# record model T5



## mel (31 Oct 2006)

picked this plane up today for a song 
would anybody like to guess how much ???


----------



## ike (31 Oct 2006)

£3.75


----------



## Alf (31 Oct 2006)

For a song, eh? Pennies from heaven, I presume? :lol: Sheesh, it's got the side knob - I fear major suckage this way comes...

Cheers, Alf

Edited to add: Stay Set lever cap?! Has it got the Stay Set cap iron present and correct too then? You'll be saying it's got the tamperproof adjuster _and_ key next...


----------



## mel (31 Oct 2006)

alf 
your talking above my head here  
ill have to have a closer look and let you know 
the bloke i got it from bought it from a school auction 
it doesnt look that old actually , or has seen little use 
he also had another 3 no5 planes but not with the "bedrock lookalike" body 
this was the only one with a handle to the side 
i thought that the SS on the cap iron meant stainless steel #-o 

so come on how much did i gve for it ????


----------



## Paul Chapman (31 Oct 2006)

No idea, but if you want to sell it I'll have it - been looking for one of those for years :wink: 

Cheers

Paul


----------



## DaveL (31 Oct 2006)

Paul Chapman":25is97vq said:


> No idea, but if you want to sell it I'll have it


 
Bum, I am second in line again. :x 

As Alf says, you suck :twisted: well that is unless you paid a ridiculously high price for it and the drift I am get is that not the case. [-(


----------



## Anonymous (31 Oct 2006)

50p


----------



## mel (31 Oct 2006)

ill put you out of your misery 
its a little higher than ikes guess at £10 

so whats it worth , is my next question ???? 
untouched in, as original condition , but no box 
so let the unofficial auction commence :lol: 
or will i get banned  
private mail bids only please in pounds sterling


----------



## mel (31 Oct 2006)

50p senior , shame on you 
would anyone like more photos ???


----------



## Anonymous (31 Oct 2006)

Its a guess what you paid for it, not what its worth


----------



## ByronBlack (31 Oct 2006)

a T5 with a handle is worth a fair bit. I used one at my course last year, and took me a while to find a good one on ebay. I would guess you could get around £50 to £60 with the handle - nice find, and a lovely plane, I wish I still had mine


----------



## mel (31 Oct 2006)

from a site linked by alf as part of her blog , i came across this 

http://www.oldtools.co.uk/tools/record/record.php

scroll down a bit to see two examples 

its not for sale really 
ill save it for part of my retirement package


----------



## JesseM (1 Nov 2006)

I know this should be obvious but what is the side handle for? For pulling?


----------



## bugbear (1 Nov 2006)

mel and john":3t8omhnc said:


> picked this plane up today for a song
> would anybody like to guess how much ???
> 
> http://www.imagestation.com/8334195/3963797065



Anything under 20 quid is good going at car boot prices.

I'd recommend a replacement blade; whilst the earlier square cornered Record blades are good, the later ones (identified by rounded upper corners) are a good deal softer.

SS T5 are quite rare, although it's rather easy for an unscrupulous dealer to take a fairly common SS #04 and a found sometimes #T5 and "breed" them.

I did see a SS #T5 WITH (matching) BOX on eBay though 

BugBear


----------



## Alf (1 Nov 2006)

Sheesh, luck o' the devil...

"Planecraft" has a whole chapter devoted to the T5 extolling it's virtues in a school enviroment, so forgive me if I don't quote it all...

Side handle - along with the shape of the sides, there to making use in a shooting board easier. Detachable and can be screwed to either side (or, more often, lost altogther) Record shows the web of the hand between thumb and forefinger pushing against it.

Stay Set - that was Record's name for the two-part cap iron now made by Clifton. Planes fitted with it originally have an additional "SS" on the lever cap (may be exceptions depending on dates and stuff - haven't checked, sorry) One of the few plane patents filed by C & J Hampton - #362743, granted on 10th December 1931

Locking nut on the adjuster - in school workshops the idea was you mightn't always want the little blighters fiddling with the depth adjustment, so Record made a locking nut with four holes in it that would fit behind the usual adjuster and is only moveable with a special key.

Anyway, that gave all these permutations of the T5 to choose from:
T5 - ordinary model
T5 S.S. - with Stay Set
T5K - ordinary model with locking nut and key
T5K - SS. - Stay Set with locking nut and key

A few dates applicable to a T5 S.S. are:

March 1939 - introduced with a 2 1/4" cutting iron.
Patent date on Stay Set cap iron until 1947
Production suspended during WW2
Reintroduced in _at least_ 1952 with 2" iron (may have been available earlier but not shown in catalogues)
Iron changed to curved top instead of straight in mid- to late-1950s (may not be original iron of course)
Stay Set discontinued between 1963-65
Discontinued in the 1970s

The price list provided with the Harrison Record catalogue reprint (March 2003) suggests a value around £50-130 depending on condition, fwiw.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Nov 2006)

In my experience the Stay-set models have a better machined frog. Look at the examples of the T5 in the link provided by Mel above. Certainly in the Record #05 SS I have (ex-school, bought for £20 in a second-hand tool shop earlier this year) the frog is far better than in equivalent non-SS models :wink: 

Cheers

Paul


----------



## Alf (1 Nov 2006)

(sound of office door banging as Alf hightails it out to the workshop to compare frogs on her only Record planes - luckily one a SS and one not. See? There's always a good reason for having a wide range of planes from which to choose... :wink

*Edit*
(bang as door closes again, sound of busy work with pics etc Turns out I have three Records - forgot about one  )

Okay, are we sure that's not an age issue rather than a Stay Set issue? These three are all much of a muchness in age and quality I reckon - one has an iron stamped 1947 fwiw. Pick out the SS one:













And yes, I need to do a little cleaning - that's the down side of a wide range of planes from which to choose 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Nov 2006)

Blimey Alf, I didn't mean to put you to all that trouble   :lol: 

I think maybe you are right and that it is an age issue - however, in my defence I've only ever seen those nicely machined frogs on the Stay-set models. I obviously need to visit more second-hand tool shops - as if I needed an excuse :wink: 

Cheers

Paul

Edit: the Stay-set one is probably the one on the left because you were selling a #5.5 SS earlier in the year if I remember correctly


----------



## Alf (1 Nov 2006)

Paul Chapman":3e4n1dnr said:


> Edit: the Stay-set one is probably the one on the left because you were selling a #5.5 SS earlier in the year if I remember correctly


Ooo, cheating! :lol: 





And t'was no toruble - any excuse. :wink: As it happens I've not had all three out at once before, so I was surprised how well I'd inadvertently gone for ones so similar. Noticeable that Record's blue finish doesn't last nearly as well as Stanley's japanning too 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Nov 2006)

Alf,

As I was sawing up logs for the fire this afternoon, I was thinking a bit more about Record frogs and Stay-set cap irons (well, what else is there to think about when sawing logs :roll: ). My #05 Stay-set has the same sort of frog as your three Records, with a nice, large, flat surface for the blade to bed against. Similar to the T5 Stay-set in the link Mel posted. Later Records, and the non-Stay-set T5 pictured in Mel's link, have a more skeletal frog with a lesser surface area - similar to the Records I bought new in the 1970s. I find that my Stay-set does in fact give a far better seating for the blade than the skeletal pattern (although I suppose one could argue that if they were all machined equally well there wouldn't be much difference). I wonder, therefore, whether when Record stopped making the Stay-set cap iron (presumably as a cost cutting measure) they also altered the frog pattern - the smaller surface area and skeletal pattern would presumably use less metal and therefore also save a few bob? One of the arguments Record made for the Stay-set cap iron was that it eliminated chatter, but that would only be true if the blade seating against the frog was good - which is another reason to make better frogs all the while the Stay-set was in production.

Funny what one thinks about when sawing logs, init :lol: :lol: 

Cheers

Paul


----------



## Alf (1 Nov 2006)

Paul, I'm torn between thinking "you poor devil" and "thank goodness someone else spends time thinking about plane frogs like that" :lol: 

fwiw, Leslie Harrison (and he's in no way guaranteed to be correct, unfortunately) gives the date of the frog change as 1957, so you could presumably still get a Stay Set with the recessed frog for a few years at least. Assuming the dates are right... :?

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Nov 2006)

Alf":1jcyzde8 said:


> Paul, I'm torn between thinking "you poor devil" and "thank goodness someone else spends time thinking about plane frogs like that" :lol:



Yes, bit sad but keeps me out of mischief :lol: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## David C (1 Nov 2006)

Paul,

I think the 'skeletal' frog was more about ease of machining than metal saving. Could be wrong of course. A perversion also perpetrated by Stanley.

In planes with conventional chipbreaker/cap iron, this part bends the thin blades, and I doubt that the blade contacts the frog surface anywhere except at the heel of the bevel and top of frog. You can usually deduce this from polished areas on the surface of blade which sits on the frog.

Stay set cap irons have less bending effect on the blade. One of their only desireable features except for the thicker metal which is definitely good. L-N improved chipbreakers also have these desireable features.

I find the side handle position extremely unhelpful when shooting, much prefer Hot Dog, a seen on Stan no 9. Too far forward in my opinion. Wonder what other users think? No 9 also seems to have side handle too far forward.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## Paul Chapman (1 Nov 2006)

David C":2wizd1ld said:


> In planes with conventional chipbreaker/cap iron, this part bends the thin blades, and I doubt that the blade contacts the frog surface anywhere except at the heel of the bevel and top of frog. You can usually deduce this from polished areas on the surface of blade which sits on the frog.



David,

I'm sure you are right - the conventional cap iron is a very crude affair and a bit of a disaster when combined with a thin blade. Thick blades, well-designed cap irons, well machined frogs and a flat sole - magic  

Cheers

Paul


----------



## bugbear (2 Nov 2006)

David C":12cjougr said:


> ...and I doubt that the blade contacts the frog surface anywhere except at the heel of the bevel and top of frog. You can usually deduce this from polished areas on the surface of blade which sits on the frog.



Yes - I use to carefully flatten frog surfaces until I realised this...

In "the old days" wooden planes (esp smoothers) were delievered with super tight mouths. Less than zero in some cases.

An accepted (i.e. published by C. Hayward) fix was to put leather or veneer at the TOP of the bed, tipping the blade slightly forward, to open the mouth.

This also (of course) removed the entire blade from the bed except at the arris of the bevel and the top which touched the leather.

BugBear


----------



## mahking51 (2 Nov 2006)

Hi All,
Slightly OT but does anyone know if LN do replacement iron/chipbreakers that will fit my T5's?
Regards
Martin


----------



## Ian Dalziel (2 Nov 2006)

> This also (of course) removed the entire blade from the bed except at the arris of the bevel and the top which touched the leather.



some planemakers use the 3 point contact....because of this.

getting the blade clamped securely and evenly across the width of the bed/frog is very very difficult (azimouth) the tripod method makes it that little bit more positive, but more relevant on infills or fixed frog planes
with adjustable frogs getting a perfectly set width is quite difficult but not impossible....thats how someone like DC can tune a plane....he has taught himself the planes weaknesses then improves them with excellant results.

Like bugbears comment on screw heads being aligned....a nice to see but this takes away even torque across screw heads and can also result in slight differences across the width. anytime i have ever seen it done one or more screws has to be either backed off or tightened more.

Just wondering if anyone here has actutually run a fixed head dti across the inside of their frog plate at the mouth to see if its off and by how much.

one of the reasons infills and woodies were made with fixed beds and frog plates....the associated problems were engineered out.

This is also a question i asked Karl with the design of the 98...i asked why he doesnt have an adjustable frog or adjustable mouth.....he simply said why introduce a possible flaw...the plane is a smoother set the mouth to suit a smoother and use it as such.



I


----------



## woodbloke (2 Nov 2006)

mahking51 wrote:


> Slightly OT but does anyone know if LN do replacement iron/chipbreakers that will fit my T5's?



I wouldn't mind having another go at fitting a LN blade to my old T5 if I could find the _correct_ LN blade/chipbreaker. Any where can they be obtained please? - Rob


----------



## bugbear (2 Nov 2006)

Ian Dalziel":3ewqqlrt said:


> Like bugbears comment on screw heads being aligned....a nice to see but this takes away even torque across screw heads and can also result in slight differences across the width. anytime i have ever seen it done one or more screws has to be either backed off or tightened more.



The most amazingly ridiculous thing I've heard achieves perfect torque with aligned screw heads.

Get ready.

You manufacture screws with double depth heads.

You tighten them to correct torque, mark the angle, and remove.

You machine way the first thickness, and cut a new slot at the right angle.

Re-insert, re-torque, and you have aligned slots!

BugBear (who thinks that is CRAZY!)


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Nov 2006)

woodbloke":2s5ej9q9 said:


> I wouldn't mind having another go at fitting a LN blade to my old T5 if I could find the _correct_ LN blade/chipbreaker. Any where can they be obtained please?



What was the problem when you tried before, Rob? Was the position of the slot for the "Y" lever in the cap iron different from the position of the slot in a normal cap iron for a 2" blade? Or was it that the "Y" lever wasn't long enough when you fitted a thicker blade? Or something else perhaps :? 

Cheers

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (2 Nov 2006)

Paul - yes, that's about it. In the LN blade (not the cap iron) the rectangular slot was too far back (away from the cutting edge) as I recall so that the 'Y' lever didn't engage into the slot - it just wasn't going to ever fit - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Nov 2006)

Hi Rob,

If I understand you correctly, it sounds as if the "Y" lever isn't long enough to engage in the thicker blade/cap iron combination you wish to fit. If that's the case, you can get longer "Y" levers and longer screws to join the blade to the cap iron. I had this problem when I fitted Clifton blades and cap irons to my Records. I spoke to Mike Hudson Tel: 07860 535262 (always very helpful) at Clico (who make Clifton) and he sent me some longer "Y" levers and screws (better not tell him you want to fit LN  ). You can easily get the old "Y" lever out by punching out the pin - probably have to punch it the correct side and I can't remember whether it was left or right :? 

Alternatively, I remember that Jarviser who posts on here lengthened the "Y" lever on a plane he restored - do a search for his name on the membership list and he has a website where he explains it all. Whether it's possible to modify your existing "Y" lever might depend on whether it's an old one made in one piece or the more recent type which is in two pieces. As yours is an old T5 I imagine it's a one piece which would be OK to modify.

If I've not understood you correctly, ignore the above and let me know :wink: 

Cheers

Paul


----------



## David C (2 Nov 2006)

Martin,

I answered same question in another thread.

You need 95 thou" replacement blade from L-N site. These are 2.4 mm thick, you might get one from Mike Hancock at classic hand tools but he may have to order. Hock A2 is virtually the same.

With improved chipbreaker there may be an issue with the 2" size.

Measure front edge to first edge of slot on your existing C/B.

Then phone or e mail L-N with this info. for suitable C/B.

Air mail post comes in 6 days or less!

David Charlesworth


----------



## woodbloke (3 Nov 2006)

Paul - I think that what I will do is to take my T5 and blade along to the next show or shop I go to where LN is exhibiting or being sold and ask them to supply a blade/chipbeaker combo to fit it. Having made one slight goof with this plane I'm a bit reluctant to splash out another wedge of dosh without being absolutely cast iron certain that the thing is going to fit. If I did start to mess about with it and the whole thing went TU I'd get a bit irate with it I think. Its only used on the shooting boards so I can afford to bide my time a little till the next occasion I'm allowed to go to a show :roll: :roll:  - Rob


----------



## Jarviser (5 Nov 2006)

Paul Chapman":f1uy581v said:


> Hi Rob,....
> Alternatively, I remember that Jarviser who posts on here lengthened the "Y" lever on a plane he restored - do a search for his name on the membership list and he has a website where he explains it all. Whether it's possible to modify your existing "Y" lever might depend on whether it's an old one made in one piece or the more recent type which is in two pieces. As yours is an old T5 I imagine it's a one piece which would be OK to modify.
> Cheers
> Paul



I tried the "Dentistry" technique on an older forged Y lever and it would not solder, thus I only suggest it for the newer steel 2-part levers. Solder is funny stuff and does not always "run" onto some steels. 
There was an excellent article by Jeff Gorman in "Good Wood" recently on soldering tabs onto the rear of the cap iron instead. That needs a bit more metalworking skill. Of course if the LN blade is for a LN plane and not the "Stanley Replacement" type the slot may be in the wrong place anyway.


