Cheap brand plane experiences

[Graham Orm]

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?

It could quite easily turn into a hobby....already too much on the go, I'l sort the #7 & #5 for my own use and try not to buy any more :lol:

 

[Vann]

I don't know if the cheap ones are cast iron or not but the expensive ones are all made of "ductile (cast?) steel" it seems.
This is promoted as an advantage but it isn't, it's just cheaper and more profitable for them.
It's very inferior to the cast iron on my old Records, Stanleys etc and scratches very easily. Just noticed a big scratch on my Clifton where it caught a bit of grit. LV and QS were the same (I don't have them any more). This wouldn't happen with cast iron - all my old planes have shiny soles more or less scratch free after many years of use.
So it might be worth the bother of flattening a cheapo, if it is cast. Unfortunately cast iron also means it's much harder to flatten!

Another way to release the cooling stresses is to heat-treat the casting to 'anneal' it. This also has the advantage that, if the right grade of cast iron is chosen to start with. the heat-treated casting becomes less brittle, and the resulting material is known as 'ductile iron'. This is the process that Clifton, LN and presumably Veritas use.

Not quite correct. Lie-Nielsen and Veritas use ductile iron. Clifton use grey cast iron (like Stanley & Record did), which Matthew says is heat treated (unlike Stanley & Record).

As far as I'm aware, nobody casts plane bodies from steel (steel is iron with a carbon content of between abaout 0.05% - dead mild steel - and 1.4% - high carbon file steel - with the bulk of mild steel being about 0.2% carbon, and then there are many grades of alloy steel.). Steel is tricky stuff to cast, as it tends to be less fluid than cast iron when molten, so it's very difficult to cast thin sections in steel - it solidifies before it fills the whole mould, if you're too ambitious. Steel castings behave similarly to iron ones in that they have residual stresses in them post-casting, so the annealing/seasoning techniques are required here, too. Being a metallurgically different material to cast iron, steels will respond differently to heat treatments, and the appropriate treatment will depend on the grade of steel and the duty of the object being treated.

The US manufacturer of "VB" planes use steel, but drop forged rather than cast.

I've previously seen Quangsheng described as "steel" but assumed that was a translation error, however...

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

As for Jacob's opinions - well, he proved in another thread that he WILL NOT admit when he's wrong, so you're wasting your time arguing with him (hammer)

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Jacob]

........
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. ........

So the process does indeed soften the iron slightly then? Quelle surprise!
It is as I have observed - having only yesterday picked up a scratch on the bottom of my Clifton, which isn't wearing well in an admittedly hostile environment. Neither did the LVla smoother I owned briefly. I included a QS in my list but TBH I can't remember so I could be wrong.
It's only the Clifton, the LV and a rubbish Ess Vee (Indian plane) which are noticeably scratch prone in my limited experience, whatever the other advantages of their steel.
In comparison the older Stanleys and Records appear to have very hard surfaces and are much less scratch prone, though I accept they may well be brittle, stressed and prone to warp.
I'm just stating what I've seen - no amount of armchair theorising will make any difference!

But there is a second detail - the old harder steels also give an impression of less friction in use. Not as easy to demonstrate so it remains just an impression.

 

[Graham Orm]

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

That no lat lever is interesting, I had assumed they always had them. Just a light tap with a hammer to adjust I assume?

It didn't sell! Just shows how really un-collectable they are. The only ones with any real value are pre 1880 #1 & #2 I think. I saw a 1910 #7 not sell a couple of weeks ago, I think that was on about £60 buy it now.
It's the provenance that fascinates me. An old working tool isn't like anything else, it's been used to create things by many skilled (or not) craftsmen. I think the value in these old ones is in restoring them to a pleasing condition and using them.

EDIT: From what I can gather the lateral lever made it's debut in 1885.

