West Dean pics

[dunbarhamlin]

Probably just as false as the idea some people have that Clifton plane bodies are more likely to break than those of their competitors. I have a copy of the DVD showing the drop test Clifton did. They took #5 and #7 plane bodies and dropped them 20 feet onto a concrete floor and they came to no harm at all. Very impressive 8)

They remain my bench planes of choice.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

Hear, hear!
Suspect that bench shot reminds you of home too

(Now that's a vid I'd like to see)

Cheers
Steve

 

[Paul Chapman]

Suspect that bench shot reminds you of home too

:-$ :-$ :-$ :lol:

 

[Chris Knight]

For those of you planning to go to Westonbirt, don't forget to also visit Betty Norbury's show in Cheltenham, http://www.celebrationofcraftsmanship.com/

This is usually a great show and makes a super two day visit. My better half always enjoys this trip too so no spousal excuses needed!

 

[Aled Dafis]

Hi all, I wasn't sure if i'd post this here, or start a new thread on the hand tools page, please advise if you think its in the wrong place.

Is it just me, or are more and more people on here turning to Clifton planes?

I recently purchased my second Clifton bench plane (#5 1/2, my first being a #3) and find them to be excellent, both in form and function.

I have a number of planes by Veritas (Low angle Jack and Smoother) and Lie-Nielsen (#60 1/2 adjustable mouth block plane and the #103 block plane in bronze) as well as the pair of Cliftons, and although they all perform very well indeed, I find that it's the Cliftons that I almost always pick up first.

What I really like about the Clifton planes is that I find the traditional O1 irons far easier to hone than the A2 steel in my other "high end" planes. The O1 irons can be quickly licked into shape whilst in the middle of a job, using only my Norton 8000 grit waterstone, whereas the A1 irons always need to be taken back to a wire edge on the diamond stone before honing on the Norton - a process that takes quite a bit longer and can upset your rhythm. This ease of sharpening also means that I sharpen more often, and therefore my edges are better for it.

I have also heard the rumours that the sheffield planes have flatness issues, but I've found them just as accurate as my Veritas bench planes - the LN block planes are a bit short to compare. Maybe Tony could pop one on his CMM for us to compare - although I feel that this may be a bit of an overkill for a tool used to plane such an unstable material as wood.

Go on try a Clifton, you'll not be dissapointed.

I'll be writing a short write up on my #5 1/2 soon so keep an eye out.

Regards

Aled

P.S. I have no ties with Clifton or Clico Tooling other than being a happy customer (as some of you might have guessed by now)

 

[bugbear]

I have also heard the rumours that the sheffield planes have flatness issues

Does anyone know where the **** this (false) rumour started?

BugBear

 

[Paul Chapman]

I have also heard the rumours that the sheffield planes have flatness issues

Does anyone know where the **** this (false) rumour started?

BugBear

Dunno, I have four Cliftons and they are all flat.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Anonymous]

______

 

[Paul Chapman]

I have also heard the rumours that the sheffield planes have flatness issues

Does anyone know where the **** this (false) rumour started?

BugBear

Cough.. here maybe?

Not everything in that piece by Chris Schwarz is correct. He says "The Cliftons are made using the same grey iron used in Bailey-style planes, and the tools can crack from a nasty fall from bench height". How Clifton produce their plane bodies is quite different from the way Stanley and Record used to do it. I have a copy of the DVD showing the drop test Clifton did on #5 and #7 bodies, where they dropped them 20ft onto a concrete floor and they didn't break.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Anonymous]

_______

 

[PaulO]

Does anyone know where the **** this (false) rumour started?

BugBear

You could check your back catalogue of F&C for Clifton reviews. (circa 2002/3 ish if memory serves, which it often doesn't)

I won't mention any names and I am working from memory. The reviewer found the test sample wasn't flat and had a several thou bump behind the mouth. The reviewer discussed this with someone at Clifton, who said that it didn't matter. The reviewer said that it did matter, and I agree.

Don't know if the person at Clifton who said that is still there, but from recent comments it would seem that current production doesn't suffer from such problems.

More recently in issue 137 (feb 08 ) of F&C there was a visit to the Clico factory. In that article it is said that the flatness is tested with a 1.5 thou feeler gauge on a surface plate, any sole that allows the feeler gauge to pass is rejected. If there is a 1.5 thou bump behind the mouth, you will not be able to take a shaving finer than 1.5 thou, which is thicker than the fine shavings I take. Note that I am not suggesting that the current manufacture does produce planes with a 1.5 thou bump.

I have mostly L-N planes and all of them have benefited from some sole flattening, blade flattening and work around the mouth/ chip breaker. At this price point (LV, L-N, Clifton) I think it is unreasonable to expect anything else. Even a Holtey plane won't take a nice fine shaving if your sharpening skills aren't up to scratch.

It also depends on your expectations, I went to my first L-N jack from an unmodified modern Stanley. It was a revelation (as I'm sure a Clifton would be). I then went on DCs course on tool tuning. I was worried that my L-N jack wouldn't benefit. I needn't have worried, there was plenty to do, and the improvement was astonishing. Although some of that improvement was no doubt due to my improved sharpening skills.

 

[bugbear]

Sounds like the spec of Clifton is fine, and the QC "variable"

BugBear

 

[PaulO]

Sounds like the spec of Clifton is fine, and the QC "variable"

I think all you can deduce from my post is that at the time of the first F&C review the QC was variable. Anecdotal evidence on here suggests that any problems have now been ironed out.

 

[Aled Dafis]

Gents

It took me a fair bit of head scratching, but I finally remembered reading this on David Charlesworth's web page where he talks about his tool tuning short course.

"Modern Stanley & Record planes are poorly made and though we can improve them radically, older ones are preferable. Lie-Nielsen planes require little work, Clifton a good deal more."

I believe that this was written a while ago, as he talks about using Japanese chisels, where I believe that he now uses LN chisels extensively if not exclusively.

Maybe David could comment, as he pops in to this forum from time to time.

Regards

Aled

 

[Philly]

Aled
David is away on Brian Boggs chairmaking course this week.
Philly

 

[Aled Dafis]

Lucky pipper!!!

 

[Jake]

I don't think DC could claim to be entirely impartial when it comes to LN (which isn't to say he isn't entirely right)

 

[Aled Dafis]

Mmm...

Yes I also considered that, but forgot to include it as a caveat in my post.

Aled

 

[bugbear]

Aled
David is away on Brian Boggs chairmaking course this week.
Philly

That's interesting; DC's approach normally involves as much measurement and jigging as possible, and Brian Boggs... doesn't

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

It's taken a while to get this done, but here's an unusual picture from West Dean... click to make bigger.



BugBear

 

[wizer]

That's very well done BB. Nice stitching. What day was it taken? Are the people at Philly's stand forum members?