Found a smooth oilstone and errr...don't quite know what..

[scooby]

A couple of years ago I brought a few old tools back home from Grandad's house after he died. He was a joiner back in the 50's through to when he retired. So his garage was full of a LOT of old tools. There was a lot of planes, including around 30 moulding planes, a few wooden try planes, various older baileys and various rebate and combination planes.

I kept the baileys and sold mine (as the older ones seem a lot better). Seemed a shame not to keep more but I knew I wouldn't use half the stuff he had and would take up much required room in my garage. We ended up leaving a lot of the stuff to the chap who bought my Grandad's house.

Sorry to go off on a tangent there, I was looking through the boxes of stuff I did keep and found mainly common stuff (old marples long bladed paring chisels being the highlight) but found an oilstone which looked ok. A Norton no.1 Washita. Don't know if it's considered good or not but it's a bit too fine for me, it's a combination stone with a whitish side and a yellowy colour side and both are way too fine for anything apart from polishing, in my opinion.

Few pics

http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?ac ... nt=1263149

http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?ac ... nt=1263157

http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?ac ... nt=1263177

Also found an odd looking thing. It's made by Record but has no model number on it so I can't find any info on it.

http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?ac ... nt=1263183

http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?ac ... nt=1263189

http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?ac ... nt=1263191

 

[Alf]

Oil Stone Info (scroll down a bit). Should be a good stone; I wouldn't dismiss it just yet. As you're idea of "sharp" develops you'd be really, really sorry if you'd got rid of it, IMO. However, if you do want to get rid of it my Private Message box is always open... :wink:

The Record thingie looks like a drill attachment, possibly something like a wall chaser? Someone'll know I 'spect.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Chris Knight]

That will be a very good stone and useful once you demand sharper edges as Alf indicates.

Bear in mind that the apparent smoothness or cutting ability of a stone is also related strongly to the viscosity of whatever fluid you use for honing. A thick oil on a fine stone can obscure its cutting ability. Once the stone has been cleaned, try it with white spirits instead of a thicker oil and you will see a difference.

 

[Paul Chapman]

The Record "thing" is a Corrucut. I still have one which I bought in the 1970's. I think it was originally made by Woden (which Record took over) as some of the extra blades I bought came in Woden packets.

It was an attachment for fitting to an electric drill and was used for cutting grooves. It was aimed at the DIY market before routers were affordable. It was a fabulous tool that worked really well but was eventually overtaken by the router.

Paul

 

[bugbear]

Sorry to go off on a tangent there, I was looking through the boxes of stuff I did keep and found mainly common stuff (old marples long bladed paring chisels being the highlight) but found an oilstone which looked ok. A Norton no.1 Washita. Don't know if it's considered good or not but it's a bit too fine for me, it's a combination stone with a whitish side and a yellowy colour side and both are way too fine for anything apart from polishing, in my opinion.

Yep, and if you want your plane to leave a good surface, polishing is EXACTLY what you need to do to the blade. If you're not using stone like this (or equivalent) your blades are (by many peoples normal, daily standards, BLUNT.

BTW, for web viewing, you might consider subsampling your image below the raw size your camera produces, to save bandwidth and time all round.

BugBear

 

[scooby]

Sorry to go off on a tangent there, I was looking through the boxes of stuff I did keep and found mainly common stuff (old marples long bladed paring chisels being the highlight) but found an oilstone which looked ok. A Norton no.1 Washita. Don't know if it's considered good or not but it's a bit too fine for me, it's a combination stone with a whitish side and a yellowy colour side and both are way too fine for anything apart from polishing, in my opinion.

Yep, and if you want your plane to leave a good surface, polishing is EXACTLY what you need to do to the blade. If you're not using stone like this (or equivalent) your blades are (by many peoples normal, daily standards, BLUNT.

BTW, for web viewing, you might consider subsampling your image below the raw size your camera produces, to save bandwidth and time all round.

BugBear

I usually do the polishing with a 6000 grit waterstone which has seemed to give good results. I downsized those pictures quite a lot (they were originally 8mp monsters) thought a res of 1280x1024 and around 300k wasn't too bad.

 

[scooby]

Oil Stone Info (scroll down a bit). Should be a good stone; I wouldn't dismiss it just yet. As you're idea of "sharp" develops you'd be really, really sorry if you'd got rid of it, IMO. However, if you do want to get rid of it my Private Message box is always open... :wink:

The Record thingie looks like a drill attachment, possibly something like a wall chaser? Someone'll know I 'spect.

Cheers, Alf

I prefer my waterstones to this and the other oilstones I have so if you're interested give me a shout.

 

[bugbear]

BTW, for web viewing, you might consider subsampling your image below the raw size your camera produces, to save bandwidth and time all round.

BugBear

I downsized those pictures quite a lot (they were originally 8mp monsters) thought a res of 1280x1024 and around 300k wasn't too bad.

Well, with 6 pictures, that's a coupla' meg, which for anybody on a phone line is a lot of data. Broadband is common, but not universal.

With a bit of thoughtful cropping and subsampling, it's quite easy to get information rich pictures into 30-50 K; e.g.

http://www.geocities.com/plybench/record.html#043

BugBear

 

[scooby]

BTW, for web viewing, you might consider subsampling your image below the raw size your camera produces, to save bandwidth and time all round.

BugBear

I downsized those pictures quite a lot (they were originally 8mp monsters) thought a res of 1280x1024 and around 300k wasn't too bad.

Well, with 6 pictures, that's a coupla' meg, which for anybody on a phone line is a lot of data. Broadband is common, but not universal.

With a bit of thoughtful cropping and subsampling, it's quite easy to get information rich pictures into 30-50 K; e.g.

http://www.geocities.com/plybench/record.html#043

BugBear

Will post smaller pics in the future

Thanks to everyone for the info on the record tool.