# Records Laminated - How Many?



## D_W (16 Oct 2016)

I've been on a bit of a binge lately. After finding that you guys don't seem to care so much for the old records (based on the prices on ebay), I've got two 4s, a 4 SS, and a 4 1/2, and a norris infill shoulder (a type of plane I don't even use)..not enough time in the shop lately, I guess.

The 4 1/2 has a boatload of little narrow pitting, and too much to worry about in the first 1/4th inch of the iron, so I ground it off today. I was shocked at how fast it ground off square, and then noticed that it's laminated, which is strange to me given the boast of it being a high tungsten steel. 

The records I've gotten thus far are the type with the old frog design (I have no preference in planes, my best adjusting and working stanley is of the new frog type, a treat to use day to day), presume that might have something to do with it? Any clue what percentage of the records were laminated? I'll have to look closer at the other two tomorrow (didn't get the SS yet).


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Oct 2016)

Typical. The Americans get a taste for something and the price will go up. I (and probably many others) prefer Records to any but the best Stanleys. Same goes for Marples, probably the weight - they do tend to be heavier. I think my older Records are all laminated. I suspect ebay prices are influenced to a large extent by collector's values - Stanleys will always fetch more than the equivalent Records, possibly because the Record is always seen as a copy.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2016)

Fortunately, the americans over here don't seem to have a taste for norris shoulder planes right now. A near perfect vintage norris 18 costs about the same as a new Lie Nielsen shoulder plane, but the difference in the style to an amateur maker like me is near priceless. 

As far as records go, they have always been more costly over here because they are not as common. Even the nearly new ones, which I don't favor much, sell for more than vintage stanley planes here. 

I favor the handles on a good vintage stanley a little more than the thinner handles on the record planes, but I'm pretty indifferent about the rest of the plane. I haven't received the marples yet. 

No worries on the price, I don't think much of a trend will be started - a twenty-five dollar record plane still ends up costing $50 total here once the global shipping charge is added, and a lot of americans are too skittish to even buy a used stanley.


----------



## swagman (16 Oct 2016)

DW; not laminated blades, but I purchased this (post 1950 manufacture) Record 043 back in April 2010, when the postal costs from the U.K were a lot more reasonable. $7.00 uk international postage from uk to aust. Total cost $43.00 uk. 

Stewie;


----------



## Racers (16 Oct 2016)

My square shouldered laminated blades are marked "best crucible cast tungsten steel" and they are very nice blades. 
They are laminated to save the expensive crucible cast steel for where it's needed. 

Pete


----------



## Sheffield Tony (16 Oct 2016)

I discovered, to my surprise, that even the not so sought after Chapman Acorn planes have laminated irons. So it must have been cheaper.


----------



## bugbear (16 Oct 2016)

D_W":3hpl2h3l said:


> I was shocked at how fast it ground off square, and then noticed that it's laminated, which is strange to me given the boast of it being a high tungsten steel.



I don't remember a claim of "high tungsten" (as in some kind of HSS), I think they just added a bit of tungsten and vanadium to alter the crystal structure during heat treatment of what is basically a normal high carbon steel.

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Oct 2016)

No, it doesn't say "high" just "best crucible cast tungsten steel".


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2016)

bugbear":33s65ib4 said:


> D_W":33s65ib4 said:
> 
> 
> > I was shocked at how fast it ground off square, and then noticed that it's laminated, which is strange to me given the boast of it being a high tungsten steel.
> ...



I could not remember the slogan on the blade correctly, but I figured that they were similar to any other carbon steel. 

I make the comment about tungsten not because I expect it to be like the original HSS (definitely not), but because I have had razors that were made in the early 1900s when there was a small craze to advertise tungsten in steel, and they were quite tough. Not close to HSS, but harder to hone than the razors I've had that were very plain steel.


----------



## Argus (16 Oct 2016)

swagman":1286h2pv said:


> DW; not laminated blades, but I purchased this (post 1950 manufacture) Record 043 back in April 2010, when the postal costs from the U.K were a lot more reasonable. $7.00 uk international postage from uk to aust. Total cost $43.00 uk.
> 
> Stewie;



Nothing to do with the original question, but I couldn't fail to notice the original price in pencil on the label of Swagman's 043....... thirty-four bob, or £1/-14. 
I have an identical plane with the same price which, from that, I would estimate the date at the late 1950s or early 1960s. That was a tidy sum of money in those days to pay for a tool.
Certainly sold before about 1964 when Retail Price Maintenance - where the manufacture set the sale price - was outlawed.


