Frog and adjuster knob needed for Year 2000 Clifton no.5 Plane

[vaj]

Hi all, I've just joined. Retired hobby woodworker in Ireland with Hammer machines and a range of hand tools. Used mostly for household projects but diverting to boxes and misc creative stuff now.

Wondering if anybody might have for sale a frog and/or adjuster knob for a No.5 Clifton plane bought around year 2000 - to ship to a UK address.

A bedrock style frog from another brand of plane might (?) fit, does anybody know if this is the case? A used plane in poor condition might be another means of obtaining the parts...

Truth be told it's a lovely looking tool and very nice in the hand but has been a bundle of trouble as a result of manufacturing defects not found until it was put into use quite some time after it was bought. It's been on the shelf for years, most of my planes are Veritas - I started to to sort it out last year but after fixing the sole discovered a problem with the frog. Spares bought last year to replace a problematic cap iron and Y lever and switch to a cryogenic iron were not much better...

The current frog has a misplaced adjustment lever pivot and a misaligned face. The knurling on the knob is minimal so it's slippery - a spare would permit reworking without risking the original....

Thanks

 

[vaj]

It starts to look as though Clifton stuff is thin on the ground. : )

It seems likely that a 45 degree/2in/no. 5 Quangsheng or Lie Nielsen frog assembly would fit.

 

[Homeless Squirrel]

It starts to look as though Clifton stuff is thin on the ground. : )

It seems likely that a 45 degree/2in/no. 5 Quangsheng or Lie Nielsen frog assembly would fit.

Try posting some pics that way others can see if anything is compatible/works/fits/helps!

 

[vaj]

Good thought HS.

The 45 degree Clifton frog I have is completely disassembled as I was in the process of relocating the pivot pin for the lateral adjustment lever (which due to a manufacturing error was misplaced to one side by about 3mm - the lever had to be almost fully over to one side to set the iron straight) when it emerged that the side faces were badly out of parallel too.

This is a pic of the Lie Nielsen frog complete with all ancilliary parts in the different angles in which it's available. It looks despite a few non functional detail differences as though the 45 degree version could fit my Clifton - but it's expensive. Having to buy mail order complicates the situation in that test fitting is not possible....

The OEM Clifton item is in green painted cast iron.

As before I need a 45 degree frog of whatever origin to fit a Clifton no. 5.

It'd be great to get the complete assembly with knob adjuster, lateral lever etc as the picture as it would save quite a lot of labour, but even a bare casting would do as I can if necessary retrofit the lever and other parts from the Clifton.

The Quangsheng item likely fits too.

 

[Homeless Squirrel]

Good thought HS.

The 45 degree Clifton frog I have is completely disassembled as I was in the process of relocating the pivot pin for the lateral adjustment lever (which due to a manufacturing error was misplaced to one side by about 3mm - the lever had to be almost fully over to one side to set the iron straight) when it emerged that the side faces were badly out of parallel too.

This is a pic of the Lie Nielsen frog complete with all ancilliary parts in the different angles in which it's available. It looks despite a few non functional detail differences as though the 45 degree version could fit my Clifton - but it's expensive. Having to buy mail order complicates the situation in that test fitting is not possible....

The OEM Clifton item is in green painted cast iron.

As before I need a 45 degree frog of whatever origin to fit a Clifton no. 5.

It'd be great to get the complete assembly with knob adjuster, lateral lever etc as the picture as it would save quite a lot of labour, but even a bare casting would do as I can if necessary retrofit the lever and other parts from the Clifton.

The Quangsheng item likely fits too.

Need to see base and bed it sits on ideally also.

 

[vaj]

OK. Here's a pic HS.

Are you suggesting that you may have a frog to suit?

The machined/flat area of the bed/land the frog sits on in the sole is 2.018in wide x 2.467 long - the length measured from the rearward edge of the mouth opening.

The centres for the two dowel holes are located 1.592in back from the rearward edge of the mouth on 1.161in apart (crosswise) centres - more or less on the centreline.

The dowel pins that retain the frog measure 0.308in dia.

