Winter project

[bobscarle]

Somewhile back, I was given a fairly sorry looking Record number 4 to do with as I wanted. It has been on the shelf for 9 months but this evening I decided that I ought to do something with it. No rush, this is going to be a winter project.

Not very nice is it. Those blue handles just have to go!

Took the iron out.......Isn't that a bedrock frog?
It could be worth doing now.

The casting is not in bad condition although a quick wipe over with a wire brush shows rusting underneath the paint. My guess is that I will have to strip all the paint (Nitromoors?) and redo it. Need to search for some of the rust removal threads also on the site.

This will be the first plane I have tried to restore so I have no doubt there will be loads of questions and more pictures.

Bob

BTW, anybody care to hazard a guess at a date?

 

[Paul Chapman]

Isn't that a bedrock frog?

BTW, anybody care to hazard a guess at a date?

No, not a Bedrock frog - Record never made a Bedrock plane. However, the frog indicates that it is mid-1960s or earlier.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[LuptonM]

is the record T5 a bedrock?

 

[jimi43]

is the record T5 a bedrock?

Did you just win that one on FleaBay?



Jim

 

[Vann]

is the record T5 a bedrock?

Nope. The T5 may have flat sides like a Bedrock, but the frog seating is Bailey pattern.

Bob, that 04 has the earlier (= better) frog. To getter a better idea of it's age, can you do a sharper photo of the lateral adjuster lever, including the disc at the bottom?

Paul, I'd put Bobs plane in the 1931-1956 range. It has the 'type 1' frog - according the David Lynch's site.

Cheers, Vann.

 

[bugbear]

Somewhile back, I was given a fairly sorry looking Record number 4 to do with as I wanted. It has been on the shelf for 9 months but this evening I decided that I ought to do something with it. No rush, this is going to be a winter project.

That looks like a fairly straght forward restoration - all parts present and in pretty good condition, and a high quality underlying tool. Since a "full" restoration can be quite time consuming, I only restore good quality tools, since (at car boots) they're the same price as lesser examples!

BugBear

 

[AndyT]

Did it belong to a Smurf?

Apart from the handles, it really does not need much doing to it. (As BB said.)

 

[Pvt_Ryan]

Have to agree.. I really really don't like the handles..

 

[bobscarle]

+1 here. The handles just have to go. The plane is not in bad condition so probably a good one to have a go at for my first attempt. Interesting that it could be as early as 1930's.

Found a nice piece of maple in the shed, may just make the handles from that. I have seen a couple of threads on fashioning a new rear tote, one by Alf? I need to revist them first. Looking forward to doing it.

Bob

 

[GazPal]

+1 here. The handles just have to go. The plane is not in bad condition so probably a good one to have a go at for my first attempt. Interesting that it could be as early as 1930's.

Found a nice piece of maple in the shed, may just make the handles from that. I have seen a couple of threads on fashioning a new rear tote, one by Alf? I need to revist them first. Looking forward to doing it.

Bob

I'd not necessarily write-off the handles just yet.

Although the frog pattern was in use from 1931 - 1956, if she does date from the 30's, you should find a Rosewood handle and knob beneath the Smurf paint job. In fact some Record bench planes were hafted with Rosewood into the early 50's and I've a nice little #03 from the early 50's to bear testament to that.

For a good basic, but not comprehensive guide to Record handplanes try;

www.recordhandplanes.com

Nitromors should take care of both troublesome sets of paintwork. :wink:

 

[Alf]

Found a nice piece of maple in the shed, may just make the handles from that. I have seen a couple of threads on fashioning a new rear tote, one by Alf? I need to revist them first. Looking forward to doing it.

Yeah, here. Definitely have a look at what's under that blue paint though.

 

[yetloh]

I have a Record No 5 of similar vintage - the only tool I have which belonged to my father - which I have fettled and equipped with a laminated Japanese blade. It doesn't look much but works a treat and is still one of my favourite tools.

Dead right about the frogs on these early Records which have a large blade support surface and are much better than the later ones. Even so, it pays to check this area and the area where the frog beds on the plane body for flatness, and fettle as necessary, as part of the restoration process. Mine has nice handles which could well be rosewood, so +1 for looking under that vile paint.

Jim

 

[David C]

I think the benefit of the continuous frog surface is overrated unless you have a stay set chipbreaker.

All conventional chipbreakers or back irons bend the blade significantly when they are attached. I have been checking this recently and some of the bend remains even when the lever cap is installed. ( You may be able to see scuff marks on your blade which show where it is supported).

So in most planes, the blade is supported at the heel of the bevel and up at the top of the frog only.

The continuous frogs are certainly nicer, but I'm not sure that they add performance.

David Charlesworth

 

[jimi43]

Apart from the Record Stay-Set planes that I have...the Stanley's sport the Clifton equivalent.

Does this mean they are better...? Some would disagree.

I see your point though...you can even see it on a thick tapered iron on my infills....the bend is very pronounced.

Jim

 

[David C]

Jim,

I'm not sure if it makes any difference, just a fact of life.

As Karl Holtey says, the heel of the bevel is a pretty good place to support an iron.

David

 

[jimi43]

Hi David

With the Spiers (?) infill that I have just finished restoring...my 01 iron flexes with the cap even though it is 1/8" thick and then once I screw down the Bristol cap...you can see it pushing back again against the infill slope.

I'm not sure it sits flat again but it sure shaves nicely!

Jim

 

[GazPal]

I think the biggest plus with having a solid blade bed is the additional weight added to the plane. It may not seem much, but this, in additon to the thicker castings often found on older Record planes IMHO makes for a more positive experience when planing.

+1 regarding the bend incurred by the cap iron on parallel and tapered irons, but their lever caps and wedges do tend to force the blade back to straight.

Stay Sets tend to be more of a plus when it boils down to re-honing an edge without having to re-set the entire cap iron and IMHO they're still a great innovation - Record or Clifton. :wink: