I'm looking to acquire a full set of hand planes. It's my desire to
try and purchase all of my plane needs from one good manufacturer.
Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley come immediately to mind, but I wouldn't
rule out Clifton either.
Here is the wish list...
#6 or #7 jointer with 2 blades
#5 Jack with 2 blades
#3 or #4 Smoother, 2 blades
Bull nosed plane
Convex spokeshave
Concave spokeshave
Scraper plane
Rebate plane
Jointing fence for #7 and/or #5
I'm aware that not all companies make all planes - ie. LV doesn't
carry #5, they make a #5 1/4W (fiveandaquarterdoubleyou). I'm looking
for a good even balance.
If you decide to purchase them all at the same time, can you get
"bulk" pricing? Any dealer recommendations?
JP
In article <[email protected]>, Jay Pique
<[email protected]> wrote:
> If you decide to purchase them all at the same time, can you get
> "bulk" pricing? Any dealer recommendations?
You should really talk to Steve Knight. Really, really.
No, I don't get a commision. <g>
djb
"CW" <no adddress@spam free.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Once you get a wooden plane adjusted, it's as trouble free as a metal one.
Not quite. If you have an outdoor/garage shop, you may find that
the plane moves a bit with changes in humidity, and the sole may have
to be touched up occasionally. It's just a fact of life.
Don't believe me? Check out this article by planemakers Bill Clark
and Larry Williams on their website that discusses movement in wooden
plane bodies:
http://www.planemaker.com/articles/benchplane.html
> They do work well.
I agree totally. My go-to smoother when all else fails is a wooden
C&W.
Chuck Vance
Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Joe Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
>
><http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?SID=&ccurrency=2&page=32635&category=1,310>
> >It's an insert that replaces the blade of a #4 - #8 with a scraper.
> >Thought of trying this out with a type 20 #5.
>
> Anyone ever used this? Good? Bad? Ugly?
Ugly, IMHO. I'm as big a fan of LV as there is, but this wasn't
one of their better ideas. The scraping insert flexed too much (even
with the thicker optional blade), so it chattered something awful at
the start of the cut. I managed to make it work, but eventually just
gave up on it, as it was also hard to adjust and hard to keep
adjusted. You'd be better off just buying their #80 clone, IMHO.
Chuck Vance
Joe Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:13:46 +0000, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>
>> I've had a similar experience with a Record #4. Eventually I gave up and
>> relegated it to dust magnet duties. Lately I've been thinking about
>> turning it into a scrub plane. Anyone done this? Near as I can tell about
>> all I have to do is put an arc on the blade.
>
>I'm thinking of doing the same with a Stanley type 20 (blue period) #4.
>Anyone who has tried this, give us your experience please.
>
>Also stumbled across this:
><http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?SID=&ccurrency=2&page=32635&category=1,310>
>It's an insert that replaces the blade of a #4 - #8 with a scraper.
>Thought of trying this out with a type 20 #5.
Anyone ever used this? Good? Bad? Ugly?
JP
Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm looking to acquire a full set of hand planes.
Don't, at least, not just yet.
There are few reasons short of earthquake or burglary to need to buy a
whole set of top-end planes in one go. You _rarely_ need all of them
for a particular piece of work (or even many similar pieces) and
there's a lot to be said for learning as you go.
Your first decent plane should definitely be an eBay Stanley #4 or #5,
tuned up yourself. This size because they're representative and
useful, a Stanley because there's plenty out there to buy cheaply and
they're good enough to use (if you get a reasonable age, i.e. anything
"between the wars"). Most importantly, you should refurbish such a
plane yourself, because only that will give you the real "hands-on"
that is the only way to really understand what you're dealing with.
> It's my desire to
> try and purchase all of my plane needs from one good manufacturer.
Why ? There's a certain consistency to buying all your bench planes
(#3..#7) from one maker, but I see no reason to extend this to block
planes and scrapers. If a manufacturer makes a good #4, then their #5
is probably good too, but that says nothing about their block planes,
even if they make them at all.
