New hand planes?

[Jelly]

I know. I'll start making infill planes from aluminium and balsa. I'll make a fortune!

You're going to want to wait for a dry spell before lapping those soles... At least you dont want to go full on weight-weanie and use Magnesium, then you'd really have fun!

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I know. I'll start making infill planes from aluminium and balsa. I'll make a fortune!

You're going to want to wait for a dry spell before lapping those soles... At least you dont want to go full on weight-weanie and use Magnesium, then you'd really have fun!

It would solve the problem of working in an unheated shop over winter. Save a few bob not needing flourescent lights, too. I wonder if I could flog magnesium oxide as a strop dressing powder?

Maybe magnesium might have it's drawbacks. How easy is it to cast beryllium?

 

[D_W]

But....but......but.....infills are HEAVY! :shock:

I know. I'll start making infill planes from aluminium and balsa. I'll make a fortune!

I gather most infills are about as heavy as the heavy casting bedrocks. I've got three of them (the infills). It goes back to heavy being an asset if you're not using a plane much (like if you only smooth, which may be the case for most cabinetmakers in the last 150 years). Even so, if you have to remove chatter from 40 square feet of panels and rails for a chest, the weight becomes a nuisance.

Presume stanley planes outsold infills by a mile even while infills were popular. Amateur resurgence made fairly low quality infills popular again (at least in the states), even when they are clearly in need of wood refitting. There was a while where infills were being bought over there in volume and brought back here to sell, because the popular mantra was that they would plane more difficult woods, something only correct if a stanley plane user is relatively incompetent.

If you want to get rich selling planes, you'll have to promise people happiness by selling some kind of poo like Paul Sellers does. He's a "lifestyle" woodworker, and he promises when you pass him (i saw him say it on his log) that you're envious of him if you sit in a desk chair. If you really want to make money as a woodworker, you have to sell a lifestyle, make videos and teach white collar workers to make dovetails. That's the model here in the states, at least.

 

[sploo]

...Or perhaps something to throw at an intruder. Since you guys can't keep pistols in your nightstand there, maybe you could put a QS #4 on them - or a couple.

But... but... what if I've only got a #4 and a guy breaks into my house packing a #8? :mrgreen:

(waiting for someone to make a "you can pry my infill out of my cold dead hands" type gag :wink

 

[D_W]

...Or perhaps something to throw at an intruder. Since you guys can't keep pistols in your nightstand there, maybe you could put a QS #4 on them - or a couple.

But... but... what if I've only got a #4 and a guy breaks into my house packing a #8? :mrgreen:

(waiting for someone to make a "you can pry my infill out of my cold dead hands" type gag :wink

Rubber band gun loaded with chisels! Anyone ever fletch a parer?

 

[Mr_P]

But....but......but.....infills are HEAVY! :shock:

Depends on the infill I guess.

No Bedrocks here as mentioned but a few others I've just weighed.

Record 03 = 23cm, 1.44kg
Record 04 = 24cm, 1.68
Record 04.5 = 26cm, 2.14

Spiers dovetailed open handled = 1.78kg
52.5 Iron, Sole length = 195mm

Scottish ish casting closed handle = 1.72kg
55 Iron, Sole length = 205mm

 

[Cheshirechappie]

But....but......but.....infills are HEAVY! :shock:

Depends on the infill I guess.

No Bedrocks here as mentioned but a few others I've just weighed.

Record 03 = 23cm, 1.44kg
Record 04 = 24cm, 1.68
Record 04.5 = 26cm, 2.14

Spiers dovetailed open handled = 1.78kg
52.5 Iron, Sole length = 195mm

Scottish ish casting closed handle = 1.72kg
55 Iron, Sole length = 205mm

I wasn't having a pop at you, Mr P. I'm sorry if the tone of the post gave that impression - not the intention at all.

It does sometimes seem that some people present their opinions (which they're perfectly entitled to hold) as an Established Fact. It was to that I was reacting.

