Record No4....Done

[woodbloke]

As a further result of our MicroBash yesterday, Paul kindly lent me his Clifton iron and CB, so I've decided to use one of these rather than the Hock. The first pic shows Paul's No4 with my original blade and totes and this one is much posher than mine:

After a bit of 'cleaning up' it's turned out quite respectably. These pics show the finished plane without the blade inserted. All parts stripped and polished to 1000g (where practical) and then buffed (if possible) on the leather wheel of the Tormek, front knob and tote made from English Walnut, the little knob on the end of the lateral adjusting lever made from rosewood and walnut:

....and the underside:

The blade fitted quite well, tho' fitting the 'Y' lever was tricky in order to get the blade to bed down on the frog and about 2mm of mild steel was silver soldered onto the 'Y' lever to extend the reach so it engages correctly with the CB. The finished plane looks like this:

Anyway, hope you all like the No4...havn't tried it yet 8-[ but wil be taking it to the BigBash at NickW's place in Sept so you can play around with it there - Rob

 

[Colin C]

Well done Rob

It looks very nice and I hope it works as well as it looks ( which should be very well ) =D>

 

[Paul Chapman]

Fabulous, Rob =D> =D> =D> That's now a really cool-looking plane 8) 8) 8)

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Alf]

Rob, you're crazier than a loon, but if you're pleased... It's a tour de force, but what about the performance? Where are the shavings? Tsk, you'd think we were an audience of collectors... :lol:

Cheers, Alf

 

[woodbloke]

Alf wrote:

what about the performance? Where are the shavings?

Shavings....performance....... 8-[ 8-[...... anyway can't try it now 'cos it's been wrapped up in a towel and put away in the airing cupboard - Rob

 

[Paul Chapman]

Rob, did you have to file much off the mouth?

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbloke]

Rob, did you have to file much off the mouth?

Cheers :wink:

Paul

Paul - mouth is very fine, maybe .5mm or less. I had to take a little bit of the front but it only took about 5 mins to fettle in the mouth. As we discussed yesterday, the frog lines up with the rear part of the mouth so that the maximum area of blade is in contact..will order a new blade from Axminster at the end of the month and let you have yours back on 09 Jun.....am impressed with DC's book, will have to get them I fancy, lots of the stuff in there hasn't appeared in F&C - Rob

 

[Paul Chapman]

.....am impressed with DC's book, will have to get them I fancy, lots of the stuff in there hasn't appeared in F&C

Glad you're finding it interesting. I often refer to it. Must get the others when the wife's not looking....... :lol:

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Philly]

Nice one, Rob! Looks like you used a whole can of elbow grease on that one :lol:
Cheers
Philly

 

[Bainzy]

Awesome job - I've only so far got around to de-rusting and repainting my grandads spokeshave, yet I'm wanting to make all his Stanleys and his wooden planes look/work like new again:

While the #7 and #4.5 were bought recently on ebay, and the Silverline £6 from Amazon for scrubbing, the rest were inherited. If I manage to do as good a job with his planes as you've done with that record I'll be ecstatic!

 

[woodbloke]

Brainzy - you don't need to go to anywhere like the lengths I've gone to in order to make an older plane work well, plenty of info elsewhere on the forum. As Alf has correctly surmised, I'm a total nutter for doing this but I just wanted to see what could be achieved with the maximum effort and the minumum of at least two pots of elbow grease - Rob

 

[Bainzy]

I suppose so, but it's always nice to have a plane that looks as nice as it works

The soles are all pretty flat on the metal planes, and I've managed to hone the blades to take tissue thin shavings, so they work fine, but I'd still like to make them look as nice as your Record. Plus apart from the #3 that has most of it's varnish intact, I'm planning on stripping any remaining finish from all the handles, restaining if necessary and coating with wax as I love the way it feels to handle a plane with handles like that - it feels so slick, warm and comfortable.

 

[woodbloke]

Brainzy - it's a good idea to strip off the old varnish, that's what I did to the original handles in the pics. All I did then was to give them a few coats of shellac and then some wax over the top, it definitely improves the way the plane feels in the hand. The best thing to do is to fettle in the sole, get it dead flat (or as flat as you can) and it should be absolutely flat behind the mouth as well. Make sure also that the frog is seating well and that it again is flat, finally treat yourself to a decent iron (you can use the original CB) if needed, these things will make a huge difference to the way it performs - Rob

 

[newt]

Rob, although I have seen the WIP the finished plane looks real good.

 

[Mike.C]

Nice one Rob, a masterpiece if I ever saw one. I bet there are not many Record No4's that look as good as yours.

Cheers

Mike

 

[woden]

Lovely bit of work there, Rob. The finished article looks stunning. There really should be companies tapping into this whole hand tool renovation area. It'd be great to put one of my grotty old planes in the post and have it coming back like that. Oh well, back to reality. :roll:

Anyway, I'm planing on buying an old 4 1/2, probably on ebay, and making a considerably more limited renovation than what you've done there. But I'm wondering which brand/vintage of 4 1/2 to go for. I see that the face of the frog on your Record has a completely machined surface with no casting indentations. Yet, it doesn't look to have been that old a Record plane. Is this a difference between more recent Records and Stanleys - the former having a fully ground face on the frog while the latter has casting indentations. Older Stanleys have this fully ground face and I always thought this was part of the reason they are supposed to be better than more recent versions - the older frogs apparently give better support to the blades.

Is any of this the case or am I talking nonsense? And if a frog with a fully ground face is superior should I then be looking for a Record instead of a Stanley unless the latter happens to be very old - say dating from pre WW2? What about the way in which the frog attaches to the main casting - is there any advantage to be found in the older different types of castings that Stanley did way back?

I hope to open the mouth every so slightly to allow me to use a thicker blade and cap iron from one of the top makers. No doubt I'll also have to put a spot of weld on top of the wish bone like depth lever so that it'll reach through to the cap iron slot. But which brand of blade is the best to go with? You're going for the Victor blades found in Cliftons but I've also heard good things about Lie Nielsens and also Veritas blades. So I'm just not sure which to buy. Indeed, because of the different depth adjustment mechanism I don't know if a Veritas cap iron would work with a Stanley or Record bench plane.

Anyway, your advice would be much appreciated.

 

[woodbloke]

Lovely bit of work there, Rob. The finished article looks stunning. There really should be companies tapping into this whole hand tool renovation area. It'd be great to put one of my grotty old planes in the post and have it coming back like that. Oh well, back to reality. :roll:

Anyway, I'm planing on buying an old 4 1/2, probably on ebay, and making a considerably more limited renovation than what you've done there. But I'm wondering which brand/vintage of 4 1/2 to go for. I see that the face of the frog on your Record has a completely machined surface with no casting indentations. Yet, it doesn't look to have been that old a Record plane. Is this a difference between more recent Records and Stanleys - the former having a fully ground face on the frog while the latter has casting indentations. Older Stanleys have this fully ground face and I always thought this was part of the reason they are supposed to be better than more recent versions - the older frogs apparently give better support to the blades.

Is any of this the case or am I talking nonsense? And if a frog with a fully ground face is superior should I then be looking for a Record instead of a Stanley unless the latter happens to be very old - say dating from pre WW2? What about the way in which the frog attaches to the main casting - is there any advantage to be found in the older different types of castings that Stanley did way back?

I hope to open the mouth every so slightly to allow me to use a thicker blade and cap iron from one of the top makers. No doubt I'll also have to put a spot of weld on top of the wish bone like depth lever so that it'll reach through to the cap iron slot. But which brand of blade is the best to go with? You're going for the Victor blades found in Cliftons but I've also heard good things about Lie Nielsens and also Veritas blades. So I'm just not sure which to buy. Indeed, because of the different depth adjustment mechanism I don't know if a Veritas cap iron would work with a Stanley or Record bench plane.

Anyway, your advice would be much appreciated.

Glad you liked the plane. The actual cast body is probably from the 1970's but the frog has been lifted from my much older T5 and in my view are far superior to the more modern ones, the older frogs drop staight into a more newer castings, but you're probably better off looking on the bay for a much older Record or Stanley, which will have a frog with a fully machined face, might be worth having a trawl round your local second hand tool shop to see if they've got some gash frogs. Older planes can be recognised by the lower front knob. The little bit of steel silver soldered to the top of the 'Y' lever is well worth doing 'specially if you fit a thicker blade. I had to open out the mouth just a fraction to accomodate the 3.1mm Victor blade and its now less than .5mm. Beware if you fit the LN blade (from Axminster) as the new LN CB's are only designed to fit LN planes. The blade will be good but you'll need to fit a different CB - Rob

 

[Paul Chapman]

Hi Woden,

Here's a picture of the two types of Record frogs. The one on the left is from my #4 bought in 1970. The one on the right is from a second-hand #5 - I think Record stopped making this type of frog in the mid-1960s

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woden]

That picture isn't showing up for me, Paul.

Out of all the brands of metal plane that come up for sale on ebay Stanley, Record and then less so Marples and Miller Falls seem to be more common. Which of these makes tends to be best or does a lot depend on the age of the plane?

Beware if you fit the LN blade (from Axminster) as the new LN CB's are only designed to fit LN planes. The blade will be good but you'll need to fit a different CB - Rob

Oh well, that rules out their chip braker then. And I really fancied the LN one as it seems very thick and is ground as opposed to being pressed so must be very sturdy.

What blades/chipbrakers (the thick ones not the modified versions targeted at Stanleys, etc.) are compatible with older metal planes provided you open the mouth and increase the reach of the depth adj. lever? Why did you go for Victor's offering? What about the Japanese Samurai laminated blades that Axminster also offer?

 

[Colin C]

Hi Woden

I have a Japanese Samurai laminated blade in my old #7 with a Cliffton cap iron and I am very happy with it but you might need to get a new screw for the cap iron as the on the old one would not fit ( different thread ).

Regards Colin