Record & Stanley, Laminated Plane Irons

[nabs]

according to this site:
https://virginiatoolworks.com/2015/02/1 ... rk-stamps/

the stanley iron is from 1912-1918 - adding a little more credence to the claim they started using laminated irons in the 1920s...

 

[nabs]

and this website about WS tool contains an information leaflet that confirms the irons are crucible cast steel (although no explicit statement they are solid steel)
http://www.wstoolsbirmingham.com/histor ... irmingham/

 

[custard]

the stanley iron is from 1912-1918 - adding a little more credence to the claim they started using laminated irons in the 1920s...

That would fit. I've only got two laminated American Stanley's, but they've both got the 1920's Sweetheart logo.

 

[nabs]

out of curiosity has anyone got a Record iron with a rounded top that is also stamped 'best crucible cast' (as opposed the more recent 'tungsten vanadium steel')? If so , is it laminated?

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

Is it from a number 03? I think my 03 does, but I'll have to check another day, I'm not near my workshop.

Mike.

 

[richarddownunder]

This is a good explanation. It makes you realise that a simple plane iron isn't so simple after all and they really did know a thing or two back then...I think I'll look at old irons with a bit more respect from now on!
http://galootopia.com/old_tools/planes/ ... dish-iron/

This is also quite good...
http://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/lam ... ane-irons/

I found another reference that suggested that with a softer steel backing, the laminate could be hardened to HRC 62.
Cheers
Richard

 

[custard]

I'm assuming Richard that the leaflet you linked to is a Stanley USA publication? The web site and the fact that it says "Sheffield, England" suggests that's the case,

If so it looks solid evidence that at least Stanley UK and Stanley USA were both sourcing laminated irons from the same Sheffield supplier. I guess it makes it more likely that there was just one source of laminated irons for all plane manufacturers (including Record), and less likely that Stanley Australia (or anywhere else in the Stanley empire) was producing their own irons.

Not conclusive though, for one thing you'd have thought that with years of tool historians pouring over the records the mystery Sheffield laminated iron manufacturer would have been identified by now?

 

[Trafalgar]

Well if they 'poured' over the records rather than pored over them, it could explain why all the records are missing. They became wet, and were ruined.

:wink:

 

[Jacob]

Well if they 'poured' over the records rather than pored over them, it could explain why all the records are missing. They became wet, and were ruined.

:wink:

If they pawed over them that could mess them up too.

 

[AndyT]

This is probably one of the thousands of questions which might be answerable by studying records in the Hawley Collection. However, the collection is looked after by a bunch of loyal volunteers and they don't have the capacity to go off pursuing questions of their own.

So if anyone reading this is in the Sheffield area and wants to do some original research, don't hold back thinking that the field has been fully explored already - it hasn't!

 

[Trafalgar]

My laminated iron is a SW era Stanley ("Sweetheart"). I have another with the same stamp and shape and came installed in a plane property 'typed' to that era and it is not laminated. If the laminated iron is harder, well it actually is harder, but it isn't by all that much based on how it hones.

 

[nabs]

looking more closely at the site linked earlier on, the author mentions he has two Stanley irons with the same stamp as my one (which apparently dates them to somewhere around 1912 ish to 1919).

One of them is solid steel and the other is laminated - this could mean the laminated blades were introduced at some point in this period or (as the author of this site imagines) that Stanley were using both types - given the post above, I suppose they must have been using both types.

http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/nov2002

 

[memzey]

I don’t have a round topped crucible Record iron but I do have a couple of square top ones. This one, dated with a broad arrow, is definitely laminated.

I have a few old Stanley irons as well (similar age, older and slightly newer than the ones pictured). I’ll have a look and see what I find.

 

[memzey]

Done some digging. The following five are all pretty old and all but the one on the extreme right are laminated:

Here’s a close up of the non-laminated one. It’s the oldest of the lot and made in the USA:

 

[nabs]

if this type-study site and Stanley's adverts from the 30s are to be believed, even that last one was made in Blighty!*

http://www.timetestedtools.net/2016/01/ ... ter-dates/

* at least the steel was - it is possible that stanley still rolled, ground etc. We can be pretty confident that they did the heat treating themselves since once upon a time someone saw an account of a day-in-the-life of a Stanley 'temperer'

 

[memzey]

Thanks for that link Nabs. I hadn’t realised it but in my picture above we have type 2 and type 3 Sweetheart irons (2nd and 3rd from the right respectively). Seems strange to me that they would have “made in USA” on them but actually be made in England. I note it says the steel is made in England. Perhaps that steel was turned into a plane iron in the US?

 

[nabs]

cheshire pointed out that the ingots would most likely be small and that only modest rolling equipment would be needed so that is entirely possible.

 

[custard]

Seems strange to me that they would have “made in USA” on them but actually be made in England. I note it says the steel is made in England. Perhaps that steel was turned into a plane iron in the US?

I guess that would have been fairly easy to justify, it might have been something as simple as edge grinding locally and arguing that represented most of the value added. After all, Nissan's factory in the north east uses less than 40% British components but they're still classed as British cars, and "Gravity" is classed as a British film despite starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney.