Thread: Record Calvert Stevens CS88

Rb, I remember when the CS came out, & I rembeer lusting after one, with the luverly bronze LC and the "Norris" style adjuster, which at the time I believed to be superior to the Bailey cam system, but the price was well beyond my means at that time, and so I quickly forgot about it. So did too may others, it seems!

Looking back, the CS didn't seem to offer enough that was different from a bog-standard Stanley or Record to draw money out of wallets. OK, so it had Rosewood handles (Indian Rosewood is not 'illegal', btw, it's still traded legitimately) but at the time, there were still plenty of excellent oldies with (Brazilian) Rosewood woodwork (at far less eye-watering prices). Brazilian Rosewood is the Dalbergia which is now CITES listed & can no longer be exported legally.

It's interesting to speculate on why the CS style was a flop. I don't think Record marketed the CS as aggressively as they might have; they seem to have imagined the plane's superiority (genuine or perceived) would sell it without too much effort on their behalf. The well-heeled hobby woodworker wasn't as common a species then, either, but by the time Tom L-N got underway, things had begun to change rapidly. Hobby woodworking was beginning to flourish, wood shows were becoming more common, and L-N put in the hard yards going round the traps pushing their products.

There were probably several other reasons for the lack of enthusiasm for the CS from the buying public, apart from it's being maybe a decade premature. You touched on one yourself: "But it's not an everyday user. It's maybe a bit too big (No. 4 1/2 size) & heavy (2.75 kg or 6 lb 1 oz) for frequent use. For me it's more of a "special use" plane."
I guess, in an ironic twist of fate, Record were wanting to compete with the heavier infills, which is said to be why Stanley introduced the 4.5 in the first place. But the 4.5 was never as popular as the 4, the majority of woodies seem to prefer the lighter, smaller, #4 as their 'go to' smoothing plane. I tried a 4.5 for a while, but soon went back to my trusty 4.

Without starting a blazing row, I would like to offer my opinion that the cam-operated lever cap is one of the better inventions for retaining blades. The beauty of this system is that with the LC pressure set correctly (easily done by altering the retaining screw depth), you can adjust the blade depth & orientation easily, with no backing-off of the LC required. It doesn't take all that much pressure at the cam end to hold a blade securely because the low placement of the fulcrum point (the retaining screw) offers plenty of mechanical advantage. There is a distinct tendency with screw-type caps to over-tighten them (& I've been as guilty as anyone!). While I still always back-off the pressure to make depth adjustments on planes with screw lever-caps, if you have a sensible amount of pressure on the cap in the first place, it doesn't put so much strain on the adjuster threads if you do forget to back-off. Most of the infills I've made for myself are adjuster-less, and I don't miss having them for an instant. A few gentle taps with a brass hammer will make small depth or lateral adjustments without having to back the pressure off.

Anyone who uses "Norris" style adjusters with screw-type lever caps must have discovered there are a couple of irritating features to most of them. The first is that screwing the depth in or out, with any degree of lateral adjustment 'dialled in', causes slewing of the blade. The amount of slewing increases with the amount of lateral adjustment applied, but it's always there to some degree. Then, when you finally get the damned thing in the right spot, depth right, lateral adjustment re-set, and twitch up the lever cap, the LC screw tends to slew the blade again, thanks to the rotation of the tip of the screw . That last bit can be eliminated by having a 'bell' on the end of the screw, in which the screw can rotate while the 'bell' remains in the same position against the blade/cap-iron, but very few planes have such a refinement. Instead, they seek to minimise the slewing effect by having a rounded point on the screw to reduce the amount of torque it applies to the blade or cap iron as you turn it.

Indeed, Stanley's depth adjuster can develop a fair amount of backlash, which it's fashionable to fulminate about, but really, it is a very minor fault - so what if you have to spin the wheel a turn or two before it takes up? You soon get used to it & I hardly notice it any more. In any case, I don't need to adjust depth of cut that often for it to be a hassle. Having lived with both systems for many years, I much prefer the Bailey system for convenience in everyday use, & for my adjuster-less infills, I'm just as happy with my little brass hammer. I can set one about 3 times quicker than I can set up my A5!

It's all a matter of what you prefer & what you get used to.......

Cheers,

I tend to agree on the Norris adjuster being not quite as good as I had expected it would be before ever laying hands on one. Being used to setting wooden planes I just reach for a small hammer to do the lateral adjustment.
As for Norris style adjusters on Baley style planes GTL were doing that back in the 1930tes. I dont think they rocked the market then either.
The CS is a nice looking plane however and likely if an orphan one came along looking for a home then whats one more to the collection.
Regards
John