Record No.7

[Mr Ed]

After months of unsuccessful eBay searching, I located a nice Record No.7 at Tony Murlands, which arrived today.

Turns out to be a war finish plane, which for something around 70 years old is in excellent condition.

I checked the sole with a straight edge and feeler gauges and there is a concavity of 0.015mm in the middle, which I don't think we'll worry about. So all in all a cracking plane, for £50.

Here's a little shot of it with the family

Cheers, Ed

 

[adidat]

nice collection there, every size you could need. great no.7

adidat

 

[Fromey]

I hate you.

Grumbly stomps off to check e-bay for any No. 7s for sale.

 

[Mr Ed]

I hate you.

Grumbly stomps off to check e-bay for any No. 7s for sale.

Give Tony Murland a call, I got the impression he had quite a few

 

[adidat]

what about this, a reasonable price and festoolfishy is excellent to deal with

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/for-sale-record-no-7-jointer-t53641.html

adidat

 

[Racers]

Hi, Mr Ed

Nice plane I have a War finish 4 1/2.

All you need now it a No8 :wink:

Pete

 

[devonwoody]

So how long is a number 7?

What minimum length of timber is the plane intended for?

 

[adidat]

A no.7 is 22" long. I tend to find it the most useful plane of all, along with the block plane. It can be used on anything really. But i suppose the optimun length is 1"

Adidat

 

[bugbear]

After months of unsuccessful eBay searching, I located a nice Record No.7 at Tony Murlands, which arrived today.


Turns out to be a war finish plane, which for something around 70 years old is in excellent condition.


I checked the sole with a straight edge and feeler gauges and there is a concavity of 0.015mm in the middle, which I don't think we'll worry about.

That's 6 "tenths", in imperial speak. How did you measure that with feeler gauges (and that straight edge must be expensive...)

As an aside, the longer Baileys are surprisingly flexible, since the cross section doesn't increase enough with the length, so the absolute flatness accuracy that is even meaningful is lower than with (say) a #4 1/2.

BugBear

 

[DTR]

That's 6 "tenths", in imperial speak. How did you measure that with feeler gauges (and that straight edge must be expensive...)

I was wondering the same thing, my smallest feeler gauge is 1.5 thou...

 

[studders]

Suspect OP meant 0.15mm as my feeler gauges have that blade, actually goes down to .05mm.

 

[DTR]

I was thinking the same thing, in which case Mr Ed's plane is just meets "the standard" for flatness, ie ±3 thou

 

[custard]

every size you could need

I'm not so sure about that. I don't see an 08.

I could use a 5 1/2 for just about everything, but there's one other bench plane that I sometimes "need", and that's the 08. The reason being it's the only one with the wider 2 5/8" iron.

If I'm edge joing two long and thick boards for a table top I'll usually cramp them together face-to-face and run a plane along the edge of both at the same time, working on the assumption that if I'm out on one it'll be compensated by the other. With the 1 1/4" boards I normally use for table tops the 2 5/8" iron on the 08 becomes literally irreplacable. So, if I could only have two planes they'd be the 5 1/2 and the 08.

I also agree with Bugbear's point, by the time you're up at an 07 or 08 the flexing of the plane becomes obvious. It's fairly easy to correct a convex 07 sole just by pressing down firmly, and it's even easier to overide or introduce moderate lateral adjustment by twisting the plane within your hands during a planing stroke.

My father was a cabinet maker who trued an edge with a cambered iron, his partner though honed his irons flat and trued an edge by twisting the plane during the stroke. They both managed to produce consistently tight glue lines, but with very different approaches.

 

[bugbear]

I also agree with Bugbear's point, by the time you're up at an 07 or 08 the flexing of the plane becomes obvious.

Some people have both calculated and measured it...

BugBear

 

[Mr Ed]

Nice to know you are maintaining standards of pedantry at UKW Bugbear. Of course you're right, I'm sure I meant 0.15 not 0.015.

The straightedge is a steel Veritas which claims to be accurate to 0.001", which will do for me.

To be honest, I was just trying to observe that the sole was substantially flat, not to enter into a metrology debate, although I did create that with my own initial error admittedly.

Ed

 

[andy king]

My father was a cabinet maker who trued an edge with a cambered iron, his partner though honed his irons flat and trued an edge by twisting the plane during the stroke. They both managed to produce consistently tight glue lines, but with very different approaches.

The second approach sounds similar to how I was shown to joint by a tutor at college - He would take full through shavings with a jointer, butt the boards and see where the discrepancies were (if any) and he would then skew the plane to effectively give it a shorter sole length, by eye, adjust the fit with a couple of deft shavings to rough pencil indicators with perfect results.
It sounds odd, but he was superb at it and demonstrated it quite a few times over the course of my apprenticeship!
The art of the craftsman over the reasoning of tradition I suppose!

cheers,
Andy

 

[bugbear]

Nice to know you are maintaining standards of pedantry at UKW Bugbear. Of course you're right, I'm sure I meant 0.15 not 0.015.

The straightedge is a steel Veritas which claims to be accurate to 0.001", which will do for me.

To be honest, I was just trying to observe that the sole was substantially flat, not to enter into a metrology debate, although I did create that with my own initial error admittedly.

Ed

Heh. Down in those dimensions, I think (or intuit) in thou's, since I've studied so many English engineering books from the 1880-1950 period.

So I converted your number, and then spent a little while making sure my conversion was correct, because 6 tenths is doable (Karl Holtey aims a little better), but it's unusual.

BugBear

 

[Mr Ed]

Nice to know you are maintaining standards of pedantry at UKW Bugbear. Of course you're right, I'm sure I meant 0.15 not 0.015.

The straightedge is a steel Veritas which claims to be accurate to 0.001", which will do for me.

To be honest, I was just trying to observe that the sole was substantially flat, not to enter into a metrology debate, although I did create that with my own initial error admittedly.

Ed

Heh. Down in those dimensions, I think (or intuit) in thou's, since I've studied so many English engineering books from the 1880-1950 period.

So I converted your number, and then spent a little while making sure my conversion was correct, because 6 tenths is doable (Karl Holtey aims a little better), but it's unusual.

BugBear

Now I'm back home and have checked again, it was actually 0.05 (the thinnest in my set of feeler gauges) so even better!

Ed

NB - I thought I saw a post from Rob earlier, but it seems to have gone now, not quite sure what's going on there.

 

[woodbloke]

NB - I thought I saw a post from Rob earlier, but it seems to have gone now, not quite sure what's going on there.

Ed, you did, but I thought it uncoof to HJ your No7 thread :lol: Have a look at my last post here :wink: to see what I mean... - Rob

 

[Alf]

He would take full through shavings with a jointer, butt the boards and see where the discrepancies were (if any) and he would then skew the plane to effectively give it a shorter sole length, by eye, adjust the fit with a couple of deft shavings to rough pencil indicators with perfect results.
It sounds odd, but he was superb at it and demonstrated it quite a few times over the course of my apprenticeship!
The art of the craftsman over the reasoning of tradition I suppose!

But that's what effective use of any plane comes down to, isn't it? Knowing where and how much the given plane is going to remove. It's a sort of controlled carving removing the high spots. We delude ourselves if we think it's just a case of pushing blade X across surface Y until they make a perfect flat/straight surface. If it was, we wouldn't have so much trouble when we're learning.