Talking of block planes, you missed out the essential LV low-angle
block (and maybe the normal angle one too). Beautiful bit of work.
> #6 or #7 jointer with 2 blades
Why would I want two different irons in a jointer ?
> #5 Jack with 2 blades
Why would I want two different irons in a #5 ? Although I see the
usefulness, I can't imagine stopping and changing them around all day.
Get two bodies (or more - a #5 is a useful size).
> #3 or #4 Smoother, 2 blades
IMHO, the #4 isn't much use as a smoother. For your apparent budget,
get one of Steve's, a Norris A5 _and_ a couple of everyday clunkers.
> Bull nosed plane
Got one somewhere. Rarely use it.
> Convex spokeshave
> Concave spokeshave
Got these somewhere. Never use either.
Stright spokeshaves (flat or curved base, straight blade) get used all
the time. I'd suggest the LV "metal-bodied wooden spokeshave", they
also do a #151 pattern now, and my personal favourites are the little
old Stanley #63 & #64.
> Scraper plane
Got at least three of these (#112, #80, #12) - never stop using them.
Get a LV #112 and a Stanley #80.
> Rebate plane
There are lots of sorts of these. Rebate or shoulder ? Big or little
? I use a #92 and a #78 in equal measure, depending on size of the
job. There's a couple of #10s for big stuff, and I have enough #78s
(actually the Record #778 is better here) so that I can keep each one
with the fence set to the right depth, which saves a lot of time on
big repetitive jobs.
> Jointing fence for #7 and/or #5
Thumb works. A #7 is too heavy to take much account of a fence anyway,
unless you're already holding it straight.
IIRC Steve's planes have an adjustment screw to help set the blade. I
leave my blade exposed all the time and seldom have to adjust it.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Talk to Steve Knight. He has great hand made hand planes and I bet he
will
> make you a deal.
> http://www.knight-toolworks.com
>
>
patriarch <<patriarch>[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
snip
>
> On the other hand, futzing with a recent manufacture Record #4 has
> been a total waste of time and $75. Old Stanley planes (#3,#4,#6 &
> #78) purchased from Patrick Leach were easy to get into top shape, but
> this Record serves only to add mass to the toolbox these days....
>
I've had a similar experience with a Record #4. Eventually I gave up and
relegated it to dust magnet duties. Lately I've been thinking about turning
it into a scrub plane. Anyone done this? Near as I can tell about all I
have to do is put an arc on the blade.
Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Talk to Steve Knight. He has great hand made hand planes and I bet he
>>will make you a deal.
>>http://www.knight-toolworks.com
>
> I'll do that. One question I have is whether the fettling of a wooden
> plane is significantly more time consuming on an ongoing basis than
> one of metal. I don't mind spending a few hours with a new plane out
> of the box, but I don't really want to be having to tweak this and tap
> that for 15 minutes every time I use it.
>
> JP
>
Jay, two of the brands you mentioned earlier have, in my experience,
required essentially NO fettling out of the box. Those being Veritas/LV
and Lie-Nielsen. Pretty much clean the shipping preservative crud off,
touch up the blade with the highest grit (often not needed, but a habit is
a habit), and look for some wood to make into shavings.
LV I own: 5 1/4w, standard and low angle blocks, medium shoulder plane,
three spoke shaves.
LN I own: standard angle block, chisel plane, #85 cabinet maker's scraper
plane, bevel chisels, and cabinet scrapers.
Others have reported similar experience with Steve's planes. I haven't yet
used the short crowbar on Steve's behalf, but I believe that time will
come.
On the other hand, futzing with a recent manufacture Record #4 has been a
total waste of time and $75. Old Stanley planes (#3,#4,#6 & #78) purchased
from Patrick Leach were easy to get into top shape, but this Record serves
only to add mass to the toolbox these days....
On the initial topic, of all of one brand of handplane: That would, in my
shop, take all of the joy from finding a new/old tool, when the urge struck
me. Could I put a vintage #7 or #8 in the same rack with new, spiffy
Canadian updates on a century-old design? Would they get along? Would the
LV speak only French amongst themselves? Would a Japanese plane feel out
of place? Or a fine old British piece? Or a Krenov-inspired homebuilt? ;-)
The former was meant as tongue-in-cheek, of course. The truth is, that,
until I give up the hobby, and the shop is divided, there will likely NOT
be such a thing as a complete collection of handplanes.
