I just recently bought. . .

[Brian J. Williams]

a copy of the book PLANECRAFT, subtitled Hand Planing. The copyright is 1974 (I've got a pair of boots that old), and it was published in Merry Old UK. Although the book doesn't say so up front, it seems to be (primarily) a treatise on Record planes (first) and how to use hand planes (second). The book has some good advice on setting up and using planes, particularly for my #45 (which Record calls the # 405). What I find very interesting is that the book only gives short shrift to Leonard Bailey for his design of the cam lever and thin cutter (iron), and there is absolutely no mention of Stanley planes at all. So, I pose the following questions to my fellow NeanderCreekers:

1. Am I mistaken, or did Record borrow (lift, steal?) Stanley's plane designs (which, some will argue, were themselves lifted from Bailey), or was it vice versa?

2. Are Record planes all that superior to Stanleys, or was it just these author's pride as Englishmen not to mention that Record based the design of their planes (mostly) on the Stanley designs (if in fact, Record did so)?

Thanks for your input.

Brian

[Bill Houghton]

1. Am I mistaken, or did Record borrow (lift, steal?) Stanley's plane designs (which, some will argue, were themselves lifted from Bailey), or was it vice versa?

2. Are Record planes all that superior to Stanleys, or was it just these author's pride as Englishmen not to mention that Record based the design of their planes (mostly) on the Stanley designs (if in fact, Record did so)?

Brian,

1. Not just Record, but lots of makers adopted the Bailey design, which I believe Stanley bought from Mr. Bailey by buying his company (Stanley was kind of the Microsoft of its era). I presume Record and the others who adopted the Bailey pattern waited until the patents expired.

2. I'm not sure this is an answerable question, since you'd have to compare tools produced at a particular time to each other - an early Record would probably be better than a late Stanley, and vice versa. Record had a good reputation - so did Stanley, before these tools were viewed as obsolete in the trades (which were, traditionally, the major source of income for toolmakers), and Stanley made the decision to race to the bottom. I think Record may have held up high quality standards longer than Stanley - that was certainly its reputation in the 1960s and 70s, when I started serious woodworking - but, even then, a prewar Stanley was likely superior to a brand-new Record.

Just my 2 cents, adjusted for inflation to about 0.098 pennies (no subprime mortgages were harmed in my estimate of value)

I found "Planecraft" years ago (copyright on my copy is 1959, though it's the 1983 printing - mine's not much changed, I think, from the 1934 original), long before Garrett Hack wrote "The Hand Plane Book," and still consider it one of the best tutorials for learning how to plane. Americans (and probably many modern Brits, too) have to do a certain amount of translating. Yes, it was written for the Record company, so it does tend to imply that Record tools are the best in the world, and it praises tools like the T5 technical jack (not to mention the fibreboard planes) that few of us will ever see in the flesh (and, in the case of the fibreboard planes, even fewer of us will want to see); but it contains a great many gems of good advice. And the price is hard to beat; kudos to Woodcraft for keeping it affordable.

[Brian J. Williams]

Thanks, Bill, for the info.

Brian