Vintage Record 09 1/2 block plane

[M_Chavez]

Hi All,

I would be grateful for some advice on block planes.

I have recently been given a box of old tools and among them was a Record 09 1/2. My only block plane to date is Stanley 110, so I got very excited at trying the old record out. The plane looked promising, but so far has not performed particularly well and the adjustments (esp lateral) are quite coarse - the plane is only marginally easier to adjust than tap-adjusting the Stanley.

The plane is of the older type - with the lateral adjustment in front of the plane. I see that on ebay these go for close to £100 which seems too high to me for an old block plane. Is there a collectors value in it, or is it simply a great plane and I just need to give it some TLC and tune it up?

I am starting to upgrade my planes from battered old Stanleys to Quansheng and swapping this record for a QS seems to make sense? Does a block plane need lateral adjustment anyway - there seem to be plenty without this option.

Thanks!

 

[Droogs]

The lever on the fron is to adjust the size of the mouth of the plane, not for adjusting the blade. Here a finewoodworking tutorial on the basics of setting it up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv1zo9CAxt4

 

[M_Chavez]

Apologies - I'm being daft here. I was referring to this lever here, but obviously, it's not the lateral adjustment, it's a locking lever. I think these have later been replaced with locking screws by Record.

 

[shed9]

Not seen Record 09's go for up to £100 myself, 018's maybe but not 09's. There will likely be some on Ebay at that price but that's not always an indicator of guide price - I've seen Stanley Handy man planes with buy-it-now's at over £100.

Not trying to devalue what you have just pointing out that you may not be realistically able to convert your record into a QS £ for £ in a short time frame.

That said you may get it and I have to agree that a QS may be more serviceable in the long run - more heft and better blade.

 

[JohnPW]

Those £100 prices are fixed-price Buy-it-Nows, ie asking prices not sold. You need to search for sold listings or completed listings.

The Record 09 1/2 seems to go for about £25-£40. The less common 018 is about £50-£60. IMO all overpriced!

The version with the screw instead of the lever was introduced relatively recently, maybe late 90s or early 2000s.

 

[ED65]

...the plane is only marginally easier to adjust than tap-adjusting the Stanley.

If you're well experienced at tap adjustments it can be difficult for built-in mechanisms to compete, and the occasional users prefer to continue to use a light hammer instead of supplied lateral adjusters, even on bench planes. But that said I find the 9 1/2 I have adjusts for depth easily and smoothly using the wheel and laterally, using the correct lever well enough I don't notice having to do it if you know what I mean.

'Jumps' in adjustment that get in the way of smooth adjustment may indicate the cap is tightened a little much or that a smear of lubrication wouldn't go amiss.

...or is it simply a great plane and I just need to give it some TLC and tune it up?

If you want to go to town on it there are some great written guides available online. I've read them all and between them they have the expected common themes with a few unique fettles here or there. Honestly though, as enthusiastic about them as I was I now consider about 90% of this sort of work may be superfluous and just appeals to the tinkerer in all of us. Just the very basics, which doesn't include lapping the sole for even one second, may be all the great majority of planes need to work well.

I am starting to upgrade my planes from battered old Stanleys to Quansheng and swapping this record for a QS seems to make sense? Does a block plane need lateral adjustment anyway - there seem to be plenty without this option.

If you can get the Record to perform at its best it's well capable of holding its own in any company, so it's very unlikely the Quangsheng would plane wood any better.

But if you feel better about using a QS, even if just because it's a lovely piece of kit (have to agree they are great looking) then that's all the reason you need.

 

[David C]

The screw in the middle of the lever cap controls the tightness which the snail cam exerts.

We want the blade held securely, but not too tight for adjustments to be made.

This snail cam is a clever mechanism which returns to the same force, after every adjustment. Much preferable to the cost cutting screw knobs which followed.

All block planes need a little lateral adjustment.

They tend to work much better with a thicker Hock blade.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

 

[M_Chavez]

Thank you very much gents - I'll give it a bit of tlc and give it another try.

Is there much use out of low-angle block planes vs standard angle?

 

[MarkDennehy]

Well, I use my 060½ low-angle block plane far, far more than I use my 09½ but the 09½ is still a good plane. Mind you, it is probably one of the few Record planes I have where I think the Stanley version was better (but not by a huge amount - I wouldn't throw my one away and only use my Stanley 9½ for example).

 

[ED65]

Is there much use out of low-angle block planes vs standard angle?

Low-angle block planes are marketed as being specially good for end grain and they can indeed work well for that, but once your sharpening passes a certainly level you can tackle end grain perfectly successfully using any plane that uses Common angle. So I think that's not really much of a selling point at the end of the day.

They are a small, tidy size with a low profile which does make them fairly easy to wield with one hand, but there are even smaller block planes (apron planes?) if that's a primary consideration.

 

[M_Chavez]

Thanks.

Since the QS low-angle was on sale at rutlands, I got it anyway (Hurray!). It has just arrived and I think we'll be good friends.

For dealing with difficult grain (curly/birdseye maple, figured woods, rosewood, etc), would you recommend a toothed blade for the record or a 50 degree blade for the low angle plane? Or try both and see what sticks?

