Infill plane

Re: Infill plane

Monty

>I am in a similar situation. I have plenty of planes but wanted a high quality infill. I finally purchased a really good infill from Darryl Hutchinson and am waiting for another soon. I can't say enough about how pleased I am with Darryl's work. It is a joy to behold and a real pleasure to use. You can check him out on Classicplanes.com. Good luck.

Re: Infill plane

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>For a thing of beauty and a joy forever, there are only two choices (well, maybe only one, because the latter is reputed to machine his planes only from Unobtanium): Wayne Anderson or Stephen M. Thomas.

Re: Infill plane

Dean Lapinel

>Darryl's planes do look nice. is there function as nice as their looks?

Re: Infill plane

Dean Lapinel

>It's been a long while since i've been on this forum (badger pond days). I remember then that Stephen M. Thomas was going to auction his loopy.. did that ever happen? I love his work!

Does Wayne Anderson sell?

Re: Infill plane *LINK*

Mike Schlesinger in Northern Maine

>Yes, Wayne Anderson does sell his planes. He has a nice website. See link below.

No affiliation, just an admirer of his work.


http://www.andersonplanes.com

A word about Wayne's planes

Christopher Schwarz

>I am a huge fan of Wayne Anderson's planes. They work as sweetly as they look. I've examined more than a dozen for an article I wrote about Wayne for the Fine Tool Journal, and I've used four of the planes quite a bit in my shop.

If you need any further encouragement, drop me a line.

Chris

Re: Infill plane

Monty

>Yes indeed they do perform very well. Darryl's plane is my very best plane when it comes to performance. I think it is wise to keep in mind that an infill plane is not a cure all for performance. As I said Darryl's plane is my top performing plane, but I have another infill plane by a different maker that I would have to say is my worst performer. It is beautiful to look at but a regular Stanley will out perform it. Also performance, assuming the plane is built correctly, really depends on the skill of the person using it. The ability to tune, sharpen and proper technique cannot be ignored.

Third choice?

Roger Nixon

>Would Sauer & Steiner belong in that group?

Re: Infill plane

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>FWIW, here is a list of some current manufacturers of traditionally-styled infill planes:

Anderson Planes

Miller Planes

Holtey Planes

Hutchinson Planes

Jim Leamy Planes

Ray Iles Planes

Sauer & Steiner Planes

Shepherd Planes

Re: Third choice? *LINK*

Brad in Ottawa

>I'll back you up on that suggestion Roger!

I still remember Wiley Horne's testimonial... it's on the link below.

There is a local infill collector here who has many infills including a couple Holtleys. He believes that S&S represent the best bang for the buck.

Everytime Konrad sends me a picture of one of his planes it breaks my heart!

I would definitely talk to Konrad if I were shopping!

Brad

PS - I am also 95% done a Shepherd Shoulder... I definitely enjoyed the experience but I believe that you are looking to buy an infill rather than make one.


Testimonial

Re: Third choice?

Dean Lapinel

>Thanks for your response Brad-

Actually buying a shepherd kit is not out of the question. Without intending to offend the company 9I know he posts here) I was told bey a reseller that the shepherds looked very nice but didn't have the tightness of quality. He stated it was similar to the pre-war Norris compared to the post war norris tolerance problem.

how is your shoulder plane turning out?

Re: Infill plane

Dean Lapinel

>Thanks Don,

Would you be willing to state your favorite of these?

Re: Third choice?

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Excuse me? The builder can pretty much control "tightness of quality," whatever that is exactly.

Pam

Re: Third choice?

Dean Lapinel

>No- the quality is also dependent on the prefab parts that are used. Their quality (materials)and design tolerances.

I found your note bordering on rude....was it meant to be?

Re: Infill plane

steve knight

>infill�s are an emotional issue I think more then a need for most people. Unless we are talking the cram of the crop there are planes that will do the same with some user skill. I would get calls from newbies or want to be newbies that want a infill right away. I always recommend they wait on it. You want to learn to use a plane before you use an infill. And do you really need one? The answer is usually not. But wanting one is a different matter (G)

Hey!