You may have more self-control.
Patriarch
Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Joe Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:13:46 +0000, Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>>> I've had a similar experience with a Record #4. Eventually I gave up
>>> and relegated it to dust magnet duties. Lately I've been thinking
>>> about turning it into a scrub plane. Anyone done this? Near as I can
>>> tell about all I have to do is put an arc on the blade.
>>
>>I'm thinking of doing the same with a Stanley type 20 (blue period)
>>#4. Anyone who has tried this, give us your experience please.
>>
>>Also stumbled across this:
>><http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?SID=&ccurrency=2&page=32635&cat
>>egory=1,310> It's an insert that replaces the blade of a #4 - #8 with
>>a scraper. Thought of trying this out with a type 20 #5.
>
> Anyone ever used this? Good? Bad? Ugly?
>
> JP
>
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/tool.html?id=85&cart=97421032829539
I have one of these. It is so beautiful, it just called out my name, and
begged to be taken home. My wife had just spent $400 on silver and
turqoise jewelry, and so she was in a good mood. This is why dealers need
to stock more handplanes.
The thing is, I get so much better results with these:
http://www.lie-nielsen.com/tool.html?id=HSset&cart=97421032829539
that the 85 just sits there most of the time, looking good, but not
contributing much else.
And the really gnarly stuff seems to end up going through the drum sander
anyway. Try as I might, I seem to be a backsliding Normite after all.
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=48431&category=1,41182,48945&cc
urrency=2&SID= is more money, but, I think, a better investment of the time
and cash. Excellent reviews here by respected voices.
Careful, Jay. Will power. Self control. Beware the slippery slope.
Patriarch
Jay Pique wrote:
> Thanks to you and patriarch.
Glad to be of help.
> I'm a pretty big fan of hand scrapers
> these days, as I've taken a shine to them for cutting down a finish.
> Much nicer than sandpaper, and quick once you acquire the manual
> dexterity. I've actually cut a couple of the thinner ones in half to
> get into tighter areas. The shavings certainly don't clump up like
> swarf sometimes does.
AFAIC, the only limits to scrapers' usefulness is your imagination.
I've got two sets of them, thick and thin, in all the normal shapes,
and I use them for all sorts of things. I've also custom-shaped a few
edges with files to use for things like scraping the insides of bowls or
curves on candleholders or other "turned" items (I don't have a lathe,
so I do my "turning" with spokeshaves, gouges, etc.)
They're also handy for making scratch stocks. I take various files
to create the profiles I want and then use them in a customized wooden
marking gage that I converted to a scratch stock.
Oh, and Lee Valley sells some mini-scrapers that you might find
handy:
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=32672&category=1,310,41069&abspage=1&ccurrency=2&SID=
They're dirt-cheap, so you can play around with putting custom
profiles on them without worrying about messing up one of your bigger
scrapers. (Though when you think about, it's hard to mess up a scraper.
Even if you put custom profile on the corners of a rectangular
scraper, in use, the corners don't come in contact with the work.) And
it's sometimes handy to have a scraper that you can use one-handed.
Chuck Vance
Jay Pique wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:14:31 -0500, Conan the Librarian
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> AFAIC
>
> "C" = ?
"Concerned", as in "As Far As I'm Concerned".
> [mini-scrapers]
>
> You know I think I've looked at that website and catalog a hundred
> times and never seen those! That's *exactly* what I could have used
> the other day.
They are very handy to have around the shop.
> I like the idea of putting various sized roundovers on the edges of
> scrapers - that way you can quickly and easily clean up the profiles
> on mouldings. Those things get more and more use (by me) every
> passing day. Time for a top notch burnisher. I think I'll like the
> screwdriver type ones much better than the automatic LV one I have
> now.
