# Jointer: no 7 or no 8?



## woden (25 Jun 2007)

I've recently been looking to buy an old Stanley or Record jointer that I can put a decent blade into. At first I just assumed that I'd need a no 7 and there was no more thought involved, however, I'm now wondering if the larger no 8 would be preferable. 

I always believed that a no 8 would be needless overkill with its extra size and weight but then something occurred to me when reading one of Alf's reviews on the newer heavier planes from veritas. Given that Stanleys and Records are so much lighter than the Veritas and Lie Nielsen planes would a no 8 from the older manufacturers come closer in weight to the jointers offered by LV and LN?

Given that Stanley, etc. planes tend to be too light when compared with those turned out by the top makers today should you go for the heaviest option for a particular task when buying on older plane? A 5 1/2 instead of a 5 or a no 8 instead of a no 7? :?


----------



## MrJay (25 Jun 2007)

I think if you're the kind of person who likes a heavy plane then it's a size/weight ratio thing. You could always blu-tack some heavy objects from around the house onto a #7 if you wanted it to weigh more.

I like my Stanley #7, it seems to work reasonably well.


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 Jun 2007)

Another possible option :-k If you look at the specifications on the Axminster site, the Clifton #7 at 4.6kg http://www.axminster.co.uk/cid/SWUYHWCI ... -21781.htm is heavier than the Lie Nielsen #8 at 4.54kg http://www.axminster.co.uk/cid/SWUYHWCI ... -20391.htm

All other things being equal (which, of course, they are not always) I would always go for the heavier plane.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## tnimble (25 Jun 2007)

I have only a vintage Stanley USA no 8 so I can't compare to a no 7 (yet).

But there's a saying 'size does matter' which I tend to believe is appropriate when it comes to flattening and jointing.


----------



## Philly (25 Jun 2007)

Woden
The #8 is well worth going for - its function is flattening and a longer sole makes for a flatter surface. Go for it!
As a L-N #8 owner (and user!!) I have sold my #7 as it no longer gets any use. 
Only my 2p's worth,
Philly


----------



## woodbloke (25 Jun 2007)

As a very recent convert to low angle planes, I'm very seriously considering the Veritas No7 Jointer at 22" and then making a really long woodie (similar to the one Derek of Oz made a while back) of 28". Haven't got the pennies together yet but hoping to sell a refurbed Record T5 to help go towards the cost

Philly wrote:


> I have sold my #7 as it no longer gets any use.


Phill - you must have deployed the air brakes and 'chute :shock: on your way down the 'slope' :lol: - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 Jun 2007)

Philly":3opapj3e said:


> I have sold my #7



Sorry to hear that, Phil - how long have you been feeling unwell? :? :? 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Philly (25 Jun 2007)

Ha, ha! You Boys having some laughs at poor Philly's expense? :wink: :lol: 
You'll be pleased to know that the Cliffy is now owned by our own Tony Mod, so it's still "In-the-family" :lol: 
I felt bad about owning a lovely tool and it just sitting there. See, I do have a conscience.... :roll: 
Philly


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 Jun 2007)

Philly":33hu38kc said:


> I felt bad about owning a lovely tool and it just sitting there.



OK, if you say so.....   :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (25 Jun 2007)

Philly":1vsnzgdh said:


> As a L-N #8 owner (and user!!) I have sold my #7 as it no longer gets any use.
> Philly



Oh yes it does, lots :wink: I bought it and love it - and it is actually heavier than a LN #8 (it's the Clifton #7) :lol: 


Woden, for me I prefer heavy over light every time. 5 1/2, 4 1/2 etc.
in fact, my latest plane is shockingly heavy


----------



## Alf (25 Jun 2007)

Philly":mhfaien6 said:


> You'll be pleased to know that the Cliffy is now owned by our own Tony Mod, so it's still "In-the-family" :lol:


Good lord. How many jointers does one man need?! :shock: ](*,)

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Philly (25 Jun 2007)

Alf":2eq0dn1m said:


> Good lord. How many jointers does one man need?! :shock: ](*,)
> 
> Cheers, Alf



Obviously that's a rhetorical question....... :lol: 
Philly


----------



## woden (25 Jun 2007)

Thanks for the replies. So, the consensus seems to be that the heavier no 8 is worth holding out for. Well, as you're all infinitely more experienced than me I can't argue so a number 8 it will be then. Now if i can just come across one on ebay that I like, ie. with the plain lever cap and low front knob. Hmmm.... I could be waiting for a while.

