Combination planes

Re: Combination planes

joel

>I have both a 45 and 55 (and a few others) the 55 is more flexible in theory but in practice I find the 45 far easier to use and get a good cut out of. The added ajustments of the 55 make it harder for it to work right. the 45 is also lighter.

don't have a 46.

Re: Combination planes

Ted Shuck, Centennial, CO

>I have a 45, 46, and 50. I prefer the 50 as a regular plow plane for making grooves, the 46 for cross-grain work. I prefer the 50 over the 45 because it seems to clamp be blade better. The 45 leaves one edge of the blade dangling out in space, whereas the 50 clamps it between the sliding section and the plane body. I prefer the 50 and the 45 over the 46 for long-grain work since they are easier for me to use.

Ted

Re: Combination planes

paul womack

>I also see Record combination planes on ebay, are these similar to the expensive Clifton multiplane.

The Record #405 is a damn good Stanley-#45-a-like. The Clifton multiplane is a remake of the Record #405. I saw one at auction recently. Didn't check the price it went for; however the blades were much thicker than either Stanley or Record ones.

The fit 'n' finish of the Clifton was (however) poor.

BugBear (who owns a Record #405, and mainly uses a Record #044, and dreams of a #289 and #46)

Re: Combination planes

Alice Frampton, UK

>Robin,

Yep, I have, er, a few... No #55, and I haven't really had the #46 long enough to know how much I like it yet (but I'm thinking lots when it comes to cross-grain work). My personal favourite is the Record #405, which is, as you surmise, the model the Clifton's based on. It's near-as-makes-no-difference-to-speak-of the same to the Stanley #45, and my preference for it could just be down to patriotism if I'm honest. There are links to various type studies, manuals etc on my Boat Anchor Shrine page, some of which may be helpful.

But if I was only going to have one, it'd be - oh, who am I kidding...

Cheers, Alf

Sorry if this post turns up twice btw; been giving me all sorts of trouble for some reason :~(

Re: Combination planes

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>I happen to have a number of combination planes. A Stanley 45, and a Record 405, 050, 044, and an 043.

The 044 and 043 are plough planes as I'm sure you know.

Other's have answered a number of questions such as the Clifton being a copy of the Record 405, etc.

As to which I prefer, I like the 050 best. I think it's lighter and more compact. The 405 is quite nice too.

As to comparing the 45 and the 405, I think the Record 405 is better than the Stanley 45.

I just got a second Record 044 (don't ask) and the 044 is decent. I'm not sure I like the blade clamp that much. I find the 050 method to be much better.

If you are interested in combination planes, I advise trying out a Record 050 for starters. I don't advise getting the Stanley version as it's not quite as good as the Record. Besides the 050 is quite plentiful from what I have seen.

One of these days I'm going to sell my 45 and my (now) extra 044.

;)

Re: Combination planes

Ernie Miller Topeka

>I was just using my 45 last night don't know if I could work with out it? Every one should have at least one. I have been picking them up off ebay and selling them at local auctions where they still bring a premium. ebay is cheap right now.

Skip 'em

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Robin,

Skip them all and you'll be glad you did.

I had a #45 and I used it almost exclusively as a plow plane. As plows go, it was a poor one. So now I have a plow plane (which was cheaper) and it works better!

As a moulding plane, a combination plane isn't great either. One of the most powerful aspects of using molding planes is the fact that they are fixed to make a single shape of preset depth and offset. This is especially true of side beads. People who use power tools and combination planes seem to fail to take into account the time spent adjusting and test cutting. There is an under appreciated efficiency to a good molding plane.

We often hear questions, not unlike yours, from folks looking for information so they can buy one last good..... (I'm not sure if that's your question). But as this question applies to combination planes, I'd say none exists. Whatever combination plane you buy today, won't replace molding planes and probably a wooden plow plane in the future.

Adam

Re: Try 'em (all)

Terry in Denver

>Life is short - so try 'em all (maybe one at a time). If you don't like them - sell them!

I have several - 044, 45 (several), 46, 050, 55 - they are cantankerous in some cases (55), and fairly useful in some cases (044, 050. But they are still fun to mess around with. I am hooked on these things (although I wouldn't try to make a living utilizing them).

If you want super practicality get a router. Otherwise - try a few out!

TD

Re: Combination planes

Alan Hamilton

>Robin,

I have a Stanley #45, a Stanley #12-250 (a modern, simplified #45) and that expensive Clifton/Clico. I too don't see how anyone could do without at least one. With sharp irons, light cuts, and properly set up, all three work very well.

Of the three my hands-down favorite is my Stanley #12-250. It is the least fussy to set up and use, and my results have been consistently good. Brand new they sold for a fraction of the price for a Clifton. Unfortunately, Stanley stopped making these a short while ago (I'm told) but surely some big catalog companies have one or two gathering dust on some lonely, forgotten shelf somewhere. And of course Stanleys of all numbers show up on Ebay with predictable regularity. It might be worthwhile to track one down.