Clay C in Miami

>"calls from newbies or want to be newbies that want a infill right away"

I resemble that remark!

Clay

Re: Some Thoughts

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>OK, here's the thoughts:

For sheer beauty,uncompromising craftsmanship, and recognizable exclusivity - Wayne Anderson

For whimsical attractiveness, originality, absolute perfection in technical detail, and likely (validated by both my plane studies) the higest possbile standards of performance in experienced hands - SMT Loopy

For the ability to personally control the level and details of construction and performance, but with components not as perfectionistically engineered as the SMT - the upcoming adjustable mouth infill from Shepherd.

Keep in mind that should an SMT become available (email me about this) you are pretty much taking exactly what SMT thinks is best and wants to make (which, of course, is the best performance I've ever encountered),on the timeline that he makes it, while with the upcoming Shepherd you will have a wider range of choice both in materials and detail, but it will all fall on you to execute to a high level of standard.

A note on the original SMT Loopys. Two were made. One is on extended loan to me (with William being long overdue as next in line--probably with a stop over at SMT for retuning and refurbishment). The other was sold to a collector. There were very minor differences between them, with the one in my possession being a bit better with respect to some technical details that may or may not result in the one I have been using having the better performance (as I haven't been able to compare them, I can't say for sure).

A new batch of 5 or 6 have been in the works for around two years now. They are not yet done, and I can't say when they will be done. There are some minor differences in things like sole thickness, wood (now African Blackwood at my request), and adjuster, but will visibily be the same plane (except for mine with a screw adjustable mouth). Email me for details if you are interested.

I'm courious Dean...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>Was this a reputable dealer that told you this? Not asking you to name names or anything like that. I�ve been looking at their kits

On the other hand you can find good old infills from some of the UK tool dealers. Also some of the tool dealers here too.

Re: Third choice?

Brad in Ottawa

>Dean,

The build was a fun experience... I will definitely be building another as soon as money allows. (Not in the near future!)

My initial reasons for buying the kit were the attractive sale price and to learn more about infills. I have managed to do both.

My plane is not finished yet... I will be done this weekend and should be able to post pix on Sunday. My plane was together in pretty much the timeline outlined by Ben and Doug. I am taking more time finishing the plane though, which is partly to the fact that I have never flattened a plane before. (I am now almost willing to say that I can see the merits of flattening a plane, when warranted.)

So far I can report is that my Shoulder Plane takes shavings thin enough to read through. (I don�t know how thin a shaving that is but I am fairly happy with it.) I paid particular attention when finishing the plane to make sure that: the sides were square to the sole, the sole was flat (compared to my reference plate), the shape of the sole (convex or concave), the size of the mouth opening and that the blade rested firmly on the bed.

As far as tolerances I'm not sure what your source means. I really don�t think that the parts supplied by Shepherd impact the tolerances when compared factors you control or actions you perform. For example, the peining process can be fairly rough. But this is why you have to spend time tuning/finishing the plane to your tolerance/capability.

Based on this I would agree with Pam that your efforts determine the end result/tolerances not the materials supplied.

I paid particular attention to all of these and have wound up with a plane that I am happy to have as a user. (After another hour or two I will be able to say that it looks good too!)

Brad

PS � I would definitely encourage you to talk to some of the vendors about any concerns and to learn about their process.

Re: Third choice? Shepherd kit.

Ted Shuck, Centennial, CO

>I built a Shepherd smoother recently and had a very good experience doing it. I don't doubt that the premium builders offer a better infill than I was able to make, but I think I have a very good plane none the less.

I agree with Brad that there is far more variability in the build quality due to factors controlled by the builder than in the parts shipped by Shepherd. I was really very impressed by the close tolerances in the kit. Where the tolerances were not so close, it was the responsibility of the builder to make them so after assembly (ie, the throat clearance).

This Shepherd smoother performs better than any other smoother I have, including a tuned Clifton #4, Bedrock #3, and an infilled Bailey that I built a while back. It performs much better than an old Spiers panel plane that I have never been very happy with for performance. Building this kit has given me the inspiration to do some serious tuning of the Spiers plane, as it should perform better.