----------



## AndyT (16 Oct 2016)

I keep coming back to a useful supplement in the Woodworker in 1960 listing most of the readily available planes, with prices. The Record 043 was 32 shillings then, so presumably went up by 2s soon after, giving a likely date for Swagman's and Argus's planes.
Unfortunately it doesn't list replacement irons. 

For quite a bit of detail/sales pitch on the merits of Tungsten Steel, there are three pages in Planecraft about how the introduction of tungsten makes steel harder with more uniform grain and better edge retention. It emphasises how modern scientific methods have improved the product, which (in 1959) was described as still being made by the costly crucible process. 

No mention of whether the cutters were laminated onto iron or made of superior steel throughout.


----------



## Argus (16 Oct 2016)

What looks like the OP's blade marking is described as in production dating from mid'30s to mid 50s on David Lynch's excellent historical site on Record tools:

http://www.recordhandplanes.com/dating.html

.... about half way down the page, first listing of blades after the section on lever caps.


----------



## Mr_P (16 Oct 2016)

D_W":v7zqsblu said:


> I've been on a bit of a binge lately. After finding that you guys don't seem to care so much for the old records (based on the prices on ebay), I've got two 4s, a 4 SS, and a 4 1/2, and a norris infill shoulder (a type of plane I don't even use)..not enough time in the shop lately, I guess..



Think its a more a case of market forces / supply and demand that makes them cheap. How many "normal" folk want more than one ? (whistels innocently) not exactly stamp collecting is it and even idiots like me eventually realise less is more.

I use my Record 03 all the time and wouldn't part with it, even if I did find an I.Sorby 3.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2016)

Mr_P":cb177oqf said:


> D_W":cb177oqf said:
> 
> 
> > I've been on a bit of a binge lately. After finding that you guys don't seem to care so much for the old records (based on the prices on ebay), I've got two 4s, a 4 SS, and a 4 1/2, and a norris infill shoulder (a type of plane I don't even use)..not enough time in the shop lately, I guess..
> ...



Yes, novelty to some extent. I use pretty much a single stanley plane, a modern type 20 one at that - despite having made a gaggle of smoothers. I suspect I will regularly use one of these records smoothers for a while, but not rotate a whole bunch of them around as I like to know what I'm using. 

There are probably a dozen a week on ebay, with half or so being a good candidate for purchase. I could make a video and direct everyone to the GSP on ebay to loot the records, but I won't do that


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2016)

Sheffield Tony":3cja3hu0 said:


> I discovered, to my surprise, that even the not so sought after Chapman Acorn planes have laminated irons. So it must have been cheaper.



I just checked the three that I got, all of them say "tungsten cast" on them, one of them has rounded shoulders, but all three are laminated. The two that I've used so far are similar in hardness to a vintage stanley (no surprise), and I prefer them to any modern boutique iron that I've tried. That's already clear. 

I've tried in the past to replace any past-gone millers falls or stanley irons with laminated vintage irons, but they are hard to find reasonable here in the states. I know what to do now!


----------



## AndyT (16 Oct 2016)

I think it's a good time for overseas buyers on eBay. I've noticed several really keenly priced tools (including some good looking Record planes) getting no bids at all recently. As the pound dives to new low values on the foreign exchange, there will be even better bargains to be had.


----------



## Mr_P (16 Oct 2016)

AndyT is spot on, of the 5 planes I've recently sold two went to Italy and one to America via the GSP. 

Stanley also benefits from brand recognition. I knew of Stanley and Stanley planes long before I started taking woodworking seriously, Record probably not.

Maybe thats just me ? (born in the mid 70's)


----------



## bugbear (16 Oct 2016)

D_W":2otr2jxg said:


> I make the comment about tungsten not because I expect it to be like the original HSS (definitely not), but because I have had razors that were made in the early 1900s when there was a small craze to advertise tungsten in steel, and they were quite tough. Not close to HSS, but harder to hone than the razors I've had that were very plain steel.



I think razor are tempered differently to woodworking tools. Could be a factor.

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Oct 2016)

Yes, you're probably not likely to chip the edge of a razor ... unless you're Desperate Dan.


----------



## D_W (16 Oct 2016)

bugbear":12yd6212 said:


> D_W":12yd6212 said:
> 
> 
> > I make the comment about tungsten not because I expect it to be like the original HSS (definitely not), but because I have had razors that were made in the early 1900s when there was a small craze to advertise tungsten in steel, and they were quite tough. Not close to HSS, but harder to hone than the razors I've had that were very plain steel.
> ...



It can be, but some razors are harder tempered than others. There is some overlap, but my experience with old razors (as in century old) that advertise that they're tungsten steel is that they are tempered harder and much harder to get into good shaving shape than a razor that is advertised as being silver steel or "best crucible steel".

I don't think razors are tempered as hard as their reputation has them, their included angle is only about 16-18 degrees, and if they are too hard, they tend to chip when being honed, which is a toxic problem solved only by increasing their angle. 

I'd imagine most are probably 60-62 hardness (I'd guess 57/58 for the record irons based on how they behave on oilstones), but it's hard to be sure because we hone razors seldom (if taking care of them properly) and after the initial set of the edge on one, never do hone the actual bevel off again. Modern internet practice is different than this, but old practice is more sparing of metal and more reliant on a good linen and leather. 

Really hard tempered razors have other problems, too, like not responding much to a leather strop. They're a lot like tools - you can make them harder to meet a spec so that you can sell them to beginners, but people actually using them will usually appreciate things being done the way professionals and their manufacturers decided they should be.


----------



## bugbear (16 Oct 2016)

D_W":32x96eme said:


> bugbear":32x96eme said:
> 
> 
> > D_W":32x96eme said:
> ...



One can't assume razor "tungsten steel" and Record "tungsten steel" are the same; both proportion of tungsten, other components (e.g. vanadium  ) and subsequent heat treatment might very well vary.

Fundamentally (to use a GBBO analogy), tungsten is an ingredient, not a recipe.

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Oct 2016)

Well you can, but you shouldn't.


----------



## D_W (17 Oct 2016)

bugbear":pqp2sy3c said:


> One can't assume razor "tungsten steel" and Record "tungsten steel" are the same; both proportion of tungsten, other components (e.g. vanadium  ) and subsequent heat treatment might very well vary.
> 
> Fundamentally (to use a GBBO analogy), tungsten is an ingredient, not a recipe.
> 
> BugBear



This is becoming sort of a pointless discussion. I don't assume anything other than that the record is honest enough that the irons have tungsten added. What I would've guessed would be that they added tungsten so that they could drive hardness up a couple of clicks, but they didn't.


----------



## swagman (19 Oct 2016)

Record 043 cutting a 1/4" groove. 

Stewie;


----------



## Racers (19 Oct 2016)

A laminated iron will grind quicker than a full steel iron as the backing is softer so you not grinding as much hard steel, I can't see what the OP is complaining about.

Pete


----------



## D_W (19 Oct 2016)

I can't see where I was complaining at all. It should be clear that I have a preference for laminated irons in bench planes. I am a little surprised that the irons aren't harder, I guess, but that would not be a complaint from me. I prefer the irons to be about the hardness of a vintage stanley, and it seems in line with that.

To me, one of the biggest letdowns with an iron is when you get a hard one and it microchips all over the place leaving little lines on the work. It doesn't really matter if you're going to scrape something, but it seems to defeat the purpose of making an iron hard to hold an edge if it just lets go of its initial edge. It's something I've seen on modern irons as well as some vintage irons (eskilstuna) that are well regarded but very hard.


----------



## D_W (20 Oct 2016)

Aforementioned 4 1/2, still needs a bit of flattening. Strangely, these three records that I've gotten recently all have the toe and heel lower than the mouth. That's a five minute fix at most, but I'm surprised by it. They have to plane the ends off of a flat board before they'll take a through shaving. I have one more stay set plane coming, it'll be interesting to see if it is the same. 

This sharpening is just with the cretan. It is by no means a fine stone, but a super fine edge doesn't need to be had to take very thin shavings in agreeable wood like cherry. I'd imagine they are half a thousandth? The thinnest I've measured is about half that much, but I can't ever remember taking shavings even like these on an actual project. (the one on the wax can would look a bit thinner if it were pressed against the lettering).









Freehand, of course! The loveliness of the stones like washita and cretan is that there is no second stone. You hold one angle, that's it, nothing to confuse or chase steeper. 

(plus, I couldn't use a guide, the marples catalog says they're for amatuers....

....wait, I'm an amateur).


----------



## RossJarvis (20 Oct 2016)

I bought my Record 5 1/2 new in the mid 80s, It has the pressed lateral adjuster. The box states Record Marples and it cost £50.61. The iron is marked Record but very faint, can't see "tungsten" on it, it is not laminated.

I've switched to a Hock iron as the original which was okay blunted reasonably quickly and deformed rather than chipped when hitting things, so seemed soft rather than hard.

It's my favourite plane and if I can really be bothered I'll someday do something about the loose handle.


----------



## essexalan (21 Oct 2016)

The Record planes I bought new were 70s/80s and all had tungsten vanadium blades not laminated on the soft side of usable. An older Record #7 has the laminated crucible cast tungsten laminated steel in it which is slightly thicker and neither chips nor folds. The Hock O1 replacement makes a suitable replacement. I find the Records have somewhat more heft to them than the Stanley equivalents of that era but the soles were certainly not flat.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (21 Oct 2016)

You can often cure the loose handle quite simply - just put a washer or two under the nut if the threaded rod doesn't screw down any tighter.


----------



## Vann (21 Oct 2016)

phil.p":1xvg9v68 said:


> You can often cure the loose handle quite simply - just put a washer or two under the nut if the threaded rod doesn't screw down any tighter.


I usually have trouble finding a washer that fits under the nut. I tend to just grind a bit off the length of the threaded rod.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## D_W (21 Oct 2016)

Vann":2hqtcs4q said:


> phil.p":2hqtcs4q said:
> 
> 
> > You can often cure the loose handle quite simply - just put a washer or two under the nut if the threaded rod doesn't screw down any tighter.
> ...



There's no size here at hardware that fits easily (anything big enough for the rod diameter is too big for the hole in the handle where the nut fits), but there are small washers that have too small of a hole, but that are soft and easily drilled. 

Any plane I've bought with beech handles has had enough of an issue to either have some of the rod cut or ground off, or to have such washers installed.


----------



## D_W (24 Oct 2016)

New one for me tracking all of these planes. One of the things that I got in this large glom of planes is a sorby jointer that someone sold on ebay. 

I bought it a fair bit ago now and it's still in the UK because customs there (not sure whose government is in customs, is it UK over there) with the following comment:

"special handling review.", then a subsequent post "restricted item", and finally after 5 days, the status was updated to "Customs Documentation and Labeling".

This is a new one for me!! Never thought a plane was that dangerous. The ebay seller sells stuff quite frequently, too.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 Oct 2016)

I seem to remember using washers like this -
https://www.orbitalfasteners.co.uk/en/p ... 0wodRPEOGw


----------



## Racers (30 Oct 2016)

Here are mine.



Best Crucible Cast Steel by Racers, on Flickr

No4, 4 1/2, 5, 8.

All really nice blades.

Pete


----------



## D_W (31 Oct 2016)

Looks like nice planes. 

I put a picture of the records I hooked off of ebay on another thread "British invasion". I've got a fifth that an English friend gave me (he's in the states now), but it had a stanley iron as his dad had used it as a carpenter and replaced the iron - unfortunately with a Hock, but I've not got anything else on hand at the moment for it.


----------



## mathias (14 Dec 2016)

How identify the laminated irons?

Someone mentioned thickness. I have a N°4 and N°6 with thickness 2.4mm....

The two planes are early Reocrds with square blades and cap irons, supposedly first/early generation by the look of the frogs and other signs but I cannot see if the they have laminated irons.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Dec 2016)

When newly ground you will usually be able to see the two different steels - there is a slight difference in the colour of the two steels due to the different alloys and their hardness.


----------



## thetyreman (14 Dec 2016)

mathias":16jcuyui said:


> How identify the laminated irons?
> 
> Someone mentioned thickness. I have a N°4 and N°6 with thickness 2.4mm....
> 
> The two planes are early Reocrds with square blades and cap irons, supposedly first/early generation by the look of the frogs and other signs but I cannot see if the they have laminated irons.



when you sharpen the blade you should see 2 layers of iron, one of them will be hard, and one soft, the very edge of iron should be harder and a different shade of grey, sharpen it and you'll see.


----------



## Racers (14 Dec 2016)

The soft steel will look duller than the hard steel, also the shoulders and top of the blade are straight not rounded, you can see them in my picture. 

Prte


----------



## mathias (15 Dec 2016)

Racers":20tfpsox said:


> The soft steel will look duller than the hard steel, also the shoulders and top of the blade are straight not rounded, you can see them in my picture.
> 
> Prte



So all square blades are laminated then?


----------



## Vann (16 Dec 2016)

mathias":q3zgmnzb said:


> So all square blades are laminated then?


