Record Frogs

[MarkDennehy]

So, my scrub plane is the cheapest AmTech #4 I could find, with the mouth filed wider and the blade ground with a massive camber and it works pretty well except that the casting digs into my hand until it bleeds, which is less than optimal.

So I bought another Record #04 figuring it'd fit better. And it was cheap enough (about 20 quid by the time I'd paid postage to Ireland). But...

...now I don't know which of my two Record #04s is the older and better one

I mean, I thought they were the same vintage from the iron shape and the solid frog design, but looking at it now I'm confused by the shape of the cutouts for the frog-securing screws. I thought there was only the one solid frog design and after that, they all went to that design where only some raised surfaces were in contact with the iron, but these seem to have a different design?

Anyone got any ideas as to which is older?

 

[Vann]

Closer pictures of the frogs - and of the lateral levers in particular - will help.

Of course, while as a general rule, the older the better, in this case the two Record planes will be within a few years of each other. So your decision as to which is the better should be based on condition and fit (of things like frog to base mating surfaces - and screws in holes), not on age alone.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[ED65]

...it works pretty well except that the casting digs into my hand until it bleeds...

How so?

Perhaps the thing to do is fix that rather than consign a solid old Record to roughing duties? Or convert a coffin smoother, or use a woodie jack!

The different cutouts are interesting, my memory is not what it was but I can't recall seeing the non-symmetrical one before.

 

[tony_s]

Record No4's are hardly the rarest of beasts and from Marks perspective it'd be nice to have everything Record, since that seems to be his thing (correct me if I'm wrong, Mark)

 

[D_W]

So, my scrub plane is the cheapest AmTech #4 I could find, with the mouth filed wider and the blade ground with a massive camber and it works pretty well except that the casting digs into my hand until it bleeds, which is less than optimal.

So I bought another Record #04 figuring it'd fit better. And it was cheap enough (about 20 quid by the time I'd paid postage to Ireland). But...

...now I don't know which of my two Record #04s is the older and better one

I mean, I thought they were the same vintage from the iron shape and the solid frog design, but looking at it now I'm confused by the shape of the cutouts for the frog-securing screws. I thought there was only the one solid frog design and after that, they all went to that design where only some raised surfaces were in contact with the iron, but these seem to have a different design?

Anyone got any ideas as to which is older?

Drape your pinky finger over the side of the casting. The handle is probably just a bit short, but you really only need two fingers on it.

Beware of objects if you have your pinky hanging over, though. The tip of it will find stationary objects in a hard push, and the result isn't great!

 

[MarkDennehy]

...it works pretty well except that the casting digs into my hand until it bleeds...

How so?

The right edge of the plane's casting at the bottom of the handle digs into the edge of my hand as I push the plane even if I keep my hand open when pushing, and if I close my hand the adjustment knob digs into my knuckles the minute the iron hits the wood, which is... unpleasant.

Perhaps the thing to do is fix that rather than consign a solid old Record to roughing duties? Or convert a coffin smoother, or use a woodie jack!

I wrestled with that for a while and it came down in my head to whether I was collecting tools or using them and I know I'm just a hobby gentleman woodworker but I can at least play like I know what I'm doing

The different cutouts are interesting, my memory is not what it was but I can't recall seeing the non-symmetrical one before.

Yeah, I can't find a reference for them. The webpages I've seen on dating Record planes don't mention them at all, only the symmetrical cutouts.

Closer views:
The "new" plane:

And the "old" plane:

Same adjustment lever on both (the bottom disc does not rotate), same frog screws and adjustment knob on both, everything else seems the same but the casting is longer on one than on the other:

I didn't think castings varied by that much...

 

[toolsntat]

Based on pictures alone the longer one with full label and wonky screw recesses looks best.
I am very surprised that the other does not say "war finish" on it as it lacks the finesse of the longer one. Thus :-
1 The milling on the frog face being done quickly.
2 The fit of the central rib looks sloppy.
Advantage in the longer one is also it has more room for your fingers.
Was not aware of length differences but it would figure to use less material in a war production era.
If you used the other as a scrub the mouth should be wide enough without alteration, with the frog right back. Mine is.
Cheers Andy

 

[richarddownunder]

I'd use both and see which works best. I have a 'War Finish" record SS that I have tried to beat with a (post-war) Norris, other Stanley and Records, the only one that works as well is a Clifton, but for taking really fine shavings of difficult mahogany guitar wood, this particular Record SS is perfectly set-up somehow and is the one I usually turn to. It's very easy to re-set after sharpening. It is also comfortable to use. I have another Record SS in better nick, rosewood handle, nicer casting, but it just doesn't work quite as well for some reason. The point is that 2 very similar planes can, in my experience, perform differently.

Cheers
Richard

 

[Vann]

Looking at the frog photos, both Record planes are type 4, ~1952-1957 "Lateral Lever Pattern #4 - Solid disc at the end of the lateral lever with "RECORD" marked on the lateral lever, about 1952 to late 1957." (quote from the late David Leitch's recordhandplanes website). So why the odd shape recesses in the frog? I can only suggest a difference in one of the frog patterns.

I've found a difference in sole lengths too. New patterns made longer over the years, intentionally or unintentionally. From around 238mm long at the start, to 250mm long towards the end of production in UK.

Earlier planes have quite fine (lightweight) castings, while later models are much heavier, and clunkier (is that a real word?). I guess if there are knots in your timber then a heavier plane is an advantage. On the other hand, if you're going to be planing at the bench all day, a lighter plane will be less tiring.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[ED65]

The right edge of the plane's casting at the bottom of the handle digs into the edge of my hand as I push the plane even if I keep my hand open when pushing, and if I close my hand the adjustment knob digs into my knuckles the minute the iron hits the wood, which is... unpleasant.

Ah. You could relieve the right edge of the casting (maybe just more of a roundover would be enough for comfort) but a major handle mod would be required to fix the other, which would be a PITA in this type of plastic. Might even be easier to just make a whole new one from wood!

Perhaps the thing to do is fix that rather than consign a solid old Record to roughing duties? Or convert a coffin smoother, or use a woodie jack!

I wrestled with that for a while and it came down in my head to whether I was collecting tools or using them and I know I'm just a hobby gentleman woodworker but I can at least play like I know what I'm doing

That's fair enough. Have you measured the thickest chip/shaving you've gotten from the AmTech to see how big the mouth actually needs to be? I have at least two metal-bodied planes that wouldn't need any filing work done to allow their mouths to pass the thickest chip most muscles are capable of producing, maybe this would be the same on one of the Records?

I'm not at all against users opening up mouths a bit if needed, I think I was just being a bit precious about it in this case because I've never come across a whole Record plane in the wild.

Yeah, I can't find a reference for them. The webpages I've seen on dating Record planes don't mention them at all, only the symmetrical cutouts.

With the closer photo it looks like there was a problem with the machine that did that milling! Or who knows, maybe it was a young apprentice's first day? :lol:

 

[Vann]

...I've found a difference in sole lengths too. New patterns made longer over the years, intentionally or unintentionally. From around 238mm long at the start, to 250mm long towards the end of production in UK....

Correction:
Type 1 planes (1931-39): 235mm to 238mm long (sample of 4 planes);
Type 2 planes (1939-45): 236mm to 237mm long (sample of 3 planes);
Type 3 planes (1945-52): 235mm to 238mm long (sample of 5 planes);
Type 4 planes (1952-57): 237mm to 243mm long (sample of 11 planes - note: 1 plane was 237mm long, all the others were 242 or 243mm long);
SP-4 (Record-Marples 1995-99): 250mm long (sample of 3 planes).

...With the closer photo it looks like there was a problem with the machine that did that milling! Or who knows, maybe it was a young apprentice's first day? ....

Yebbit, those two recesses are cast in, not machined.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[ED65]

Yebbit, those two recesses are cast in, not machined.

Doh, so they are. Senior pattern maker's day off then?

 

[D_W]

I'd use both and see which works best. I have a 'War Finish" record SS that I have tried to beat with a (post-war) Norris, other Stanley and Records, the only one that works as well is a Clifton, but for taking really fine shavings of difficult mahogany guitar wood, this particular Record SS is perfectly set-up somehow and is the one I usually turn to. It's very easy to re-set after sharpening. It is also comfortable to use. I have another Record SS in better nick, rosewood handle, nicer casting, but it just doesn't work quite as well for some reason. The point is that 2 very similar planes can, in my experience, perform differently.

Cheers
Richard

Agree with your sentiment. My best 4 (in use) is a type 20, which are supposedly near worthless. The iron was bad, but the plane itself is excellent despite being cheaply made. It adjusts more smoothly and I prefer it even to the LN 4 that I have unless the wood being planed is really really hard (which is rare - even then, I wouldn't walk through the door to the basement to get the LN if it wasn't at the bench - the difference isn't great).

Somewhere, we've gotten confused about how well a plane needs to be finished to work well. It needs to be made correctly, but the level of finish doesn't need to be that high aside from that. The iron touches but a few tiny spots on a frog no matter how well milled it is. If everything is square, locks up and adjust smoothly, there will not be much more to improve other than possibly sole flatness.

In terms of the two planes here, it looks like the center rib has been hammered, scraped or filed on the less well finished plane. Perhaps it stuck out too far when it was new, but the abuse that it was given appears to have carried over to the bottom of the casting.

If either of these two is made properly, a clean up of the leading edge of the cap iron and an appropriate set of it and they should do anything that any plane in the world will do (though you'll feel a bit more of it than you would in a new 6 pound boutique infill plane).

 

[Bod]

http://www.recordhandplanes.com/dating.html
This site gives a date of late 1950s for your older two planes, the one with strange "eyes" might be an early Qualcast casting, rather than a Record casting, a prototype that got used rather than scrapped. Look for a feint "Q" cast in then painted over. The right hand one is a Qualcast made frog.

Bod

 

[heimlaga]

Both hose Record smoothers are way way WAY too nice to convert into a mediocre substitute for a scrub plane.
In my oppinion a good scrub plane should have a significantly narrower and thicker blade and no chip breaker. A smoother is a tiotally different animal.
The scrub I currentlu use is a Soviet made Voskov which I found cheap at a flea market.

However as scrub planes aren't precision tools it is easy to make a good wooden one.
I have an extra wooden scrub plane of the type with front horn laying around byt shipping may be a bit costly.