The Framers Forum

With my new business starting to pick up, my old manual Pistorious underpinner - used during the 'training' years - has got to go for something that will provide quality joints every time.
So, the question to the forum is which underpinner do you recommend and why?
A side question is: is a pneumatic a leap ahead or just a nice to have over a manual?
Thanks guys (ladies included!)

Well...... I've used the same manual pinner for 30+ years and it still does a great job.

I've never used a air-driven machine. I have however always had the impression that pneumatics score out over manuals
in being less arduous to the operator. I have never considered that they do a better join. So if you aren't pinning frames
all day I don't see a vast gain. There is also the factor that the more complex a machine the more likely to break down.

Just my take on the subject.

I definately think a pneumatic gives you better joints, depending on model but they should clamp the moulding together tight and fire the pins in consistently. Also better for hardwoods. My framing certainly improved with a cassese 3099, si much so the inaccuracies of the morso showed up and I had to by a saw.

I had a manual for a long time and the day I upgraded to pneumatic I wondered how I'd ever managed with a manual. Then I connected a pneumatic point driver to the same compressor which made my manual guns look like toys!

.

Yeah pnumatic all day every day, you can get perfect joins with any under pinner, but it sure is easier with a pnumatic machine.

Its a slippery slope when you go down the pneumatic root, you end up buying a bigger compressor as well

I've never had the money at the right time, but if I did, then I would have a Minigraph. Built like a tank, but superbly engineered as well.

I agree with you there Mark, although the cassese underpinners are better to use, if only we could have the build of the alpha and the usability of the cassese, which unfortunately seem to be built of cardboard and chewing gum.

I have never had an issue with the 3099. Sturdy enough for the hammering I give it. As long ax you treat them with the respect that they deserve have them serviced regularly and carry out basic maintanence your self then not much goes wrong with them. However if you are not prepared to spend a bit of time looking after your investment then perhaps a tank is for you then.

I used a Cassesse CS-89 for a few years and upgraded to a CS-299M xl2 a couple of years ago. A definite improvement on the joins and less irritation to the tennis elbows!

Don't forget that the cassese wedges come in cartridges and as a result cost more money per wedge. I have a Cassese CS-88, but I load the cartridges my self with Alphamacchine power twist universal wedges, which I find is a good combination of machine and wedges.

The crease half way up on the larger sizes of Cassese wedges seems to quite often be a problem with wood that is anything harder that obeche, where as the alphamacchine wedges seen to go into anything without any problems and never crumple in the middle of the wedge.

I can often stack four wedges into a moulding with the alphamacchine wedges and know that it will be fine, but it's much more hit and miss with the cassese wedges. Don't ask me why this is, but some alphamacchine wedges came my way when another framer closed down and I was really surprised how much better they turned out to be.

Although my CS-88 works really well with the Alphamacchine wedges, I would not need pursuading if the chance came along to switch to a minigraph, I'd do it tomorrow if I had the where with all. I know that it is only my opinion, but how many minigraph users have you heard of wanting to swith to something else. I don't think there would be many at all. I have not bought Cassese wedges now for a few years.

I probably don't make 200 frames a year. I do have a pneumatic underpinner which is an asthmatic old Minigraf, and I wouldn't swap it for a manual. Indeed, every time I see a Lion catalogue I drool over a brand-new Minigraf.

To all pneumatic wallahs -

"May your compressor never have a leak"



My foot never does. Well, not often.

btw. There is the concept of bio-feedback. You do get a certain amount of 'feel' when using foot-power (not foot powder).

That is the down size of increased mechanisation in framing more things to go wrong. But I have a spare compressor for the very rare occasions the compressor breaks down, the only drawback is it's not powerful enough for the saw.

And on the occasions we get a powercut well with electric shutters I can't get into the workshop if the power fails so it would matter if I had a foot operated underpinner, mount cutter, or kettle!!!

Oh great. Now we need two compressors.

I got a nice new pair of lightweight framing loafers off eeeebay for £11.79

I reckon the only reason a lot of folks use pneumatics is because they like the hiss-kerchunk sound.
They can pretend they are on a space ship.

In the event of breakdown beyond immediate repair - Wessex are about 30 mins away and I'm just waiting for an excuse to replace my obsolete but trusty Euro but seeing as I've recently had two new hammers and a bucketful of springs made it'll probably outlive me.

An air leak, to cause a problem, would have to be in the casing.

I would like to see you make as many frames as i do a day peter without a pneumatic underpinner and twin bladed saw.

That's fighting talk!

Going back to the original question, the best advice I was ever given was always to choose a machine at least one step more powerful then you think you will need.

Thats very good advice Vintage and on that basis if you are going for a pneumatic pinner the same could be said for your compressor as well.