I'd recommend you get a Hock burnisher. He supplies the rod and you
make the handle for it. I've had one since I first started using
scrapers and it's oneof my "old reliable" tools.
The LV thing is OK, but I prefer to do it the old-fashioned way. I
put different-sized hooks on different edges of my scrapers, and it's
easier to control with a standard burnisher.
> One thing that's made a huge difference for me has been using 400 grit
> paper to lap the sides and get the edge dead smooth and square.
Absolutely. Your hook is only as good as the prepared edge. Take a
little extra time to do that right and you'll have better results.
Don't do it and you'll be frustrated with scrapers.
> The
> LV burnisher puts a good hook on it, but I've heard that you should
> "draw" the hook first and then roll it - which the LV burnisher cannot
> do. I'll probably get the LV screwdriver type burnisher (although
> I've heard some mixed reviews!) as shown here
> http://tinyurl.com/4ql85.
I can't comment on that one, but again, the Hock one is great.
And yes, you should draw the hook first.
Chuck Vance
On 14 Jul 2004 07:13:34 -0700, [email protected] (Conan The Librarian)
wrote:
>Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Joe Wells <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>><http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?SID=&ccurrency=2&page=32635&category=1,310>
>> >It's an insert that replaces the blade of a #4 - #8 with a scraper.
>> >Thought of trying this out with a type 20 #5.
>>
>> Anyone ever used this? Good? Bad? Ugly?
>
> Ugly, IMHO. I'm as big a fan of LV as there is, but this wasn't
>one of their better ideas. The scraping insert flexed too much (even
>with the thicker optional blade), so it chattered something awful at
>the start of the cut. I managed to make it work, but eventually just
>gave up on it, as it was also hard to adjust and hard to keep
>adjusted. You'd be better off just buying their #80 clone, IMHO.
Thanks to you and patriarch. I'm a pretty big fan of hand scrapers
these days, as I've taken a shine to them for cutting down a finish.
Much nicer than sandpaper, and quick once you acquire the manual
dexterity. I've actually cut a couple of the thinner ones in half to
get into tighter areas. The shavings certainly don't clump up like
swarf sometimes does.
JP
On 12 Jul 2004 06:56:43 -0700, [email protected] (Andy Dingley)
wrote:
>Jay Pique <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> I'm looking to acquire a full set of hand planes.
>
>Don't, at least, not just yet.
>
>There are few reasons short of earthquake or burglary to need to buy a
>whole set of top-end planes in one go. You _rarely_ need all of them
>for a particular piece of work (or even many similar pieces) and
>there's a lot to be said for learning as you go.
My goal is to acquire a complete enough set of hand tools that I can
work in a shop environment without having to constantly be running
around looking for a chisel. Plus, I feel that having my own set wil
make me work better and more efficiently as I'll definitely keep my
own tools in the proper working order. Lastly, if I were hiring I'd
be more likely to go with the guy toting a nice set of well cared for
tools than one without. (All else equal.)
I feel pretty strongly that I'm going to be doing this for quite a
while, so I'm just trying to give myself the best chance at success.
>Your first decent plane should definitely be an eBay Stanley #4 or #5,
>tuned up yourself. This size because they're representative and
>useful, a Stanley because there's plenty out there to buy cheaply and
>they're good enough to use (if you get a reasonable age, i.e. anything
>"between the wars"). Most importantly, you should refurbish such a
>plane yourself, because only that will give you the real "hands-on"
>that is the only way to really understand what you're dealing with.
That sounds like a good idea. I was at an auction this past weekend,
but I didn't see any planes. I'll keep looking.
>> It's my desire to
>> try and purchase all of my plane needs from one good manufacturer.
>
>Why ? There's a certain consistency to buying all your bench planes
>(#3..#7) from one maker, but I see no reason to extend this to block
>planes and scrapers. If a manufacturer makes a good #4, then their #5
>is probably good too, but that says nothing about their block planes,
>even if they make them at all.
I should have mentioned that I've already got the LV low-angle block.