I don't think anyone knows the answer to that - but I think it's possible. The change from laminated to solid probably occurred sometime between the end of WW2 and the late 1950s. The first (flat top - 1930 to mid 1950s) irons were marked "RECORD, Made in England, Best Crucible Cast, Tungsten Steel". Early curved top irons (mid to late 1950s) were stamped with the same lettering. It then changed to "RECORD, Tungsten* Vanadium *Steel, Made in England". Whether the change in wording indicated a change in manufacturing from laminated to solid, is anyone's guess.

I can't find any reference at all to laminated cutters on the late David Lynch's website - he was the most authoritive source of 'Record' information.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Racers (16 Dec 2016)

mathias":20j5y6bg said:


> Racers":20j5y6bg said:
> 
> 
> > The soft steel will look duller than the hard steel, also the shoulders and top of the blade are straight not rounded, you can see them in my picture.
> ...



In my sample yes.

Pete


----------



## custard (16 Dec 2016)

mathias":3lekf22f said:


> So all square blades are laminated then?









Based only on the half dozen or so that I've owned that's been my experience, you can see the lamination join in this photo, it's marked by the arrows. I've found them to be good user irons, they take and hold a keen edge plus they seem to flatten off quickly and accurately. Although to be honest I haven't noticed that they're especially superior in use to good examples of later non-laminated irons. Incidentally, the only time you'll spot the lamination layer on the bevel itself is if you've had to grind the edge right back to get rid of a chipped edge, as soon as there's a secondary bevel it's pretty much impossible to spot the lamination layer.

I seem to recall reading that Stanley laminated irons were all made in the UK using crucible steel and sent to the US for use in US made Stanley planes, but I'm no tool historian so I'd defer to people like Andy T who know what they're talking about!

Incidentally, I did once try a Japanese laminated iron that was thin enough to drop straight into a bailey style plane. I remember it was a nightmare to flatten off. I can't have been all that impressed with it as a user either because it doesn't seem to be in my workshop any longer!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Dec 2016)

No, the iron in my Stanley No.8 is laminated and marked "Made in USA".


----------



## custard (16 Dec 2016)

Take it up with this guy, he seems to think they were exported from the UK as blanks for finishing in the US.

http://galootopia.com/old_tools/stanley ... dish-iron/


----------



## D_W (16 Dec 2016)

custard":1v1pebgw said:


> Incidentally, I did once try a Japanese laminated iron that was thin enough to drop straight into a bailey style plane. I remember it was a nightmare to flatten off. I can't have been all that impressed with it as a user either because it doesn't seem to be in my workshop any longer!



I got one of those, also. Best flattened with diamonds, but was a very good iron, like an old ward iron or something similar like that. I've found some of the old ward irons pretty hard to flatten, too.

I sent mine off in a plane that needed an iron, those things are OK with oilstones, but not great (I think they're blue steel, so like an ultrahard higher carbon O1). As nice of an iron as they are for smoothers, I just don't know what the need is for something that hard. Easy sharpening once flattened on synthetic stones, but not so much with oilstones. And relatively expensive.


----------



## custard (24 Dec 2016)

"Planecraft - Hand Planing By Modern Methods", seems to be a book that was instigated by Record as a way of promoting their tools. The first edition was 1934 and the edition I've got was published in 1950. 

It holds a number of useful clues about the question of laminated Record irons. All the photographs and illustrations in the book (which presumably date back to the 1934 first printing?) show bench plane irons with straight edges and angular corners to the tapering top section.

I'll give some quotes from the book and you can make up your own mind regarding their significance,

"Steel facings on iron backs are now standard practise, but it is not easy to discover when this welded or composite cutter was first introduced."

"Within living memory...the purchase of a satisfactory plane iron was largely a matter of luck. It might be too hard or too soft; it might hold its edge or it might not."

The book talks about the history of the Crucible Process, and then says, "The effect of this was that the slag, or rich iron silicate which was present, mechanically mixed with the steel, could be freed readily. The removal of this cinder greatly improves the steel. The process was costly then, and it remains costly today, but the quality of the steel is so incomparably better than the cheaper-produced Bessemer open-hearth steel of later introduction, that Record plane cutters are always made from best crucible cast steel"

The book then goes on to talk about Record's research, "the main lines of the research were devoted to careful analysis and accurate heat treatment, the ultimate result being the well-known and proved Tungsten steel cutter, fitted to all Record Planes. This forms the latest and most far-reaching development of the plane up to the present time...The reader will naturally ask 'Why is this Tungsten steel better than ordinary steel?'. There are two reasons which stand out most clearly. The first is that Tungsten has the property of uniting with the Carbon in the steel and forming Tungsten Carbide. Tungsten Carbide is the main constituent of all high speed cutting materials....It is therefore logical that a plane iron containing the correct amount of Tungsten is harder and more resistant to wear, and will take a keener cutting edge, and hold it for a longer period than would ordinary steel...Secondly, the correct and proper introduction of Tungsten is greatly beneficial in steel for plane irons as it prevents grain growth in the steel. This means that in the fully hardened cutter the steel is of very small grain size, which is immediately obvious when a blade is fractured. Because the steel is more resistant to shock, and therefore the keen edge will suffer less damage when cutting than any other steel."

