# Vintage Record Planes



## shed9 (25 Mar 2017)

I have quite a few planes at the moment, mostly Type 11 Stanley's, LN's and LV's. I have never actually used a Record in anger and am tempted to buy one or two. Like most things I'd rather buy something that is worth keeping but have absolutely no idea when it comes to vintage Record.

There seems to be loads of resource available for Stanley tools but little on buying old Records. I've done a bit of searching on here and it appears the general opinion is that they are just as good as Stanley's when comparing period of manufacture but I can't find any resource on how to identify Records relative to those periods though.

I'm not looking to collect shiny things, I'm looking for usable tools that will produce results.

Any signposts to web resources or first hand advice appreciated.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 Mar 2017)

http://web.archive.org/web/201412180558 ... planes.com

I think you'll find many older Records a bit better finished than UK made Stanleys. Look for the "cast crucible steel" irons.


----------



## AndyT (25 Mar 2017)

There are two useful websites.


http://recordhandplanes.com

and

http://www.record-planes.com

Other than that, a copy of Planecraft is nice to have - it's a book about planing in general, which just happens to point out that the answer to everything is another plane from the Record range.


----------



## DoctorWibble (25 Mar 2017)

FWIW I like my Records. However in many of these tool discussions I wonder whether we are taking our modern obsession with brands and attempting to apply it to an era when production standards lacked any real consistency, And of course all these old tools will either have been carefully tuned or else abused by various owners so are not necessarily reflective of what came originally from the factory anyway. Perhaps one of the reason old owners so jealously guarded their best tools was because the better ones came to them by chance (or through hours of lapping) not by any repeatable brand shopping choice.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 Mar 2017)

I doubt it. I've yet to read anything published forty + years ago on planes that started with "first check your plane is flat".


----------



## shed9 (25 Mar 2017)

Brilliant, excellent resources, many thanks.

I hear what your saying DoctorWibble, but I'm not sure that quality consistency was vastly different in older tools comparative to later manufacture processes given that the methods themselves have also changed.


----------



## RogerP (25 Mar 2017)

I've used many Record planes over the years and see no difference in performance compared with their Stanley equivalents. They are usually are a slightly thicker casting and a little heavier.


----------



## MrTeroo (25 Mar 2017)

DoctorWibble":yawg2oyd said:


> FWIW I like my Records. However in many of these tool discussions I wonder whether we are taking our modern obsession with brands and attempting to apply it to an era when production standards lacked any real consistency, And of course all these old tools will either have been carefully tuned or else abused by various owners so are not necessarily reflective of what came originally from the factory anyway. Perhaps one of the reason old owners so jealously guarded their best tools was because the better ones came to them by chance (or through hours of lapping) not by any repeatable brand shopping choice.



DoctorWibble

I just gave you a thumbs up, purely for your user name


----------



## thetyreman (25 Mar 2017)

my record no7 is far lighter than a stanley version, I really like it a lot.


----------



## worn thumbs (25 Mar 2017)

I have the Record 04 that my father inherited from his father and it does feel slightly more high quality than a Stanley,and I have a few of those.Maybe its the age as it must date from the thirties or earlier.


----------



## Bod (25 Mar 2017)

Record only started making metal planes in 1931, as Stanley's patents had run out.
http://www.recordhandplanes.com/
Interesting reading.

Bod


----------



## Vann (27 Mar 2017)

From my observations, early Stanleys of US manufacture, were the best quality (loathe as I am to say anything nice about those damned Yanks). But as the accountants made greater ingress to the various companies the quality began to fall. Once Stanley UK began production (after 1936) USA Stanleys weren't imported in numbers anymore (I'm referring to NZ) so it's hard to tell when they deteriorated in quality. But as the companies slid down the quality slope, Stanley UK always seemed to be ahead of Record - that is to say the Record planes of any era always seem to be a bit better than a Stanley UK of the same vintage.

IMHO (wait! I don't have humble opinions :roll: ) the best Records are the first and second patterns* (1930-39 & 1939-45), but you usually get a good plane in the third and forth patterns (1945 to late 1950s). After that there are still plenty of good ones, but it's more a matter of luck or fettling.

Look for square top irons (except these are often swapped between planes - especially at schools). Other, more reliable indications are full frogs (no ogee at the top), and ground, unpainted top edge of the side wings (this latter applies to UK Stanleys as well).

* patterns refers to the lateral levers in the late David Lynch's dating page http://www.recordhandplanes.com/dating.html - the best way to date Record handplanes.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## nabs (27 Mar 2017)

In my (admittedly limited) experience with old Record planes, the differences between the pre-1960s versions are cosmetic, with one exception, in that some of the earliest versions came with Rosewood knob and/or tote, which, since it had to be imported, was presumably more expensive than native beech. 

Having said that, I prefer the ones from before the mid 1950s just because i don't like the gaudy chrome lever cap that was introduced at that point.

From the 1960s onwards penny pinching started - top edges of sides no longer ground, steel pressed lateral lever adjuster and frog yoke adjuster, lighter frog construction, and - eventually - plastic handles and removal of the screw adjuster to the frog. 

The one modern version I owned (circa 1995) had thinner castings than my old ones, but I do not know if that indicated some general decline in the standards of their castings (it still worked!).

As to the quality of the more recent plane irons - I did not keep my new(ish) one for long enough to compare, but the cynical part of me thinks that if the then owners of Record could have saved a few quid at the expense of quality, they probably would have.


----------



## Vann (27 Mar 2017)

nabs":20l279tu said:


> In my (admittedly limited) experience with old Record planes, the differences between the pre-1960s versions are cosmetic, with one exception, in that some of the earliest versions came with Rosewood knob and/or tote, which, since it had to be imported, was presumably more expensive than native beech.


Surely the use of Rosewood versus Beech is cosmetic? It certainly doesn't improve the function of the plane. Another cosmetic difference is the first pattern planes (1931-39) had most of the screws nickel plated. 

But these touches indicate to me attempts at a better quality tool, and their gradual demise indicates the beginnings of a drop in quality well before the 1960s. Argueably, that drop was not significant until the 1960s. Other argue that their 1980s planes work fine. But the decline started somewhere - and I'm arguing it was immediately after WW2.

I have two "Warfinish" planes. One has the rotatable disc on the bottom of the lateral lever, the other doesn't (obviously a wartime change to save manufacturing time - and lets face it, Stanley had abandoned the rotating disc by the mid-1930s). Not a big thing, but several planes in my 'flock' have flats on the sides of the fixed discs where hamfisted past owners have caused unnecessary wear. The rotating disc allowed wear to be distributed evenly around the edge. Just a little thing - but certainly an indication of the "lets save a few pennies at the expense of quality" mentality.



nabs":20l279tu said:


> The one modern version I owned (circa 1995) had thinner castings than my old ones...


Interesting. I've picked up two of those Record-Marples SP4s (the castings still say 04) from ~1992-95, and they're noticably heavier than their earlier offerings.



nabs":20l279tu said:


> As to the quality of the more recent plane irons - I did not keep my new(ish) one for long enough to compare, but the cynical part of me thinks that if the then owners of Record could have saved a few quid at the expense of quality, they probably would have.


What do you expect from a company owned by _Rubber_maid  

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## nabs (27 Mar 2017)

Vann":1ly4ovra said:


> Surely the use of Rosewood versus Beech is cosmetic? It certainly doesn't improve the function of the plane.
> Cheers, Vann.


You are quite right - I meant to say that it was cosmetic _and_ more expensive. I assumed all the other changes prior to the 60s were _only_ cosmetic. 

Having said that, I had not realised about the little circular disk on the lateral lever being a better design (I had wondered what that was for!). I was aware that the move away from nickel plating might have been about cost savings, but everyone seems to agree it was most likely due to war time controls on metals used in making armaments, so I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

So it seems you are right - the rot did set in earlier, albeit rather gradually.


----------



## swb58 (27 Mar 2017)

Did they use a varnish on Rosewood handles like the more modern Beech? My experience isn't great but don't remember it to the same extent on rosewood. Seems to me they knew it was inferior quality and put a bit of slap on to hide it.


----------



## DoctorWibble (27 Mar 2017)

Contrary to oft expressed opinion there was no conspiracy by the accountancy profession to simultaneously take over and ruin all the worlds great tool companies. In fact most of these tool manufacturers were unlikely even to have any accountants on their payroll. A few bookkeepers at most. But the owners of the big tool companies needed no professional help in acting ruthlessly (Ibbottson for example was given a starring role as an exemplar greedy capitalist in Marx's Das Kapital). Ultimately though it was simple economics that drove them to cost cutting: hand tool use was in massive decline and the UK lost its empire and with it a whole bunch of trading privileges. It had nothing to do with particular individuals.


----------



## ED65 (28 Mar 2017)

swb58":1xkfaebr said:


> Did they use a varnish on Rosewood handles like the more modern Beech?


Well they definitely used a film finish of some kind because you see the degraded remains clinging to the surface on many old ones out in the wild. Whether it's varnish or the "cellulosic finish" mentioned in some catalogues (presumably lacquer) I don't know but high gloss was the order of the day for sure.


----------



## Racers (29 Mar 2017)

swb58":12bdxycb said:


> Did they use a varnish on Rosewood handles like the more modern Beech? My experience isn't great but don't remember it to the same extent on rosewood. Seems to me they knew it was inferior quality and put a bit of slap on to hide it.



I have had to scrape off the varnish from rosewood knobs on record planes.

Pete


----------



## ndbrown (2 Apr 2017)

I have used both Record and Stanley planes but seem have settled on Record for the moment. I have found some UK Stanleys with thicker castings than the equivalent Record model, equally I have found a variation in Record models from a similar period, some with thicker wall castings and some thinner so I guess it just down to a variation in manufacture and machining set up.

I have picked them up from car boot sales and on line auctions, in the main, not paying too much for them. I paid a bit more for some like the No. 5 shown below which was bought from a well known auction site for £29 back in 2014 and has Rosewood handles, nickel lever cap and all the other period features for a pre WW2 plane.







I also picked up an early pre WW2 T5 which has a slightly narrower width casting, blade etc than most of the T5s and is also fitted with Rosewood handles. this was listed as a "standard" T5 and cost £48.






Others I have acquired for free or bought from boot sales for a few pounds ranging up to about £15. Not shown in the photo below is a 20C Compass plane and the orphan is a very nice Veritas Shoulder plane bought at Christmas last year when I realised that decent Record 073 Shoulder plane was only £20 or so less than a new Veritas. Not sure the price difference is the same now with the values of the pound!






I tend to use the No. 4 and No. 5 1/2 the most but they are all nice to have, all use standard Record Irons although the square top ones with a decent remaining blade length are getting harder to find. I don't think you can go far wrong with most of the older Stanley or Record planes.


----------



## Racers (3 Apr 2017)

Very nice planes, I am a Record fan.

My main users are a 5 1/2 and an 8.


Pete


----------



## Downwindtracker2 (5 Apr 2017)

I have a #06, from the dating time line, I would say 1952. A quality plane, rosewood and all, maybe the best Bailey style plane I've bought. The American made Stanleys from that time used green castings that warped. For a later #05 1/2 I had to arrange a date with a milling machine.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Apr 2017)

I have a Marples No.5 1/2 that was bad enough to use a flap disc on - the best machined casting by a mile of any of my planes is a Woden. :?


----------



## Bod (5 Apr 2017)

phil.p":3k4xwh0t said:


> I have a Marples No.5 1/2 that was bad enough to use a flap disc on - the best machined casting by a mile of any of my planes is a Woden. :?



The Marples, does it anywhere, have a faint "Q" cast into it?
Most likely on the frog where it would be covered by the blade.

Bod


----------

