Cheap brand plane experiences

[Cheshirechappie]

I don't know much about steel.

That, Jacob, is blindingly obvious!

If your assertion that older plane soles are harder is true, all you have to do with your Clifton is use it for twenty years or whatever, and it will be just as hard as your old Record.

From experience elsewhere with older cast iron, I'm a tad sceptical about this claim. I think older plane soles may be more polished with use, but I rather doubt that hardness changes significantly with either time or use. Without undertaking some metallurgical and mechanical tests of comparative hardness, chemical analysis and metallurgical structure, I doubt we'd settle the matter, so if you want to believe that your old planes are as hard as nails, you carry on. As far as I'm concerned, as long as a cast iron plane sole casting is flat enough to do what's expected of it (and stays flat enough!), it's good enough, be it old or new.

 

[Jacob]

You can be as sceptical as you like but I'm telling you of what I have experienced. Records and Stanleys bought by me new in the 80s, and various ditto 2nd hand, have conspicuously harder iron than the newer ones I noted above, and were harder from new. They still show the original machine marks in spite of 30+ years of misuse and are much more scratch resistant (and harder to flatten if needed). The also seem to have less friction but this is bit subjective - I wouldn't swear to it.
No need to settle the matter- it's settled - the new ones (ductile?) of which I've had hands-on experience of are all relatively soft and pick up scratches more easily. I noticed it immediately the first time with a LV la smoother - it lost it's perfect finish in no time!
I also have a new SW Stanley which looks relatively unscathed but I haven't used it a lot so the verdict is pending on that one.
NB I work in a scratchy environment - there's been a lot of building work going on, otherwise the difference might not have shown itself - and I really don't need to know anything about iron or steel to see the evidence.

 

[Graham Orm]

That's a beauty DM

Well my #7 arrived and it's on it's way back, the sole was bowed by about 1.5mm #-o. Sad really as the knob and tote were much improved over my #4 and it was nicely weighted and finished bearing in mind the price. I think to sum up on faithfulls if you want a roughing jack #5 or the smaller sizes they are just fine. Refining them seems to take all the steps needed when improving a vintage item anyway. Sadly the larger castings seem a bridge too far for them.
I'm going to ebay a few unwanted items and then contact Matthew at WSH and invest in a QS #7. Hope my experiment has been useful to some, or a "I told you so moment for others". Either way I'm happy to of been the Guinea Pig.

Nice one G. Thanks :wink:

 

[Cheshirechappie]

You can be as sceptical as you like but I'm telling you of what I have experienced. Records and Stanleys bought by me new in the 80s, and various ditto 2nd hand, have conspicuously harder iron than the newer ones I noted above, and were harder from new. They still show the original machine marks in spite of 30+ years of misuse and are much more scratch resistant (and harder to flatten if needed).
No need to settle the matter- it's settled - the new ones (ductile?) of which I've had hands-on experience of are all relatively soft and pick up scratches more easily. I noticed it immediately the first time with a LV la smoother - it lost it's perfect finish in no time!
I also have a new SW Stanley which looks relatively unscathed but I haven't used it a lot so the verdict is pending on that one.
NB I work in a scratchy environment - there's been a lot of building work going on, otherwise the difference might not have shown itself.

So all the planes you praise and advocate are amazingly hard, and the ones you constantly decry are soft.

Remarkable....one would almost think there's a hint of wishful thinking going on....or possibly a hint of exaggeration.

On a more sensible note, it is possible to harden some grades of cast iron, by electrical induction hardening. The technique is used in the machine tool industry on slideways and machine beds. As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever done this with woodworking planes, and the technique was not developed during the golden years of Record and Stanley plane manufacture anyway. The only other explanations I can think of is that constant work polishes the surface of well-used planes, or that the grade of cast iron used in the old days differed slightly in chemical composition to modern ones. The difference won't be that great - it's still grey cast iron, as you'll find out if you drop one. A Clifton or LN will survive a bit of a drop (being of ductile iron), the old ones won't.

 

[bugbear]

I wonder if scratches show up more on a nicely surface ground plane than a battered old one with "patina" ? :roll: :roll:

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

.......... or that the grade of cast iron used in the old days differed slightly in chemical composition to modern ones.

Seems so - and it wouldn't be distinguished as "ductile" iron if it was exactly the same as the non ductile stuff.

