# Old Record 52 1/2 Vise



## wizer (12 Dec 2007)

Hi Guys

I seem to have bought myself a very old Record 52 1/2 QR Vise. 







Is there anything I can do in terms of restoration? Or should I get my head read for buying it? I have never used or fitted a vise before so any pointers or tips would be appreciated.

Thanks

PS Is it Vise or Vice? I have seen references to both?


----------



## beech1948 (12 Dec 2007)

Hi,
A good article on fitting a vice similar to the record was here
http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/showthread.php?t=8617

have a search on google for fitting a record woodwork vice

regards
alan


----------



## paulm (12 Dec 2007)

Everything you need to know here

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/view ... ce&start=0

Worth wire brushing any crud off the threads and spraying with some PTFE or other non-sawdust attracting lubrication and making sure it runs freely and tightens up properly before fitting though.

Cheers, Paul.


----------



## wizer (12 Dec 2007)

Wow that's perfect! My next question was going to be what should I use to paint it. But even that's been answered!

Thanks very much and I promise to use the search button next time! :roll: :wink:


----------



## woodbloke (12 Dec 2007)

I think that you can also still get spares for these vices if anything's broke, not sure where tho' - Rob


----------



## paulm (12 Dec 2007)

WiZeR":3jpzh64z said:


> Thanks very much and I promise to use the search button next time! :roll: :wink:



Wouldn't worry, I *knew* it was there and it still took me three attempts to find it !!! :lol: 

Cheers, Paul.


----------



## tnimble (12 Dec 2007)

WiZeR":2da1zvke said:


> Hi Guys
> PS Is it Vise or Vice? I have seen references to both?



Both words exists, and as far as I know are incorretly used often.

Vice is a 12th century word and comes from the through the frence word vice from laten vitium which means a (moral) fault.

Vise is a 13th century word which comes from the french word viz (screw) from the latin word vitis which is derived from the latin word viere whch means to plait.

A Vise as a tool with jaws moved togehter or apart with a screw is from the 15th century. Before that it was only a screw. In the Netherlands we use the word schroef (related to screw) in Belgum and in old Dutch it is called a vijs (related to vise).

The vise as this record is called a bankschroef in Dutch which literally means bench screw which makes a lot a sence.


So currently you have a vice vise that needs restoration.


----------



## wizer (12 Dec 2007)

interesting, thanks


----------



## Tom K (13 Dec 2007)

Tnimble a worthy explanation but it doesn't make sense in "English English" it will always be Vice because Vise looks grammatically incorrect.
Although both spellings could be used (and are in the U.S) we only use the form Vice to me Vise would seem like Olde English and because of the way English develops an analogy to explain would be: Vice is a sin that grips the soul and a Vice is a tool that grips wood :lol: 

Regards Tom


----------



## tnimble (13 Dec 2007)

Tommo the sawdust maker":2g5iy8pv said:


> Tnimble a worthy explanation but it doesn't make sense in "English English" it will always be Vice because Vise looks grammatically incorrect.
> Although both spellings could be used (and are in the U.S) we only use the form Vice to me Vise would seem like Olde English and because of the way English develops an analogy to explain would be: Vice is a sin that grips the soul and a Vice is a tool that grips wood :lol:
> 
> Regards Tom



In a sense you're actually saying that modern British English is accepted ignorance and misspelling, Americans are less ignorant and better at spelling. :?: :shock: :wink: 

By the way the various British dictionaries like the Oxford, Cambridge, Peoples Dictionary etc. do not even agree with each other if it's Vice or still Vise in modern british.


----------



## bugbear (13 Dec 2007)

tnimble":347kka2s said:


> By the way the various British dictionaries like the Oxford, Cambridge, Peoples Dictionary etc. do not even agree with each other if it's Vice or still Vise in modern british.



Dictionaries don't (or shouldn't) dictate language use; they merely record it.

That's why they need updating every so often.

BugBear


----------



## Tom K (13 Dec 2007)

Tnimble said



> In a sense you're actually saying that modern British English is accepted ignorance and misspelling, Americans are less ignorant and better at spelling.



No I'm saying it's our language in the first place(English English) and we have developed it constantly . 150 yrs ago and more there were all sorts of unusual spellings now we have more or less standardised the way we form spellings.  
Educated in a British school I just look at that spelling "Vise" and it doesn't
feel right. The explanation that it should be spelt that way is wholly correct
Old Dutch and Olde (sic) English are languages of the same family and the root of Vijs and Vise are the same obviously. :wink: but archaic and if you look at the spelling in the other "English English" speaking posts wrong.


----------



## tnimble (13 Dec 2007)

Tommo the sawdust maker":2za43vkf said:


> No I'm saying its our language in the first place and we develop it constantly 150 yrs ago and more there were all sorts of unusual spellings now we have more or less standardised the way we form spellings.