 

[ED65]

I'd recommend a close-set cap iron on a conventional double-iron bench plane

 

[M_Chavez]

Thanks - I already have one of my Stanley number 4s set up for that, but what about the smaller pieces where a number 4 is just too big and bulky?

 

[Ttrees]

A no.3
Give us an example of something too small for a no.4
No piccys necessary
I think you will have a hard time finding something too small for a no.4
The low angle block plane is for endgrain mainly.

Tom

 

[ED65]

I have been partial to using a block plane for smaller stuff (say, shorter than the palm of the hand, or very narrow) but there are some people who advise using a no. 4 even for very small pieces, and taking on board their advice I put aside the block planes for a while and tried it and think within most reasonable limits you can.

It does take a bit of getting used to 'perching' a larger plane on small surfaces, but the benefits in easy control of surface quality (for figured wood, around knots, with reversed grain) shouldn't be under-emphasised.

 

[M_Chavez]

Hi Tom,

Guitar headstock (especially the back and the sides of it), guitar bridge blanks. Small angled surfaces (violin/mandolin wedge blanks), neck blanks, fingerboards with nasty reversing grain.

Levelling a knotty area on a fingerboard where a N4 might just cause too much roughness or tearout without any room for further reducing the blank thickness.

Mind you, I am not an experienced woodworker and find it a lot easier to control a block plane rather than the 4. Most of the cases above can be sorted out with a scraper, but would take ages.

 

[Ttrees]

Dude you really need to learn how to set the cap iron, you would not be mentioning tearout or even hinting you have
experienced some, if you learn it.
Its 100% necessary for the luthier.
I'm in a similar boat to you.

Look up David Weaver's advice, as he's the one who has gone to much much much, more effort to make this cap iron
phenomenon widely known.
Not many folk knew before that...
If I recall correctly, the folks who went on about it were
George Wilson, Warren Mickley and Kees Heiden
Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Anyone else who mentions tearout clearly has not learned to set it effectively.

Anyone else who claimed to utilise the cap iron before David W's publications, I am very sceptical,
because even the most learned folks have only been utilising the cap irons effect since then.

Low angle is for end grain.
Good luck
Tom

 

[M_Chavez]

Thanks. A good quality number 3 is on my list of tools to get.

I understand there are some differences between the WH and rutlands planes (rutlands often having the older versions), but is there any difference between WH and woodriver? They look the same of the photos...

 

[Ttrees]

I must say, I have only recently been learning how to square stock myself, with a blade suitable, in which the can cap iron could be made effective, since getting my second Stanley no.5 1/2.
In other words the plane has a hairs thickness, relief of a camber.

I had relied on the camber before with excellent results , but I just wanted to test it out.
When I had tried this near straight iron before, with a Stanley no.3 I might add
I wasn't able to square up a thin sliver, as it kept rocking on the bench
(not an issue of workholding in this situation BTW)
I really thought I had the best plane for the job :?
Wanting to do the job, I just went back to the 5 1/2 with the camber to do this effortlessly

As I said, only recently I have been getting the straight iron to work effectively.
What I learned......
Start with a small camber I'd advise, or if you can't bring yourself to do so (even though the camber is really useful)
I will give you my 2 cents ....

Say your inch and a bit wide stock, is sitting on your flat bench....and its rocking.
You may choose to pinch the plane with your front hand, making a fence with your fingers....
...or be careful to stay on your line instead, holding the knob and tote.

With a small cambered iron, you could go a third way into the stock and knock off that high spot.
Or....
With a hairs cambered iron instead, you have to barely be cutting any width of shaving atall !!!!!
like a 2mm thickness of a width, it sounds daft but you will not be able to do it otherwise.
It forces you to be that much more careful, as the plane could drift off the edge in a blink, and you won't
be cutting anything.

Good luck

Am I making sense ?
Tom

 

[M_Chavez]

Thanks.
I think we're slowly drifting off the topic here, so to sum up on the block planes - the QS has arrived, I have taken it for a spin and I much prefer it to the (cleaned-up) record. It is smaller and heavier and just forces me to limit it to using it as a block plane instead of imagining alternative uses for it. Looks like £50 well spent. Plus it looks great :lol: . Just need to think how to keep the bugger rust free. Hopefully, Legia spray will be enough.

On the question of the Number 4, chipbreakers and cambers, I currently have got a stanley Number 4 set up with a zero-camber blade and a very close-set chipbreaker for thicknessing hardwoods. It does it's job on tricky hardwoods (I have thicknessed 4 guitar bodies with it, including curly bubinga and a very nasty piece of african mahogany). But leaves the surface a bit rough, which means I have to finish the last 0.5-0.3mm with cabinet scrapers.
The problem is that I have spent some time bringing the number 4s back to life, but got to a point where I can't make them any better and they are performing, perhaps, to 80% of their capacity. As I have often found the number 4 a bit too big on many occasions, I'll be looking for a number 3 (QS or Woodriver. And I am now curious about Dic , but they don't seem to carry number 3 at the moment. They do have a good-looking number 4 though)

Since we are talking about cambers on number 4, what set-up would you recommend for thicknessing bookmatched softwoods (spruce, WRC, redwood), say, taking them from 4mm to 2.5mm?