Yesterday I posted about four of my #4 planes, two "posh" and two not so "posh". Of the four my least favorite was a Record #4 from sometime in the late 1970's to maybe as late as the 1980's. OF's memories sometimes are not too reliable. Anyway to cut to the chase, Sparks replied that Record kept its quality up much longer than Stanley from the same time period. Bottom line I thought I'd take another look at the Record and the Stanley. The Stanley #4 is smack dab in the middle of the best planes Stanley made. I haven't run a Type check on it in years but IIRC it is a Type 13. The Record is from well past the War and all hand tools lost quality in that period, some more than others. When I bought the Record it was because Record was considered to have retained better quality than the Stanley planes of the same time.
As I posted yesterday, the Record was my least favorite of the four planes, mostly because of the tote and just overall cheesiness. That judgement was probably unfair because I was comparing it to two modern boutique planes and a Stanley that was made when Stanley was at the top of its game. The Record is a capable plane, it and post War Stanley's are very similar with few differences.
I made a few photos this morning to show some of the difference between a pre-War Bailey type plane and a post-War Baily.
Profile view:
Head on view:
Frog Differences:
Tote Difference:
Small differences but they can make a big difference in feel when cutter meets wood.
ken
Your comparison is more about time and less about comparing the products. Stanley eventually went to the frog shown on the record and handles became cheap wood just waved over a router.
ReplyDeleteFinding a good plane is more than choosing a brand. There are changes that occur over time and also there were grades or versions available at the same time. I had bought new Stanleys in the 80's that ranged from abominable to decent. The abominable one was US made and used a rough cast frog seat.
Sorry to hear all the shortcomings of the Clifton. I'll have to dial back my offer to $40.
Steve,
DeleteI agree. I try to stick with Type 9 to type 13 Stanley's. While others will work or can be made to work why bother when there are still so many of the good ones out there.
If you have a source for Japanese cutters please pass it on. My old source went out of business.
ken
I got them from Stu. I bought a bunch of stuff when he announce the closing.
DeleteI will trade one for a clifton plane or you can try one of the euro places. Workshopheaven has them. Japan Woodworker used to sell them and last I saw had block plane irons on closeout.
Thanks Steve. That's where I got mine. I have several 2" and even one 2 1/2" but I would like a 1 3/4" for my #3 planes.
DeleteI've tried to google 'em without any luck.
ken
Steve,
DeleteGood try :-). I'm just saving you from disappointment. It is much too heavy to enjoy working with. BTW, there is a little truth to that.
ken
For heavy planes, I find putting a board underneath helps immensely.
DeleteAs an example of the Stanley's sophistication, the older planes use a lever cap where the swoopy curves on either side weren't square to the face. When that swoop comes down to the full width the intersecting line is at an angle and that angle follows the arch of the plane's side. It's harmony lacking in the modern products.
ReplyDeleteYou can see it in the first photo. That detail eventually went unnoticed in an update to the cap but it's that sort of detailing that makes me stop and admire my old Stanleys. New planes, regardless of maker, fall short even though doing it better would cost little or nothing.
Ah! Record Marples on the casting at the nose, that is one of the later planes after the selling off had started (but before they went completely sideways - worse was coming). The ones I have are earlier than this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IMG_2690a.jpg
That am-tech one is a ten euro piece of dross that I filed the mouth open to about a half-inch on, and ground a six inch camber into the blade so it was a dedicated scrub plane when I was making the bench. On hardwood, bit of effort to push (though it will go through white oak if you can get enough welly behind it), but on the white deal 2x4s I made the bench from, it just ate the wood up faster than a dewalt 735. It also ate lots of skin off my hands, so it sits retired now in favour of one of the two records (with an unfiled mouth and much much less severe camber). And my 734 does the lions share of thicknessing these days.
The Records on the other hand are both rather old, you can tell from the casting and the frogs:
http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IMG_2691a.jpg
http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IMG_2692a.jpg
I think they're very similar vintage, as far as I can tell somewhere from 1950 to 1956, just very solidly built. The totes are also a lot more ergonomic - those flats on yours are not there on the older ones:
http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IMG_2688a.jpg
http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/IMG_3369a.jpg
Oh, and those split y-levers in the newer records were *terrible*. One or two of my records are newer ones with those and they'd all split down the middle and were moving as two pieces, so I pulled them all out and replaced them with single-piece y-levers (various places make them in both steel and brass as drop-in replacements for less than you'll pay in shipping. Workshop Heaven in the UK was where I got mine IIRC, but don't go there with your credit card within arm's reach unless it's your birthday :D ).
ReplyDeleteI'm curious about the Hock blades - I've never replaced mine, because I was lucky and got all 'best crucible cast' blades and they seem to have been the best Record ever made and they're just grand for everything I've done. The only exception being that I did get a toothed blade for the #06 for use on sapele because of the grain. But the Hock blades get mentioned a fair bit and one of these days I may just need to replace the older blades anyway...
I've been happy with the Hock carbon and Veritas PM-V11. I have some A2 and D2 but not enough use to comment. Also picked up a japanese laminated iron that has yet to be tested but Ken can speak to that one.
DeleteMark,
DeleteThose are some nice planes, much like my Type 9 to type 13 pre-War Stanleys. The Hock blades work but so do Veritas and Ray Iles. My favorite are the Japanese that Steve mentioned but I've lost my source and so far have not been able to find a replacement. The biggest problem is finding good chip breakers.
ken
Ken, your plane look indeed like a type 13, complete with the Cheetozz orange paint.
ReplyDelete1925-28 or so.
All, My favs cutter and chip breaker combination are the ones from LV. Totally transform a so so plane. Good match sets, not too expensives
Bob
Bob,
DeleteThat's kinda what I remember when I did try to type it.
I have several LV cutters and cap irons and I agree because the blade backs come so flat they are a pleasure to use. The other nice thing about LV cutters , you can pick your steel.
Sweet Maggie Dog and I are still on our own and so far the house hasn't burned down and we still have all our limbs. Just over one more month to go. The clean up will be interesting, may take a couple or three days to get it done.
ken