# Record No4....Done



## woodbloke (23 May 2007)

As a further result of our MicroBash yesterday, Paul kindly lent me his Clifton iron and CB, so I've decided to use one of these rather than the Hock. The first pic shows Paul's No4 with my original blade and totes and this one is *much* posher than mine:







After a bit of _'cleaning up'_ it's turned out quite respectably. These pics show the finished plane without the blade inserted. All parts stripped and polished to 1000g (where practical) and then buffed (if possible) on the leather wheel of the Tormek, front knob and tote made from English Walnut, the little knob on the end of the lateral adjusting lever made from rosewood and walnut:











....and the underside:






The blade fitted quite well, tho' fitting the 'Y' lever was tricky in order to get the blade to bed down on the frog and about 2mm of mild steel was silver soldered onto the 'Y' lever to extend the reach so it engages correctly with the CB. The finished plane looks like this:
















Anyway, hope you all like the No4...havn't tried it yet 8-[ but wil be taking it to the BigBash at NickW's place in Sept so you can play around with it there - Rob


----------



## Colin C (23 May 2007)

Well done Rob

It looks very nice and I hope it works as well as it looks ( which should be very well )  =D>


----------



## Paul Chapman (23 May 2007)

Fabulous, Rob =D> =D> =D> That's now a really cool-looking plane 8) 8) 8) 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Alf (23 May 2007)

Rob, you're crazier than a loon, but if you're pleased... It's a tour de force, but what about the performance? Where are the shavings? Tsk, you'd think we were an audience of collectors... :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## woodbloke (23 May 2007)

Alf wrote:


> what about the performance? Where are the shavings?


Shavings....performance....... 8-[ 8-[...... anyway can't try it now 'cos it's been wrapped up in a towel and put away in the airing cupboard  - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (23 May 2007)

Rob, did you have to file much off the mouth?

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (23 May 2007)

Paul Chapman":nolz4986 said:


> Rob, did you have to file much off the mouth?
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul



Paul - mouth is *very* fine, maybe .5mm or less. I had to take a little bit of the front but it only took about 5 mins to fettle in the mouth. As we discussed yesterday, the frog lines up with the rear part of the mouth so that the maximum area of blade is in contact..will order a new blade from Axminster at the end of the month and let you have yours back on 09 Jun.....am impressed with DC's book, will have to get them I fancy, lots of the stuff in there hasn't appeared in F&C - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (23 May 2007)

woodbloke":2co98ik1 said:


> .....am impressed with DC's book, will have to get them I fancy, lots of the stuff in there hasn't appeared in F&C



Glad you're finding it interesting. I often refer to it. Must get the others when the wife's not looking....... :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Philly (23 May 2007)

Nice one, Rob! Looks like you used a whole can of elbow grease on that one :lol: 
Cheers
Philly


----------



## Bainzy (23 May 2007)

Awesome job - I've only so far got around to de-rusting and repainting my grandads spokeshave, yet I'm wanting to make all his Stanleys and his wooden planes look/work like new again:






While the #7 and #4.5 were bought recently on ebay, and the Silverline £6 from Amazon for scrubbing, the rest were inherited. If I manage to do as good a job with his planes as you've done with that record I'll be ecstatic!


----------



## woodbloke (23 May 2007)

Brainzy - you don't need to go to *anywhere* like the lengths I've gone to in order to make an older plane work well, plenty of info elsewhere on the forum. As Alf has correctly surmised, I'm a total nutter for doing this but I just wanted to see what could be achieved with the maximum effort and the minumum of at least two pots of elbow grease - Rob


----------



## Bainzy (23 May 2007)

I suppose so, but it's always nice to have a plane that looks as nice as it works  

The soles are all pretty flat on the metal planes, and I've managed to hone the blades to take tissue thin shavings, so they work fine, but I'd still like to make them look as nice as your Record. Plus apart from the #3 that has most of it's varnish intact, I'm planning on stripping any remaining finish from all the handles, restaining if necessary and coating with wax as I love the way it feels to handle a plane with handles like that - it feels so slick, warm and comfortable.


----------



## woodbloke (23 May 2007)

Brainzy - it's a good idea to strip off the old varnish, that's what I did to the original handles in the pics. All I did then was to give them a few coats of shellac and then some wax over the top, it definitely improves the way the plane feels in the hand. The best thing to do is to fettle in the sole, get it dead flat (or as flat as you can) and it should be absolutely flat behind the mouth as well. Make sure also that the frog is seating well and that it again is flat, finally treat yourself to a decent iron (you can use the original CB) if needed, these things will make a huge difference to the way it performs - Rob


----------



## newt (26 May 2007)

Rob, although I have seen the WIP the finished plane looks real good.