I probably spent close to 30 hours on my Shepherd kit, but I only used handtools and took my time. Half of that time was spent making sure the sole was flat, the bed was flat, and the mouth was filed just right. Other that outward appearance, I believe that these factors are much of what you pay for in a high-end infill smoother.

Just another satisfied customer,

Ted

Sauer & Steiner

Wiley Horne--Glendora CA

>Hi All,

Brad has posted a testimonial by me in regard to Konrad Sauer's planes, so I won't overdo it here. I own and use 5 of Konrad's planes. And there is a sixth, an A5 smoother, on order.

Let me make an analogy. Yesterday I received a chisel order from Chutaro Imai in Japan (through Misugi Designs). Two sword steel slicks and two mortise chisels. The build quality and metal artistry on these chisels is fantastic. And I know from experience with Imai-san's other chisels they will be wonderful performers. I think we all know that consistency at a peak level of performance requires a total focus and a sort of total integrity by the maker. It is those tools that I want around me--the ones that bespeak integrity.and focus on detail by the maker. I have a moving filletster made by Larry Williams that has the same feeling about it.

I see the same attributes in Konrad's planes that I do in Chutaro Imai's finest chisels. These are tools you want around you. Their attributes stem from the person--total focus and total integrity. Konrad is still young, but some day I think he will be seen as the Yataiki of his profession, speaking of the great sawmaker. They are tools you consider yourself the luckiest person in the world to have around you.

Konrad is making methodical upgrades in his planes--he never gets in a comfort zone. Mostly these are things one would never notice--using O1 in the soles, or the way the nut is brazed (correct word?) into the cap iron. An improved adjuster, modelled on SMT's and Holtey's. We figured out the other day he is on Type 5. This is part of total focus.

And he incorporates the customer into the design process of each plane, so that it fits the eye and fits the hand.

I will be glad to discuss specifics of these planes--pictures and all details--with anyone who is interested in them or simply has a common interest with me.

Wiley

Brian Buckner *LINK*

Wiley Horne--Glendora CA

>Hi Don,

I thought I would list Brian Buckner's name here, since you have made a list of the commercial makers. I don't know whether Mr. Buckner (I don't know him personally) will make planes on order, but his name belongs somewhere in this discussion, because of the brilliance of his work.

Sandy Moss has made space at his website for an archive of Brian's work. The man deserves recognition.

Wiley


Brian Buckner's Planes (at Sandy Moss' website)

Wayne Anderson performance

Christopher Schwarz

>Lyn,

Don't worry, I wouldn't dare turn this into a "my dog can plane thinner shavings than your dog" discussion. I've never handled an SMT plane. Maybe someday I hope to get the priviledge.

But let me expand on my earlier post to say that the four Wayne Anderson planes I've used have zero performance defects. They are like extensions of my will. The irons stick to their bed like they're glued there it's so flat. Setting these planes -- even without an adjuster -- is easier than I ever imagined it could be.

I've built five infills from the Shepherd kits. I filed the beds as flat as my eye can see. I've had the soles lapped by a machinist who works as a military subcontractor (i.e. way over the top).

Wayne's still are a bit easier to set than mine. Can't explain it.

I dearly love all the planes I get to use, and the performance differences among my best tools are almost imperceptible, especially in workaday hardwoods. Once you get to a certain level, the differences are rooted in the personal more than the imperial in my book. Fine scotch vs. fine wine.

I hope you don't take this as a disagreement with your preferences. I just mostly wanted to expand a bit on my enthusiasm for another world-class tool maker who takes as much care in building tools as I attempt to do with furniture.

Maybe we need to have some sort of gathering some day of a bunch of people with all these tools so we can compare notes and take them on a test drive. I volunteer our shop, and I'll even bring the wine, beer and scotch.

Chris

Re: Third choice?

Steve Kubien

>I agree with Pam, the quality of what is made is VERY largely in control of the builder. I have built a Shepherd shoulder and I was able to make a very functional plane with no metal-working experience. The only flaws with my kit were created by me (misplaced hammer blows).

I cannot recommend Doug and Ben enough.

Steve Kubien

Ajax, Ont