Vann
Established Member
And we can't have too many hand drill threads...
It is said that imitation is the finest form of flattery.
From time to time there’s been some controversy on the forum here regarding Chinese manufactured planes that are direct copies of other manufacturers planes. One retailer was offering an exact copy of the Veritas edge-plane. Similarly a range of Chinese manufactured bench planes are said to be direct copies of the Lie-Nielsen range. Lie-Nielsen are in turn, accused of making copies of Stanley planes.
To be fair, I don’t believe Lie-Nielsen have reproduced any planes that are still in production by Stanley.
But is this anything new.
Back in January 1931 C & J Hampton released a range of bench planes and other tools under their Record brand name. It’s well known that these planes were direct copies of the then current Stanley planes. Record so closely copied the Stanley USA type #14 bench planes that even the non-standard screw threads (a relic of the mid to late 1800s) were the same. Components between Stanleys and Records of the period are completely interchangeable.
I wonder what Stanley though about this. Maybe they were so enraged they bought out JA Chapman and started producing planes in the UK just a few years later.
As mentioned in another thread, I recently bought a Record No.145 two speed breast drill. I noticed this drill bore a striking resemblance to a Millers Falls No.118 breast drill I was “beautifying” at the time. I also have a Millers Falls No.12. So when the Record arrived in the post I decided to do a comparison.
Firstly some dating (with help from the Millers Falls website oldtoolheaven.com, and my favourite Record website recordhandplanes.com).
The Millers Falls No.12 was in production from 1874 to 1957, with my example dating from between 1915 and 1925.
Their No.118 was produced from 1913 to 1957, with mine being post-1931.
And (I was surprised) Record only produced their breast drills between 1933 and 1938.
Okay, here goes.
The breast plates: (the Record in the centre in all photos)
Looks about the same on all three. All have the same size spigot hole and so are interchangeable. The tightening screws are 5/16” with MF using 20tpi, while Record used 18tpi.
The frames:
Very similar in shape, but sufficient minor differences to indicate they didn’t quite come out of the same moulds. One difference on the Record is the beefed up frame around the pinion.
The chucks:
I haven’t figured out how to remove the two-jaw chuck from the Millers Falls No.12. However the No.118 and No.145 chucks are so similar, they even share the same 9/16” x 24tpi spindle thread.
Handles: All three have handles that are adjustable to 4”, 5” or 6” crank and mounted on a 5” diameter drive gear wheel. They’re interchangeable. The handles are attached using identical knurled thumbscrews with a thread of 22tpi, however the Record thread at 5.5mm is around 0.4mm greater in diameter than the Miller Falls threads
Both the No.118 and No.145 are missing their side handles. The No.12 uses a ⅜” diameter thread with 18tpi. It doesn’t fit the No.118 nor the No.145, which appear to both use a ⅜” 16tpi thread (I’ll check this out when I get my hands on a ⅜” BSW or UNC bolt).
Gearing: All three have a 5” diameter drive gear wheel. The drive gears have 56 teeth on the outer ring and 20 teeth on the inner. The pinion gear has 24 teeth. They can all be interchanged (although the older No.12 uses a different shaft locking mechanism).
So, did Record shamelessly copy the Millers Falls breast drill, just as they copied the Stanley bench planes?
Without a doubt they did.
The only thing I can say in Record’s defence is that at least they manufactured quality copies, using engineering standards up there with the originators of the designs, and (I assume) they paid their workers a reasonable living wage.
But it does make me pull my horns in a little when I snub the products of Quangsheng, Woodriver, et al.
Cheers, Vann.
It is said that imitation is the finest form of flattery.
From time to time there’s been some controversy on the forum here regarding Chinese manufactured planes that are direct copies of other manufacturers planes. One retailer was offering an exact copy of the Veritas edge-plane. Similarly a range of Chinese manufactured bench planes are said to be direct copies of the Lie-Nielsen range. Lie-Nielsen are in turn, accused of making copies of Stanley planes.
To be fair, I don’t believe Lie-Nielsen have reproduced any planes that are still in production by Stanley.
But is this anything new.
Back in January 1931 C & J Hampton released a range of bench planes and other tools under their Record brand name. It’s well known that these planes were direct copies of the then current Stanley planes. Record so closely copied the Stanley USA type #14 bench planes that even the non-standard screw threads (a relic of the mid to late 1800s) were the same. Components between Stanleys and Records of the period are completely interchangeable.
I wonder what Stanley though about this. Maybe they were so enraged they bought out JA Chapman and started producing planes in the UK just a few years later.
As mentioned in another thread, I recently bought a Record No.145 two speed breast drill. I noticed this drill bore a striking resemblance to a Millers Falls No.118 breast drill I was “beautifying” at the time. I also have a Millers Falls No.12. So when the Record arrived in the post I decided to do a comparison.
Firstly some dating (with help from the Millers Falls website oldtoolheaven.com, and my favourite Record website recordhandplanes.com).
The Millers Falls No.12 was in production from 1874 to 1957, with my example dating from between 1915 and 1925.
Their No.118 was produced from 1913 to 1957, with mine being post-1931.
And (I was surprised) Record only produced their breast drills between 1933 and 1938.
Okay, here goes.
The breast plates: (the Record in the centre in all photos)
The frames:
The chucks:
Handles: All three have handles that are adjustable to 4”, 5” or 6” crank and mounted on a 5” diameter drive gear wheel. They’re interchangeable. The handles are attached using identical knurled thumbscrews with a thread of 22tpi, however the Record thread at 5.5mm is around 0.4mm greater in diameter than the Miller Falls threads
Both the No.118 and No.145 are missing their side handles. The No.12 uses a ⅜” diameter thread with 18tpi. It doesn’t fit the No.118 nor the No.145, which appear to both use a ⅜” 16tpi thread (I’ll check this out when I get my hands on a ⅜” BSW or UNC bolt).
Gearing: All three have a 5” diameter drive gear wheel. The drive gears have 56 teeth on the outer ring and 20 teeth on the inner. The pinion gear has 24 teeth. They can all be interchanged (although the older No.12 uses a different shaft locking mechanism).
So, did Record shamelessly copy the Millers Falls breast drill, just as they copied the Stanley bench planes?
Without a doubt they did.
The only thing I can say in Record’s defence is that at least they manufactured quality copies, using engineering standards up there with the originators of the designs, and (I assume) they paid their workers a reasonable living wage.
But it does make me pull my horns in a little when I snub the products of Quangsheng, Woodriver, et al.
Cheers, Vann.