mathias
Established Member
Pete Maddex":20tfpsox said:
So all square blades are laminated then?
Records Laminated - How Many?
- Thread starter D_W
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
So all square blades are laminated then?
Vann
Established Member
I don't think anyone knows the answer to that - but I think it's possible. The change from laminated to solid probably occurred sometime between the end of WW2 and the late 1950s. The first (flat top - 1930 to mid 1950s) irons were marked "RECORD, Made in England, Best Crucible Cast, Tungsten Steel". Early curved top irons (mid to late 1950s) were stamped with the same lettering. It then changed to "RECORD, Tungsten Vanadium Steel, Made in England". Whether the change in wording indicated a change in manufacturing from laminated to solid, is anyone's guess.mathias":q3zgmnzb said:
I can't find any reference at all to laminated cutters on the late David Lynch's website - he was the most authoritive source of 'Record' information.
Cheers, Vann.
custard
Established Member
mathias":3lekf22f said:
Based only on the half dozen or so that I've owned that's been my experience, you can see the lamination join in this photo, it's marked by the arrows. I've found them to be good user irons, they take and hold a keen edge plus they seem to flatten off quickly and accurately. Although to be honest I haven't noticed that they're especially superior in use to good examples of later non-laminated irons. Incidentally, the only time you'll spot the lamination layer on the bevel itself is if you've had to grind the edge right back to get rid of a chipped edge, as soon as there's a secondary bevel it's pretty much impossible to spot the lamination layer.
I seem to recall reading that Stanley laminated irons were all made in the UK using crucible steel and sent to the US for use in US made Stanley planes, but I'm no tool historian so I'd defer to people like Andy T who know what they're talking about!
Incidentally, I did once try a Japanese laminated iron that was thin enough to drop straight into a bailey style plane. I remember it was a nightmare to flatten off. I can't have been all that impressed with it as a user either because it doesn't seem to be in my workshop any longer!
Attachments
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
No, the iron in my Stanley No.8 is laminated and marked "Made in USA".
custard
Established Member
Take it up with this guy, he seems to think they were exported from the UK as blanks for finishing in the US.
http://galootopia.com/old_tools/stanley ... dish-iron/
http://galootopia.com/old_tools/stanley ... dish-iron/
custard":1v1pebgw said:
I got one of those, also. Best flattened with diamonds, but was a very good iron, like an old ward iron or something similar like that. I've found some of the old ward irons pretty hard to flatten, too.
I sent mine off in a plane that needed an iron, those things are OK with oilstones, but not great (I think they're blue steel, so like an ultrahard higher carbon O1). As nice of an iron as they are for smoothers, I just don't know what the need is for something that hard. Easy sharpening once flattened on synthetic stones, but not so much with oilstones. And relatively expensive.
custard
Established Member
"Planecraft - Hand Planing By Modern Methods", seems to be a book that was instigated by Record as a way of promoting their tools. The first edition was 1934 and the edition I've got was published in 1950.
It holds a number of useful clues about the question of laminated Record irons. All the photographs and illustrations in the book (which presumably date back to the 1934 first printing?) show bench plane irons with straight edges and angular corners to the tapering top section.
I'll give some quotes from the book and you can make up your own mind regarding their significance,
"Steel facings on iron backs are now standard practise, but it is not easy to discover when this welded or composite cutter was first introduced."
"Within living memory...the purchase of a satisfactory plane iron was largely a matter of luck. It might be too hard or too soft; it might hold its edge or it might not."
The book talks about the history of the Crucible Process, and then says, "The effect of this was that the slag, or rich iron silicate which was present, mechanically mixed with the steel, could be freed readily. The removal of this cinder greatly improves the steel. The process was costly then, and it remains costly today, but the quality of the steel is so incomparably better than the cheaper-produced Bessemer open-hearth steel of later introduction, that Record plane cutters are always made from best crucible cast steel"
The book then goes on to talk about Record's research, "the main lines of the research were devoted to careful analysis and accurate heat treatment, the ultimate result being the well-known and proved Tungsten steel cutter, fitted to all Record Planes. This forms the latest and most far-reaching development of the plane up to the present time...The reader will naturally ask 'Why is this Tungsten steel better than ordinary steel?'. There are two reasons which stand out most clearly. The first is that Tungsten has the property of uniting with the Carbon in the steel and forming Tungsten Carbide. Tungsten Carbide is the main constituent of all high speed cutting materials....It is therefore logical that a plane iron containing the correct amount of Tungsten is harder and more resistant to wear, and will take a keener cutting edge, and hold it for a longer period than would ordinary steel...Secondly, the correct and proper introduction of Tungsten is greatly beneficial in steel for plane irons as it prevents grain growth in the steel. This means that in the fully hardened cutter the steel is of very small grain size, which is immediately obvious when a blade is fractured. Because the steel is more resistant to shock, and therefore the keen edge will suffer less damage when cutting than any other steel."
