Hand Tools

Subject:
I'm glad you commented.
Response To:
Infills in the UK ()

David Weaver
...I saw your comment on SMC but requested to have my login guested over there when they were repeatedly rotten to George Wilson.

you may notice what I wrote above. If you work with a lot of infills (I've had about 20 and built 6), you'll notice that the weight of the more common older infills (before norris went to adjusters, etc) was usually somewhere in the 3- 4 1/2 pound territory for a smoother. The smoothers were kept compact and relatively light compared to modern infill "cast iron ping pong paddles" as warren puts it.

It's hard to find solid data (this is the dovetailed type, not some of the less costly giant casted things like the plane 'o ayr).

I have an original 13 still and have sold off all of my other smoothers expect for a casted slater coffin style with a wedge. I'll weigh them later today, but recollection is that they're quite a bit heavier than the open handled norris, matheison and spiers planes that I've had (the lightest of which, the dovetailed spiers - was low mid 3 pounds). The 13 is a larger plane than the others, so the two that I have left may not be that representative of the finer dovetailed planes.

At the same time, almost all of the panel planes have been relatively heavy (and could've been made lighter if someone wished) like modern panel planes - except for one early casted 14 inch trying plane that's just over 6 pounds (it's not a cross to a stanley 4 despite the length - its' 2 1/2 inches of cutting width).

I suspect a great deal of why they were allowed to be so heavy (preferred?) is because they were used more as a trying/fitting plane after wood went through a machine and was sized elsewhere.

admittedly being not much of a reader, I've never read why those things are true - they're just what I've seen buying good planes (not strange contraptions) from norris, mathieson, slater and spiers, and excluding later planes that were made of beech (the later norris A1 that I had in 17 1/2 inch length was actually only a little over 7 pounds - 1 1/2 pounds lighter than a 15 inch or so #13 norris panel).

For a while, the tight mouth on older infills was used as an argument against using the cap iron. It turns out to be a false argument as unlike stanley, the older norris planes were very finely made inside the mouth with the wear of the sole sloping away to allow the cap iron to be set closely (and even with a mouth of a hundredth or so, they don't do a good job of eliminating tearout or staying in the cut without a cap iron unless everything is downgrain).

Messages In This Thread

Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
not the direction I went *PIC*
5 1/4
Re: reframing the issue
Re: reframing the issue
Friction, and more
The experiment and conclusion are both confusing
Re: Heavy and light
The best case for heavy planes...
another factor
If you're trimming furniture...
At some point..
Inertia and figured wood
Re: Jim, what is Osae-gani? *NM*
Osae-gani
Re: Osae-gani
Note on fitting
Re:wedge fitting
funny...
Re: funny...
Re:wedge fitting
biases for the maker...
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Not a positive contribution to the discussion
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
finding out who to listen to...
Re: Same
Old history
Shops using mostly hand tools..
Re: Shops using mostly hand tools..
Don felder's guitar...
Misprint?
cultural thing...
Re: Misprint?
Re: finding out who to listen to...
I agree...
Re: finding out who to listen to...
Turnover, newbies and FAQ
comment on teaching
If you get my drift...
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
new vs. old planes...
I like tools from Brooklyn
Re: I like tools from Brooklyn *NM*
Infills in the UK
I'm glad you commented.
Note on a modern infill
konrad's planes...
Re: I'm glad you commented.
what I've found...
Re: what I've found...
interesting that...
Re: Calling BS
I haven't seen it....
Re: I haven't seen it....
Re: I haven't seen it....
Re: I haven't seen it....
Re: I haven't seen it....
Truing Kanna
expanding on what jim said
Re: expanding on what jim said
Re: expanding on what jim said
Coupla thoughts
different methods of lapping and the bump
Re: Calling BS
Re: Facts, not assertions
Re: Facts, not assertions
I think we're agreeing...
Re: I think we're agreeing...
Re: Me too
Wood isn't indefinitely stable, either
Re: Calling BS
Re: Calling BS
Re: Calling BS
by the early 19th century
Re: by the early 19th century
It's not offered as ball court...
I miss Todd Hughes' contributions too *NM*
Re: It's not offered as ball court...
I'm guessing on parts here...
Re: Can't argue
Weight Comparison
more infill weights
Re: more infill weights
now there is a pearl of wisdom
Re: more infill weights
initial fitting...
one more follow-up comment.
Re: one more follow-up comment.
rosewood
Re: rosewood
© 1998 - 2017 by Ellis Walentine. All rights reserved.
No parts of this web site may be reproduced in any form or by
any means without the written permission of the publisher.

WOODCENTRAL, P.O. BOX 493, SPRINGTOWN, PA 18081