Next in line, a close second, is the Clifton. It looks to me like it's a more capable version of a #45; it certainly cuts profiles my Stanleys cannot. It's no more fussy to set up than a #45; and with sharp irons it too has never let me down. It's a great tool--that carries a great price tag.

My least favorite, a distant third, is my Stanley #45. I hever use it. In fact, I sold some of its parts to a pal, so it's now unusable--which doesn't bother me in the least.

My advice is to get one. Look for a Stanley #12-250. It's cheap, and it works easily and well. It will faithfully cut beads, reeds, sash, flutes dadoes, grooves and rabbets--and probably other things I can't remember right now. It takes up much less room and is less expensive to acquire than would all those single-profile planes.

Alan

Re: Combination planes

George D. Huron

>I have a 45, 55, 050, 46 and two wooden plows. I usually reach for either my wooden plow (its fun to use) or my 050 (it also is fun and the blade depth is easier to adjust.

Re: Allegorical Rant, in Defense of Adam

William R. Duffield on the Cohansey

>The problem with a router is the same as with a combination plane. They have no mouth, and therefore become practically worthless for making finished moldings from hardwoods with any interesting figure.

If you have room in your shop for a rack of braces*, one for each oft used bit, you should seriously consider a similar strategy for planes: a wooden molding plane for each profile you use often. In the long run, they are a lot cheaper (especially in time and stress) than a combination plane, a bunch of blades, interminable setting and resetting, twiddling and fiddling, BS&T, and searching for just the right stick, so you don't get tearout. At the end of the day, you also end up with a lot less kindling. For creating less often needed, and custom, profiles, a half set of hollows and rounds is a wise investment.

Trying to rely on a combo plane is like trying to get your full daily nutritional requirements from a multivitamin and a handfull of soybeans. My #45 mostly sits on the shelf, a curiosity, and my multivitamin, which I swallow every morning, just in case, before I decide what I will create for breakfast, says on its label, "Compare to Centrum�" which I don't bother to do, since the Centrum would provide the same "back-up" functionality, but not cuisine, and not full nutrition.

The money and time you would spend on your iron combo would be much more wisely invested in a copy ofJohn Whelan's book, The Wooden Plane, Astragal Press, a few bright eyed and bushy tailed early Saturday mornings a year at tool meets (MWTCA, PATINA, CRAFTS, Brown's, LFOD, etc.), and a good, one-time tuning of each treasure you bring home.

*Really, a molding plane takes up a lot less room than a loaded brace and bit.

Re: Allegorical Rant, in Defense of Adam

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I'm generally of the same mind as Adam and Sir William. The more demanding the wood, the more the inadequacies of the combo designs become intolerable. For working with softer, straight grained woods, they may be functional, but when working the harder, denser, heterogenously grained wood, they quickly fail, and for me, are worse than worthless.

Again, I strongly suspect one's satisfaction with the combo planes is going to depend on the types of woods one prefers working with, and to a lesser extent, how content one is to have to clean up the surface after planing. I no longer own a single one.

Re: Skip 'em

joel

>I sort of agree with you - but I don't.

Here's why:

for straight plowing with the grain the 45 has more bearing surface than a wooden plow (2 skates as opposed to 1) and nether has any support in front of the blade. For plowing a good 45 is great. You just need one that works. Mine does. My old one didn't (fences weren't parrell)

for cutting daods and other rabbets the 45 works - and works well enough for me - but a moving fillester and wooden dado planes will blow it out of the water. There is no down side to a wooden moving fillester but getting an old wooden dado plane that actually works can be trickly (new ones are worth the money but they don't come cheap). but in either case you are limited to the exact size of the dado you can make - the 45 has no such restriction.

for beads, moldings and other complex curves the 45 or 55 can be made to work but having an an appropriate wooden plane will be much much easier to use.

the 45 was originally intended to enable carpenters to be able to make short runs of moldings and things in softer woods when making repairs. When it was designed wooden planes were still common and for repeat work it make and still makes more sense to get a wooden plane of the right profile.

THe solution to not getting dozens of molding planes is simply to adapt the design to the planes you do have.

Re: the mighty moving fillister

paul womack

>There is no down side to a wooden moving fillester

Amen, Brother! These are unfashionable tools (the far less useful sash fillister looks sexier, and sell for more), and sell cheap.

The thick, W-1 skew blades cut well, and even the nicker is large and (relatively) easy to sharpen.

I consider the Record #778 the best metal rebate plane (except the almost unobtainable in the UK #289, about which I know nothing except by reputation).

But I use a moving fillister most of the time.

For tiny rebates I use a small metallic plough in "rebate mode" (e.g. fence moved in to partially cover blade), or a scratch tool.

BugBear

Re: Allegorical Rant, in Defense of Adam

Alice Frampton, UK

>making finished moldings from hardwoods with any interesting figure

Sort of a hijack I think, sorry. But why make mouldings in interestingly figured wood? Doesn't the moulding detract from the figure, and the figure detract from the moulding? It's a genuine question; I'm depressingly ignorant about the uses of mouldings, period furniture etc, so if I'm missing the blindingly obvious please point it out gently :~)

Cheers, Alf

Agree with Joel

Roger Nixon

>Combo planes are not the "ultimate" tool for all the functions they perform but they are very useful. Like Joel, my #45 works very well for plowing. When I needed to plow some grooves (in pine) to take 3/4" plywood panels, my #45 was the only plane I had that was capable of that size and worked great. I know that wasn't furniture making and it wasn't exotic wood but it was a necessary project where a combo plane was the best tool.