 

[iNewbie]

It is as I have observed - having only yesterday picked up a scratch on the bottom of my Clifton, which isn't wearing well in an admittedly hostile environment. Neither did the LVla smoother I owned briefly. I included a QS in my list but TBH I can't remember so I could be wrong.
It's only the Clifton, the LV and a rubbish Ess Vee (Indian plane) which are noticeably scratch prone in my limited experience, whatever the other advantages of their steel.
In comparison the older Stanleys and Records appear to have very hard surfaces and are much less scratch prone, though I accept they may well be brittle, stressed and prone to warp.
I'm just stating what I've seen - no amount of armchair theorising will make any difference!

The problem -for me- with your deduction is: you didn't notice how the scratch came about and that you hadn't ran the other plane through the same (whatever) that caused that scratch to happen. How about hammering a nail through your work bench and riding all your planes across it? Sounds more scientific to me. :mrgreen:

NB: one scratch on a clifton doesn't mean they're all scratch prone - in fact, you could have an anomaly... Just a thought.

 

[Corneel]

I'm not surpised that the 160 pound prelateral #5 didn''t sell. That's a lot of money for a # 5.

I think I've been lucky with my #7. First I had a UK made model with a similar bow in the sole. I sold that one at a loss (did disclose the condition to the buyer!), because I didn't have the courage to flatten it. Then I bought a type 11 #7 and it is totally flat, can't see any light when meassureing with a true straight edge. I think when you want to invest in a new plane, a jointer would be a good choice.

Still noone with a hardness tester? Only armchair theories? I would be tempted to ask around at the lab overhere, but I don't have any new planes, only old ones.

 

[Jacob]

...
Still noone with a hardness tester? Only armchair theories? I would be tempted to ask around at the lab overhere, but I don't have any new planes, only old ones.

You don't need a laboratory to do a comparative scratch test with a corner of a chisel, as I did, or with a nail, as I did accidentally.
You might need a lab to test relative friction between different planes however - the main problem being how to simulate real working conditions and measure at the same time. Could be interesting (if you are in to that sort of thing!).

 

[Corneel]

The advantage of using a harness tester would be that you come up with a definitive number, while the scratch test is more or less subjective. Each one of the participants in this thread would have to scratch some of their tools to see for themselves. i kind of doubt that's going to happen. :mrgreen:

 

[Kalimna]

Actually, you do need a lab, or similar, to do a worthwhile comparative scratch test. The reason being that you need to eliminate as many confounding factors as possible. For instance, the hardness of the edge used to test the scratch, the angle applied to the surface to be scratched, the pressure applied, etc. The end result may very well be the same, but only rigorous experiments lead to meaningful results.

Adam

 

[Jacob]

So my scratches might be imaginary then? Or should I simply believe the evidence of my eyes?

Lost the plot here, what with all these armchair theorists burbling on.
My original suggestion was that the cheap planes, for all their defects, might have the advantage of the harder surface apparent in older Stanleys and Records. It is quite a significant advantage and part of the reason there are so many old planes about in very good nick (until they are dropped of course).
I might just buy a Faithful 10 and see for myself.

 

[Racers]

The plural of anecdote isn't fact!


Pete

 

[Jacob]

But nobody has come up with a "fact" to contradict my experience. Matthew said the Clifton process "does indeed soften the iron slightly" so there you go!

 

[Racers]

Your self included

 

[Jacob]

So are you saying that my old planes are not harder and more scratch resistant?
Or are you just saying nothing at all - which is what you usually do, very monotonously too. :roll:

 

[Racers]

I stated my observations a few pages back.

My thoughts are formed by empirical evidence, yours seem to be stated as fact and then you admit you don't know much about the subject a couple of posts later.

I don't post lots of contradictory posts or misleading quotes so may be I don't say much, I would prefer to keep things short and to the point.

Pete

 

[Dangermouse]

Now now girls, lets not get all overheated or it will be handbags at dawn all over again ! [-X

 

[Reggie]

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.

Hi Graham, I think you nailed it when you said the smaller 4s and 5s are useful in the faithfull range, I used my record no.4 and the axminster no.5 on some 3/4" pine endgrain the other evening, it was an absolute pleasure to use both planes, there was no discernible difference between the 2 with regard to finish/ease of use. the axi made short work of removing the cupping on a pine board too, with or across the grain was no issue at all, all in all I'm very pleased with my cheap no.5.

