Dating a Record 04

[Smudger]

I had one of those nice phone call from LOML yesterday - "I'm at a boot sale and there's a bloke selling planes at £8 each..."
She picked up a Record 04, looks in quite nice nick apart from general crud and some rust on the cutter and a wrecked lever cap. The japanning (mid-blue) is very good. It hasn't even been used as a paint magnet and even has a full label on the tote.
Cleaning it up it is obviously newer than my other Records, with a post-1960 frog, with less bearing surface than the others. The Y fork is in two pieces, obviously cheaper than the old type.
The lever cap and frog I can replace, and I'll give it a stay-set iron, I'll probably leave the adjuster as it is.

Questions - can anyone date the plane better than 'post-1960'? Will older parts fit? Will it perform less well than older models?

 

[Paul Chapman]

My Record #04 which I bought new in 1970 had a two-piece Y lever. Not sure when they started fitting them but I would guess at the late 1960s.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Scrit]

Handles and blades. Earlier blades are square-edged, they changed to rounded edges in the late 1970s or so. The other thing is handles and knobe. Pre WWII the handle and knob would be rosewood, WWI production were often black-painted/stained beech or whatever wood was to hand, early post-war was stained beech handle but rosewood knob moving to a stained beech knob some time in the 1960s (I think). BTW I haven't read the Record book, this is just from observation. If someone with the book (like Alf or Bugbear?) would like to correct that then I'd be grateful :lol:

Scrit

 

[Smudger]

Thanks, all. Looks like a '60s version, varnished beech knob and tote. I'll see how the cutter sharpens up. Apart from some staining it looks in pretty good nick (for £8 ).

 

[Alf]

Scrit,

Unfortunately there's plenty of evidence that the info in the Record book simply can't be relied on, so I hesitate to share it. Some of it should be in the archive somewhere, if someone cares to search (i.e. I don't :lol: )

Cheers, Alf

 

[ac445ab]

.......BTW I haven't read the Record book......
Scrit

Of wich book are you discussing? Where it is possible to buy it?

Thank you!

Ciao,
Giuliano

 

[Anonymous]

Will it perform less well than older models?

Don't believe everything you read about older models being better.

 

[Smudger]

Intriguing. How do you mean?

 

[Anonymous]

I think that perhaps many people who advocate the 'old is good, new is bad' view, may not have actually used and tuned up both old and new planes. Of course, many may have, and have formed their own opinions based upon their experiences.

I have used and owned a lot of old planes (my dad was a cabinet maker and carpenter from 15yrs to 60 and owned loads of old Stanleys) and a lot of new planes (Stanley, Clifton, Record, LN, LV, Philly-Planes) and it is foolisih to simply classify the old as 'good' and the new as 'junk'.


I have found a lot of old planes (Stanely and Records) to be made from poor quality materials with workmanship an apprentice in his first year would be embarrassed by. Not to mention the steel the blades are made from :shock:
For instance, a #5 that clunked against a vice when being used and snapped in half :shock: . A #6 that is made from the softest metal I have come across and leaves black marks everywhere from the soft iron :roll: (it was pretty easy to flatten the sole though :lol: )

Of course, a lot of old planes are very good, and a lot of new planes are also very good - and both may be bad.

In my expereince, if one 'tunes up' (See DCs work on plane tuning) say, a modern Stanley Bailey #5 and an old Sanley Bailey #5 (I have 'tuned' both), both will perform about the same. This has been my experience.

The world moves on, technology and science develops, knowledge increases, and for true build quality and good engineering the choice is easy, Clifton (not ductile - don't drop them), LV, LN :wink:

 

[Alf]

Giuliano, it's a reprint of Record Catalogue No.15 with a fairly lengthy introduction by Leslie Harrison on the planes and history of the company. Details here (scroll down a little).

Cheers, Alf

 

[bugbear]

I think that perhaps many people who advocate the 'old is good, new is bad' view, may not have actually used and tuned up both old and new planes. Of course, many may have, and have formed their own opinions based upon their experiences.

I have used and owned a lot of old planes (my dad was a cabinet maker and carpenter from 15yrs to 60 and owned loads of old Stanleys) and a lot of new planes (Stanley, Clifton, Record, LN, LV, Philly-Planes) and it is foolisih to simply classify the old as 'good' and the new as 'junk'.

I think (and am certainly speaking for myself) that when people refer to "new planes" (as being poor) they're normally referring to the 1970-2000 Baileys, as opposed to the tools of the new "Golden Age"

BugBear

 

[ac445ab]

Giuliano, it's a reprint of Record Catalogue No.15 with a fairly lengthy introduction by Leslie Harrison on the planes and history of the company. Details here (scroll down a little).

Cheers, Alf

Thanks!
Ciao,
Giuliano

 

[Anonymous]

I think that perhaps many people who advocate the 'old is good, new is bad' view, may not have actually used and tuned up both old and new planes. Of course, many may have, and have formed their own opinions based upon their experiences.

I have used and owned a lot of old planes (my dad was a cabinet maker and carpenter from 15yrs to 60 and owned loads of old Stanleys) and a lot of new planes (Stanley, Clifton, Record, LN, LV, Philly-Planes) and it is foolish to simply classify the old as 'good' and the new as 'junk'.

I think (and am certainly speaking for myself) that when people refer to "new planes" (as being poor) they're normally referring to the 1970-2000 Baileys, as opposed to the tools of the new "Golden Age"

BugBear

I too am referring to the 1970-200 Stanley and Record planes.
In my experience, they are better than some much older Stanley//Record planes and not as good as others.
To make sweeping statements that "old are better than new" (not referring to you here BB), is just a ridiculous generalisation

 

[ac445ab]

I too am referring to the 1970-200 Stanley and Record planes.
In my experience, they are better than some much older Stanley//Record planes and not as good as others.

Why are you speaking about to the 1970-2000 Stanley planes?
What happen after 2000?
I have seen some new Bailey planes and they seem very badly refinished.

Ciao,
Giuliano

 

[Smudger]

The first plane I ever bought was a new Stanley #4. I've never been able to use it, it has manufacturing flaws aplenty (you should see the state of the cap iron) and it feels like rubbish.

Whereas a large number of older planes work fine with just a little fettling.

One of my concerns is the post-1960 Record frog, which has a smaller bearing surface and looks less rigid as a result. I just wanted to know if I could straight-swap with an older frog if I find one in the spare parts cupboard?

 

[Martin Cash]

I have been following this thread with interest.
I only have one Record plane - a number 4 SS
I'll post a photo and perhaps someone could date it for me.

Oops, can't find any "manage attachments" or other do-hickies that enable photo posting.

Help needed please.
MC

 

[Martin Cash]

Come on you blokes, help me out here.
How do you post images on this forum?
I can't find instructions for this and there is nowhere to manage attachments in the reply window.
Someone mentioned that a certain number of posts had to be reached first.
How many is it? This is number 12 for me and no joy so far.
Your assistance will be gratefully received.
Regards
MC

 

[DaveL]

Martin,

Take a look here for instructions on posting pictures.
Unfortunately Freeshare.us has now stopped hosting pictures, but there are loads of other sites that you can use.