----------



## ivan (12 Nov 2006)

Lengthening the tail of the Y lever reduce adjustment sensitivity. I have had good results more simply bonding 3mm steel slips to the back of cap irons with industrial superglue (Locktite from the local industrial estate). The slips fit either side of the adjuster hole and lie inside the long slot of the iron itelf. Now with a bit of filing of the mouth, you can fit the iron from a LN No.9    

I considered soldering/brazing but this can distort the cap iron, and it's better if this (Clifton 2 piece) is as flat as possible. Only rarely is any rebonding necessary. When I've got time I promise myself to drill and tap for a permanent solution.

LN 'chipbreakers' whilst much heavier and better made than the standard item, are still technically similar (ie to the 'bent design') Tightening the screw that holds chipbreaker to blade _still bends the blade_.....The 2 piece design is in 2 pieces specifically to prevent any distortion of the blade itself and to keep it clamped flat on the frog.


----------



## Jarviser (12 Nov 2006)

ivan":3p3exhdj said:


> Lengthening the tail of the Y lever reduce adjustment sensitivity. I have had good results more simply bonding 3mm steel slips to the back of cap irons with industrial superglue (Locktite from the local industrial estate). ....
> I considered soldering/brazing but this can distort the cap iron, and it's better if this (Clifton 2 piece) is as flat as possible. ......



Hi Ivan. My Y lever mod is more for reducing backlash than for overcoming the problem due to thicker blades, though one is worsened by the other. I did it because I didn't fancy fiddling around with my nice new Hock cap iron which was probably worth more than the plane. 
Jeff Gorman's technique (Good Wood GW180) for using thicker blades is like yours, except that he uses two standard cap irons - one in the plane and one to cut up for the slips! Using similar mild steels you should be able to use soft solder which only requires warming up the steel with a blowlamp until the solder and electricians flux melt which will not distort like brazing would. With a Clifton I think you had the right approach.
Jeff recommends making a new hole in a one-piece slip 11mm wide rather than trying to solder two fiddly bits on, 
I'm going to try it on my old Stanley #5 which has a japanese iron of standard thickness but still has about 2 turns backlash.


----------



## Alf (12 Nov 2006)

ivan":3fd9y6jq said:


> Tightening the screw that holds chipbreaker to blade _still bends the blade_....


Now I'm not so sure that isn't exactly what's required - making the blade contact at two points, rather than having to try and get it bedded perfectly across the whole surface of the frog. Of course if it is bedded perfectly across the whole face of the frog I assume that's better (?), but in this imperfect world? I dunno - I can't quote scientific studies or show definitive stats but it's just the impression I've had for some time now. I must admit I hadn't given any thought at all to a two piece cap iron being somehow flatter (lazy term, but you know what I mean). With the action of the lever cap on it, doesn't it also bend the iron?

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 Nov 2006)

Alf":3p32d6er said:


> I must admit I hadn't given any thought at all to a two piece cap iron being somehow flatter (lazy term, but you know what I mean). With the action of the lever cap on it, doesn't it also bend the iron?



I have the Stay-set two-piece cap irons fitted to all my bench planes. The reason I went for them is that I believe it is the best designed cap iron for preventing the blade from bending. It's also one of the reasons I went for Clifton planes when upgrading from my Records. I reckon that the combination of a well-machined bedrock style frog, a thick blade and a Stay-set cap iron is probably the best overall design currently available. And it's so easy to adjust the mouth :wink: 

Cheers

Paul


----------



## Jarviser (15 Nov 2006)

I had a go at the Jeff Gorman method. It's photographedhere if anyone is interested.


----------



## David C (17 Nov 2006)

The new improved L-N cap iron / chipbreaker has similar properties to the Clifton two piece, ie bends blade hardly at all.

Lever caps push them flatter again, depending on tension set.

Bailey frogs are often appalingly badly machined, the worst fault being a hollow of width at the toe of the blade support surface. It is well worth checking and flattening the width here or the center of the blade will be liable to chatter.