I'm going to look at the axi/faithfull block planes, I get the feeling you can go particularly wrong with something that size, again, with your comments, I wonder if the length/weight of the plane has more to do with the errors you saw than the actual castings? 1.5mm bow is a lot, from what I've seen of the record no.4 and the axminster no.5 there's no discernible error in the sole, if there is it's negligible, either that or I just wouldn't know a decent planed bit of board if it jumped up and smacked me in the face.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Some hardness figures for different metals, taken from several sources (Matweb, Butterworth's Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book 11th edition 1981, Macready's Orange Book and others). All figures are quoted in Brinell 'b' scale. Jacob may be interested to note that none of the sources was found in an armchair.

BS1400 LB4 leaded bronze, sand cast - 55 to 75
BS1400 LG4 leaded gunmetal, sand cast - 70 to 85
Mild Steel (EN3, 0.2%C) - annealed 120, workhardened 180
O1 Tool Steel - 229 annealed, 550 to 680 hardened and tempered, depending on temper
Malleable Iron - 130 approx
Grey Cast Iron - 156 to 302 depending on grade
Ductile Iron - 143 to 187 depending on grade.

We can thus deduce that even annealed grey cast iron (approximating to malleable iron) is of comparable hardness to mild steel, and notably harder than cast bronze, another material used for fine plane bodies. The hardness of iron will depend on grade, and varies considerably, but even the hardest are not greatly better than annealed tool steel, and in nowhere near hardened and tempered tool steel.

This is somewhat comparative, and figures should not be taken as absolute. There are something like 4000 grades of steel commercially available in Britain, and perhaps several hundred grades of cast iron. The exact hardness of any given grade will depend on the conditions of manufacture and any subsequent working, so absolute figures can only be given in very tight specified circumstances.

This indicates that there may be some truth in Jacob's assertion that some older planes are harder than some newer ones. However, it also indicates that any plane of cast iron, irrespective of it's vintage, is unlikely to be significantly harder than a modern one of ductile iron, or of a dovetailed mild steel plane, and planes with bronze or gunmetal cast bodies will be noticably softer. It's also worth noting that beechwood (among others) works perfectly well as a plane body (there are several centuries of evidence to support that point), and beech is a lot softer than even the softest bronze.

I'm not really sure that this proves anything we hadn't already worked out from long experience. Planes of whatever iron - seasoned, annealed, ductile - work perfectly satisfactorily, as do dovetailed mild steel and cast bronze and gunmetal ones. If they are used in a hostile environment, they are likely to suffer more than if used in a relatively controlled one; hence the reason that many carpenters and joiners prefer not to take their best tools on site.

Thanks to Matthewwh and Vann for correcting my mistake in asserting that Clifton use a ductile iron. It would seem that they end up with an annealed grey cast iron, a material in a condition in which I have (so far) been unable to find any hardness data.

I hope this satisfies Jacob's wish for hard data rather than armchair theories. I now feel that I've wasted quite enough time on a matter of not much importance. No doubt our friend will have much to say about it, and will find holes to pick in it all. I rather suspect the majority of readers will yawn, wander out to the workshop, and get on with planing without worrying about the exact Brinell hardness figure of their plane body.

 

[Jacob]

.....
This indicates that there may be some truth in Jacob's assertion that some older planes are harder than some newer ones.

No really? Well blow me down what a surprise! So I was right!

.....
I hope this satisfies Jacob's wish for hard data rather than armchair theories. ....

I had the hard data in front of me (scratched plane) so I wasn't looking any further, but you have backed this up with references, in the armchair fashion, to your own satisfaction I hope. Well done!

 

[Jacob]

I stated my observations a few pages back.

My thoughts are formed by empirical evidence, yours seem to be stated as fact and then you admit you don't know much about the subject a couple of posts later.

I don't post lots of contradictory posts or misleading quotes so may be I don't say much, I would prefer to keep things short and to the point.

Pete

You need to look up the definition of "empirical evidence": as you clearly don't understand the meaning. In fact I seem to have been the only person offering empirical evidence on this particular issue.
Pete it's best not to say anything if you have nothing to say!