It's a great plane, but it sure isn't made for end grain! With regard
to going with one manufacturer, I was thinking that it might be easier
to get better pricing on the lot if I bought in "bulk". Perhaps a
dealer that carries multiple lines might be the way to go. Any dual
LN - LV distributors out there?
>Talking of block planes, you missed out the essential LV low-angle
>block (and maybe the normal angle one too). Beautiful bit of work.
I love it. I spent about 3 hours with it right out of the box (after
giving it a test drive as supplied by Lee Valley). After making a
whole bunch of black water, it made such pretty little diaphanous
shavings that I spent another 3 hours just whittlin' wood!
>> #6 or #7 jointer with 2 blades
>
>Why would I want two different irons in a jointer ?
And would they even fit?! I just want to have a sharp spare always
available. Sorta like an extrap propane tank for the b.b.q. Less
interruption of work if your doing a bunch of planing.
>> #5 Jack with 2 blades
>
>Why would I want two different irons in a #5 ? Although I see the
>usefulness, I can't imagine stopping and changing them around all day.
> Get two bodies (or more - a #5 is a useful size).
>> #3 or #4 Smoother, 2 blades
>
>IMHO, the #4 isn't much use as a smoother. For your apparent budget,
>get one of Steve's, a Norris A5 _and_ a couple of everyday clunkers.
LOL. You don't know what kind of discount I'm anticipating!!! What
would you consider an everyday clunker?
>> Bull nosed plane
>
>Got one somewhere. Rarely use it.
Interesting. I use one with relative frequency it seems.
>> Convex spokeshave
>> Concave spokeshave
You're right. I don't even know what the hell they're used for!
>Got these somewhere. Never use either.
>
>Stright spokeshaves (flat or curved base, straight blade) get used all
>the time. I'd suggest the LV "metal-bodied wooden spokeshave", they
>also do a #151 pattern now, and my personal favourites are the little
>old Stanley #63 & #64.
That's what I meant. <smirk>
>> Scraper plane
>
>Got at least three of these (#112, #80, #12) - never stop using them.
>Get a LV #112 and a Stanley #80.
I've heard great things about the LV. Why would I want a #80 as well
as the #112?
>> Rebate plane
>
>There are lots of sorts of these. Rebate or shoulder ? Big or little
>? I use a #92 and a #78 in equal measure, depending on size of the
>job. There's a couple of #10s for big stuff, and I have enough #78s
>(actually the Record #778 is better here) so that I can keep each one
>with the fence set to the right depth, which saves a lot of time on
>big repetitive jobs.
Something to clean tenons, grooves, housings, etc...
>> Jointing fence for #7 and/or #5
>
>Thumb works. A #7 is too heavy to take much account of a fence anyway,
>unless you're already holding it straight.
That's good to know. Could I "get by" without a jointer plane?
Assuming I won't be going totally neander anywhere, what if I just
used a #5 to put a clean edge on machine jointed boards?
JP
*****************
A regressive work in progress.
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:13:46 GMT, Lobby Dosser
<[email protected]> wrote:
>patriarch <<patriarch>[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>snip
>
>>
>> On the other hand, futzing with a recent manufacture Record #4 has
>> been a total waste of time and $75. Old Stanley planes (#3,#4,#6 &
>> #78) purchased from Patrick Leach were easy to get into top shape, but
>> this Record serves only to add mass to the toolbox these days....
>>
>
>I've had a similar experience with a Record #4. Eventually I gave up and
>relegated it to dust magnet duties. Lately I've been thinking about turning
>it into a scrub plane. Anyone done this? Near as I can tell about all I
>have to do is put an arc on the blade.
open up the mouth
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 07:14:31 -0500, Conan the Librarian
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Jay Pique wrote:
>
>> Thanks to you and patriarch.
>
> Glad to be of help.
>
>> I'm a pretty big fan of hand scrapers
>> these days, as I've taken a shine to them for cutting down a finish.
>> Much nicer than sandpaper, and quick once you acquire the manual
>> dexterity. I've actually cut a couple of the thinner ones in half to
>> get into tighter areas. The shavings certainly don't clump up like
>> swarf sometimes does.