----------



## Mike.C (26 May 2007)

Nice one Rob, a masterpiece if I ever saw one. I bet there are not many Record No4's that look as good as yours.

Cheers

Mike


----------



## woden (31 May 2007)

Lovely bit of work there, Rob. The finished article looks stunning. There really should be companies tapping into this whole hand tool renovation area. It'd be great to put one of my grotty old planes in the post and have it coming back like that. Oh well, back to reality. :roll: 

Anyway, I'm planing on buying an old 4 1/2, probably on ebay, and making a considerably more limited renovation than what you've done there. But I'm wondering which brand/vintage of 4 1/2 to go for. I see that the face of the frog on your Record has a completely machined surface with no casting indentations. Yet, it doesn't look to have been that old a Record plane. Is this a difference between more recent Records and Stanleys - the former having a fully ground face on the frog while the latter has casting indentations. Older Stanleys have this fully ground face and I always thought this was part of the reason they are supposed to be better than more recent versions - the older frogs apparently give better support to the blades.

Is any of this the case or am I talking nonsense?  And if a frog with a fully ground face is superior should I then be looking for a Record instead of a Stanley unless the latter happens to be very old - say dating from pre WW2? What about the way in which the frog attaches to the main casting - is there any advantage to be found in the older different types of castings that Stanley did way back?

I hope to open the mouth every so slightly to allow me to use a thicker blade and cap iron from one of the top makers. No doubt I'll also have to put a spot of weld on top of the wish bone like depth lever so that it'll reach through to the cap iron slot. But which brand of blade is the best to go with? You're going for the Victor blades found in Cliftons but I've also heard good things about Lie Nielsens and also Veritas blades. So I'm just not sure which to buy. Indeed, because of the different depth adjustment mechanism I don't know if a Veritas cap iron would work with a Stanley or Record bench plane.

Anyway, your advice would be much appreciated.


----------



## woodbloke (31 May 2007)

woden":3rwozgc3 said:


> Lovely bit of work there, Rob. The finished article looks stunning. There really should be companies tapping into this whole hand tool renovation area. It'd be great to put one of my grotty old planes in the post and have it coming back like that. Oh well, back to reality. :roll:
> 
> Anyway, I'm planing on buying an old 4 1/2, probably on ebay, and making a considerably more limited renovation than what you've done there. But I'm wondering which brand/vintage of 4 1/2 to go for. I see that the face of the frog on your Record has a completely machined surface with no casting indentations. Yet, it doesn't look to have been that old a Record plane. Is this a difference between more recent Records and Stanleys - the former having a fully ground face on the frog while the latter has casting indentations. Older Stanleys have this fully ground face and I always thought this was part of the reason they are supposed to be better than more recent versions - the older frogs apparently give better support to the blades.
> 
> ...



Glad you liked the plane. The actual cast body is probably from the 1970's but the frog has been lifted from my much older T5 and in my view are far superior to the more modern ones, the older frogs drop staight into a more newer castings, but you're probably better off looking on the bay for a much older Record or Stanley, which will have a frog with a fully machined face, might be worth having a trawl round your local second hand tool shop to see if they've got some gash frogs. Older planes can be recognised by the lower front knob. The little bit of steel silver soldered to the top of the 'Y' lever is well worth doing 'specially if you fit a thicker blade. I had to open out the mouth just a fraction to accomodate the 3.1mm Victor blade and its now less than .5mm. Beware if you fit the LN blade (from Axminster) as the new LN CB's are *only* designed to fit LN planes. The blade will be good but you'll need to fit a different CB - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (31 May 2007)

Hi Woden,

Here's a picture of the two types of Record frogs. The one on the left is from my #4 bought in 1970. The one on the right is from a second-hand #5 - I think Record stopped making this type of frog in the mid-1960s 






Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woden (31 May 2007)

That picture isn't showing up for me, Paul.

Out of all the brands of metal plane that come up for sale on ebay Stanley, Record and then less so Marples and Miller Falls seem to be more common. Which of these makes tends to be best or does a lot depend on the age of the plane?



woodbloke":h69h2mdo said:


> Beware if you fit the LN blade (from Axminster) as the new LN CB's are only designed to fit LN planes. The blade will be good but you'll need to fit a different CB - Rob


Oh well, that rules out their chip braker then. And I really fancied the LN one as it seems very thick and is ground as opposed to being pressed so must be very sturdy.

What blades/chipbrakers (the thick ones not the modified versions targeted at Stanleys, etc.) are compatible with older metal planes provided you open the mouth and increase the reach of the depth adj. lever? Why did you go for Victor's offering? What about the Japanese Samurai laminated blades that Axminster also offer?


----------



## Colin C (31 May 2007)

Hi Woden

I have a Japanese Samurai laminated blade in my old #7 with a Cliffton cap iron and I am very happy with it but you might need to get a new screw for the cap iron as the on the old one would not fit ( different thread ).

Regards Colin


----------



## woden (31 May 2007)

Hi, Colin.

When you buy the Clifton cap iron does it not come with a screw? I would have thought that would have been an integral part of the cap iron's make up. :?


----------



## Paul Chapman (31 May 2007)

Not sure why you can't see the picture - it's OK on my PC.

That #5 is actually a Stay Set model which came with the Record Stay Set cap iron. The two piece cap iron that Clifton make is in fact identical to the Record one and I use them in my all my Record and Clifton planes. Here's a picture of the Clifton cap iron on the left and the Record Stay Set cap iron on the right 







The Stay Set models of Record planes had "SS" on the lever caps as in the pictures below






I now use Clifton blades and cap irons in all my Record planes. They fit perfectly OK but ideally need the 'Y' lever extending and the mouth opening.

These days the Clifton cap irons come with a longer screw.

Hope you can see the pictures.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Paul Chapman (31 May 2007)

Hi again Woden,

This week I fitted a Clifton blade to my Record #5 Stay Set plane. It works OK with the existing 'Y' lever and with the mouth opened out a bit. Here is a picture of the Clifton blade and Stay Set cap iron in the plane. You will see that the 'Y' lever extends about half-way across the thickness of the slot, so it works OK but ideally the 'Y' lever needs extending a little as Rob explained in his "Fun with Y levers" post. The blade is 3.1mm thick.






Hope this helps.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woden (31 May 2007)

For some reason I can't see those pictures either, Paul. There must be something funny with my computer at the moment. I can't get into ebay either at the moment and that's really annoying me as I'd planned to bid on a particular plane - and the auction ends this evening. Aaaaargh, so annoying.

Would you say that the Victor blades on Cliftons are every bit as good as the Lie Nielsen, Veritas or Hock blades? I just wonder if the Clifton cap iron is as good as the ground versions that are made by and unfortunately only fit Lie Nielsen planes. Are they as thick or as sturdy?


----------



## Colin C (31 May 2007)

Woden

When you buy a Clifton cap iron, it does not come with the screw as you should use the one from the original cap iron but as mine was is an old one (mark 6-7 if I have looked it up right :? ).

Clifton where very nice to send me two new screws for free ( which was very nice of them ) and now have it in my #7


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Jun 2007)

woden":1htqeck0 said:


> Would you say that the Victor blades on Cliftons are every bit as good as the Lie Nielsen, Veritas or Hock blades? I just wonder if the Clifton cap iron is as good as the ground versions that are made by and unfortunately only fit Lie Nielsen planes. Are they as thick or as sturdy?



As with most things, you will find that there are endless debates about which blades are best. I would say that all the top makes - LN, Clifton, Veritas, Hock - are excellent and to try to separate them is rather like splitting hairs. I have four Clifton planes and four other planes with their blades and cap irons. I particularly like their cap iron and think it is one of the best designs available. However, some people don't like it - usually because they forget to keep their finger on the detachable bit when they remove it from the plane and it drops off :roll: If you look at the picture of Rob's renovated Record #4 it has one of my Clifton blades and cap irons in it temporarily until Rob gets his own. You will see that the blade is thick (3.1mm) as is the cap iron. The detachable bit of the cap iron is even thicker and is a piece of machined metal. One of the things I like about the cap iron is that it helps to make the blade even more rigid.

I like Clifton planes and have now standardised on their blades. This has the added advantage that I now have several blades and cap irons which are interchangeable between several planes.

If you are undecided, see if you can get together with other forum members in your area and try out different planes and blades. A lot does come down to personal preference.

Hope this helps a bit.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Jun 2007)

Colin C":3l426go6 said:


> Woden
> 
> When you buy a Clifton cap iron, it does not come with the screw



Colin,

If you look at the Classic Hand Tools site, it says that the Clifton cap iron comes with an extra long screw http://www.classichandtools.com/acatalo ... lades.html

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Bainzy (1 Jun 2007)

Did Record ever make a Bedrock style frog?


