Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
Rabbet planes . . .
Steve Mackay
>Saw a couple this weekend and was intrigued. For the midling plane enthusiast wich would start him out on the learning curve better ? Stanley 54 or 78 ? I'm think'n they probably do different things. I'm ashamed to say I presently use the electron-table-saw for long rabbets and have to clean 'em out any-way.
Re: Rabbet planes . . .
William Duffield, on the Cohansey
>The #54 is definitely a collector's plane. For rabbets, the #78 is common and cheap as dirt, yet still does a competent job at making rabbets. Some things it has that the much more expensive #54 does not have include a depth stop, a real mouth to decrease tearout (instead of a couple or rails), and a bullnose position for the blade, The #50, OTOH, can also function as a plow plane, but then so can a #45, which should be easier to find and less expensive than the #50. The #78 has only one rod to support the fence, and those who use the Record #778 note that two rods work better.
You shine light into . . .
Steve Mackay
>a couple dark corners Sir ! Thank you ! Now . . . where does "fillister" (sp ?) fit into all this ? The Dude in this shop was throwing both terms, fillister / rabbit, around like they were akin. I admit ignorance !
Re: You shine light into . . .
George Makowski
>Steve, On the fillister and rabbet issue see a thread below using the search function and a piece in the articles section. To sum up, there is not presently general agreement on the difference between the terms.
Good reading,
George in AL
Re: You shine light into . . .
William Duffield, on the Cohansey
>The two terms are kind of interchangeable. Whelan provides some explanation of the differences in common usage, but those terms are mostly applicable to wooden rabbet and filletster planes. I've read his explanations more than once, and I'm still confused. Now, his definition of a sash filletster plane is a bit clearer.
Seems like . . .
Steve Mackay
>fillister is for hold'n glass and rabbet is for hold'n joints ( well . . . panels and such). Sound right ?
Neither one...
Scott Burr in Ben Lomond, CA
>If your going with a metal plane The Record 778 wins over and Stanley model. It has a better blade adjuster and 2 fence rods instead of 1. Cost a bit more than a 78, but your worth it...:^)
You should hear from people that use wooded ones soon.
Standing by !
Steve Mackay
>Another branch of alchemy to learn ! Bring it on !
On the other hand
Bill Houghton, finally Spring!! in Sebastopol, CA
>The Record 778 may well be superior, but the Stanley 78 is a quite serviceable tool. I like mine. I've never compared the 778 and believe those who say it's a better tool, but if you stumble over an affordable 78 before you find an affordable 778, go for it.
Re: On the other hand
William Duffield, on the Cohansey
>On this side of the Pond, the chances of stumbling on the Record are slim to none, while at most any old tool sale, you'll have enough 78s to choose from to leave you in a state of utter confusion.
fillisters & rabbets
david.marcus.brown
>Rabbets are cut with the grain. Fillisters are cut across the grain.
It's like a dadoes and grooves.