The factory machining is pretty awful. The land has had a lot of hand work done to flatten and align it with the plane of the sole. The frog sides were out of parallel by about 0.020in meaning that it could skew during mouth adjustments - taking the iron with it. The screws which retain the dowels are not accurately centred on the dowels. The sole was well off flat, and one side well off being square...

 

[Homeless Squirrel]

OK. Here's a pic HS.

Are you suggesting that you may have a frog to suit?

The machined/flat area of the bed/land the frog sits on in the sole is 2.018in wide x 2.467 long - the length measured from the rearward edge of the mouth opening.

The centres for the two dowel holes are located 1.592in back from the rearward edge of the mouth on 1.161in apart (crosswise) centres - more or less on the centreline.

The dowel pins that retain the frog measure 0.308in dia.

The factory machining is pretty awful. The land has had a lot of hand work done to flatten and align it with the plane of the sole. The frog sides were out of parallel by about 0.020in meaning that it could skew during mouth adjustments - taking the iron with it. The screws which retain the dowels are not accurately centred on the dowels. The sole was well off flat, and one side well off being square...

Reason i was asking was to see if another frog would fit better? But looking at that looks like a big NO!
Looks like from an engineering point of view all wrong! As all others screws on top clamp to bed while one at back adjusts reach.
While that one has all screws at back so allows frog to rise on blade end once fixed in unless can tighten it with something in those holes on top? but you say dowels so just allows it to slide on/locate.

Plus don't know if it's angle taken or me but the slot don't look fully Kosher! looking across it from side to side i know you say sides are out also.

 

[vaj]

The problems in the sole are all sorted out. The sides of the bed/land for the frog actually are parallel, it was the frog sides that were was out of parallel. The bed/land was not very flat as originally milled and was high to one side but is fixed.

The central screw positions the frog before clamping down. The points on the outer two screws in the usual manner engage in blind holes in the back of the dowels to pull them down and lock the frog in position.

The residual issue is that the pointed screws are not accurately centred on the dowels, but they do seem to work OK.

I could try Clifton for a frog but TBH there were so many defects in the parts last bought from them that it's probably not the best option..

 

[yetloh]

The problems in the sole are all sorted out. The sides of the bed/land for the frog actually are parallel, it was the frog sides that were was out of parallel. The bed/land was not very flat as originally milled and was high to one side but is fixed.

The central screw positions the frog before clamping down. The points on the outer two screws in the usual manner engage in blind holes in the back of the dowels to pull them down and lock the frog in position.

The residual issue is that the pointed screws are not accurately centred on the dowels, but they do seem to work OK.

I could try Clifton for a frog but TBH there were so many defects in the parts last bought from them that it's probably not the best option..

It sounds like a pile of rubbish. It would be interesting to know if other members have had similar experiences and whether current production is any better.

Jim

 

[vaj]

The plane was bought originally over twenty years ago and very little used/was left on the shelf because of the issues - it came close to going in a skip. It couldn't go back because I had a series of health issues then which meant that the warranty had expired by the time the position became clear.

I was bit naive then too - (a) it never crossed my mind that the scenario was possible, and (b) it was only as my working developed and the details started to matter that it all came into focus.

I don't know what the quality of these planes is like now - but as above a number of spare parts bought last year from the company were all defective. They refunded immediately.

There's meanwhile not been a single defect arise in the of the order of eight Veritas planes of differing types bought since - this down to the level of the backs of all of the irons (mixed O1 and A2) polishing out flat with only a few minutes work on a 1,000 grit waterstone. No ruler tricks or anything like that required...

It's a pity because it's a nice tool to handle, looks great and the original iron was of very good quality.

As it happens a frog assembly has turned up - I've (thanks to the generosity of a very helpful gent who by chance had one) just managed to source one (new, complete, in bronze and at a very good price) from a Fine Tools/Dieter Schmid Juuma No.5 (Quangsheng/Luban/WoodRiver under other labels I think) from Germany.

It's hopefully in transit.

Time will tell if it drops straight in, but I've with luck probably got enough machining and other capability to sort it out if needed.

 

[yetloh]

Glad it is resolved and I have found Dieter Schmid to be excellent too.

Jim

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

I got my Clifton #3 on a close-out about 20 years ago, from a US distributor. The company was discontinuing the line because of quality issues, and planes were sold “as is” (May have been “Woodworkers Supply”). Price was dirt cheap, so I took a chance.

Only thing wrong was the tote was loose, with the problem being the screw was too long and easily fixed. I heard of a few other, different issues, and probably enough to majorly hurt the brand in the US.

 

[vaj]

I know what the situation with my own plane and with the recently bought spares was Tony, but it's difficult to know what the story regarding current general production is.

IF my experience is representative (and it may not be) then it's hard to see how the company can survive. This because once product is out in the field the cost of rectification and/or replacement increases exponentially - as does damage to reputation.

Basic principles say that manufacturing processes need to be sorted to the point where product is right first time every time. Beefing up quality control to intercept bad items while better than putting out bad product is not a fix either - it's inherently wasteful and expensive.

It's difficult to achieve this sort of reliability of quality of output if parts are being made in a jobbing shop environment (i.e. using general purpose machine and hand tools) unless staff are skilled, highly motivated and experienced - not easily achieved in these times.

Measures like investment in well designed jigs, fixtures, working procedures, CNC controlled machines, training in good working practices, responsibility for and proper monitoring of quality by those doing the work etc done right tends to be required...

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

I know what the situation with my own plane and with the recently bought spares was Tony, but it's difficult to know what the story regarding current general production is.

IF my experience is representative (and it may not be) then it's hard to see how the company can survive. This because once product is out in the field the cost of rectification and/or replacement increases exponentially - as does damage to reputation.

Basic principles say that manufacturing processes need to be sorted to the point where product is right first time every time. Beefing up quality control to intercept bad items while better than putting out bad product is not a fix either - it's inherently wasteful and expensive.

It's difficult to achieve this sort of reliability of quality of output if parts are being made in a jobbing shop environment (i.e. using general purpose machine and hand tools) unless staff are skilled, highly motivated and experienced - not easily achieved in these times.

Measures like investment in well designed jigs, fixtures, working procedures, CNC controlled machines, training in good working practices, responsibility for and proper monitoring of quality by those doing the work etc done right tends to be required...

With Clifton, I believe the company will survive and prosper, as it has been purchased by the company that owns Pax, Thomas Flinn, etc., and methods have be modernized. Our 20 plus year old planes were built by a company that had issues. In my opinion, Clifton is the equal of LN, LV, etc,, as well as vintage Stanley Bedrocks. I also feel the iron in my #3 is superior to most other makers.

My #3 Clifton is a plane that will never be sold or traded.

 

[yetloh]

I hope it does survive. Pre Thomas Flinn, Clifton was owned by Clico for whom Clifton was only ever a sideline in which they invested very little money. The established Clifton products were metal spokeshaves and shouder planes which were very good. My guess is that when they decided to introduce the bench plane range they tried to do it on a shoestring. For years Clifton's plane man took the prototype of what is now the Clifton block plane to shows but form what I can gather, could never persuade his bosses to make the investment to put it into production. In the llight of the bench plane fiasco related in this thread, that was probably a good thing. When Clico went bust and the Clifton business was sold to Thomes Flinn they put it into production, pretty much unchanged. I have never tried one but the fundamentals certainly look right.

Clico was part of the Ridgeway group until the 1980s when a management buyout took the tooling for the aerospace and double glazing industries part parts of the business. I'm guessing Clifton came with it. I suspect the buy-out was under-capitalised and the main tooling business was bought by Lidsters who still produce Clico Tooling. I have some Clico Forstner bits which are excellent although no longer made by Lidsters

 

[vaj]

I wish them well too, and as before it's fundamentally a very nice tool.

On the other hand Flinn were already the owners when the bum parts were supplied to me late last year. Perhaps it was a matter of bad luck, or maybe they had not by then got control of the situation.

The hard fact of the matter though is that Clifton planes are pitched as a premium product and bloody well need to be as good as the very best (e.g. Lie Nielsen and Veritas) at the price.

