest sliver of light under the centre of the sole. It is microscopically high at the nose and tail, assuming that my smoothing plane was flat. A fraction of a thousandth of an inch, perhaps. My first thought was that I would find it hard to hold the plane in use _that_ accurately. 

The blade is a few thou wider than the body, just as it is supposed to be. Just enough to feel. No complaints there either. One thing that I did notice, however, is that in adjusting the blade it is possible to move it sideways a few thousandths of an inch before locking it down. Effectively the best of all worlds, as one can _select_ how far the blade protrudes at the side, or have none.

Looks like a pretty good piece of kit to me.
I'll be keeping it.  

Rod


----------



## custard (3 Sep 2008)

RodN":18v9uiic said:


> The blade is a few thou wider than the body, just as it is supposed to be. Just enough to feel. No complaints there either. One thing that I did notice, however, is that in adjusting the blade it is possible to move it sideways a few thousandths of an inch before locking it down. Effectively the best of all worlds, as one can _select_ how far the blade protrudes at the side, or have none.
> 
> Looks like a pretty good piece of kit to me.
> I'll be keeping it.
> ...



Rod, I'm delighted to hear this. I'd almost written off the British woodworking tool industry after seeing appalling Record and Footprint quality, indifferent Clifton products, and "curly" chisels from Bristol Design Tools. It's too late for me as pretty much all my toolbox has been replaced with LN and LV kit, but it's encouraging to think that new generations will have the option of buying British with confidence.


----------



## bugbear (3 Sep 2008)

RodN":1qglqwwm said:


> Well..... it arrived this morning.
> 
> Naturally, after reading some of the stuff here I checked the blade width at the mouth and the flatness.



As Lee Valley and David Charlesworth both point out, shoulder planes are a special case with regard to sole flatness.

With their low bedding angle (and hence thin bed under the blade) and a screw action lever cap it's rather easy to render the sole convex by over tightening the lever cap.

A certain amount of thoughtfulness is required.

(just read the LV instructions)

Lee Valley suggest that very fine depth of cut adjustment can be had by controlled sole deflection in this way!

BugBear


----------

