? for bugbear about older stanley/record blades

[WoodPecker]

I was reading this thread I was wondering, how good are pre 1980s stanley or Record blades in comparison to the modern after market blades mentioned in that same thread?

 

[bugbear]

Nowhere near, I'm afraid. Even the best of Record/Stanley "golden years production" fall well short of the after market stuff.

BugBear

 

[Anonymous]

Nowhere near, I'm afraid. Even the best of Record/Stanley "golden years production" fall well short of the after market stuff.

BugBear

Can you elaborate on that BB? I haven't been able to discern any difference other than edge retention. I have only two aftermarket blades (a Hock HC and a Shepherd Tools A2) and I like them very much but not enough to replace Sweetheart and V-logo blades with them.

I have come to the conclusion that if I encounter something my Stanleys with laminated blades can't handle (and they will handle the vast majority of plane work), I'm better off to spend the money on a better plane than an aftermarket blade.

I will quantify that by saying most of the woods I work with are common North American species. If I used harder exotics, I would get A2 or M2 blades.

 

[bugbear]

Nowhere near, I'm afraid. Even the best of Record/Stanley "golden years production" fall well short of the after market stuff.

BugBear

Can you elaborate on that BB? I haven't been able to discern any difference other than edge retention. I have only two aftermarket blades (a Hock HC and a Shepherd Tools A2) and I like them very much but not enough to replace Sweetheart and V-logo blades with them.

Well, I don't have any Bailey blades that old; but I do have quite a few laminated Record blades, and they work fine, cutting timber cleanly and leaving a good finish.

But the after market blades (I have 2, a Samurai and a Victor) work better;the sound fo the cut is softer and sweeter. I suspect (guessing) it's mainly the thickness of the blades, which may partially counter any bad bedding issues. Thicker blades have their own inertia to resist cutting edge instability, where in a thin blade the inertia must come from the frog, making th frog/blade interface more critical.

BugBear

 

[Jarviser]

I do have quite a few laminated Record blades, and they work fine, cutting timber cleanly and leaving a good finish.
BugBear

When did they produce those BB?

 

[Anonymous]

But the after market blades (I have 2, a Samurai and a Victor) work better;the sound fo the cut is softer and sweeter. I suspect (guessing) it's mainly the thickness of the blades, which may partially counter any bad bedding issues. Thicker blades have their own inertia to resist cutting edge instability, where in a thin blade the inertia must come from the frog, making th frog/blade interface more critical.

BugBear

I've noticed the sound difference with the thicker blades (lower frequency?) and the tactile feeback is different. The plane just feels & sounds more solid (again lower frequency?). It does seem as though the plane works better but I can't see a definitive result on the wood itself. I've gotten much the same results by adding Clifton chipbreakers better tactile feedback but little actual improvement.

Where I do see real improvment is switching from a Bailey type plane to my Knight coffin smoother.[/i]

 

[OPJ]

The very first plane I had (nearly two years ago now) was a Record one, sold by Screwfix. I think they actually call it a "smoothing plane" where I've also seen it referred to as a Jack Plane - and of course, it's the "Carpenter's Choice" model.

Anyway, I dislike it very much. No matter how much I sharpen, I can't seem to get or keep a decent edge for planing even softwoods. And I'm sure the blade itself has warped over time - I don't ever remember it being a convex shape when I first recieved it!

If I had the chance to turn back time, I'd tell my dad to get me something else. I have a block plane of theirs and that's not nearly as bad.

I went out and bought a NEW (I know, I know!) Stanley No.4 Bailey last year and it serves me very well indeed. After a feature in GWW, I did realise the sole was 'in wind' slightly and managed to sort it.
I'm a trainee carpenter first and foremost, so I can't be spending too much on decent woodworking tools that'll only get nicked if not broken on the job.

So, I can safely reccomend the Stanley No.4 to anyone after a block plane on a tight budget. I got mine from D&M Tools, £40-ish.

 

[Jarviser]

Olly, Sounds like the Record SP4, which is the rough equivalent of the Stanley Handyman. It probably has the frog bedding onto unmachined painted casting. The Bailey should be the basis of a good plane where the Record is probably not worth fettling up.
SWMBO bought me a Handyman #5 many years ago which means it's the one plane I can't get rid of, so it gets used on the MDF jigs, and the reclaimed boards with possible nails in before I let the good planes loose.