The Juuma no.5 listed by Fine Tools/Dieter Schmid for example seems (have not handled one) to be an enhanced spec Quangsheng/Luban/Wood River type (likely from the same Eastern factory?) with a bronze frog and lever cap. It comes in at just under half the price of the Clifton equivalent: Jack Planes, Low Angle Jack Planes, Bench Planes | FINE TOOLS

It's worth noting too that there may (?) be differing quality levels within the Quangsheng/Luban family - one N. American distributor of Woodcraft's Wood River branded version has by email said that that particular version goes through a tighter quality regime than the general output. If so that could (?) also be the case for the Juuma items - it has been suggested in print that they make planes under that brand specifically for Dieter Schmid/Fine Tools in Germany.

Here's a Popular Woodworking piece which covers some of the ground: What’s new in the world of premium planes part 1: the Made in China group | Popular Woodworking

It would indeed be interesting to hear from somebody close enough to the Clifton/Flinn situation to know what the big picture is - for good or ill.

That said long experience suggests that web forums tend not to be great places to get good information on machines and tools. Owners tend either to talk up what they have bought and/or to lie low when problems do arise. There's usually a few on especially US forums that seem ultimately to be there to push whatever product.

Many forum moderators tend to get antsy too when members publicise bad experiences - especially if the topic triggers a cascade of negative comment.

There's by the way videos on YouTube showing some of the manufacturing processes for Clifton planes and for Lie Nielsen.

 

[Vann]

I don't know if your Juma frog has arrived yet, but....

I have played around with a Clifton 4.5 and LN No.4.5, and the frogs are not interchangeable.

Similarly I tried swapping frogs between an LN No.5.25 and my Clifton No.3 (both 1 3/4" irons). Again the frogs werenot quite interchangeable.

I've not had the opportunity to try this with 2" iron planes.

IIRC the angle of the beds looks to be the same (though I didn't actually measure) however the locking pins on the 4.5s were half a pin diameter different in spacing.

The 1 3/4" iron planes had something similar (I don't recall exactly, it was about 7 years ago).

It's possible that the 2" iron planes are the same (or not).

I suspect the original Stanley Bedrocks, LN and Woodriver are all spaced the same (as the latter are clones). Clico/Clifton did their own thing. I have no idea whether Juma copied Stanley/LN/Woodriver, or did their own thing.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Vann]

...My #3 Clifton is a plane that will never be sold or traded.

Same here. My Clico era No.3 is a favorite.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[vaj]

Thanks Vann, good background.

I don't know whether the Juuma frog will drop in either. It should arrive this week - will report then. I took the opportunity when by a very lucky coincidence the one-off chance to get one came up.

It seems (?) that neither the Juuma nor the Clifton items are available from resellers as a spare part.

The Lie Nielsen frog assembly complete initially seemed a possibility and they are at least available as a commercially offered spare part in several different angles. There were two problems: (a) one UK supplier seemed to feel it probably wouldn't fit, and (b) it was bloody expensive.

There didn't seem to be much interest in trial fitting some frogs on the part of the the resellers I spoke to. One UK company offered to see if Flinn might supply a frog, but I had by then committed to taking the Juuma item. (it would likely have been expensive too)

The Juuma pic seems quite promising, the dowel placing and spacing look similar - but of course the devil is always in the detail: Pin auf Woodworking tools

Push come to shove it will hopefully be possible to rework the sole to accept it - I have light milling, drilling, tapping and similar capability. It'd be work, but I've so much time invested in the plane by now (and I'm retired) that it's not getting away if I can help it..... : )

 

[vaj]

There's a good view of the frog bed and frog on the Woodriver 4 1/2 in this Cosman video (from about 14.00 onwards - which may be (TBC) the same as that on the Juuma and Quangsheng:

Wood River seem at least to use the same sloped bed (which means that the depth of cut changes with mouth adjustments) and fixing dowel scheme as the Clifton. Time will tell if the dimensions are the same as the Clifton in the case of the Juuma No.5.......

There's a very useful detail Cosman comparison between a Wood River and UK sourced Luban no.6 (probably from the same factory) here:


There's not an awful lot of difference, both seem very decent indeed - especially compared to my Clifton experience. The big question is perhaps the matter of just how much variability is to be expected between examples.

As a PS. It's not a big deal, but the Veritas bench planes/bevel down planes have a frog design which (unlike with bedrock planes) results in no change in the depth of cut as the mouth opening is adjusted: