Originally Posted by
Eric Danstrom
Very interesting claim. Can you point out which features were changed to reduce cost?
Originally Posted by
Marinus Loewensteijn
I'm not Jim but this is my impression.
The frog got changed and did not require as much machining. The cast iron did not get aged as much - it got machined too soon with the risk of twisting later on due to the stresses still present in the iron. The lever knob changed, the lever fork and the side adjustment lever became some cheesy bit of twisted steel and the tote and knob eventually became plastic. In the end even the frog did not get machined properly. The early type 19 are about the latest that have some resemblance of being decent. I rather have a Stanley Four Square than type 19 (or later). The later Stanley Defiance is of a lower quality than the early Four Square and I would not touch it with a bargepole either.
Marinus sums it up quite well. My preference for a low knob makes it hard for me to like Stanley/Bailey planes after type 14, 1929 and on.
IF you are wondering where Clifton got the idea for the 2 piece lever cap....look no further than the Millers Falls lever caps....that started in 1929....
This has me confused. Maybe it is from not being current on planes other than Stanley/Bailey.
It was my understanding Millers Falls created a 2 piece lever cap to apply pressure to the blade and chip breaker at three points.
My impression of the Clifton design is a chip breaker that is two pieces to make it quicker/easier to hone a blade.
Maybe it is time for me to do a little reading on what is going on in the modern world of planes.
Though my two type 6, 1888-1891, #4s are both doing quite fine despite there accumulation of dings, nicks and rust.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)