Thread: Does electrolysis remove Japaning?

Electrolysis does seem to affect jappanning more (quickly) than citric, but only if there is some weakness in the metal under it.

8C's go for good prices so you have something worth getting right.

Why not try DIY jappanning?

A Stanley 8C is a real treasure.
You are indeed a lucky chappie to be given one Richard.
These planes regularly sell for between $200-$300
See this link:
http://www.hansbrunnertools.gil.com.au/Users-1.htm
I'm looking forward to seeing some pix of your restored gem if you can manage it.
Regards
SG

Thanks for the replies.

JMK 89 - I had thought the frog was pretty sound, oh well, I'll have to be more careful in future. I had wondered about re-japaning but ...I must have a go. The Hammerite paint I used seems to do a good job and is very easy to apply - kills any rust too.

Scribbly -that is a cool link, some nice planes. I guess it is a bit more valuable than I thought.

Here are a few before and after pics, couldnt get the pitting out of the blade but the rest came out OK.

Great job Richard.
That rear handle looks like a real pleasure to hold and use.
The plane has a near perfect mouth as well.
You have scored one lovely plane there my friend.
Happy shavings.
SG

Originally Posted by Scribbly Gum

Great job Richard.
That rear handle looks like a real pleasure to hold and use.
The plane has a near perfect mouth as well.
You have scored one lovely plane there my friend.
Happy shavings.
SG

Thanks Scribbly, it is a real pleasure to get a bit of history like that back in working condition.

Yes, the rear handle is very comfortable - figured it didn't need stripping as the original lacquer is pretty good. They seemed to pay more attention to detail those days - the threads and fit in general are all nice and tight. Could possibly do with a better (thicker) blade but it works pretty well with the original.

The shed is strewn with new shavings. Guess I have to make something now!

Originally Posted by RichardL

Could possibly do with a better (thicker) blade but it works pretty well with the original.

The shed is strewn with new shavings. Guess I have to make something now!

Richard, be careful going down the road of a thicker blade. These always sound like planing nirvana, but the blade has to work in conjunction with the frog, the plane base and the mouth of the plane.
Sometimes a thicker blade will not fit because the mouth is tight, and in order to give it clearance, the frog has to be wound back away from the mouth. This can leave the blade partially unsupported. In order to fully support the thicker blade with the frog and the plane base, the mouth then has to be widened.
Your plane looks to have a nice tight mouth already. If you are getting good results with the blade you have, and it is fully supported by the frog and base, then you don't need a thicker blade.

By the way, isn't it great fun just making shavings and watching the results on the timber that you are working. You don't necessarily have to be making anything at the time, but it does help keep SWMBO happy.
Regards
SG

Scribbly has a good point.... if it does a reasonable job, why change?
Extra expense and fiddling around for a small increase in efficency and the surface will be gone over by a smoother anyway.
Its a jointer not a smoother. I'd prefer a 'upgraded' smoother.

Oh, and you are a lucky bugger..... good score!

G'day

You're both quite right - went out and tried the blade out of my Clifton smoother and it won't fit without mutilating the mouth - much too thick, so I'll stick with the blade it already has. Thanks for pointing it out.

I've got a couple of pretty good tuned up smoothers, well, 3 actually, my favorite Clifton 4, an ECE woodie and an old Record Stay Set from 1940, all work well in different applications.

Yes I'm a lucky...

And, yes, shavings is great fun - almost as good as making stuff, but I do have to use them for something useful - SWMBO has ordered a kitchen table and a friend has orderd a wall clock. That'll keep me busy.

I'd like to try a Clifton... to see if their reputation is worth the extra $ they ask for.
Do you think the Clifton is as excellent as they say, and is it worth the $ over an old, well tuned, Stanley?

Originally Posted by Clinton1

I'd like to try a Clifton... to see if their reputation is worth the extra $ they ask for.
Do you think the Clifton is as excellent as they say, and is it worth the $ over an old, well tuned, Stanley?

There seem to be mixed feelings about Clifton planes if you look on some of the US forums. From what I have read, some love em and some say that the build quality is perhaps not quite as good as the LN equivalent, some people have bought ones with badly ground cap irons and other faults, but I suppose all manufacturers make a few duds. Perhaps the build quality is just a bit more variable. Some don't like the 2-piece cap irons and some don't like the tote shape either.

I haven't ever used a LN smoother, so can't compare, however, I haven't had any of these problems and think the Clifton I bought is excellent. I'm very pleased with it. The blade is nice and easy to sharpen to a great edge, and seems to hold the edge longer than my other planes. It doesn't chatter and just feels really heavy and solid.

Everything just clicks together - I like the 2-piece cap iron, and think the combination of factors (cap iron, blade thickness, 'bedrock' type frog, heavy casting) help make the whole plane really rigid. There is no comparison with a run of the mill Stanley IMHO, although I guess I have only 'renovated' post war Stanley models and earlier ones may be better. The 1920ish 8C in this thread is a big step up from the last stanley # 4 I did up for my son - what a load of rubbish that was, as was the one I did up for my nephew when I think about it (probably 1960 or so models) - but I still don't think that it would ever have been as good as the Clifton, just because of the blade set up.

So, in summary, don't know, the Clifton seems good to me (and worth the $ I paid, getting it from the US) but I guess it comes down to the individual... I think you probably need to try one out to decide .

Clinton - there've been a few discussions on the quality of Cliftons, & I've weighed in with my opinion, but FWIW, here I go again...

I think they're ok, heaps better than a new Black or Blue model, but IMO, not as much bang for the buck as a LV or LN. The blade on mine (#4) is good - holds its edge very well. The tote is crudely made, and if you clean it up, it's too thin and straight to hold comfortably (I made a new one for mine, modelled after my favourite old Rosewood tote on a 1920s Stanley). I'm still pondering the value of the heavier casting - sometimes I like the extra weight compared with my Stanley 4s, sometimes I don't. The two-piece cap-iron is a useless gimick, just waiting for you to lose the end bit in the sawdust, someday. Several people have said they 'like it' but so far, I haven't seen a reason given. Could someone please explain what I'm missing??

I'm comparing my Clifton with several each of old Stanleys and Records, a Norris A5, and several new Veritas models. Haven't even held a LN in my hands, so can't comment on the holy of holies.
I reckon Veritas offer the best return for your hard-earned amongst any of the new breeds.

Cheers,

Thanks Richard and Ian.... conflicting views, but thats what happens with personal opinion.

I'm trying to pick up an old Record with a stayset cap iron to see what that is all about..... a cheapie will come up sooner or later....

I've never seen a Clifton for sale on epay... must look harder

Quite right, everyone is different. I can see what Ian is saying about the tote shape - the old Stanley 8C is probably more comfortable, but again all depends on what you like/hand shape etc. The chip breaker, well, I thought it probably put more presure evenly on the tip of the blade, maybe just a gimmick but it is certainly thick and solid which can't be bad. It doesn't bother me. My old record #4 is a stay set as well and that seems to work better than the Stanley #4 planes I have 'restored' as mentioned before. If I was looking for a cheap plane, I'd look for a Record SS. Picked up mine for $12 and it works well.

Here is link to a comparison between Veritas, Clifton and LN. Not surprisingly the LN seems to come out a little ahead, but there doesn't seem to be much in it.

http://www.individualfurniture.com/maker/Planes.htm

Here is an exerpt...The two piece cap-iron is designed to make better clamping contact with the blade than conventional sprung cap irons. As a side benefit, it may allow you to hone without unscrewing the iron and losing adjustment. Having used this system for years on the Calvert Stevens, I stretch out a forefinger to stop the front falling off as I remove the blade. However, I sympathise with first time users for whom the loose cap iron drops off. Sometime they curse it. The contact edge is finely ground and there is no gap to the back of the blade. The upper side is beautifully polished for friction-free chip-breaking

Richard - I'm a cantankerous old phart, so don't take this reply as anything more than me wanting a debate:

Originally Posted by RichardL

...The two piece cap-iron is designed to make better clamping contact with the blade than conventional sprung cap irons.

Since any cap-iron should be carefully ground to fit snugly, not sure how this person thinks you can get better than perfection. (??) I suppose if your cap-iron is twisted, the lever cap may not apply enough pressure to get the thing even right across. But if that's the case, the solution would be to fix the cap-iron.

Originally Posted by RichardL

As a side benefit, it may allow you to hone without unscrewing the iron and losing adjustment.

This is supposedly why Record introduced them so many yaers ago. Have you tried a serious hone with the back bit left on? The small inconvenience of unscrewing it is repaid handsomely by having the damn thing out of the way.
But more to the point, has anyone ever managed to simply drop their resharpened iron back in and start planing again? The amount of backlash inherent in the system (the Clifton, while better than your average Stanley, still has lots), plus the impossibility of maintaining the lateral adjustment, means you will still have to re-align the thing, which is hardly a major exercise in any case.

Originally Posted by RichardL

..The upper side is beautifully polished for friction-free chip-breaking

I'll continue to rant about this furphy as long as I have strength in me typin' fingers! If the cap iron on your plane is really breaking chips, then you must be hogging off some pretty heavy-duty shavings. However, there's no doubt a nicely polished cap iron helps the shavings on their journey out the spout - discovered that many years ago when I tried to use a rusty, pitted one. Now I always polish mine up with jewellers' rouge on the cloth wheel when fettling, for that reason.

The Clifton blade/cap iron works ok, of that there is no doubt. My suggestion is it's because the blade and cap-iron are good and beefy, giving lots of static mass to absorb impact and damp vibration. A one-piece of similar mass fitted correctly works just as well. I can safely claim that, because I got fed-up with the stay-set on mine. It was fairly crudely fitted so that I had to skew it slightly to keep it parallel with the blade edge - must have been a Friday arvo job, as no-one else has complained of a similar problem to my knowledge. I suppose I could have mucked about and tried to straighten it, but an easier solution was to make a new one-piece cap iron. At least Clfton use a standard thread size, not the weird threads the others like to use, and I had some nice workable stailess steel to play with.

BTW - the Clifton original is definitely NOT stainless - I left the disgraced bit in the carport for a few months last Summer, and when I dug it out to give to a good home, it was quite rusted - felt quite ashamed to be passing that on, but it's probably all bright and shiny again by now.....

There, I feel lots better, now where's that medication........
Cheers,