"Thus, by using skilled engineering, not only is the bevel of the cutter correctly ground, but a uniform thickness and parallelism are attained in every blade (a factor which has so much to do with the efficiency of the whole assembly), and the elimination of looseness and chatter when the plane is in service."

"Finally, *every* Record Tungsten Steel Cutting Iron is tested on a Hardness Testing Machine".

"Planecraft" is a smashing book, I've never really read it before, I wish I had. It also gives very clear instructions for setting the cap iron distance,

-For rough work, 1/32" to 1/16" from edge
-For finishing work, 1/64" from edge
-For hard woods with irregular grain, as close as you can get it to the cutting edge

Bit of a digression from the thread, but I've recently read similar instructions in the three volume Charles Hayward collection from Lost Art Press.

So I'm puzzled why I've never really been aware of the full implications of the closely set cap iron until DW publicised it on this forum? It's not like I'm a newcomer to furniture making, I'm from a woodworking family, I went to a school that took woodworking seriously, I trained in cabinet making and antique restoration under Bruce Luckhurst in the early 80's, and I trained again at the Barnsley Workshop. So it's not like I gathered my woodworking knowledge from a few Youtube videos, yet my thinking was that a cap iron should be set in the range 0.5-1.5mm from a cutting edge and the way to deal with tear out was a high pitched iron, a back bevel, or by scraping/sanding. 

How is it that such an effective technique completely passed me by?

Maybe it's because I bought into the David Charlesworth ruler trick pretty early on after he first wrote about it? And while this doesn't actually preclude a closely set cap iron psychologically it tends to bias you way from it? Incidentally, I find I'm turning away from the ruler trick for all but the worst problem plane irons. For a Bailey style thin iron with a high spot on the non bevel side that made flattening off a problem I'd now use the Paul Sellers hammer trick to fix it, and for a premium thick iron I'd just return the iron to the manufacturer as defective.


----------



## Vann (24 Dec 2016)

I've also got the 1950 edition - and hadn't noticed the bits you've quoted either.


custard said:


> "Steel facings on iron backs are now standard practise, but it is not easy to discover when this welded or composite cutter was first introduced."


I didn't read much into the other quotes, but this one certainly suggests a laminated iron.

I don't suppose they updated the book when they stopped making laminated irons? :ho2 

Merry Christmas all. :deer :deer 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (24 Dec 2016)

Curious. I was taught at school 50 years ago that to plane wild grain the cap iron should be as close as you can possibly get it. There is another trick when fettling a plane that does work but is rarely seen (by me, at least) and that is to get a thin file and open up the front of the inside of the mouth. It leaves more space for the shavings which tend to wrinkle up and jam to free themselves. It you have a nice tight mouth it takes a very thin file to do it without hitting the rear of the mouth, though a thicker file can be used as progress is made. I read it somewhere about thirty years ago.

Thinking about it, you could do most of the work with a grindstone in a Dremel working from the open side.


----------



## AndyT (24 Dec 2016)

Well, here's another clue. Thanks to Vann for prompting me to check.

Looking at the same crucial sentence in my copy of the 1959 revision there is a subtle difference. It reads:

"Steel facings on iron backs *have been * standard practice, but it is not easy to discover when this welded or composite cutter was introduced."

So that suggests that the change from a laminated iron to one made entirely of hard steel happened between 1950 and 1959.

Just for completeness, let's also check the 1984 rewrite by John Sainsbury. It says:

"Steel facings on iron backs *were* standard..."

- which rather suggests that they were long gone by then.

This sort of fits with what I have read elsewhere about post-war modernisation in Sheffield. Although it didn't prevent the eventual decline, there was investment in such things as automated casting machinery. Presumably by then it made better economic sense to use hard steel for the whole cutter, rather than have lines of skilled smiths patiently welding each one. (Though I half remember reading that two wide strips were welded, then cut into separate blades - have I imagined that?)


----------