Those spelling where certainly not unusual their only different. The current spelling and grammar is equally unusual / different when one would be able to look forward in present time.



> Educated in a British school I just look at that spelling "Vise" and it doesn't
> feel right.


It only feels not right because you're use to writing it differently, not because vice is the right spelling. If you would have been in a school that wrote thee and ov whilst all other school wrote the and or. Then every where you look it would feel wrong and would contradict all rules of spelling and grammar.



> The explanation that it should be spelt that way is wholly correct


That was my point and my whole point only.


> Old Dutch and *Olde(sic) English* are languages of the same family and the root of Vijs and Vise are the same obviously. :wink:


Sorrie you feel so strongly  Vijs is not strongly considered old Dutch, it depends on class and region if its considered: normal, polite or old fasioned.

There is however a group that stands very aggressively towards this polite or older language who themselves are mostly only capable of foul language and can't write descent dutch at all. They also tend to be completely word and terminology ignorant. Don't try to correct them, or use the correct words and terminology in a sentience yourself at the risk your lights gets punched out :shock:


----------



## andrewm (13 Dec 2007)

tnimble":3h774ih0 said:


> In a sense you're actually saying that modern British English is accepted ignorance and misspelling, Americans are less ignorant and better at spelling. :?: :shock: :wink:



I don't know specifically about vice but a lot of the differences between English English and American English spellings stem from a certain 'Frenchification' of the language at some point (I think around the middle of the eighteenth century but am not certain.) Hence the early emigrants took words ending in -er with them to the colonies and after that the English adopted the French -re spelling.

Andrew


----------



## tnimble (13 Dec 2007)

andrewm":39yiddyv said:


> tnimble":39yiddyv said:
> 
> 
> > In a sense you're actually saying that modern British English is accepted ignorance and misspelling, Americans are less ignorant and better at spelling. :?: :shock: :wink:
> ...


Most words in English (UK and US) are derived from latin, greek and atrabic words (little to none of the words in English, Dutch and German are derived from Germanic and Celtic words, that these langauges are seen as beining ino european Germanic and Celtic languages refers only to grammer not words)

The differences between our or, re er, ize ise etc are mostly 19th century changes introduces after the norman invasion by scholars to differentiate words from their latin or greek root. The Americans (mainly mister webster) did obviously not do this. Most changes between 16, 17 english an todat American is only simplified spelling. But the amrican is more fair to correct latin and greek spelling.


----------



## Tom K (13 Dec 2007)

Tnimble said



> A Vise as a tool with jaws moved togehter or apart with a screw is from the 15th century. Before that it was only a screw. In the Netherlands we use the word schroef (related to screw) in Belgum and in old Dutch it is called a vijs (related to vise).



And then Tnimble said



> Sorrie you feel so strongly Vijs is not strongly considered old Dutch, it depends on class and region if its considered: normal, polite or old fasioned.



So which is it?  




> Those spelling where certainly not unusual their only different. The current spelling and grammar is equally unusual / different when one would be able to look forward in present time.



Perhaps my choice of words is not clear enough to a non native English speaker! By different and unusual I mean sometimes archaic sometimes phonetic sometimes using more dialect based forms, unfortunately despite what you may have been told it is almost impossible for anybody who doesn't have English as their first language to ever fully understand it and all its nuances.

That said I don't speak any Dutch it's all Greek to me my old China :twisted:


----------



## tnimble (13 Dec 2007)

Tommo the sawdust maker":2j6n7g3i said:


> Tnimble said
> 
> 
> > Sorrie you feel so strongly Vijs is *not strongly* considered old Dutch, it depends on class and region if its considered: normal, polite or old fasioned.





> Perhaps my choice of words is not clear enough to a non native English speaker! By different and unusual I mean sometimes archaic sometimes phonetic sometimes using more dialect based forms, unfortunately despite what you may have been told it is almost impossible for anybody who doesn't have English as their first language to ever fully understand it and all its nuances.



I do believe I understand what you mean.



> That said I don't speak any Dutch it's all Greek to me my old China :twisted:


  

My English is about better than my Dutch (no joke). I do not hate but dislike American especially some dialects and I prefer Queen's English but have much trouble with good pronunciation especially when having to switch back and forth between languages.


