Record Number 7 Jointer on Ebay

[Kris Freyermuth]

Hi, question for the fellow cavemen.

Ebay has a (claimed) 1970's vintage # 7 jointer http: //www .ebay.com/itm/RECORD-ENGLISH-Number-07-JOINTER-PLANE-Stanley-/251687345366?pt=US_Hand_Tools&hash=item3a99bc1cd6 . I've read that you have to go back to the early 60s for a quality Record plane. Any thoughts?

TIA.

[ken hatch]

I have a 70's Record #7, other than the lateral adjustment lever being a little "cheesy" it is about the same as a type 17 Stanley.

ken

[Sean Hughto]

My 2 cents: If you have $130 to spend on a 7, there are far better ones out there. For around half that you should be able to find a good pre WW2 Stanley. For $130, you are starting to get into the user Bedrock range.

[David Weaver]

I'd agree with Sean. I think they draw money because they look different (and many are new or new enough to look really clean), but I would have a vintage stanley against pretty much anything - for less.

[Tom M King]

That's the one I use, and I like it a lot. I also have a 5 that I use. I bought both new in the mid to late '70s, as well as a number of other types of Record planes, and they still get used a lot. I've never had a reason to replace them with anything else. I can get those irons really sharp, and nothing cuts any better. Most of my other planes are Stanleys, just because of the way they became available when the time was right. To me, one doesn't work any better or worse than the other. I'm not one to worry about a few onces difference in weight one way or the other, or other details. With what I do for a living, we plane hundreds of square feet of lumber a year. It seems to me that people who do a few square feet a year worry a lot more about specific details than I do.

[David Weaver]

I should add that I have a record of the era before that (when the quality was actually better). It's a decent plane, someone gave it to me, very similar to a stanley.

The reason I say I don't think there's anything special about them is that there's nothing special about the casting or the iron, and the handles are beech and not rosewood.

I have no idea what kind of stanley $130 would buy these days, but I'd hope it would be one with a clean full iron with little use and very nice rosewood handles.

There's a fascination with newer things both in tools and razors, where newer looks cleaner. There's a brand of razor that was produced in large quantities (filarmonica) that has suddenly become the it brand, and there are some other solingen razors that have become "it" brands because their manufacture was recent and a lot of clean new unused examples can be found. Are they any better than the vintage razors? No. In some cases they're less well finished. But they bring the money and people like to say that something shaves better if it costs 4x as much.

[Frank Drew]

I don't think I'd call a tool from the 70s a "newer thing". Record certainly made good tools well into that time frame; I've never had reason to dislike my No. 05 jack plane, and I've put a ton of work on it. (Knowing what I know now, I'd probably buy the 05-1/2 instead, for the slight extra width.)

I haven't been following prices, but $130 does seem a bit high to me; maybe there's a premium for jointer planes.

[David Eisenhauer]

Then again, the new manufacture "starter", plain Jane $89.99 Dovo 5/8" full hollow I got for my son shaves just as well as any of the razors I have used over the years - new or old, cheaper or more expensive. I sometimes think folks allow their minds to play games when comparing "old" things to "new" things, going both ways.

[David Weaver]

I haven't had the same experience with new(er) 5/8 razors. I've had 10 of them (only so many because I had a full week set). I had a (brand new) bismarck that was warped, too. When you get a razor like that new, there's nothing you can do about it - it's not returnable as soon as you hone it due to dovo's ridiculous warranty policy. You can sharpen a warped razor, but it's a nuisance because one side of the blade will not sit on the stone, and if you make it, you end up with a very uneven bevel.

I'd call "new" anything made after 1965 or so.

I've also had old duds, too (but never by a high quality maker like ERN or any of the others), but the grind on the new dovos is not similar to the quality of the work done on razors in the 1920s - which coincidentally with little use are about the same price as a new dovo. Dovo does do some grinds similar to the vintage grinds (like the prima klang), but they do it in limited sizes and they charge the moon. I have no idea if they're straight either.

I don't think it's easy to keep a skilled workforce of cutlers when you're the only game left, and Dovo has suggested that they wish there were other makers sharing the burden of trying to train and keep employed good (grinding) masters.

If there was a price difference between new and old that reflected a difference in the quality of the work, my opinion would be different. At this point, there isn't, and it's often cheaper to get good vintage razors once you've seen a few dozen and know what to look for. Example in this case would be a Nelson razor that I got on auction a couple of weeks ago - a japanese maker of SUPER quality - $72 for a NOS 6/8.

To your point, though, very few don't shave. Some are just much nicer to hone and use than others.

(I didn't even bring up linens. I don't know why nobody can make any linens like the old silk finish coated linens, but nobody does. Something has been lost there, and it's significant, because you can hone your razor once every 6 months or once a year with a vintage linen without ever subjecting it to abrasives - there are none in the coated linens). My point is, razors and shaving goods are not a good example to hold up to say "old isn't always better than new", because with the exception of japanese razor finishers who petered out a couple of decades ago, the old ones really are better than the new and they really were executed with greater skill. The selection of natural stones was better back then, too, and they were cheap).

[Graham Haydon]

The link is broken now but Record from the 70's should be just fine. On your side of the pond a Stanley would likely offer better value.

[Jim Koepke]

$130 is just the starting bid below the 'BIN' price. For that I have bought 2-#7s & a #8 with a few bucks left over. The newest of those was from around 1910 - 1920. Getting the lower prices came from having patience and waiting for the deals to present themselves. I have also bought a #8 for $5 that has become the most expensive $5 plane I have ever bought. Though it is still below $50. But it is also still a pile of parts so the totality of it all will have to wait until more time comes my way this winter.

The casting on the Record #7 looks a little rougher than earlier models. Some later Stanley planes also have rough castings. Probably saved the makers a few bucks in manufacture.

An older Stanley/Bailey can be repainted if the surface isn't to one's liking.

Most of my planes were vastly inexpensive because they were ugly diamonds when bought. Not many came with flaws making them unusable. Even one of the most beat up planes is now working fine as a scrub plane.

One thing to remember, this is just my opinion and may not suite your needs or ambitions.

jtk

[David Weaver]

The average price of sold listings on ebay appears to be about $80. Not many sweetheart era planes come up in that condition.

As graham says, the value proposition may be different in both places.

[steven c newman]

Last Labour Day at a Tractor Fest, I could have bought TWO #7 for that $80, and got $5 back. One was a low knob "c" model, the other was a high knob "Blue Boy" smooth sole. Just didn't have the cash on me at the time...