Does anyone know the weight of a Stanley no 8 just so that I can compare it with the heavy versions on offer from LN and Clifton that I won't be owning for a long time to come.


----------



## dchenard (26 Jun 2007)

woden":1z3g250n said:


> Does anyone know the weight of a Stanley no 8 just so that I can compare it with the heavy versions on offer from LN and Clifton that I won't be owning for a long time to come.



According to Pat Leach, it would be 9 3/4 lbs.:

http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan1.htm#num8


----------



## Anonymous (26 Jun 2007)

woden":2tii896k said:


> So, the consensus seems to be that the heavier no 8 is worth holding out for. Well



Maybe that is the concensus, but not what I did or meant to say

I love LNs and have err, 11, but when considering the #8 against the even heavier Clifton#7 at half the price, (less 2nd hand :wink: ), I went for the Clifton and do not regret it one bit


Woden, you do not list a location in your profile. Maybe someone lives near you and owns one that you could try


----------



## bugbear (26 Jun 2007)

woden":3s2t6vhz said:


> I've recently been looking to buy an old Stanley or Record jointer that I can put a decent blade into. At first I just assumed that I'd need a no 7 and there was no more thought involved, however, I'm now wondering if the larger no 8 would be preferable.



Possibly. But s/h #8 planes are dramatically rarer and more expensive than #7's. You'd need to be VERY sure you'd prefer the #8 to pay the difference.

BugBear


----------



## Racers (26 Jun 2007)

Hi,
I managed to pick a record No8 from the bay for £51! that was after watching lots go for £80 to £100. I tend to favour it over my No7s but thats is only after I got it, I was happy with them, but the lure of having a BIG one was to much :wink: 

Pete


----------



## dchenard (26 Jun 2007)

Racers":2bzwm7dx said:


> Hi,
> I managed to pick a record No8 from the bay for £51! that was after watching lots go for £80 to £100. I tend to favour it over my No7s but thats is only after I got it, I was happy with them, but the lure of having a BIG one was to much :wink:
> 
> Pete



After conversion to £ my Stanley (Type 6 I believe) cost me a little bit less than your Record. But I couldn't leave it alone, I had to add a LN replacement blade and chipbreaker :roll: But it works great 

As to whether to get a #7 or an #8, the answer is dead simple, get both of course! :tool: \/ I set up my Bevel Up Jointer with a cambered iron for face jointing, and the #8 with a straight iron for edge jointing. I'm very satisfied with this setup...

DC

A friend of mine found a Bedrock 607 for a smidgen above £20, is this sufficient grounds to inflict bodily damage to the lucky pipper? :twisted: :lol:


----------



## Paul Chapman (26 Jun 2007)

dchenard":21rryp87 said:


> A friend of mine found a Bedrock 607 for a smidgen above £20, is this sufficient grounds to inflict bodily damage to the lucky pipper? :twisted: :lol:




Yes :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Alf (26 Jun 2007)

I assumed that was a rhetorical question... :lol:


----------



## Anonymous (26 Jun 2007)

woden":3r4z2lku said:


> Given that Stanley, etc. planes tend to be too light when compared with those turned out by the top makers today should you go for the heaviest option for a particular task when buying on older plane? A 5 1/2 instead of a 5 or a no 8 instead of a no 7? :?


Re 7 or 8 - if you are a collector then of course you should have both. 
If a woodworker then you could easily get by without either, if you already have a good jack. They are both a bit specialist, and the 8 more so which means the 7 is likely to be more useful if you must have one.
Re heaviness; in my experience lighter is better if it's woodwork your at, especially if you are likely to do a lot of stuff by hand. A light wooden jack is much easier on the arms than a steel one AOTBE.
A collector might prefer the heavier ones as they tend to be more expensive.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Mirboo (26 Jun 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":32vdhnpe said:


> A collector might prefer the heavier ones as they tend to be more expensive.



:lol:


----------



## Philly (26 Jun 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":3rak54id said:


> Re 7 or 8 - if you are a collector then of course you should have both.
> If a woodworker then you could easily get by without either, if you already have a good jack. They are both a bit specialist, and the 8 more so which means the 7 is likely to be more useful if you must have one.
> Re heaviness; in my experience lighter is better if it's woodwork your at, especially if you are likely to do a lot of stuff by hand. A light wooden jack is much easier on the arms than a steel one AOTBE.
> A collector might prefer the heavier ones as they tend to be more expensive.
> ...


