looking for Clifton frog's pics

[giacomo]

Hi everybody!

I had a clifton plane N° 4 from Clico in august 2014 on which I wrote a review on my magazine for italian woodworkers. I found that the upper side of the frog is poorly finished while the other one face is nearly mirror polished. Yes, the plane works well but I'd like to know if that surface is the standard or the frog on my plane has something wrong.
The pic in the Andy King's article shows a perfect surface http://www.getwoodworking.com/news/arti ... imple/868/

The one below is a pic of the one I had. It shows deep marks and it seems unfinished. Could anyone post a pic from his Clifton planes to help me?Tks!

 

[Corneel]

It does look finished. You can see the circular milling marks. They don't come like that from the casting form. I think it is better if this surface isn't too smooth to prevent the blade from slipping around. I do see a few ugly pits, probably small casting faults but when they don't harm performance....

 

[matt_southward]

I did a post recently where I described this and compared it to a new WoodRiver plane:

woodriver-5-vs-clifton-5-a-comparison-t85605.html

I personally don't think the finish is acceptable for the price - how do LN finish theirs?

 

[giacomo]

Yes Matt,

the comparison with Veritas, Lie Nielsen and Woodriver is not good fort that Clifton Frog.

@ Cornel: I recognize rough cast iron and milled surfaces but I wonder if that was a real choice or a minor production mistake. I never had slipping problems with fully polished frogs. As Matt wrote we are talking about an expensive tool. Give a look to other face of the frog! It's very well refinished.

 

[tobytools]

I will send a picture of my clifton fault later. The finishy is fine but the lateral adjuster isnt centred on the frog, it to one side, it dosent effect the plane atall...

Would any tool manufacture release nothing but seconds as their best

TT

 

[Cheshirechappie]

It's always a bit difficult judging surface finishes from photographs, but the finish looks fit for purpose to me. I agree with Corneel in this; the top surface of a frog is not one that needs a slick, surface ground, polished finish.

What is important is whether or not the surface is FLAT. I've had budget planes with twisted frog surfaces, so that the blade assembly doesn't sit nicely against it, but rocks slightly. That would very clearly be a significant fault in a premium plane. Flatness is important for this surface; finish is secondary.

 

[Peter Sefton]

We have one out on pass around at the moment, not sure if Nickwelford has any pics yet.

new-graphite-clifton-5-1-2-passaround-t84749.html

Cheers Peter

 

[giacomo]

@chesirechappie. The surface is machined and has (as normal) the tool's scratches. But, as I wrote, the plane works well. You can download the complete review's pdf on this facebook page https://www.facebook.com/cliftonplanes?fref=ts

The frog is flat but I promised an answer to my readers (the review I wrote is published on Legnolab, an italian woodworking magazine). In Italy Veritas leads the market. One of the rasons is that every surface is very well finished. Reading some answer seems that Veritas. LN and many other manfacurer are making a mistake with their polished frogs.

@ Peter

I never had the pleasure to test a graphite type. Even if it does'nt affect the work I hope that the frog has a better finishing than mine. Minor defects could have a big weigth when people decide to buy a premium plane.

I worked with chinese (like woodriver) planes. I have several of them in my woodworking school (http://www.scuoladellegno.it) and they are pretty good.

 

[Duncan A]

Attached picture shows the frog on a virtually unused Clifton No.4, about 3 years old. Light machine marks, but overall impression is nicely finished loaded surfaces. The apparent rough spot about halfway along near the lateral adjusted is actually grease.

My two pre-WW2 Stanleys and a more recent Record all have a similar finish, although some machining marks are straight lines, not curves.

Duncan

 

[giacomo]

thank you Duncan. It seems better than mine. Almost polished

 

[Duncan A]

Yes, smooth grey is how I would describe most of it.Green paint of course!
Duncan

 

[Vann]

I have two Cliftons. A No.3 and a No.4½ shown here alongside my WARFINISH Record No.04ss

The frogs appear the be well machined

If I run my fingernail over the Clifton frogs I can feel fine machining marks. Not so on the Record frog (I don't recall whether I "flattened" that face of the frog on W&D, when I first acquired it 6 years ago).

Staysets rule. Green Cliftons rule. :mrgreen:

Cheers, Vann.

 

[matt_southward]

I like Clifton planes, I really do, but I do wish their quality control and attention to detail was better. These may well be minor defects, either purely cosmetic or easily rectified by the user. However, for the price I think these planes should be flawless so we shouldn't need to have this conversation, but we are and so they clearly are not flawless. I picked up a few LN/Veritas planes at Axminster the other week (first time) and they were flawless (particularly the LN). Clifton need to up their game and maybe Flinn will do that for them - I certainly hope they do. I bought British because I thought it was the 'right' thing to do, but if I ever have the money for a high end plane again I'm afraid it won't be a Clifton unless they do improve.

 

[Vann]

...I do wish their quality control and attention to detail was better.

As I said in my post above, both my Clifton frogs seem to be machined well enough.

If I was allowed two gripes, they would be:
1) the domed brass nuts that hold the handles - flat would just be SO MUCH better, especially on the knob (as others have said);
2) the amount of slack in the threads of the brass lever cap screw - it feels like it will strip the thread if I tighten the lever-cap even slightly too much.

Oh and 3) I wish they were painted British Racing Green (hammer)

Cheers, Vann.

 

[giacomo]

Thanks Vann. As I can see your frogs are just like mine. I think one day I wiil polish it. Even if the plane works well. Hope that Flinn will improve the Clifton standard. A good product deserves that kind of care!



green. Obviously!

 

[Corneel]

Maybe it was a different mindset. They were making workman like tools. Nothing more, nothing less.

The price is a direct result of making these in the UK with a lot of handwork.

 

[Biliphuster]

Thanks Vann. As I can see your frogs are just like mine. I think one day I wiil polish it. Even if the plane works well. Hope that Flinn will improve the Clifton standard. A good product deserves that kind of care!



green. Obviously!

I would advise caution here. If you say the frog face is flat and it works well, polishing it will not aid functionality and risk taking it out of true. Considering the frog face must be flat, non twisted and with certain orientation to the frog base and sides, there is a lot to go wrong for very little gain. When they machine the frog it will be securely clamped in a well registered milling vice which will guarantee the alignment of the faces (hopefully). Lapping it on a surface plate or similar is not guaranteed to maintain these angles.

I wouldn't mess with it at least.

 

[Trafalgar]

The photos I've seen are of frogs not finished smoothly enough. The throats of old wooden planes, and new ECE planes for that matter, are much smoother and these would have to have been processed through the throat of the plane in certain instances. Metal frogs are separate hunks of iron and the level of finish on the Cliftons in this thread is well below where they should be. Writing this off as 'hand craftsmanship' just to the point of being fit for purpose is a bit of a stretch. These aren't the unexposed surface of a drawer bottom.

 

[Vann]

Hope that Flinn will improve the Clifton standard

The photos I've seen are of frogs not finished smoothly enough...
...the level of finish on the Cliftons in this thread is well below where they should be.

With regard to the finish on the frogs on my Cliftons, I'm not sure that I agree with either of you. The surface of the frog must be flat (to a decent standard), and both of mine are. The machining is not uneven, just a little coarser than the old Record - but barely visible. I don't need a mirror finish (hammer)

Better that Flinn put their efforts into getting the handle hardware (and colour :twisted: ) right.

Cheers, Vann

 

[richarddownunder]

That looks like my #4 too. Again similar to a 1910 US Stanley I have and the Record SS.

I'm interested in this as I have just ordered a new #51/2 Clifton and hope that its as good as my #4.

I've been accused of being a fussy sod, obsessive, some less kindly folk have added. I personally find these surfaces perfectly OK as Vann has said. To me they look well machined but not polished, and why would you polish them? If they were full of blow holes in the casting or the walls of the plane were of different thickness, or the surface wasn't flat or a whole bunch of other things (like a wonky stamp on the blade :evil: ), that would be different. Jury is out on the colour 8).

I'm really hoping I have very positive news about my new plane in the fairly near future...

Cheers
Richard

Attached picture shows the frog on a virtually unused Clifton No.4, about 3 years old. Light machine marks, but overall impression is nicely finished loaded surfaces. The apparent rough spot about halfway along near the lateral adjusted is actually grease.

My two pre-WW2 Stanleys and a more recent Record all have a similar finish, although some machining marks are straight lines, not curves.

Duncan