Old chisel

I found this chisel during a visit to a flea market. What caught my attention was the shape of the handle and the short blade. I initially thought it was a butt chisel—particularly suitable for cutting hinge mortises, working in tight spaces, or when extra control is needed, since the handle fits perfectly in the palm of the hand. However, I noticed that these chisels usually have chamfered (beveled) edges, not square sides like this one.

The chisel is about 15 cm long, and the blade is 25 mm wide. It was probably a firmer chisel that had been adapted for this purpose. This theory is also supported by the position of the brand mark, which would typically be placed further from the edge on an original butt chisel. Still, given the good quality of the blade—marked 'Kirschenwerk' (Two Cherries)—I decided to restore it for reuse after years of dust and rust.

First, I separated the blade from the handle. The old ferrule was clearly damaged, so I took the opportunity to replace it with a new brass one. I made it from a piece of hydraulic brass pipe cut to the appropriate size. To support the new ferrule, I inserted a wooden rod into the handle, which also helped redo the hole for the pyramidal tang. I drilled it using a set of decreasing diameter drill bits.

The drill bit diameters must fall between the minimum and maximum diagonals of the tang’s cross-section. Between the blade and the ferrule, I inserted a hydraulic seal to help absorb the impact of mallet blows.

The blade was fortunately only lightly pitted, mostly on the bevel side. The back was in good condition, so flattening it was quick and easy. After an overnight vinegar bath, I reground a 25° bevel. To preserve a vintage look, I applied a coat of 'antique walnut' varnish, followed by two coats of wax.

I’m satisfied with the result, and I’m sure this chisel still has more to add to its long history.

Record "Testa Rossa"

When I decided to turn this Record 4 1/2 into a 'super' plane, I immediately associated it with a racing car—specifically a Ferrari—so choosing red was a natural consequence.

It's equipped with an old wooden plane blade, which is significantly thicker (about 4 mm) than the original. It has a 10° back bevel, resulting in a 55° cutting angle*, excellent for working with difficult grain.
This modification significantly improves performance and fully justifies the time invested.

*While using the plane, I found it very hard to push, so I decided to reduce the back bevel to 10° instead of 15°. The latter works better for a narrower plane like a #4.

Lesson in carving

 

We met Salvatore Mastrangelo at one of the many pleasant gatherings we organize in our friend Daniele’s shop (he’s on the left in the first photo). Salvatore is a truly delightful and unique person, full of life experiences. A true professional, driven by an uncontrollable passion for everything related to woodworking. 

He expresses his outstanding artistic vein most skillfully through the art of carving. 

This time, we convinced him to teach us some good techniques to develop better skills in this craft. Under his guidance, we tried a few exercises. The quality of the carving tools—and their sharpness—are fundamental prerequisites for achieving the best results.

In this regard, it's very useful to keep a sharpening stone on the bench to frequently hone the cutting edges of the most commonly used tools. In the photo, you can see a concave-shaped oil stone, which fits the profile of certain edges particularly well. Unfortunately, the time available is never enough, but we managed to remember some valuable advice on work strategies, the importance of a solid initial design, and respecting the layout of the various elements to achieve a good sense of perspective.

Finally, we’ve added a couple of pictures that showcase Salvatore's work. I think they speak for themselves. 

Stanley 78 vs Record 778. Our impression

During a visit to my friend Michele, who owns a Record 778 plane, we enjoyed comparing it with my Stanley 78 to observe the technical differences and performance. Both planes are suitable for cutting rebates up to about 3 cm wide.

Looking at the two planes, the difference in their parallel guides is immediately noticeable. The Stanley (on the left) is supported by only one circular bar, unlike the Record, which uses two circular bars for support.
Both planes have a stop on the right side for adjusting the rebate depth.

Another difference concerns the depth adjustment system: the Record 778 features a convenient wheel for fine regulation, while the Stanley 78 uses a coarser lever that can easily be pushed downward accidentally during use, compromising the blade setting.

The blade rests on the bed with two points of contact—at the top and on a machined area just above the mouth. We measured the extension of this area, which is important for the stability of the cutting edge. On the Stanley 78, this contact area was about twice as large as on the Record. Looking more closely at the two parallel guides, we see that the Record’s guide has three holes, which are useful for attaching an auxiliary wooden fence—important for increasing stability while planing.

Unfortunately, both guides were slightly out of square (more so on the Stanley 78), but on the Record 778, this can be easily corrected by adjusting the auxiliary hardwood fence.
Both planes also feature a spur just in front of the mouth, used for cutting cross-grain rebates (although we didn’t test this feature).
We then sharpened the blades with a 25° bevel and a 30° microbevel, and tested the planes on a flat and square pine board (Michele is in the photo).
We didn’t find significant differences in performance (we even swapped the blades to detect any variations in steel quality).
The Record 778 seemed to us better designed in terms of technical solutions—especially thanks to the two support rods, the option to add a larger hardwood fence, and the more precise and easy-to-use depth adjustment system. However, its price on online auctions is significantly higher than that of a Stanley 78.

Abrasive paper and double-side tape: together for flattening

Abrasive paper attached to a flat surface is an effective way to flatten the soles of metal planes, significantly improving their performance. I usually use spray adhesive, which provides a strong yet reversible bond, making it easy to replace the abrasive when it's worn out. The only drawback is the glue residue left on the glass plate, which must be cleaned with alcohol each time.

An alternative is to use double-sided adhesive tape. It offers excellent grip, leaves no residue on the glass when removed, and allows for quicker replacement.

If you can't find a full sheet of sandpaper wide enough, you can join two narrower strips together. The tape's thickness is minimal and doesn't affect the level of flatness needed to achieve a well-leveled surface.

Repairing a damaged plane body

Old metal woodworking planes are tools that often span centuries, continuing to bring satisfaction to those who use them even today. When damage occurs accidentally, the person responsible often feels deep guilt for interrupting a century-old life. The only partial consolation is a well-done repair.

The accidental fall of a cast iron plane often causes damage at its weakest point: the sides, near the mouth. This happened to my Stanley #3. After considering various suggestions, I developed a method to repair this type of damage—simple yet effective. By properly clamping the plane body to prevent any movement, we can drill 4 mm holes (slightly larger than the electrodes, which measure about 3.5 mm) along the crack.

At this point, the cast iron is properly heated using a torch or another heat source, and arc welding is performed. I used a small inverter welder with specific electrodes for cast iron. It's actually easier to fill the drilled holes than to weld a concave groove, which requires more experience. (In the photos, I forgot to take a shot immediately after the welding.)

I then proceeded to flatten the sole and sides, which were already almost perfectly aligned. And here it is—restored to its former glory (or almost)—ready to produce its usual thin shavings.

Old way for frame and panel construction

A traditional method for frame-and-panel construction involves assembling frames using mortise and tenon joints and inserting panels into grooves cut along the perimeter. Success heavily depends on accurate layout and careful adherence to each stage of the process.

To cut the grooves, we choose a plough plane blade that matches the width of the chisel used for the mortises and is appropriate for the panel thickness (1)."

The tenons will be cut on the rails, and consequently, the mortises will be positioned on the stiles. First, establish the length of the stiles and cut them, leaving a few inches at both ends. These spaces (horns) will be useful for safely working during the mortise cutting and will help avoid splitting issues (2).

Use the rails to mark their positions on the stiles, dividing the space according to the scheme shown in the picture (3).

Layout the tenons on the rails using a mortise gauge (4): the distance between their shoulders, plus the width of the stiles, must correspond to the final door width. Use the same mortise gauge to trace the mortises on the stiles.

Cut the mortises and tenon cheeks first (but not the shoulders yet) (5-6), and cut the grooves on the stiles and rails (7-8).

Cut the tenon shoulders and create the haunch (9), with the height of this element equal to the groove depth.

Dry assemble the joints to check fit, then glue them up. Once the glue has dried, cut the horns and insert the door into place (in this case, a frame has been added).