Now Adam has stated he prefers a wooden plow plane but he has also stated he uses only the smallest cutters. For small grooves, I prefer my #50 to the #45. I don't have the Record 043 or 044 but I have used them and really like them as well.

I think Adam's 18th century authentic woodworking is extremely cool and very educational but, for me, I kept my combo planes and got rid of my woody plows.

For molding operations, I agree that woodys are the best and combos are very limited.

Re: Combination planes

David Miller from Iowa

>I've been doing the reverse - buying at local acuctions (maybe $50 with all the cutters) and putting them on eBay to double my money.

Re: Allegorical Rant, in Defense of Adam

William R. Duffield on the Cohansey

>When making moldings, you often just use whatever you have laying around. For example, you might have some offcuts from the same wood you used for parts of the same project, where more interesting figure was important. Rather than burn them, especially since the color should match the rest of the piece, it would be practical to use them, if you could. No sense looking for a piece of straight grained stock amenable to a plane with no mouth, especially since such wood is often more difficult to find, and expensive, if you have the tools to use the scrap.

In answer to your question, Yes figure and contour can often detract from each other, so you have to carefully analyze the figure when choosing stock for moldings. Sometimes, however, figure can enhance a molding. A good example includes tiger maple matching the rest of the piece. On gently curved cornices in older high end pieces, for example, you often see very highly figured veneer applied, because solid figured wood would be too expensive and too difficult to work. Another example is the door on the front of a tall case clock. These are often half overlay, made from a piece of crotch, with a stepped quarter round bead cut all the way around the outside of the door. While the figured wood for the face of the door is often veneer, sometimes a thick sawn veneer is glued to the face of the thicker, straight grained door, and the bead is then worked into the face veneer and the backing wood at the same time.

Thanks, William

Alice Frampton, UK

>I'd failed totally to consider veneered mouldings, despite seeing any number of them hanging off neglected furniture in various country houses this summer.

Cheers, Alf

Part them out

Roger Nixon

>Break them up and sell them for parts and you can quadruple your money.

I hope you are kidding

Bob Hackett

>For people who are supposed to be concerned about preserving a way of life that handtools seem to embody I find it disturbing that so many here seem to find it perfectly acceptable to take an old tool that has been passed down till it got to them and part it out all for nothing more than increasing thier profit.

At what point do we turn away from tradition and preservation and say "All`s fair as long as it`s for profit"?Seems more mercenary than I ever care to be to break these complete old tools up.

I may be a throwback but I still think there are more important things out there than $$$.I really hope that Rodger isn`t serious about that post.I`ve come to expect it from some people,Rodger just wasn`t one of them.

Mainely,Bob

Re: I hope you are kidding

Todd Hughes

>For people who are supposed to be concerned about preserving a way of life that hand tools seem to embody I find it disturbing that sombody would try to deny a person a part they may need to get thier plane back working by condeming those that sell parts they get by taking apart old common planes.......Todd , who can find somthing usefull just about anywhere, eh?

Re: I hope you are kidding

William R. Duffield on the Cohansey

>Remember that these were mass produced items, designed for interchangeability of parts. Many of the parts never came together until the packaging table, and then probably were not actually assembled. Some of the parts were lost before they ever got the chance to form wood. Many loose parts were lost by family members who cared little for the tools, much less could identify which tools were used for making which cherished antique, etc.

When you talk about preserving traditions, I don't see how you could presume to guess exactly how the line of craftsmen actually used a particular tool. To carry your argument to an absurd conclusion, would you require that a particular, but general purpose, tool be used by the preservationist only in the manner that it had actually been used by the antecedents, and only on the type of projects they built? Reenactors and reenactments and museums have their place, and serve very good purposes, but there are more than enough tools to go around to them, leaving the great majority of this class of tool to modern craftsmen who just want to appreciate them for what they can do with them. The more complete tools, the more potential for this type of appreciation.

As I see it, using one user quality tool to put several other incomplete user quality tools back into service, thus significantly expands the usefulness of the tools, and even the preservation of the traditions of the group of craftsmen of previous generations.

Just don't turn any of them into lamps and don't paint barns and cows on any of them!

Re: I hope you are kidding

Roger Nixon

>Bob, if a tool had been passed down to me, there is no way it would leave me. Nor do I use tools that I think should be preserved.

David mentioned he was buying #45's at auctions and reselling them and I've done the same. The vast majority of #45's are incomplete and the reason #45 parts sell well is because people have a #45 they treasure and want to make it whole. If I take an incomplete #45 and distribute the parts so that maybe a half dozen #45's are completed, I feel the traditions have been well served.

On the flip side, I have put many planes and other tools back into productive service by adding parts I salvaged.