In praise of the 2-part cap.

[condeesteso]

Very thorough Andy - checked mine and pretty much same answers, but noticed a couple of things which marks the Cliftons down:

A 4½ Record SS - 4 thou yes, 6 thou no:

A Record #3 - same: 4 yes, 6 no

A Clifton #4, 6 yes, BUT max is offset to one side

So there is consistency again. Clifton dissappoints a little as I take precision for granted with them. Another Clifton #4 was 6 thou central then I had a closer look generally - note the protrusion of the stud that locates the lower part. Easy to fix but not good really

And regarding jigs I agree with Andy, I have both those and they are fine. I think that whilst a part of the Stay-Set idea (perhaps the main one) was to not disturb the cap for a quick edge tune-up, I do find it really easy and fast to whip the back cap off anyway. Getting it back where I want it is very quick - position close, finger-tight then tap to adjust (with lower part in place), screw tight. All I mean is that if these things interest you, then jigs or freehand I think they are great. I use both... please don't start
Re the concavity, my guess is Andy is right - rather than machine dead flat (a cost) get just a shade hollow and the edges will lock down. I can't imagine this few thou would have an effect on the cutting edge 30mm or so further down.

p.s. I did notice there is a slight burr at the thread exit on the Records also, probably 6 thou or so anyway. My take on this is that if we are tuning these things then spend a minute or so on the back of the upper half (burr, pin etc).

 

[AndyT]

Interesting that the larger, mass manufacturer seemed to nail the specs and the smaller boutique provider could not/did not. Maybe a lesson in there and why some of the old planes work just fine, if not better than fine?

I think you are assuming a bigger difference than there was between Record and Clifton. From information posted on here, the Clifton staff were all long term employees of Record, surviving the end of Record as a trading entity, carrying on making the same products using the same tooling. But maybe to stricter qc?

However, my two examples are different sizes and maybe what suits a 2" iron would not suit a 2 3/8" one.

David, what size is your example? As you might be able to see in the photos, my Record one is marked the same way as yours.

 

[bugbear]

Nice use of a Sine bar there.

Given that the purpose of the SS is to press down near the edge of the blade,
it occurs to me that it might be good if the contact between the small piece and
the large piece was actually a pivot, allow the small piece to "find its own level"
on the blade, a sort of 3 point contact.

Does anyone know (can anyone check) if this is the case?

If it is, the role of the larger piece is nigh vestigial.

BugBear

 

[AndyT]

Three more little things to add:

I just checked for hollowness in the length of the upper parts, which I omitted to do the first time round. The old, larger Record is hollow by about 15 thou. The Clifton is flat.

When adjusting these (or any cap iron,) as has been mentioned somewhere in the recent long cap-iron discussion, a good method is to tap the top edge by sliding a screwdriver along the plane iron. I use a very chunky screwdriver for tightening plane iron screws, made from an old brace bit, and this works really well as a way of getting the right close-to-the-edge position. On the older Record, the top edges are cut square, so this is easy to do and you can tap one side or the other to get a lateral adjustment. The newer Clifton, with its pretty rounded top, is just a bit harder to control to get any sideways adjustment on.

As for the protrusion of the stud - in use, it lines up with the central slot in the plane iron, so it has plenty of air around it and doesn't bother me - but then I'm not as fastidious as Douglas!

 

[AndyT]

Nice use of a Sine bar there.

Given that the purpose of the SS is to press down near the edge of the blade,
it occurs to me that it might be good if the contact between the small piece and
the large piece was actually a pivot, allow the small piece to "find its own level"
on the blade, a sort of 3 point contact.

Does anyone know (can anyone check) if this is the case?

If it is, the role of the larger piece is nigh vestigial.

BugBear

I've been back and looked again - and you are right, on both of mine, the lower part makes contact all along the leading edge (where it has to be a close fit to apply pressure and prevent ingress of shavings) but at the top it pivots on the pin/bump. On the older one it's only a thou or two, on the Clifton it's a little bit more.

My working hypothesis is that all these point contacts and concavities are by design, so that when locked down in use, everything fits properly.

(I also have a faint memory of a discussion about this - probably on this forum some years ago - where someone filed everything flat and made it worse.)

 

[Vann]

Given that the purpose of the SS is to press down near the edge of the blade...

Hi BB. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here - but I thought the idea of the SS was to press down toward the centre of the cutting iron, as well as the leading edge, and the top (three places) - in order to avoid the bowing effect a single piece cap-iron can have on the cutting iron.

...it occurs to me that it might be good if the contact between the small piece and the large piece was actually a pivot, allow the small piece to "find its own level"
on the blade, a sort of 3 point contact.

A frequent criticism of the Clifton SS is that the "deflector" does not sit flat in the groove. The old Clico website claimed this was done on purpose - for just the effect you describe. Personally I always thought it was just rough workmanship - as the Record SS generally does sit flat.

...If it is, the role of the larger piece is nigh vestigial.

I thought the role of the upper section was to dampen vibration - other wise a thinner piece of metal would have been sufficient (same thickness as a one-piece cap), but both Record and Clifton use ~3mm thick material - as do Lie-Nielsen, et al.

My tuppence worth.

An observation : most of the Record SS caps shown in this thread have the patent date - this means they are pre-1947 - an era when Record had good quality control.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Trafalgar]

Interesting that the larger, mass manufacturer seemed to nail the specs and the smaller boutique provider could not/did not. Maybe a lesson in there and why some of the old planes work just fine, if not better than fine?

I think you are assuming a bigger difference than there was between Record and Clifton. From information posted on here, the Clifton staff were all long term employees of Record, surviving the end of Record as a trading entity, carrying on making the same products using the same tooling. But maybe to stricter qc?

However, my two examples are different sizes and maybe what suits a 2" iron would not suit a 2 3/8" one.

David, what size is your example? As you might be able to see in the photos, my Record one is marked the same way as yours.

Fair disclosure: I have the Clifton unit and it seems fine to me. I've never tested it with feeler gauges or anything like that though. It plus a Hock iron turn a Record 4.5 into quite a bit of mass.

 

[D_W]

I don't follow this as closely as some because I've never seen the two part unit, but the biases made by the manufacturers seem pretty sound.

One of the reasons Clifton doesn't sell well here is that the defect rate is very low with the two north american boutiques, and when there is a problem, they are solving it and 5 non-problems for complaining customers each time there's a real one. And right away.

There were a couple of forum horror stories a while ago on defective cliftons that had serious problems and the users could never find someone who would fix it - neither the retailer nor Clifton would do anything. Perhaps apathy, and perhaps lack of definition of who is responsible to make things right.

The two north american boutiques obviously produce stuff at a defect rate that's lower than stanley ever was, at least if the same standards are being used for measurements. The only glaring thing I can think of is the cap iron length on LN planes, but that is fixed for anyone if it's an issue, too.

 

[Trafalgar]

Well of course the mathematics depend on what one calls a 'defect.' When Lie-Nielsen was producing the gimped-up cap iron it could be argued that the defect rate was 100% (of cap iron equipped planes). But was this a 100% rate on the cap irons only? Of the planes? Considering the cap is an integral part of the tool... ???

 

[bugbear]

A frequent criticism of the Clifton SS is that the "deflector" does not sit flat in the groove. The old Clico website claimed this was done on purpose - for just the effect you describe. Personally I always thought it was just rough workmanship - as the Record SS generally does sit flat.

I've now checked the patent, and it's quite explicit (it uses the word "cutter"
for the blade, and "plane-iron" for the cap iron :roll: ):

claim(4); A plane-iron according to claim (3)
in which the moveable part of the iron is
provided with a bearing on the cutter
along the edge of its operative end, and
with a single central bearing on the fixed
part between the engaging lugs and re-
-cesses for the purpose described.

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

I suppose those who filed the groove are feeling quite silly at this moment. Beware tinkerers with hubris, weekend machinists, and wannabe industrial designers.

Sometimes being lazy is the best option.

 

[D_W]

Well of course the mathematics depend on what one calls a 'defect.' When Lie-Nielsen was producing the gimped-up cap iron it could be argued that the defect rate was 100% (of cap iron equipped planes). But was this a 100% rate on the cap irons only? Of the planes? Considering the cap is an integral part of the tool... ???

I've been hearing lately that it's not that practical, and that it only holds the iron in place. I guess it depends on your perspective. It's not hard to get them to fix it, though - just takes a phone call.

 

[Trafalgar]

It it'll reach the end of the iron then it can serve whatever purpose its owner would like it to serve for the task at hand.

It's about preserving methods of skinning a cat.

 

[David C]

Andy mine is 2 3/8".

BB I have seen a lot of these and they all pivot a little on the pin area.

This three legged stool approach makes good sense.

There were times in the last 40 years when the quality of the front edge was very poor, requiring a great deal of filing.

Round the launch of the Clifton bench planes there was also an attack of "restricted blade advance " as described in my third book.

(And Charles is talking rubbish about L-N chipbreakers..........)

David

 

[D_W]

(And Charles is talking rubbish about L-N chipbreakers..........)

David

In this case, he's not. Many went out on planes and the hole for the adjuster was in a place such that you the cap iron couldn't be advanced to the end of the iron. It had to be set off of the end so that the iron wouldn't run out of adjustment.

I had a 7 with that affliction. There were varying levels, mine only just ran out of adjustment (making it difficult to use), but some couldn't be advanced with the cap iron set close - not even at the end of the adjustment range. A properly drilled cap iron would have the adjuster somewhere mid range. If I'd have put more bevel on my cap, it wouldn't have reached at all (I put a tiny bevel to preserve the ability to use it).

LN offered replacements, if I recall, as they do (make people whole no matter the case). I sold my plane to someone with the issue disclosed, figured they could request it instead of me. Most users probably don't care, and the person buying it will probably never set it close. I never noticed it until setting the cap close instead of closing the mouth.

 

[David C]

Well I was not aware of this serious glitch, so apologies!

I had one of the first which came to this country and have used them ever since. I got a No. 5 sent after seeing it in Fine Woodworking mag.

Have also helped numerous students/customers set up their planes.

A little front edge fettling was required as well as the usual plane blade work.

David

 

[bugbear]

Andy mine is 2 3/8".

BB I have seen a lot of these and they all pivot a little on the pin area.

I just got home, and checked one of mine; the bottom of the groove in the detachable
piece is as flat as I can feel with a known straight edge, but the raised lug on the fixed piece
has a definite bulge upwards.

It appears Record practised what their patent preached.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

...I have seen a lot of these and they all pivot a little on the pin area.

This three legged stool approach makes good sense....

Mine do too. Makes 3 legged sense.
They are very handy - one of the few retro improvements worth the money (possibly!). For free-handers only I presume. Can do quite a lot of honings before having to move the fixed plate. Each honing brings you nearer to tear-out nirvana (according to popular theory!) as the gap shrinks

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Sorry to butt in rather late on (been out all day), but would anybody mind if I offered a thought? The critical shape of the cap-iron (and cutting iron, come to that) is when it's under working condition in the plane - in other words, when the top piece of the Stay-Set is screwed tight to the cutting-iron, and when the whole assembly (cutting-iron, top piece and nose piece) is under lever-cap pressure against the frog of the plane. The lever cap is capable of applying enough force to cause deflections of the other components.

Thus, it might be an idea to assemble the plane and go round with feelers or similar to see how well the components bed to each other in working conditions. With individual components out of the plane, dissembled and on the bench, they may spring to shapes they don't assume in working order.

(PS - My Clifton two-piece works fine in the Record 07; I've never done a feeler-gauge survey on it either dissembled or in working order, but the plane performs better with it than it did with the factory one-piece, and until now that's always been enough for me!)

 

[Jacob]

..... My Clifton two-piece works fine in the Record 07; I've never done a feeler-gauge survey on it either dissembled or in working order, ....

Get stuck in! Time waits for no man. Hours of harmless fun!