It is essential that the heel of the blade bevel is well supported, and may not matter at all if the rest is. Holtey has gone for heel of bevel and a single central point support at the adjuster boss. Thick blades of course.

Another possibility for fitting extra thick blades is to replace the Y lever with a new one from L-N or Clifton.

David Charlesworth


----------



## bugbear (17 Nov 2006)

David C":159i4kol said:


> Another possibility for fitting extra thick blades is to replace the Y lever with a new one from L-N or Clifton.



Hmm. Possible, but famously difficult. This involves driving out the pivot pin on which the 'Y' moves. This pin is put through the 2 (rather narrow) cast iron cheeks in the frog.

Both the removing and replacement of this pin involves the risk of breaking those cheeks.

BugBear


----------



## Paul Chapman (17 Nov 2006)

bugbear":3bq6hr52 said:


> David C":3bq6hr52 said:
> 
> 
> > Another possibility for fitting extra thick blades is to replace the Y lever with a new one from L-N or Clifton.
> ...



The pin came out very easily with just a light tap on all my Record planes (which were bought in the 1970s), but I agree if you had to use a lot of force it could possibly do some damage.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jarviser (17 Nov 2006)

One of the modern innovations generally thought of as "cheap & nasty", like two part Y-levers and one piece bent lateral levers, was the roll-pin, which I think is an improvement on the solid pin. It never seems to stick and usually goes in nicely into old planes too if you can get spares. You just need to slightly countersink the entry hole, rather than chamfer the solid pin. 
They use them on Webley air pistols now too. It's because you don't need to ream the holes in production, just a drill operation.
You do need a good drift to get them out. I use a jewellers screwdriver with the swivel and the point cut off.


----------



## Paul Chapman (17 Nov 2006)

Jarviser":10xb4gnq said:


> the roll-pin, which I think is an improvement on the solid pin.



What's the difference between the two, Peter?

Paul


----------



## Jarviser (17 Nov 2006)

Roll-pin looks like a swiss roll, i.e. a piece of rolled-up sheet steel. instead of a solid rod. Fitted on recent planes, prob last 20 years. Maybe limited to "Handyman" or "SP4" quality planes?


----------



## Paul Chapman (17 Nov 2006)

Thanks, Peter. Don't think I've seen them before.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## David C (18 Nov 2006)

I have removed many Y lever pins and one needs to be careful as Bugbear says.

1/16" punches are easy to buy, and I tap with a pin hammer, ie very light hammer.

If not moving, do not resort to Bigger hammer as this might indeed crack the casting.

David C


----------



## Jarviser (18 Nov 2006)

So really, the sensible thing is to try the pin to see if it moves before investing in a new Y-lever. 
Anyone know how much money we are talking about for a Clifton Y-lever? 
Does a Clifton #5 lever fit a Stanley/Record #5?


----------



## Paul Chapman (18 Nov 2006)

Jarviser":c5n0ytsx said:


> Anyone know how much money we are talking about for a Clifton Y-lever?
> Does a Clifton #5 lever fit a Stanley/Record #5?



I've always found Clico (who make Clifton) very helpful if you phone them. They could probably tell you if it is likely to fit.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## bugbear (20 Nov 2006)

Paul Chapman":3b350esm said:


> I've always found Clico (who make Clifton) very helpful if you phone them. They could probably tell you if it is likely to fit.



And before anybody asks, Clifton don't have a website, and they don't "do" email.

I asked why at a trade show (ATPC) and got the impression that Clifton's boss doesn't think much of obsessive lunatics who have nothing better to do than discuss tools over the internet 

He described (as an example) the horror of getting an email from someone asking why they used a particular wood for a tote.

Oddly, I get the impression that Rob Lee actually enjoy getting (and answering) those kind of emails 

BugBear


----------



## David C (21 Nov 2006)

Mick Hudson, their production manager, the one you see at shows, is very helpful, and extremely nice.

Phone him.

David C


----------



## Paul Chapman (21 Nov 2006)

David C":2iuz0z84 said:


> Mick Hudson, their production manager, the one you see at shows, is very helpful, and extremely nice.



I'll second that. Top bloke 8) :wink: 

Cheers,

Paul


----------