The difference won't be that great - it's still grey cast iron, as you'll find out if you drop one. A Clifton or LN will survive a bit of a drop (being of ductile iron), the old ones won't.

But it is great. And yes old cast iron ones are more brittle - haven't broken one myself but have seen it done. So the iron is different in that respect - why should it not be different with respect to surface hardness, as I have experienced?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

But it is great. And yes old cast iron ones are more brittle - haven't broken one myself but have seen it done. So the iron is different in that respect - why should it not be different with respect to surface hardness, as I have experienced?

Sorry, Jacob, but the metallurgical nature of cast iron is that it is a soft(ish) metal, whatever it's chemical composition. Some castings have a hard skin (the bane of old-time machinists before the days of carbide tooling), but that's because of flash chilling as the molten metal hit the mould, and that skin would be removed by the machining process of the plane sole. That's why the machine tool boys found it necessary to develop a process to induction harden cast iron - wear on machine tool slideways was fast enough to be a problem, as anybody who has operated old and well-used machine tools will readily attest. That technique has, to my knowledege, never been used on hand plane castings.

I will accept that older planes may have a polished and worn surface, and that there may be minor differences in surface hardness depending on the exact specification of cast iron. I can't accept that they are significantly harder; the metallurgical facts of life just don't support that assertion.

 

[iNewbie]

Ductile Iron PDF

 

[Jacob]

.......I can't accept that they are significantly harder; the metallurgical facts of life just don't support that assertion.

Armchair theorising again! It seems unlikely to me that all cast iron, new or old, ductile or otherwise, has exactly the same surface hardness.

I just did a scratch test. Good job I'm not precious about my tools! Corner of a chisel and a little squiggle shows Clifton soft, Stanley SW (new) slightly harder, old Record 4 much harder. You will have to add that to your collection of metallurgical facts of life.
Better still - get out of the armchair and have scratch on your own!

NB I got rid of my LV la smoother partly because it was so scratchy - it was very noticeable - I thought if I used it for much longer it'd be a bit of a mess

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

It seems the service wear resistance data here

Ductile Iron PDF

Tells us ductile iron is in fact hard.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Hello,

It seems the service wear resistance data here

Ductile Iron PDF

Tells us ductile iron is in fact hard.

Mike.

Service data indicate that the wear resistance of ductile iron is equivalent to some
of the best grades of cast gray iron. Which clearly implies that it is inferior to others. And also that there are grades of hardness.
Should be no surprise - ductile more or less means soft, don't know why I'm having to argue about it.
Anyway - scratch yer tools and see what happens.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Ductile doesn't mean soft at all. And if ductile iron has enough wear resistance to make cylender bore liners, I think a pane body would be well within parameters.

Mike.

 

[Jacob]

Look it up in a dictionary. And I didn't say it was unsuitable I just said it was scratchy.

 

[iNewbie]

Should be no surprise - ductile more or less means soft, don't know why I'm having to argue about it.
Anyway - scratch yer tools and see what happens.

Or does it relate to Ductile meaning: not Brittle - while Cast Iron is brittle.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Ductility is the ability for a material to be put under a deforming stress or strain load, without breaking or losing hardness. Not brittle. Malleable.

I have had LV planes for over 10 years and find them comparable to the vintage Record ones I have had along side. Cannot say I notice much difference if any. Never dropped any of them, so I suppose the ductility is redundant, but one day!! :shock:

Never bought any plane for it's droppable nature, I like LV planes because they are superb and I think value for money, considering how well they perform versus the price. I must repeat as I said before, the best Stanley vintage cost more in relative terms than LV planes do now, and even these are not as well made, though good enough and make good used bargains.

Mike.

 

[G S Haydon]

That's a beauty DM

Well my #7 arrived and it's on it's way back, the sole was bowed by about 1.5mm #-o. Sad really as the knob and tote were much improved over my #4 and it was nicely weighted and finished bearing in mind the price. I think to sum up on faithfulls if you want a roughing jack #5 or the smaller sizes they are just fine. Refining them seems to take all the steps needed when improving a vintage item anyway. Sadly the larger castings seem a bridge too far for them.
I'm going to ebay a few unwanted items and then contact Matthew at WSH and invest in a QS #7. Hope my experiment has been useful to some, or a "I told you so moment for others". Either way I'm happy to of been the Guinea Pig.

