New hand planes?

[sploo]

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.

(Roughly) on that topic - statistical significance is also a big issue. If I owned 5 items from a manufacturer (that produced thousands) and all were better/worse than 5 items from another manufacturer (that produces thousands) I'd probably feel pretty confident in my opinion of the two brand's relative merits. Unfortunately, I suspect that my sample would be statistically insignificant, and not enough to draw a wider conclusion.

That's always the problem with anecdotal evidence from individual users - unless that is there's a clear pattern that emerges from many reports.

 

[D_W]

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

Open handled are a bit slight in terms of weight. Here are my data points:

Karl Holtey's A13 - 6 pounds with a 2 1/4" cutter
Norris A5 -5 pounds with 2 1/4" cutter
Spiers copy (brass and steel dovetail) 18" panel plane - 8 pounds 8 ounces with 2 1/2" cutter - cocobolo infill (this one I have)
Copy of Holtey's A13, but with single iron instead of double and no adjuster - 2" iron - 5.5 pounds (this one I have)

I have had four 4 1/2s (that are now gone, I never weighed them - like I said, stanley is easy to come by here, and pass along when desired)
two #10 millers falls (not sure of weight)
one 604 1/2 (the only one I still have).

I believe the 604 1/2 is about 5 pounds or slightly heavier, it is heavier than the bailey's while my 605 is not. the MF 10s were closer to the bailey's in weight, but those are heavy planes (the 4 1/2s) of the stanley line that they (if patrick is to be believed) released in response to the infill planes in GB.

I don't have any of the slighter open handled infills, mostly for fear of what would happen even with a slight drop or bump from elsewhere.

It'd be interesting if those with infills, especially of the original type ( dovetailed and with rosewood ) had any info on their weight.

As an aside, I have an exceptionally heavy casting 6, I can't remember the weight (i put it in a picture on SMC, but since resigning my handle there, can't even see my own pictures). Stanley made a type for a while with a rubber cover on the adjuster, and they seem to have exceptionally heavy castings, though still short of the equivalent sized spiers copy (and there's nothing outsized about the spiers copy, it's got 3/16" thick bottom and 1/8" thick sides - dovetailed. Some american custom made infills have ridiculous steel parts, I believe teh loopy plane may have been close to 8 pounds for a smoother, though that's nothing to do with historical accuracy). The norris and spiers reproductions and originals are more interesting to me.

I thought early on when I built my smoother and the spiers panel plane kit that I had really found the ultimate, until I started to use them heavily.

 

[ED65]

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.

I'm not sure this is as widely acknowledged as it should be but luck is a factor here.

On the cheaper planes where you expect dodgy QC obviously there are going to be some very bad ones, we've all heard the stories of woe. But equally this means there are going to be some gooder ones where the sole is flat from the factory. Which means buying "below the line" you could get a plane that requires the same amount of fettling as one ten times costlier.

 

[ED65]

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!).

There is a universal principle you might not be aware of: older metal will naturally rust less quickly than new.

That is unless you remove the surface during fettling or getting rust off and expose fresh steel/iron, in which case the older metal will rust just as easily as new. After electrolysis or a soak in citric acid for example even a 100 year old plane will be just just as prone to flash-rusting as one made in 2015. This is for both the steel and the cast iron components.

 

[MIGNAL]

I'll have to weigh my Stanley SW (premium?) . The newer type. It's very heavy, which is why it sees so little use.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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.

I'm not sure this is as widely acknowledged as it should be but luck is a factor here.

On the cheaper planes where you expect dodgy QC obviously there are going to be some very bad ones, we've all heard the stories of woe. But equally this means there are going to be some gooder ones where the sole is flat from the factory. Which means buying "below the line" you could get a plane that requires the same amount of fettling as one ten times costlier.

That's fair comment, I think. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that to be 99% sure of getting a metal-bodied plane of number 4 size that works out of the box, and a no-quibble replacement if it doesn't, you'd have to spend about £100 or more, but there's a chance that you might get a decent plane if you spent less. The less you spend, the less the chance of a decent one.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

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.

A correction, if I may. The magazine article stated that a scrap casting, annealed and machined, but rejected, was dropped at the Clifton factory. It did not claim that a complete plane was dropped, nor did it claim that the plane remained functional after the drop. It did claim that the dropped casting did not shatter. No claim was made as to it's dimensional accuracy or condition after dropping, except that it remained in one piece.

On tool use. I've been fiddling with tools since I was old enough to stand up, about 50 years ago. Model-making as a kiddie, then as part of my professional training as a mechanical engineer (which gave me some understanding of metal processing including heat treatments). In a volunteer capacity, about 25 years involved in the overhaul and restoration of full-size steam locomotives, including the hands-on manufacture of quite significant components (my mate and myself made and fitted the brake gear for BR Standard 4 tank 80072, for example), and in a strictly bumbling amateur capacity, about 30 years working wood at home, including with several planes. That has resulted in a number of successful projects, and some failures (and you've never worked either wood or metal if you don't have some of those). Forgive me sir, but I rather resent your implication that I know nothing about the hands-on use of tools.

Annealing is a commonly-used process in metal processing and general metalworking. The details vary from metal to metal, but the process described by the magazine article, and by Mick Hudson in the video posted by Peter Sefton, is the one used for many grades of cast iron. The effects of that process are well known in the metal-processing industry, and have been for many years. See, for example, 'Engineering Metallurgy' volume 1 by R.A.Higgins, or talk to an iron-founder.

You've clearly decided not to believe me (or to believe the video Peter Sefton posted). Fine - that's your right, if you choose. However, I think there's enough engineering and iron-founding knowledge and experience out there, both 'theoretical' and practical, to suggest that the claims made in the magazine article are reasonable and factual, and are not in this instance 'media fabrications'.

 

[sploo]

On the cheaper planes where you expect dodgy QC obviously there are going to be some very bad ones, we've all heard the stories of woe. But equally this means there are going to be some gooder ones where the sole is flat from the factory. Which means buying "below the line" you could get a plane that requires the same amount of fettling as one ten times costlier.

That's pesky statistics working again. Look at reports of the Axminster TS200 table saw: dirt cheap (for what it is) and some real lemons out there, some perfectly good with a little fettling.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

My friend Wizard (late of this parish ) has a Silverline that he measured to be the most accurately machined plane that he has, which would seem to verify the above comments.

 

[andy king]

A correction, if I may. The magazine article stated that a scrap casting, annealed and machined, but rejected, was dropped at the Clifton factory. It did not claim that a complete plane was dropped, nor did it claim that the plane remained functional after the drop. It did claim that the dropped casting did not shatter. No claim was made as to it's dimensional accuracy or condition after dropping, except that it remained in one piece.

Hi Cheshirechappie,
The reasoning behind this part of the article was that I made comment regarding the durability of a Clifton casting compared to the LN and Veritas ductile castings should they fall to a hard surface in a previous review and that Cliftons use of grey iron (as was being advertised at that time) would be more prone to impact damage and could crack.
Mick Hudson and Alan Reid were keen to dismiss my comments by showing me practical demonstrations - first off with an in house video where one was lobbed a considerable distance from height and then by doing as I indicated in the article by picking a random one up from the rejected castings bin (and if you saw the rejected ones you would question why as they looked pretty well flawless!) and dropping from height as I said.
With regards to one of Rhyoliths comments, this was simply an impact durablity test, not to show anything untowards in deviation that could or could not manifest itself from said impact - anything subjected to high impact could suffer accordingly unless designed to do so and no plane manufacturer makes claim to that as far as I am aware.
Hope that clarifies.

Andy

 

[iNewbie]

I think that old Swartz review did some online slaughtering for Clifton. He's had a new view but its rarely\if ever mentioned.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... handplanes

 

[D_W]

I think that old Swartz review did some online slaughtering for Clifton. He's had a new view but its rarely\if ever mentioned.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... handplanes

If he's right about the cap iron moving that much when it's set, that'd be a deal breaker for me. The weight of the plane already is, though, here in the land of $40 and $85 605s.

 

[David C]

I think he meant that the front part was sloppy relative to the fixed , back part. Thus making it difficult to set very close with certainty.

This slop occurred at the slot.

I saw this slop frequently and recently proposed a fix with a center punch marks near the edge of the slot.

This works very well.

David Charlesworth

 

[D_W]

I think he meant that the front part was sloppy relative to the fixed , back part. Thus making it difficult to set very close with certainty.

This slop occurred at the slot.

I saw this slop frequently and recently proposed a fix with a center punch marks near the edge of the slot.

This works very well.

David Charlesworth

That is what I gathered that he meant, too, that there is some slop in the connection. I'm sure that slop helps manufacturing, but your fix is a very sensible and practical one.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

A correction, if I may. The magazine article stated that a scrap casting, annealed and machined, but rejected, was dropped at the Clifton factory. It did not claim that a complete plane was dropped, nor did it claim that the plane remained functional after the drop. It did claim that the dropped casting did not shatter. No claim was made as to it's dimensional accuracy or condition after dropping, except that it remained in one piece.

Hi Cheshirechappie,
The reasoning behind this part of the article was that I made comment regarding the durability of a Clifton casting compared to the LN and Veritas ductile castings should they fall to a hard surface in a previous review and that Cliftons use of grey iron (as was being advertised at that time) would be more prone to impact damage and could crack.
Mick Hudson and Alan Reid were keen to dismiss my comments by showing me practical demonstrations - first off with an in house video where one was lobbed a considerable distance from height and then by doing as I indicated in the article by picking a random one up from the rejected castings bin (and if you saw the rejected ones you would question why as they looked pretty well flawless!) and dropping from height as I said.
With regards to one of Rhyoliths comments, this was simply an impact durablity test, not to show anything untowards in deviation that could or could not manifest itself from said impact - anything subjected to high impact could suffer accordingly unless designed to do so and no plane manufacturer makes claim to that as far as I am aware.
Hope that clarifies.

Andy

Hi Andy,

That does indeed clarify - and thanks for confirming that my memory was about right! It must have been quite a memorable visit, what with people chucking plane castings about and all! A great shame that Clico failed, but let us hope that Clifton do well under Flinn's wing.

CC.

 

[Hatherton_wood]

Clifton's big problem at the moment must be the current price difference with LN and Veritas. Maybe they need to do more to justify the difference. Who is going to be first to produce a chamfer plane that we saw an LN prototype of? How about a circular plane?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

How about a circular plane? A suicide pill for any manufacturer.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

It's true that the multi-plane does seem to have quietly left the Clifton catalogue. Given the number of near-perfect vintage Stanley and Record examples about, the near £1000 price tag for the Clifton plane and extra cutters must have made it a very slow seller.

One thing that Clifton do have that the other makers don't is their cryogenically-treated O1 irons. I've not yet seen any comparison between them and the fashionable A2 and PMV-11 offerings, but I seem to recall Peter Sefton mentioning that there was a significant difference between irons when he undertook a pre-production blind testing between standard and cryo-treated examples. He didn't know which were which, but as Clifton now supply cryo-treated irons as standard, I think we can infer that they were the better performers than the non-cryo examples.

If it does emerge that adding cryogenics to the heat-treatment regime of O1 steel gives noticable improvements in edge life, it won't be long before everyone is at it, though.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

.... One thing that Clifton do have that the other makers don't is their cryogenically-treated O1 irons. I've not yet seen any comparison between them and the fashionable A2 and PMV-11 offerings, but I seem to recall Peter Sefton mentioning that there was a significant difference between irons when he undertook a pre-production blind testing between standard and cryo-treated examples. He didn't know which were which, but as Clifton now supply cryo-treated irons as standard, I think we can infer that they were the better performers than the non-cryo examples.

If it does emerge that adding cryogenics to the heat-treatment regime of O1 steel gives noticable improvements in edge life, it won't be long before everyone is at it, though.

Hi CC

I did some testing not too long ago with the older Clifton blades, however I am not sure exactly how these relate to general planing since the tests were completed on shooting boards (i.e. more about impact rather than abrasion resistance).

Comparisons were made between A2 and PM-V11 (25 degrees) - all BU on the Veritas Shooting Plane - and O1 (Clifton at 30 degrees), Smoothcut (Japanese laminated, 30 degrees), A2 (25- and 30 degrees, LN) and PM-V11 (25- and 30 degrees) - all BD on the LN #51.

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... Plane.html

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... lades.html

The Clifton lagged woefully behind all the other blades. The difficulty O1 has in coping with impact was the same as the testing I have done chopping with bench chisels.

More subjectively, I have been using a Clifton blade (again original version) in my LN #3.

It certainly hones easily - I am used to much tougher steels - and takes sweet shavings, but it last a fraction of the time I get from A2 (which will also take excellent shavings when sharpened on appropriate media).

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Hi Derek,

You're talking there about the 'old' Clifton irons - the multiple-strike forged ones. Flinn's are now fitting something different, no longer forged, but cryogenically treated. So far as I'm aware, you've not tested those, and apart from the blind trial of pre-production irons that Peter Sefton reported, I'm not aware that anybody else has either.

http://www.flinn-garlick-saws.co.uk/aca ... ml#SID=454

Seperate blades seem to be about half the price of the old forged ones, too.

CC

(My Clifton iron - actually a 'Victor', which were the first commercial offerings through Axminster Power Tool Centre back in the late 1990s - sits happily in my Record 07, and is still doing good work for me. Mind you, I don't use many concrete woods. I'll replace the iron with a cryo one when (if) I wear it out - which might well be many years hence!)