"Thus, by using skilled engineering, not only is the bevel of the cutter correctly ground, but a uniform thickness and parallelism are attained in every blade (a factor which has so much to do with the efficiency of the whole assembly), and the elimination of looseness and chatter when the plane is in service."
"Finally, every Record Tungsten Steel Cutting Iron is tested on a Hardness Testing Machine".
"Planecraft" is a smashing book, I've never really read it before, I wish I had. It also gives very clear instructions for setting the cap iron distance,
-For rough work, 1/32" to 1/16" from edge
-For finishing work, 1/64" from edge
-For hard woods with irregular grain, as close as you can get it to the cutting edge
Bit of a digression from the thread, but I've recently read similar instructions in the three volume Charles Hayward collection from Lost Art Press.
So I'm puzzled why I've never really been aware of the full implications of the closely set cap iron until DW publicised it on this forum? It's not like I'm a newcomer to furniture making, I'm from a woodworking family, I went to a school that took woodworking seriously, I trained in cabinet making and antique restoration under Bruce Luckhurst in the early 80's, and I trained again at the Barnsley Workshop. So it's not like I gathered my woodworking knowledge from a few Youtube videos, yet my thinking was that a cap iron should be set in the range 0.5-1.5mm from a cutting edge and the way to deal with tear out was a high pitched iron, a back bevel, or by scraping/sanding.
How is it that such an effective technique completely passed me by?
Maybe it's because I bought into the David Charlesworth ruler trick pretty early on after he first wrote about it? And while this doesn't actually preclude a closely set cap iron psychologically it tends to bias you way from it? Incidentally, I find I'm turning away from the ruler trick for all but the worst problem plane irons. For a Bailey style thin iron with a high spot on the non bevel side that made flattening off a problem I'd now use the Paul Sellers hammer trick to fix it, and for a premium thick iron I'd just return the iron to the manufacturer as defective.
It holds a number of useful clues about the question of laminated Record irons. All the photographs and illustrations in the book (which presumably date back to the 1934 first printing?) show bench plane irons with straight edges and angular corners to the tapering top section.
I'll give some quotes from the book and you can make up your own mind regarding their significance,
"Steel facings on iron backs are now standard practise, but it is not easy to discover when this welded or composite cutter was first introduced."
"Within living memory...the purchase of a satisfactory plane iron was largely a matter of luck. It might be too hard or too soft; it might hold its edge or it might not."
The book talks about the history of the Crucible Process, and then says, "The effect of this was that the slag, or rich iron silicate which was present, mechanically mixed with the steel, could be freed readily. The removal of this cinder greatly improves the steel. The process was costly then, and it remains costly today, but the quality of the steel is so incomparably better than the cheaper-produced Bessemer open-hearth steel of later introduction, that Record plane cutters are always made from best crucible cast steel"
The book then goes on to talk about Record's research, "the main lines of the research were devoted to careful analysis and accurate heat treatment, the ultimate result being the well-known and proved Tungsten steel cutter, fitted to all Record Planes. This forms the latest and most far-reaching development of the plane up to the present time...The reader will naturally ask 'Why is this Tungsten steel better than ordinary steel?'. There are two reasons which stand out most clearly. The first is that Tungsten has the property of uniting with the Carbon in the steel and forming Tungsten Carbide. Tungsten Carbide is the main constituent of all high speed cutting materials....It is therefore logical that a plane iron containing the correct amount of Tungsten is harder and more resistant to wear, and will take a keener cutting edge, and hold it for a longer period than would ordinary steel...Secondly, the correct and proper introduction of Tungsten is greatly beneficial in steel for plane irons as it prevents grain growth in the steel. This means that in the fully hardened cutter the steel is of very small grain size, which is immediately obvious when a blade is fractured. Because the steel is more resistant to shock, and therefore the keen edge will suffer less damage when cutting than any other steel."
"Thus, by using skilled engineering, not only is the bevel of the cutter correctly ground, but a uniform thickness and parallelism are attained in every blade (a factor which has so much to do with the efficiency of the whole assembly), and the elimination of looseness and chatter when the plane is in service."
"Finally, every Record Tungsten Steel Cutting Iron is tested on a Hardness Testing Machine".
"Planecraft" is a smashing book, I've never really read it before, I wish I had. It also gives very clear instructions for setting the cap iron distance,
-For rough work, 1/32" to 1/16" from edge
-For finishing work, 1/64" from edge
-For hard woods with irregular grain, as close as you can get it to the cutting edge
Bit of a digression from the thread, but I've recently read similar instructions in the three volume Charles Hayward collection from Lost Art Press.
So I'm puzzled why I've never really been aware of the full implications of the closely set cap iron until DW publicised it on this forum? It's not like I'm a newcomer to furniture making, I'm from a woodworking family, I went to a school that took woodworking seriously, I trained in cabinet making and antique restoration under Bruce Luckhurst in the early 80's, and I trained again at the Barnsley Workshop. So it's not like I gathered my woodworking knowledge from a few Youtube videos, yet my thinking was that a cap iron should be set in the range 0.5-1.5mm from a cutting edge and the way to deal with tear out was a high pitched iron, a back bevel, or by scraping/sanding.
How is it that such an effective technique completely passed me by?
Maybe it's because I bought into the David Charlesworth ruler trick pretty early on after he first wrote about it? And while this doesn't actually preclude a closely set cap iron psychologically it tends to bias you way from it? Incidentally, I find I'm turning away from the ruler trick for all but the worst problem plane irons. For a Bailey style thin iron with a high spot on the non bevel side that made flattening off a problem I'd now use the Paul Sellers hammer trick to fix it, and for a premium thick iron I'd just return the iron to the manufacturer as defective.
Vann
Established Member
I've also got the 1950 edition - and hadn't noticed the bits you've quoted either.
I don't suppose they updated the book when they stopped making laminated irons? :ho2
Merry Christmas all. :deer :deer
Cheers, Vann.
I didn't read much into the other quotes, but this one certainly suggests a laminated iron.
I don't suppose they updated the book when they stopped making laminated irons? :ho2
Merry Christmas all. :deer :deer
Cheers, Vann.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Curious. I was taught at school 50 years ago that to plane wild grain the cap iron should be as close as you can possibly get it. There is another trick when fettling a plane that does work but is rarely seen (by me, at least) and that is to get a thin file and open up the front of the inside of the mouth. It leaves more space for the shavings which tend to wrinkle up and jam to free themselves. It you have a nice tight mouth it takes a very thin file to do it without hitting the rear of the mouth, though a thicker file can be used as progress is made. I read it somewhere about thirty years ago.
Thinking about it, you could do most of the work with a grindstone in a Dremel working from the open side.
Thinking about it, you could do most of the work with a grindstone in a Dremel working from the open side.
Well, here's another clue. Thanks to Vann for prompting me to check.
Looking at the same crucial sentence in my copy of the 1959 revision there is a subtle difference. It reads:
"Steel facings on iron backs have been standard practice, but it is not easy to discover when this welded or composite cutter was introduced."
So that suggests that the change from a laminated iron to one made entirely of hard steel happened between 1950 and 1959.
Just for completeness, let's also check the 1984 rewrite by John Sainsbury. It says:
"Steel facings on iron backs were standard..."
- which rather suggests that they were long gone by then.
This sort of fits with what I have read elsewhere about post-war modernisation in Sheffield. Although it didn't prevent the eventual decline, there was investment in such things as automated casting machinery. Presumably by then it made better economic sense to use hard steel for the whole cutter, rather than have lines of skilled smiths patiently welding each one. (Though I half remember reading that two wide strips were welded, then cut into separate blades - have I imagined that?)
Looking at the same crucial sentence in my copy of the 1959 revision there is a subtle difference. It reads:
"Steel facings on iron backs have been standard practice, but it is not easy to discover when this welded or composite cutter was introduced."
So that suggests that the change from a laminated iron to one made entirely of hard steel happened between 1950 and 1959.
Just for completeness, let's also check the 1984 rewrite by John Sainsbury. It says:
"Steel facings on iron backs were standard..."
- which rather suggests that they were long gone by then.
This sort of fits with what I have read elsewhere about post-war modernisation in Sheffield. Although it didn't prevent the eventual decline, there was investment in such things as automated casting machinery. Presumably by then it made better economic sense to use hard steel for the whole cutter, rather than have lines of skilled smiths patiently welding each one. (Though I half remember reading that two wide strips were welded, then cut into separate blades - have I imagined that?)