If you are a "woodworker"?? Wow - quite a wide open description that one, Jacob. I'm a "woodworker" and disagree. A longer plane makes for a flatter surface - that's how planes work. So for jointing and flattening longer work a longer plane makes sense.
As to the heavier planes only being of interest to collectors - glad to see you still have the old chip on your shoulder. Personally, as a "woodworker" and a Professional Woodworker _tm_, I find the heavier planes to be favoured as they help carry though on hardwoods, especially the more gnarly versions. if you work with straight grained, well-behaved timbers then light is fine.
Philly


----------



## Paul Chapman (26 Jun 2007)

I agree with Philly. In my experience, where metal planes are concerned, a heavy plane will always out-perform a lighter one. And heavy planes are not as hard on the arms as one might think, because much of the weight is supported by the wood being planed. Where the heavy plane really shows its worth is on very hard woods, difficult grain and the shooting board.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (26 Jun 2007)

Having had a quick trawl thru' Mr Grim's website, most of the work _appears_ to be painted (apart from a table top in sycamore) so I can only assume that the material used for the joinery is a nondescript softwood of some description (not much indication of timber used for the windows) so in that case Mr Grim is probably used to a lighter weight plane and doesn't have the need for a longer metal plane that will adequately deal with more difficult timbers - Rob


----------



## dunbarhamlin (26 Jun 2007)

Or to couch it slightly differently, if processing softwoods or more amenable european hardwoods for sustained periods, the lighter tool may be more fit for purpose as the impact on the body outweighs the value of the greater impetus. 

Advocates of european wooden planes may too consider the weight of a new fangled metal bodied jointer unnecessary.

(OK, yes, I do like more heft, but I also like Marmite)

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Anonymous (26 Jun 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":3p7hkm71 said:


> [
> A collector might prefer the heavier ones as they tend to be more expensive.
> 
> cheers
> Jacob



Same old same old eh?

If you actually *read* the posts Grimsdale, you'd see that the heaviest of the jointers, Clifton #7, is actually the *cheapest* 

I prefer a heavier plane because it has greater inertia (resistance to change of momentum) and so less effort is need to plane hardwoods with it. Yes, i make furniture and use the tools most days.
As Philly says, a light plane works fine on 'easy' soft woods

Maybe you have never used a good quality plane and so are not speaking from experience? You do seem to have a chip on your shoulder that you are happy to expose here over and over and over again.....

As for collections, I used to collect stamps 30 years ago, but I sold them all before leaving school and haven't collected anything since.


----------



## Scrit (26 Jun 2007)

I think Jacob makes a valid point about weight and use. Metal (Bailey) planes are certainly easier to adjust than woodies and were ideal for the American market when they were invented because there was a real shortage of skilled labour around. A carpenter or joiner working softwoods in the main is probably going to use a jack for a considerably greater portion of the day than a cabinetmaker working hardwoods. And the longer you use a heavy tool the more tired you'll be at the end of the day. When you consider that a wooden jack is getting on for the same length as a #7 jointer he may well have a point. For joinery work a wooden jack may well be a better tool to use. Always depending on the type of work you're undertaking, of course.

Oh, and I do own a few decent quality planes, plus some woodies and even a few transitionals.......

Scrit


----------



## woden (26 Jun 2007)

Whoah, don't know what's kicked off here. I buy into the argument that heavier planes make lighter work - gedit, gedit... I'll get my coat - of hard woods but again I'm not that experienced. On the subject of no 8s being quite rare I'm beginning to rue passing up the purchase of a lovely old 8 on ebay recently. It was the low front knob type, in good nick, but I decided not to bid as it hadn't the frog adjustment screw - obviously of a type that predated its introduction. 

I'm still wondering if I was being needlessly cautious as you can still adjust the frog anyway by removing the blade, etc. and have to do this anyway even if the adjustment screw is present. The plane went for a reasonable price too. :?


----------



## mr (26 Jun 2007)

Woden you have a pm in your inbox


----------



## woden (26 Jun 2007)

Thanks, mr


----------



## Anonymous (26 Jun 2007)

Paul Chapman":195qlwmk said:


> I agree with Philly. In my experience, where metal planes are concerned, a heavy plane will always out-perform a lighter one. And heavy planes are not as hard on the arms as one might think, because much of the weight is supported by the wood being planed. Where the heavy plane really shows its worth is on very hard woods, difficult grain and the shooting board.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul


When I did loads of stuff by hand I found a light wooden jack really a lot easier esp if doing it for hours at a time because you lift it off at the end of each stroke. But then it's so much more difficult to set, sharpen etc so I don't really use it any more. 
Perhaps a light plane with all the benefits of a steel one would be good - carbon fibre, light alloys etc. Has one ever been made?
I bought a Stanley 7 years ago and use it occasionally - usually for improving very long lengths (10ft or more) which have been through my PT which doesn't have a very long bed. For general purposes though it doesn't get much use and could be done without.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Anonymous (26 Jun 2007)

Tony":ro36knt3 said:


> snip
> You do seem to have a chip on your shoulder that you are happy to expose here over and over and over again.....
> snip


Not a chip - just a different point of view. I'm genuinely intrigued to know what exactly one gets for the money with some of the expensive kit on offer. I've always been deeply impressed by the great tradition of woodwork where so much in the past was done with so little.
I'm also concerned that many newbies tend to think that the way around a problem is to buy some new kit. Often a big mistake IMHO in that perhaps one ought to get to grips with whats on hand before moving on. It affects many other activities - i've spent £s and £s on banjo bits and better banjos in the hopes of improving my performance - but it's all been a waste of money (so far!)

cheers
Jacob


----------



## Anonymous (26 Jun 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":1kvkjoj0 said:


> When I did loads of stuff by hand I found a light wooden jack really a lot easier esp if doing it for hours at a time Jacob



But surely these days no professional woodworker can afford to remove large amounts of wood by hand? One uses machines to get close, and then finish with the plane.

I once saw something in Popular Woodworking that rang true:

A professioanl woodworker cuts the wood, finds it is too thick, knocks the fence over a bit and cuts again so it fits

An amateur (he called them weekend woodworkers) cuts the wood a bit thick and then spends 2 hours hand planing it to size


----------



## Paul Chapman (27 Jun 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":dga2vc6p said:


> Perhaps a light plane with all the benefits of a steel one would be good - carbon fibre, light alloys etc. Has one ever been made?



Over the years I believe various manufacturers have tried out different materials. One such plane was the Lewin combination plane which was made from aluminium. There's a very good write-up on it on Alf's website http://www.cornishworkshop.co.uk/lewinplane.html

I do all my planing by hand because I don't have a powered planer. I have a set of Record planes which I bought in the 1970s and a set of Cliftons which I bought more recently, so I am able to do a direct comparison. The Cliftons are significantly heavier and produce superb results in situations where the Records will not. I have the same blades and cap irons fitted to both, so the main difference is in the weight and I have proved to my satisfaction that the extra weight does make a significant difference. I am talking here of planing very hard woods such as oak and woods with difficult grain. In soft woods both types of plane perform as well as one another.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## MikeW (27 Jun 2007)

Scrit":3loac712 said:


> I think Jacob makes a valid point about weight and use. Metal (Bailey) planes are certainly easier to adjust than woodies and were ideal for the American market when they were invented because there was a real shortage of skilled labour around...


Nah. The American wood plane making industry was as large or larger than what was in England by the mid 1800s. I think the advantage of the metal planes was the ability to mass produce and flood the market with something "better." It was the perception the metal planes were better that even affected the markets in the UK. Eventually, wood plane production stopped on both continents for all practical purposes (for a variety of reasons).

Of course, many of the irons still came from England. Until after the Civil War in the US, the common belief was English steel was better. (And it was for a long period.)

I think that weight definitely has its advantages in harder woods. But in traditional cabinet making woods I don't think the extra weight of a metal plane matters at all.

But at the end of the day, using a my 28" wood jointer is no different than when I used my Ohio #8. Both did what is required of them and I am just as sore with either one.

Take care, Mike


----------



## MrJay (27 Jun 2007)

Tony":sikvhwmp said:


> Mr_Grimsdale":sikvhwmp said:
> 
> 
> > When I did loads of stuff by hand I found a light wooden jack really a lot easier esp if doing it for hours at a time Jacob
> ...



I refer you to your sig,


----------



## Anonymous (27 Jun 2007)

Tony":33qj3oz9 said:


> Mr_Grimsdale":33qj3oz9 said:
> 
> 
> > When I did loads of stuff by hand I found a light wooden jack really a lot easier esp if doing it for hours at a time Jacob
> ...


You have to start somewhere and I started with only a bandsaw (for various complicated reasons) which I used as much as possible to get wood to finished size, then finished by hand which meant lots of planing, no mouldings only bevels, hand done mortices etc. So I was a bit mechanised - careful bandsawing taking stuff a good bit further than saw-mill sawn, and invaluable for ripping.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## woodbloke (27 Jun 2007)

I have my fair share of metal bodied planes and woodies in common with most people and I prefer the heavier planes such as my Norris A1 panel. What shouldn't be forgotton tho' is that at the very height of furniture making in England (Regency period, roughly 1810-20) lighter weight wooden planes were used exclusivly...there was nothing else and even into the early 20cent metal bodied planes were not used, 'specially in places like the Barnsley workshop. This pic, taken from 'Gimson and the Barnsleys' by Mary Comino shows Peter Waals (who at one time was one of Gimson's makers) w'shop taken in the 1920's, and work produced here was of the highest quality. His shop at this time did have rudimentary machinery, unlike the Barnsley's of a decade previously:







Spot any metal bodied planes  



The rise of the Baily pattern planes at the during the 19cent _may_ have been because they were simply cheaper and more economical to make compared to equivalent woodies and as others have said, the production of the latter started to decline, tho' stll made to this day in Europe by Ulmia - Rob


----------



## bugbear (27 Jun 2007)

woodbloke":i5z3f1z1 said:


> Having had a quick trawl thru' Mr Grim's website, most of the work _appears_ to be painted (apart from a table top in sycamore) so I can only assume that the material used for the joinery is a nondescript softwood of some description (not much indication of timber used for the windows) so in that case Mr Grim is probably used to a lighter weight plane and doesn't have the need for a longer metal plane that will adequately deal with more difficult timbers - Rob



Not too much edge jointing in joinery either, as opposed to table tops etc in cabinet work.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (27 Jun 2007)

Tony":2ksmzona said:


> A professioanl woodworker cuts the wood, finds it is too thick, knocks the fence over a bit and cuts again so it fits
> 
> An amateur (he called them weekend woodworkers) cuts the wood a bit thick and then spends 2 hours hand planing it to size



Of course, the purpose of the professional is to make an item, and make a profit.

The motives of amateurs are more varied, I'm happy to say.

I'm fairly sure no professional would have done this...






(by Lord Nibbo)

BugBear


----------



## Lord Nibbo (27 Jun 2007)

bugbear":374nuusz said:


> I'm fairly sure no professional would have done this...
> (by Lord Nibbo)
> 
> BugBear



You forgot this master piece by Rob





And what about Newts





The hours put into these two master pieces must be awesome. :shock:


----------



## Anonymous (27 Jun 2007)

bugbear":3i6b1f4a said:


> woodbloke":3i6b1f4a said:
> 
> 
> > Having had a quick trawl thru' Mr Grim's website, most of the work _appears_ to be painted (apart from a table top in sycamore) so I can only assume that the material used for the joinery is a nondescript softwood of some description (not much indication of timber used for the windows) so in that case Mr Grim is probably used to a lighter weight plane and doesn't have the need for a longer metal plane that will adequately deal with more difficult timbers - Rob
> ...


Hmm, thanks for the critique of my woodwork - actually I do a lot of other stuff besides the website including edge jointing and hardwoods. I'm a thorough going amateur on the side. Currently fiddling about with draw-knives and shaving-horses by way of doing something different.
I would be interested to see examples of what you two make.

cheers
Jacob


----------



## woodbloke (27 Jun 2007)

Mr Grim wrote:


> I would be interested to see examples of what you two make


Suggest you have a look in the current issue of Furniture & Cabinetmaking 'cos there's the first bit of a two part series on the making of this:
















Happy now?...... probably not - Rob


----------



## Alf (27 Jun 2007)

Jacob, you've rather asked for it, mate. I'd have thought it better to let us squander our money than you squander your knowledge by letting it get lost and discredited because of your insaitable desire to pick a fight.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Scrit (27 Jun 2007)

Mr_Grimsdale":2jqa0s9x said:


> Perhaps a light plane with all the benefits of a steel one would be good...... Has one ever been made?


I suppose you might consider the Stanley (Union, Sargent, _et al_) transitionals (wooden body, knob, handle but Bailey lateral adjuster and depth adjustment) somewhere near, the one thing they lack is the ability to adjust the mouth. 






Although they're not everyone's favourite tools (Patrick Leach, he of Patrick's Blood & Gore, recommends using them to keep the workshop warm, but then again he turned up at my workshop in the middle of October one year wearing shorts :? )

Similarly the modern equivalent might be an ECE Emmerich Primus plane. 






Both these approaches are lighter than an all-metal plane. I can't say about the Primus jointer, but I do have one of their smoothers and it works well. I've got a transitional jointer as well as a jack and they work as well as the all-metal planes whilst being lighter. They seem to glide better than their cast iron cousins, too, so maybe I should be using them a bit more 



Mr_Grimsdale":2jqa0s9x said:


> I'm genuinely intrigued to know what exactly one gets for the money with some of the expensive kit on offer.


I'd have said the same a few years back, Jacob, but Lie-Nielsen and Lee Valley/Veritas have geniunely improved the quality and some parts of the design of the hand planes they make. To my mind the biggest improvements have been in the thickness and quality of the blades, whilst the (re-)introduction of bevel-up planes and their continued development has been an eye opener to me 

Scrit


----------



## Anonymous (27 Jun 2007)

Alf":igytdw6d said:


> Jacob, you've rather asked for it, mate. I'd have thought it better to let us squander our money than you squander your knowledge by letting it get lost and discredited because of your insaitable desire to pick a fight.
> 
> Cheers, Alf


Very nice cupboard Rob. 
Why "Happy now?...... probably not "? What did I say?
To be honest I don't really know what it is I say which people find so controversial and I wasn't aware that I was picking a fight with anybody.
Must be the way I say it.
I just chunter on and every now and then seem to get a very irritated reaction. Have a look through my other posts - are they all potentially irritating or what? 
Am I missing something? "A screw loose" I hear you cry.

Oh well it takes all sorts.

cheers
Jacob
PS It's only a chat group chaps (n chapesses) - you really should lighten up a bit


----------



## woodbloke (27 Jun 2007)

Mr Grim wrote:


> Very nice cupboard Rob


I'll take that as a compliment....the mere trifling detail that it hasn't got any doors is neither here nor there - Rob


----------



## Anonymous (27 Jun 2007)

woodbloke":37s9rcw7 said:


> Mr Grim wrote:
> 
> 
> > Very nice cupboard Rob
> ...


Well that's a relief, phew :shock:


> the mere trifling detail that it hasn't got any doors is neither here nor there - Rob


Ooops, er yes I am so wrong  
What would you call it then - a chest of drawers?

cheers
Jacob
Got to go, Mrs Grimsdale breathing down my neck :roll:


----------



## Newbie_Neil (27 Jun 2007)

To whom it may concern. _*Please*_ stop the aggravation.

We neither need it nor want it and it will only end in tears.

Thank you,
Neil


----------



## Mirboo (27 Jun 2007)

That's a very nice chest of drawers Rob (woodbloke). Congrats.

Back on the topic of jointers. 8-[ I have a No. 8 and I really like the weight, but then I've never tried a No. 7. I reckon the mass of the No. 8 suits Aussie hardwoods.


----------



## Anonymous (27 Jun 2007)

MrJay":3kk9kjqb said:


> Tony":3kk9kjqb said:
> 
> 
> > Mr_Grimsdale":3kk9kjqb said:
> ...



Not sure I see your point.

My sig has nothing to do with the quote i posted - a pro woodworker needs to make money, an amatuer can be happy making one item every 3 years ( Ibeleive this would be a record for Waka :twisted: :lol: )


----------



## ivan (28 Jun 2007)

Intrigued by the weight of jointers, I put a Record #8 on the kitchen digital scales - it goes 10lb 8oz. This is one of the last #8s that Record made, and was (until Clfton/LN era) the *only* new plane I ever bought which was actually flat. It stayed that way too.

_If you have the relevant knowledge and skill_, you can make a fair stab of correcting the manufacturing faults of a Stanley/Record (carpenter's quality?), although I had to give up on a #6 that warped almost 30 thou in 18 months. However when you also factor in the effort, and the cost of a replacement blade and cap iron (cabinet maker's quality) a Clifton looks a real bargain!


----------