In the case of plane weights, some like 'em light. Some like 'em heavier, feeling that they power through the cut better. Some like horses for courses, and some don't mind as long as does what's needed. Some just use what they've got, neither knowing nor caring whether a lighter or heavier plane would be better or worse. Fortunately, we've got the choice - and not just with weight, but with bed angle, blade steel, adjuster type and many other things.

I entirely understand why a planing noob can end up confused - especially given the depth and intensity of discussion about the various options - but in the end, the simple rule that you get what you pay for (generally) is as good a guide as any. It's true that the budget end of the new plane market (including Stanley and Record, these days, sadly) is often junk out of the box, but even most of those can be made into a pretty fair plane with some fettling. It's also true that at the higher end, there may be 'features' that some people regard as unnecessary, but they'll all plane wood, which is the purpose of the exercise for most people. In the end, it's the user's willingness to spend some time at the bench learning about wood and how to plane it that will count for more than almost anything else.

Edit to add - Having done a bit of rummaging about the interwebs, I think to buy a metal-bodied plane of No 4 size new, you need to spend over £100 to be sure of one that'll work well out of the box (subject to sharpening the iron and fitting the cap-iron). That's a VERY rough giude. The lower the price below that, the more fettling you'll have to do to make a decent plane of it. Above that, they should work and work well, and it's a matter for the purchaser how much they're prepared to spend for extra features and build quality. That puts (in no particular order) Silverline, Anant, Faithfull, Record and standard Stanley below the line, and Stanley Sweetheart, WoodRiver, Quangsheng, Veritas, Lie-Nielsen and Clifton above it. I'm sure I'll have missed some, though!

 

[Mr_P]

Thought you were having a minor pop at Mr B n G not me. I used to prefer heavier planes but not sure whether its old age or experience but my no.3 is getting a lot more use these days. Maybe it is just the joys of middle age and I've decided my bench is def too low.

 

[Rhyolith]

Sorry this responds to a post 4-5 pages back (and there are just to many posts to read everything in-between; have skimmed).

Clifton without a shadow of a doubt - my LN went bye byes...

What happened to your LN? Because I strongly disagree, clifton only matches Lie Nielsen in the shoulder plane department. Otherwise Lie Nielsen's are better in every functional capacity... though I will say that the Lie Nielsen Bronze planes are dum as hell (a LN salesman even told me they are just to "look pretty"), they brake so easily... the iron ones are though as anything though. I have been told that they bounce if you drop them on something hard rather than smash like Cliftons (and every other cast plane), evidently I don't want to test this with £400 of Jointer plane :?

Just for the record, there's a factual inaccuracy in this statement.

Both Lie-Nielsen and Clifton overcome the tendency of thin castings to distort after machining by annealing the raw castings. They do this by heating the castings to about red heat, then allow them to cool very slowly without any restraint on how they can move. That has two effects. Firstly, it relieves the stresses in the raw casting locked into it as the casting solidified, then contracted as it cooled, but was restrained from moving where it wanted by the mould. The other effect is to toughen the iron, changing it from grey cast iron (which is indeed brittle) to ductile iron (which, as the name suggests, isn't).

The older Stanley and Record plane castings were not heat treated, but were left for a period of time to 'season' (allow the internal stresses to relieve themselves over time). About twelve months is the time period commonly quoted. Later plane castings were not seasoned or annealed, and thus have something of a reputation for distortion.

If you dropped a Clifton bench plane on the floor, it would bounce, not shatter.

Do you have opposing evidence? Becasue the "facts" in this statement were based off the experiences of myself and work colleges during my year at a boatyard. Meaning they were true for those planes; I did spell this out at the start of the statement.

Some of my work colleagues dropped Clifton's (by accident) and they smashed, so either they have changed something about the annealing in the last 2 years or more likely the quality varies from plane to plane. What I have not confirmed first hand is whether Lie Nielsen's don't smash, but enough people seem to be convinced they bounce for me to believe that.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Thought you were having a minor pop at Mr B n G not me. I used to prefer heavier planes but not sure whether its old age or experience but my no.3 is getting a lot more use these days. Maybe it is just the joys of middle age and I've decided my bench is def too low.

Ah yes - the joys of middle age, when the growth of wisdom and experience is slightly offset by creaks, groans, aches and pains. Just tell yourself that Age and Low Cunning will always overcome Youth and Skill. I keep telling myslf that - and one of these days, I might even believe myself....

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Reply to Rhyolith.

Yes - a magazine review some years ago. The writer of the review visited Clifton's factory, and reported what he saw, including the annealing process. There was a photograph of the annealing furnace, with the sole castings in it. The writer also recounted how the factory manager had explained what the annealing did, and demonstrated it by taking a random casting from the scrap bin, walking up a flight of stairs, and dropping it from about ten feet onto a concrete floor. It didn't shatter, which clearly impressed the writer. I can't imagine a firm of Clifton's integrity staging something like that with a 'planted' casting.

Did your workmates contact Clifton about the shattered planes (and those with twisted soles), and if so, what was Clifton's response?

 

[Rhyolith]

Reply to Rhyolith.

Yes - a magazine review some years ago. The writer of the review visited Clifton's factory, and reported what he saw, including the annealing process. There was a photograph of the annealing furnace, with the sole castings in it. The writer also recounted how the factory manager had explained what the annealing did, and demonstrated it by taking a random casting from the scrap bin, walking up a flight of stairs, and dropping it from about ten feet onto a concrete floor. It didn't shatter, which clearly impressed the writer. I can't imagine a firm of Clifton's integrity staging something like that with a 'planted' casting.

Did your workmates contact Clifton about the shattered planes (and those with twisted soles), and if so, what was Clifton's response?

It does not seem to be common knowledge that Clifton's are annealed (and thus shouldn't smash) so he probably did not think to contact them after dropping one due to embarrassment if nothing else. As for the twisted soles, I think Clifton was contacted but I never heard what the response was.

I will be pleased to confirm they making planes to the same standard as Lie Nielsen, as Clifton's are certainly pretty and its fantastic to have things like that made in Britain; But I will need some more convincing due to my distrust of the media and the weight of experience with Clifton's quality control issues.

 

[MIGNAL]

Well I knew that Clifton annealed the castings years ago and I've never owned a Clifton plane. Not that I know anything about metallurgy but I understood that the LN ductile iron and Clifton's annealed grey iron aren't the same thing - at least that is what someone told me.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Well I knew that Clifton annealed the castings years ago and I've never owned a Clifton plane. Not that I know anything about metallurgy but I understood that the LN ductile iron and Clifton's annealed grey iron aren't the same thing - at least that is what someone told me.

As I understand it, that's quite correct. The LN heat treatment process does result in the material known as 'ductile iron' (used extensively in this country for water pipes, but that's by-the-by), the Clifton process isn't quite the 'ductile iron' process. I think in both cases, the main aim is to stabilise (or 'stress relieve') the casting, and any reduction in brittleness is an incidental advantage. The demonstration drop from first floor onto concrete not breaking the casting was, however, something that stuck in the mind.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Reply to Rhyolith.

Yes - a magazine review some years ago. The writer of the review visited Clifton's factory, and reported what he saw, including the annealing process. There was a photograph of the annealing furnace, with the sole castings in it. The writer also recounted how the factory manager had explained what the annealing did, and demonstrated it by taking a random casting from the scrap bin, walking up a flight of stairs, and dropping it from about ten feet onto a concrete floor. It didn't shatter, which clearly impressed the writer. I can't imagine a firm of Clifton's integrity staging something like that with a 'planted' casting.

Did your workmates contact Clifton about the shattered planes (and those with twisted soles), and if so, what was Clifton's response?

It does not seem to be common knowledge that Clifton's are annealed (and thus shouldn't smash) so he probably did not think to contact them after dropping one due to embarrassment if nothing else. As for the twisted soles, I think Clifton was contacted but I never heard what the response was.

I will be pleased to confirm they making planes to the same standard as Lie Nielsen, as Clifton's are certainly pretty and its fantastic to have things like that made in Britain; But I will need some more convincing due to my distrust of the media and the weight of experience with Clifton's quality control issues.

I can think of no particular reason why the writer of an article in a woodworking magazine would fabricate (with photograh of the annealing furnace) something of that nature, and I therefore choose to believe it. Should you choose not to believe me, that is, of course, entirely your business. Likewise, I could, if I wished, choose not to believe you.

 

[Peter Sefton]

I had Mick Hudson (from Clifton) join me in the workshop last year, here is one of the videos taken at that time. This one covers the annealing process that Clifton planes go through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DL2oj9dKtA

Cheers Peter

 

[Jacob]

... how the factory manager had explained what the annealing did, and demonstrated it by taking a random casting from the scrap bin, walking up a flight of stairs, and dropping it from about ten feet onto a concrete floor. It didn't shatter, which clearly impressed the writer. ....

Personally I choose never to drop my planes from 10 ft onto concrete.
But I do use them in the normal way and the steel - annealed or not (whatever that means) - is soft and prone to scratches

 

[Hatherton_wood]

Apart from the softer metal I've also found recent high quality planes are much more prone to rust than the old Stanley's. You have to be so careful to keep them protected at all times (unless bronze of course!).

 

[Rhyolith]

I can think of no particular reason why the writer of an article in a woodworking magazine would fabricate (with photograh of the annealing furnace) something of that nature, and I therefore choose to believe it. Should you choose not to believe me, that is, of course, entirely your business. Likewise, I could, if I wished, choose not to believe you.

Of course we are all entitled to our opinions; on a side note I apologise if I appear blunt or dis-respectful, it is simply the way I write and not intended as derogatory.

Media Rant: I have a dis-trust of the media as they write to make money and entertain over anything else. This does not need to be a outright fabrication such as taking a photograph over something other than the Clifton factory to represent said factory. Simply missing out a few bits of information or exaggerate a few others here and there add up to a decidedly large amount of mis-information very quickly... not saying they did, but that fact they could with relative ease to a benefit for themselves is enough to make me see it as unreliable information; firmly below "fact" level in other words. At best something like a magazine or news paper provides only a tiny window into a world such as tool making. I mean, for example there might over 1000 ways of annealing for all we know (I obviously have no idea how many there are) and other numerous variations of the method that effect the metal differently. Simply knowing Clifton does an annealing process really tells us very little if we are not metallurgists. The defined test is more convincing, the Plane dropping ten feet onto hard concrete and still being functional (to a measurable capacity? i.e. flat sole) afterwards, but unless it was done meeting scientific standards (which is unlikely) its still questionable evidence.

Honestly I feel tools can only be understood fully if you handle them in real life (and see the production in real life). Understanding the theory alone and thinking your understand the tool, that is as ludicrous thinking you can gain an complete understanding of a 1000 page novel from only the first page.

So to be clear, my opinion of Clifton is that their should plans (one of which I do actually own) are great, and I am on the fence regarding their larger planes (No.4+) as all the evidence I have seen thus far is subjective.

Apart from the softer metal I've also found recent high quality planes are much more prone to rust than the old Stanley's. You have to be so careful to keep them protected at all times (unless bronze of course!).

I have defiantly found this with my Lie Nielsens, though I often think its because the older planes have that grey layer of oxidation (I don't actual know what it is) that protects them. Freshly polished or sanded soles on the old planes do seem more prone to rust just like the new planes; as they then also lack the grey layer.

 

[D_W]

Apart from the softer metal I've also found recent high quality planes are much more prone to rust than the old Stanley's. You have to be so careful to keep them protected at all times (unless bronze of course!).

One of the bummers of premium planes or freshly surface ground vantage planes.