Record Warfinish

[Vann]

This year I've decided to try to hone my planing skills (they need it!!!) and so I've been looking at better planes (better than my old Stanley No.4 - circa 1973 - which has never performed very well).
I nearly bought a brand new Record until I read that they aren't all that good.

So I bought an old Record No.4 to do up. Unfortunately it arrived with the iron missing and a bent sole. I then bought a second old Record No.4 and a third (the slippery slope in action).

This second plane is rather unusual in that the lateral adjuster lever has the word "WARFINISH" stamped (where you'd find "STANLEY" on a Stanley adjuster). It looks the same as the other two but it's shorter (236mm vrs 241mm) and lighter (the stripped sole weighs just 710g vrs 830/840g on the other two). Finally the lever cap is painted blue rather than being chromed.

Does anybody know more about Record Warfinish planes - e.g. which war? WW2 I suspect.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Hi Vann,

Yes, it was WW2. My Record #405 Multiplane has a 'war finish' which means that the normally plated parts of the plane are painted rather than plated. It still works well

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Racers]

Hi,

I have a Record 4 1/2 war finish, they couldn't use chrome during the war so the parts are nickle plated, still its a very nice plane.


Pete

 

[Vann]

Thanks Paul,

I'm going to try to make two good planes out of the three I've acquired (the third has a butchered front knob and the frog adjuster fork missing).

I'll aim to use the best looking Record parts on the Warfinish plane (with the aim of making it a showpiece) while the other I hope to turn into a good, working smoother (my new Clifton iron was dispatched yesterday). I'll use the bent sole model to practice my fettling skills.

Any other information on Warfinish planes that anybody has would be appreciated. Are they shunned or sought after? Are they inferior due to wartime shortages of good materials?

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Racers]

Hi,

As far as I know some metals where reserved for the war effort so you couldn't use chrome etc. My war finish 4 1/2 is nearly as good as my pre WW2 4 1/2 it has the same blade but it hasn't got the rosewood handles and stayset cap iron.


Pete

 

[Smudger]

I quite like the nickel finish. War Finish Records are always WW2 - Record wasn't making planes in WW1! The Record range is much later than Stanley, if anyone wants I have a file of dates for the whole range (nicked from other people, not original research!)

 

[bugbear]

Hi,

I have a Record 4 1/2 war finish, they couldn't use chrome during the war so the parts are nickle plated, still its a very nice plane.


Pete

I half a half-memory that they also used cadmium, which is poisonous, which means that polishing or power buffing such an item should be approached thoughtfully.

(searchy)

confirmed:

http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.php? ... 49#message

BugBear

 

[Racers]

Hi, BB

Dam, stops licking plane, wipes tongue on sleeve.


Pete

 

[tnimble]

Besides not using nickel they also changed to stained domestics woods, steel or leather depth adjuster knobs, modified castings to safe on cast iron and skipped some machining because they did not have all machineary avaiable for the planes due to manufucturing of war products like shell casings etc.

Vann since you opted for a Clifton iron, not the best choice, you'll most probaly have trouble with the depth adjuster and mouth. The Y lever will not engage the chipbreacker very well (if not at all) and needs to be elongated. The mouth can be to narrow for the blade to protrude, this can be resolved by filing the back of the mouth wider and setting the frog backwards. Do this after making sure the front of the mouth is square and continues.

An aftermarket blade would not have these problems such as the blades made by Ron Hock. Replacing the chipbreacker with a solid type has large advantages over the original spring type. I find this adds much more to the performance of a plane than a thicker blade.

 

[Pete Howlett]

I had a record for years until I discovered Millers falls brand... and the rest is history!

 

[Vann]

Vann since you opted for a Clifton iron, not the best choice, you'll most probaly have trouble with the depth adjuster and mouth. The Y lever will not engage the chipbreacker very well (if not at all) and needs to be elongated. The mouth can be to narrow for the blade to protrude, this can be resolved by filing the back of the mouth wider and setting the frog backwards. Do this after making sure the front of the mouth is square and continues.

Thanks Laura , I know I'll probably have to extend the yoke (Y lever) to take the Clifton blade. As for the mouth...well I don't want to file it out if I can avoid it, so I may have to rethink which plane gets the new blade when it arrives (early December).

Thanks to everybody for your comments (Pete, a glass of milk may fix the cadmium poisoning, but that sense of humour is probably going to be fatal).

Smudger, I'd be interested in that file on Record dates (the Smudger "Record Blood & Gore" files?).

Thanks, Vann.

 

[Smudger]

No probs - PM me your email address.

 

[Vann]

Vann since you opted for a Clifton iron, not the best choice, you'll most probaly have trouble with the depth adjuster and mouth.

Hi again tnimble. Highland Hardware's website recommends a minimum of .200" (5.08mm) for the mouth in order to fit a Clifton blade "leaving a working opening of .015" (0.38mm)" As I'm planning on using this iron on a smoother I see I can reduce the opening to between .003" & .008" (0.1 to 0.2mm) so I guess I might get away with a mouth as narrow as .193" (4.9mm).

Another site (can't remember which, but in UK) suggests the mouth be "at least 1/4" deep".

I've now measured the mouths on my planes. The three No.4 Records were 4.45 to 4.6mm, the Stanley No.4 is 5.2mm, and the Record-Marples No.4 is 6.15mm. So unless I'm prepared to file the mouth of the Record I'll have to fit the Clifton iron into the Record-Marples or Stanley.

I guess I'll just have to wait until the iron arrives and try it before deciding which plane to restore.

Cheers, Vann.