----------



## Colin C (1 Jun 2007)

Paul Chapman":21oxs2ni said:


> Colin C":21oxs2ni said:
> 
> 
> > Woden
> ...



Thanks for that Paul

I got mine from Tilgear and they dont come with the screw so will have to look at that for my next one


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Jun 2007)

Bainzy":2l7h31nq said:


> Did Record ever make a Bedrock style frog?



Not as far as I am aware. The only manufacturers of Bedrock-style planes that I know of are Stanley with their old 600 series, Lie Nielsen, Clifton and Patrick Leach offers this #1 size Bedrock http://www.supertool.com/601.htm

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Anonymous (1 Jun 2007)

Lovely and shiny, but how does it work? :lol:


----------



## Newbie_Neil (1 Jun 2007)

Hi Tony



Tony":s704r7u9 said:


> Lovely and shiny, but how does it work? :lol:



You should really wash your mouth out. You know you don't ask a c****ector such a question. :lol: 

Cheers
Neil

PS Rob, I'm sorry but I just couldn't resist it. :wink:


----------



## Alf (1 Jun 2007)

A collector wouldn't do that to a tool either. Not sure what this comes under - a fettling fetish?  

Cheers, Alf


----------



## woden (1 Jun 2007)

Paul Chapman":1anqjt7l said:


> ...I particularly like their cap iron and think it is one of the best designs available. However, some people don't like it - usually because they forget to keep their finger on the detachable bit when they remove it from the plane and it drops off If you look at the picture of Rob's renovated Record #4 it has one of my Clifton blades and cap irons in it temporarily until Rob gets his own. You will see that the blade is thick (3.1mm) as is the cap iron...


The two piece cap iron actually scares me a bit, mainly because I can be a bit of a klutz and am prone to drop/walk into things if I'm not careful. Also, only the lower section of the Clifton CI is machined from thick steel and this almost seems like an admission of a lack of ambition when compared to the fully machined offerings from Lie Nielsen and Hock. The other seeming advantage of the LN blades is that they're even thicker at 3.75mm when compared with Clifton/Victors 3.1mm - isn't that about 16% extra if my maths is correct. I'm not trying pick holes in your choice but just doing a bit of research and pondering from a novice's perspective. :? 

And the reason why I've looked again at LN's offering is that according to David Charlesworth on this thread he seems to have his students fit their blade/CI combination during his short plane tuning courses. So I presume the LN combination must be compatible with Stanleys/Records.


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Jun 2007)

Hi again Woden,

If you are undecided, I think you really need to look at and, if possible, try out the blades and cap irons that you are considering. All the good ones are excellent and, as I said, a lot comes down to personal preference. I made my choice a long time ago and have no regrets - but I dare say the ones who chose LN, Veritas and Hock would say the same 

At recent get-together, Rob (Woodbloke), Pete (Newt) and I were comparing planes (Clifton, LN, Record Calvert Stevens and Norris) https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/view ... hp?t=16885. We found that they all produced equally excellent results with fine shavings similar to those in David Charlesworth's video clips. What varied most was how the planes felt in use and there were subtle differences which explained why one person preferred a particular plane over another. But in terms of performance the different planes and blades were virtually identical.

I'm not an expert on the LN cap irons. Some have had difficulty fitting them to Stanley/Record planes but others don't seem to have had problems. Possibly they make two versions. Perhaps someone who has fitted them successfully can comment? 

Good luck with whatever you choose :wink: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (1 Jun 2007)

Newbie_Neil":mza46u2m said:


> Hi Tony
> 
> 
> 
> ...



.....oh hell, it's out in the open now, seem to have joined the hallowed ranks of collecting folk west of the Tamar :lol: - Rob


----------



## mahking51 (2 Jun 2007)

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery so while not in the same league as Robs, here is an old Record StaySet 4 1/2 that I have redone from a pile of complete rust, so bad it was all stuck together and took a week soaking in diesel to separate:








I still have the sides and sole to sort out but no problem there; the rear tote repaired OK from quite a ragged split.
I am not quite sure how to replace the rusted and broken rivet that holds the lateral adjuster in place, any thoughts Rob?
When I get the Tormek back from waka I'll do the blade and fettle the front edge of the CB and it'll be ready to go.
Regards,
Martin


----------



## woodbloke (2 Jun 2007)

Martin - I used a brass 4BA bolt and washer tho' a 4mm metric bolt would be just as good. You will need to drill out the old rivet from the lever if you havn't done that already...if you're coming to the Bash on 09 Jun you'll be able to have a look at my Record No4 - Rob


----------

