# Record Jointer Plane, Worth the Effort?



## PittsburghTim (Jan 16, 2012)

I just finished tuning a Millers Falls #8 plane (Picture below) and am very pleased with the results. My next job is a Record #7 Jointer plane. Unlike the Millers Falls plane and the ealier Stanley Bailey planes that I have seen, the frog on the Record plane is not a flat casting where the frog will meet the blade.

On his video about tuning hand planes, Chris Schwarts says to avoid these types of plane, yet I have had good results from a few other Record planes that I own. I was wondering if anyone has tried filling the hollow cavities in a frog of this type with an epoxy or metal-based filler prior to flattening the frog? Opinions are welcome.

Thanks for looking.

Tim


----------



## shampeon (Jun 3, 2012)

I've never heard of anyone doing that. I think Schwartz's advice was more due to the typical lower quality of planes with these kinds of frogs. Just flatten the frog as normal. That Record should make a great jointer plane.


----------



## Benvolio (Feb 10, 2013)

can you not just lap the face of the frog back??

Even if you get it half way there it will perform over half way better.

Ben


----------



## ShaneA (Apr 15, 2011)

I am not sure I completely understand. You want to fill the recessed blue areas, to an even level with the mating surface of the iron? If so, no need for that. You should be able to flatten the frog (the raised mating surface) and have what looks to be a nice plane. As long as the iron and frog mate well, you should be good to go. Is that a hock iron for it?


----------



## bandit571 (Jan 20, 2011)

I'd check the frog face, before doing anything to it, first. You may find that the frog is quite flat. Stanley went to that style of frog as well.










This is a Stanley/Victor style of a #4. Note the face of the frog. I had very little to do to flatten it. As for it in use









With a sharp iron, it works ok


----------



## Moai (Feb 9, 2009)

what about adding a 3/32 hardwood layer?


----------



## PittsburghTim (Jan 16, 2012)

I was just wondering if there would be any benefit to doing this vs. just flattening/lapping the face as I have done on others. I'm not looking for extra work if there is little or no benefit. Thanks for your input. I'll just forego the extra effort.


----------



## bandit571 (Jan 20, 2011)

You would run out of bolt to hold all the rest of the parts in place. Seems to be a fairly common frog design, though









Stanley Handyman style of frog.









One that sits on my Stanley/Bailey #5, seems to do ok









So, just lay a straight edge on your frog, to check for flatness. The recessed areas will make any flatening easy ( designed that way) by having less metal to remove.


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

I've just flattened whats there on a lot of these. I disagree you should avoid these planes, they can work very well.

If you read through this I did one even worse than the style you have. Swartz may have been talking about the kind you see in my blog (the blue Stanleys with aluminum frogs), if that's the case, I agree.


----------



## PittsburghTim (Jan 16, 2012)

Don, Bandit, and all. Thanks for the advice. I'm convinced there is no need to try to fill the recesses. I'll just flatten it as I have with the other planes I have tuned up. Don, I use 80 and then 220 grit sticky paper on float glass to flatten the frog after I use the same setup to true-up the sole. I don't quite feel confident with using a file like you do. Maybe with more experience…

Don, I have used the file to flatten the spots on which the frog rests. At least for the two spots I can reach. Do you do anything to flatten the two flat surfaces nearer the mouth where the lower part of the frog sits? I have a Record 4 1/2 plane on which these four spots were covered with paint. I filed the paint of the two upper pads, but cound't do much with the two lower spots. I was thinking of chucking a small stone grinding wheel in my drill press to clean these up, but am hesitant to make matter worse.

Thanks,

Tim


----------



## donwilwol (May 16, 2011)

If it needs it, you can stick some sandpaper on a piece of wood or use valve grinding compound. If the frog seats firmly thought, you don't need to worry about it. I've never tuned a record, but I've only run into a few planes that needed anything more than making sure the paints gone where they seat.