>
> AFAIC
"C" = ?
> the only limits to scrapers' usefulness is your imagination.
> I've got two sets of them, thick and thin, in all the normal shapes,
>and I use them for all sorts of things. I've also custom-shaped a few
>edges with files to use for things like scraping the insides of bowls or
>curves on candleholders or other "turned" items (I don't have a lathe,
>so I do my "turning" with spokeshaves, gouges, etc.)
>
> They're also handy for making scratch stocks. I take various files
>to create the profiles I want and then use them in a customized wooden
>marking gage that I converted to a scratch stock.
>
> Oh, and Lee Valley sells some mini-scrapers that you might find
>handy:
>http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?page=32672&category=1,310,41069&abspage=1&ccurrency=2&SID=
You know I think I've looked at that website and catalog a hundred
times and never seen those! That's *exactly* what I could have used
the other day.
> They're dirt-cheap, so you can play around with putting custom
>profiles on them without worrying about messing up one of your bigger
>scrapers. (Though when you think about, it's hard to mess up a scraper.
> Even if you put custom profile on the corners of a rectangular
>scraper, in use, the corners don't come in contact with the work.) And
>it's sometimes handy to have a scraper that you can use one-handed.
I like the idea of putting various sized roundovers on the edges of
scrapers - that way you can quickly and easily clean up the profiles
on mouldings. Those things get more and more use (by me) every
passing day. Time for a top notch burnisher. I think I'll like the
screwdriver type ones much better than the automatic LV one I have
now.
One thing that's made a huge difference for me has been using 400 grit
paper to lap the sides and get the edge dead smooth and square. The
LV burnisher puts a good hook on it, but I've heard that you should
"draw" the hook first and then roll it - which the LV burnisher cannot
do. I'll probably get the LV screwdriver type burnisher (although
I've heard some mixed reviews!) as shown here
http://tinyurl.com/4ql85.
JP
Once you get a wooden plane adjusted, it's as trouble free as a metal one.
They do work well.
"Jay Pique" <[email protected]> wrote in message > I'll do that. One
question I have is whether the fettling of a wooden
> plane is significantly more time consuming on an ongoing basis than
> one of metal. I don't mind spending a few hours with a new plane out
> of the box, but I don't really want to be having to tweak this and tap
> that for 15 minutes every time I use it.
>
> JP
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:13:46 +0000, Lobby Dosser wrote:
> I've had a similar experience with a Record #4. Eventually I gave up and
> relegated it to dust magnet duties. Lately I've been thinking about
> turning it into a scrub plane. Anyone done this? Near as I can tell about
> all I have to do is put an arc on the blade.
I'm thinking of doing the same with a Stanley type 20 (blue period) #4.
Anyone who has tried this, give us your experience please.
Also stumbled across this:
<http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?SID=&ccurrency=2&page=32635&category=1,310>
It's an insert that replaces the blade of a #4 - #8 with a scraper.
Thought of trying this out with a type 20 #5.
--
Joe Wells
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Talk to Steve Knight. He has great hand made hand planes and I bet he will
>make you a deal.
>http://www.knight-toolworks.com
I'll do that. One question I have is whether the fettling of a wooden
plane is significantly more time consuming on an ongoing basis than
one of metal. I don't mind spending a few hours with a new plane out
of the box, but I don't really want to be having to tweak this and tap
that for 15 minutes every time I use it.
JP
[email protected] wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:13:46 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>patriarch <<patriarch>[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, futzing with a recent manufacture Record #4 has
>>> been a total waste of time and $75. Old Stanley planes (#3,#4,#6 &
>>> #78) purchased from Patrick Leach were easy to get into top shape,
>>> but this Record serves only to add mass to the toolbox these
>>> days....
>>>
>>
>>I've had a similar experience with a Record #4. Eventually I gave up
>>and relegated it to dust magnet duties. Lately I've been thinking
>>about turning it into a scrub plane. Anyone done this? Near as I can
>>tell about all I have to do is put an arc on the blade.
>
>
> open up the mouth
>
I just knew there was something I was forgetting. Thanks!