----------



## Tom K (13 Dec 2007)

But do you know anything about this Record bankschroef that WiZer has bought? :lol:

Regards Tom


----------



## tnimble (14 Dec 2007)

Tommo the sawdust maker":1tkmdj1y said:


> But do you know anything about this Record bankschroef that WiZer has bought? :lol:
> 
> Regards Tom



That by reading this WiZer should have all if not more information he even needs for his Record bench screw. :lol:


----------



## kufermeister (4 Mar 2014)

found this interesting article on Record Paint:
PAINT COLOUR
The planes with a painted finish were advertised in catalogues as Record Blue but the shade did vary over the years. The spokeshaves which had their numbers prefixed by 'A' were made of malleable iron and painted red. Cellulose paint was used pre WW2 and subsequently stove enamel. The name Record on bench plane lever caps was highlighted in orange throughout most of the production years but was omitted from the early 1990's. Early block planes prior to WW2 also had Record highlighted in orange on the lever caps. It is said that the choice of the original blue came from the outer ring of The Royal Air Force roundel, such as in an archery target.
The supplier and manufacturer of the paint to C & J Hampton was R. J. Stokes & Co. Ltd, Sheffield. The original paint colour was known as Roundel Blue, then Hamptons Blue and later as Record Blue. The reference number for this paint is "BS 110 Roundel Blue". The BS refers to British Standard and is one of the colours from the very old BS381C range. Originally the paint was a traditional solvent bourne stoving enamel. Over the years the paint was re-formulated several times to reduce the solvent content and work at lower oven temperatures. For the last number of years there were two separate paint lines. One was an Epoxy Polyester power coating and the other a Waterbound dip coating, both of which were still stoved. This virtually eliminated the solvents in the paint. R. J. Stokes and Co. Ltd also supplied the orange paint for the highlighting of Record on the lever caps of the hand planes and block planes. The red paint on the spoke-shaves and the green paint for the Calvert Stevens Plane No. CS 88. Needless to say all this paint was developed and produced in Sheffield by
R. J. Stokes & Co. Ltd.
I would like to thank Mr James Stokes for all his help and time in getting this information for me.
The R. J. Stokes & Co Ltd
In the United States the federal spec number for Record Blue is FS 595 15056. This number is a part number for Irwin Tools (US) Not sure if this is the later lighter blue colour that was used by Record/Irwin Tools.
I would like to Thank Mr Paul Hook, Virginia USA for this information.


----------



## AndyT (4 Mar 2014)

Hi kufermeister. 

On this site, the normal etiquette would be to say that the website at http://www.recordhandplanes.com/dating.html has a useful article about the paint colours used by Record and their current equivalents. 

Not just copy and paste it without giving any credit to the originator. 

Also, it's a bit odd to come in on a posting from over seven years ago. Are you a real person?


----------



## mind_the_goat (4 Mar 2014)

AndyT":1tmmvlq2 said:


> Also, it's a bit odd to come in on a posting from over seven years ago. Are you a real person?



Seems a bit odd to me to to attack someone quite so harshly for answering a post with useful and interesting information. 
The post was probably returned near the top of the list from the search function, I've fallen for that myself. 
The post did include a reference to the original source of the information so this is a very minor offence, worth mentioning perhaps but don't shoot him down for it.


----------



## AndyT (4 Mar 2014)

His post did not include any reference to the site that he copied the information from, ie recordhandplanes.com. 
The author of that site DID credit his sources. 

People who make the effort to publish useful information deserve acknowledgement.


----------



## John15 (4 Mar 2014)

Very interesting Tnimble, thanks very much for the clarification. I don't suppose you know the origin of 'clamps' and 'cramps' with reference to holding things tightly together. I always say 'clamps' but 'cramps' is also used which I think is wrong.

John


----------



## mind_the_goat (4 Mar 2014)

AndyT":1hvy62dr said:


> People who make the effort to publish useful information deserve acknowledgement.



I do agree with you, I just read your comments as being overly harsh. probably your last sentence that did it. Didn't look like he was trying to claim the text as his own, just neglected to credit it properly.


----------



## AndyT (4 Mar 2014)

I had no intention of being harsh and don't think I was shooting anyone down but tone of voice is so hard to convey online. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.

The forum does get a fair number of automated posts by software bots and as this one 

a) took material from elsewhere which might have been automatically matched
b) was a first post but said nothing to introduce the poster
c) was in reply to a really old thread

it seemed a fair question to ask. So, kufermeister, tell us a bit more about yourself and your interest in old tools.


----------



## kufermeister (4 Feb 2015)

could not copy & paste the author, but still just wanted to share some useful information.....
you need to get a life!!! (hammer) .


----------



## kufermeister (4 Feb 2015)

I restore vintage tools to perfection.....


----------



## kufermeister (4 Feb 2015)

didn't realize this was such a 'proper english' forum.
copy & paste from free web works for me.....
besides,
within the article, the work is referenced, enough for the casual reader to understand where I found it....
really!!!


----------



## devonwoody (4 Feb 2015)

new members cannot post or paste until a certain numbers of posts have been made.

Also you have responded to a thread posted in 2007.

Mr. Wizer was a blast from the past.


----------



## Doug B (4 Feb 2015)

Perhaps the whole thread is in a time warp DW, it took Kufermeister 11months to reply after his original post :shock:


----------