----------



## paratrooper34 (Apr 27, 2010)

Tim, I have two Record jointers; #7 & #8. I bought the #8 first and tuned it up completely with the exception of flattening the sole. I flattened the frog, cleaned the mating surface on the sole, the whole nine yards. It was not long after that, through reading and practical use, I found that a jointer just does not need to be a precision tool. It is not used for finishing surfaces. All it does it get surfaces straight and flat. The sole needs to be generally flat and without twist. It needs a sharp blade (straight or cambered depending on your preference or the job it performs) and it should function as a plane should (i.e. lateral adjuster works, lever cap seats correctly, chip breaker seats correctly). After that, you're good. I purchased the #7 about a year later and all I did to that plane is sharpen the blade and properly seat the chip breaker. That's it. Absolutely nothing else was done to it. And it works perfectly. It has the same frog as yours. It has zero chatter and it gets edges perfectly square. That plane still has the cheesy plastic handles and a stock blade and I use it on just about every project. I have the blade sharpened straight across because I use it only for edge jointing. The #8 I use for edge jointing poorly cut edges and flattening boards.

My advice is use it before you go into lots of fine tuning. It is a jointer and they just don't need the same level of precision as a smoother or jack. That's my two cents.


----------



## PittsburghTim (Jan 16, 2012)

Don and Mike,

Thanks for the advice. I'll post the results once it is tuned. Don, I've been very happy with a few Record planes that I have and I seem to be able to pick up almost new versions at a reasonable price. The #7 in the picture was picked up for $60 and the blade has never been honed, still having the factory milling marks. I also like the classic looks of the Millers Falls planes and the No. 8 that I have, once tuned, performs beautifully.


----------



## bandit571 (Jan 20, 2011)

A picture of my little #8









with the olf finish stripped off. A before?









Big difference between a Millers Falls #8, and one by Stanley









A Stanley #8c, that is.


----------



## sikrap (Mar 15, 2009)

If you feel you need to make sure the mating surfaces between the frog and body mesh perfectly, I'd suggest using valve grinding compound. Just dab a little bit on the surfaces with a Q-tip and work the frog back and forth a few times. You should be aware that it is very, very easy to overdo this, so check the surfaces after every few strokes.


----------



## DrDrewInOhio (Mar 9, 2016)

So how did your Record Jointer Plane turn out?

I'm a fan of Record… planes and chisels and whatever else is made in Sheffield. I just received a new one this weekend… and I'm still thinking about what I need to do to tune it. I will definitely put the sole on a flat surface to check the variation… then decide whether or not to flatten the sole. But I will likely do some flattening.

Do you have before and after pics of the sole?

I have an old workbench to flatten once it's tuned.

Thanks!



> I just finished tuning a Millers Falls #8 plane (Picture below) and am very pleased with the results. My next job is a Record #7 Jointer plane. Unlike the Millers Falls plane and the ealier Stanley Bailey planes that I have seen, the frog on the Record plane is not a flat casting where the frog will meet the blade.
> 
> On his video about tuning hand planes, Chris Schwarts says to avoid these types of plane, yet I have had good results from a few other Record planes that I own. I was wondering if anyone has tried filling the hollow cavities in a frog of this type with an epoxy or metal-based filler prior to flattening the frog? Opinions are welcome.
> 
> ...


----------



## BillWhite (Jul 23, 2007)

It is SCHWARZ for cryin' out loud. Good, bad, or indifferent, at least spell the name correctly.
Flattening the sole on a #7 the same as the sole of a smoother is not completely needed. Sure, ya wanna get rid of any big imperfections, but a decent clean up is about all I would do.
Toe, mouth area, and heel smoothed, and you're done.
Not wanting to be a fussy old fart, but names are important. 
Bill


----------



## TheFridge (May 1, 2014)

May the Schwartz be with you


----------



## BillWhite (Jul 23, 2007)

Fridge, I'm gonna tell Aiden on you. 
Bill


----------