Nice one G. Thanks :wink:

My pleasure . I was really hoping for a serviceable tool. I though about taking the same route as you did on the modern Stanley you were gifted but with so little time for hobby woodworking I could not face it. I did buy a vintage Record #7 a while back and that was bowed too #-o. I have decided to retain a wooden jack, my Record #5 for a shooting board, my tuned up Record #4 and purchase a QS #7 after I have ebayed some bits and pieces to fund it. I will keep the faithfull #4 too as I got lucky with that and it's nice to remind yourself you can do good stuff with humble tools.

 

[Corneel]

Hmm, some literature references and someone who actually scratched his planes. Who to believe? Anyone with a hardness tester available? That would settle the argument for good.

 

[Graham Orm]

My pleasure . I was really hoping for a serviceable tool. I though about taking the same route as you did on the modern Stanley you were gifted but with so little time for hobby woodworking I could not face it. I did buy a vintage Record #7 a while back and that was bowed too #-o. I have decided to retain a wooden jack, my Record #5 for a shooting board, my tuned up Record #4 and purchase a QS #7 after I have ebayed some bits and pieces to fund it. I will keep the faithfull #4 too as I got lucky with that and it's nice to remind yourself you can do good stuff with humble tools.

Glad you're happy with the #4. You may remember I picked up a very old #7. It was sold as an 1888, but I've pinned it down to between 1898 and 1901. I've 75% refurbished it, the sole was a job taking about 3 hours in 20 minute sessions to flatten starting with 40 grit. I'll put some piccy's up when it's done. I've also bought a 1929 #5 which is sat patiently in the queue.

There's a pre lateral lever #5 on Ebay at the moment currently with 10 hours left and with a buy it now price of £160. Not much use as a user as it looks very tired as well as no lateral lever. If I had the dosh spare I might be tempted to stick it on a shelf and look at it now and again. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-ANTI...4-/111137734737?ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:GB:3160

 

[matthewwh]

Definitions of ductile:

1: capable of being drawn out into wire or thread <ductile iron>
2: easily led or influenced
3: capable of being fashioned into a new form

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ductile

There is nothing ductile about a Clifton, they use grey iron and heat treat it with the specific intent of keeping it in exactly the same form that it was made in - i.e flat, square and true.

The heat treatment does indeed soften the iron slightly, but also makes it tougher (less brittle) and more rigid (less ductile). As others have observed, if you just cast grey iron and machine it without the heat treatment, it will be brittle, stressed and prone to warp.

We repeated the LN test of dropping a plane nose first onto concrete (the one with the rebating block plane where it only bent a trifle). Clifton don't do a rebating block plane so we used a No.7 instead. The plane was checked for straightness and flatness before and after and not only was it still in one piece, but the before and after readings were less than a thou apart and it was still within tolerance.

Quangsheng use chromium steel which is both unbreakable and more wear resistant than either grey or ductile.

 

[G S Haydon]

My pleasure . I was really hoping for a serviceable tool. I though about taking the same route as you did on the modern Stanley you were gifted but with so little time for hobby woodworking I could not face it. I did buy a vintage Record #7 a while back and that was bowed too #-o. I have decided to retain a wooden jack, my Record #5 for a shooting board, my tuned up Record #4 and purchase a QS #7 after I have ebayed some bits and pieces to fund it. I will keep the faithfull #4 too as I got lucky with that and it's nice to remind yourself you can do good stuff with humble tools.

Glad you're happy with the #4. You may remember I picked up a very old #7. It was sold as an 1888, but I've pinned it down to between 1898 and 1901. I've 75% refurbished it, the sole was a job taking about 3 hours in 20 minute sessions to flatten starting with 40 grit. I'll put some piccy's up when it's done. I've also bought a 1929 #5 which is sat patiently in the queue.

There's a pre lateral lever #5 on Ebay at the moment currently with 10 hours left and with a buy it now price of £160. Not much use as a user as it looks very tired as well as no lateral lever. If I had the dosh spare I might be tempted to stick it on a shelf and look at it now and again. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-ANTI...4-/111137734737?ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:GB:3160

You are dedicated man G. I like to think you are earning good karma by refining these old tools. That no lat lever is interesting, I had assumed they always had them. Just a light tap with a hammer to adjust I assume?