Infill plane

Re: Third choice?

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>No, not at all. I started building a Shepherd smoother a year or so ago, immediately noted that everything was up for grabs, hampered only by my own limitations, which in the case of metal work are substantial.

Pam

Re: Infill plane

ken c

>Dean,

You were misinformed. The A51 was never made post war. It was one of Norris' pre war offerings and quite a nice plane too despite it's more budget origination. Even the post war A5's work every bit as well as the pre war ones. I have a pair of pre war A5's, a pair of A51's and a pair of post war A5's and wouldn't hesistate to recommend any of them as a good smoother.

I'm hoping my pairs will mate by the way and generae a family of little chariot planes. ;-)

Ken

Re: Infill plane

Joel

>I would disagree with your conclusion

From all the samples I have used and comparison tests with a bunch of other people. In order of performance (assuming near new planes)

A17 (the A is for an adjuster Norrises without adjusters work great too but are in general older with more wear and tear so they don't work as well as they could.

A5/A5/A2/A3/a4 prewar basically all the place - cast or dovetailled that have wood under the iron

A5 Postwar in good shape - these can be very variable

The following (all pre-war) planes do not have wood under the iron - just a metal rest.

50G - This may be wishful thinking - I just happen to have one that works pretty well

the 51/52 -

In general however the WORST Norris I have ever used works better than a stock bedrock. When you start souping up the bedrocks, or go to a modern version I think the performace is the same but the stanley adjuster is so much better so that it is easier for a casual user to use the stanley much better.

HOWEVER it is important to understand that these planes are all at least 60 years old and while I am talking about planes in near new condition (NOT RECONDITIONED) the actual performace of a specfic sample can vary greatly. SO buying the "right" model is no gurentee of the same results. These days it is rare to find Norrises in great condition that have also not been reconditioned.

Also everyone has access to only a limited pool of samples to play with and test. My results come from about 20 years of comparing planes with friends and a formal series of tests I did in school with about 1/2 dozen samples each of the a5/a6 pre and post war, and one or 2 50'gs

However all the difference between the planes are subtle and the main reason for doing the testing years ago was to see if the factory differentiaons between the models made any sense.

Re: A word about Wayne's planes

Mike Schlesinger in Northern Maine

>Chris,

Has that article been published yet?

Mike

Please invite me!

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>Man...would I like to be a fly on the wall for this get together!JR

Re: Infill plane

Joel

>Another point - the differences in performance between models in many cases is really subtle and less about how the plane performs when sharp as how long before it needs to be resharpened. THe way Infills fail or don't fail is what I find so wonderful about them. Most formal tests of planes are done only with pristinely sharp irons which evens out the performance between planes. I don't actually know of a test that took similar irons in different planes and used them to see how long the plane could go between sharpenings. People have tested irons that way but not entire planes.

THe other interesting phenomena I have observed is that post war Norrises are sold on Ebay all the time. Pre war Norris planes except the 51/52 series are pretty rare on EBay. They are pretty rare everywhere.

If collectors are resonsible for hoarding the pre-wars - well collecters like every model so they would also hoard a similar number of post-wars.

And I find it hard to beleive that in the 25 or so year period of pre-war adjustable Norris production the total number of planes made was a fraction of the total postwar production of only 5 years or so.

So where are the pre-war planes????? EVery dealer will tell you that the sources have dried up, and that's why Modern planemakers have a market.

IT could be that the pre-wars are hoarded not by collectors but by users and when sold they are sold privately and never come on the market. (I just sold a wonderful minty pre-war 16" panel plane from one friend to another, both professioanl cabinetmakers. as an example )

But I really wish I knew how many pre-war smoothers were out there hiding.

It's out

Christopher Schwarz

>Mike,

Indeed it has. The fall issue features a five-page article I wrote on Wayne and shows a wide variety of his finished tools, discusses how he went from machinist, to metal fabricator to mechanical designer and now � planemaker.

On Friday, the winter issue of FTJ shipped (just got my copy) and it features my four-page follow-up article about the misnamed "miter plane" with some interesting historical finds from Joel Moskowitz (of WC fame) and compares some working characteristics of the Lie-Nielsen No. 9 pattern plane and Wayne's improved miter and early European-pattern plane.

Chris

How About a Fly Pushing a Plane?

Christopher Schwarz

>I don't know why we couldn't open it to anyone and everyone who wanted to attend. We have these event with manufacturers and readers all the time.

I'll talk to my publisher, some planemakers and see if there's any support.

Chris

Re: Wayne Anderson performance

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Hi Chris,

No sense of conflict, but I think there is some disagreement, at least in emphasis.

You comment: "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." You later say: "I hope you don't take this as a disagreement with your preferences."

The whole thrust of my two investigations (and to a much lesser extent, my plane reviews) has been to show that it is possible to objectively determine differences in the surface finish (and sometimes other performance indicators) achieved by different planes depending on various factors such as type, effective cutting angle, and adjustment. I've deliberately sought to present methodologies (and findings resulting from application of those methodologies) that allow us to objectively compare performance characteristics, and thus move beyond simply stating, pointificating on, and arguing over preferences. This is also what I admire so much about the investigations of folks like Brent Beach and Steve Eliott

Yes, many commonly available wood samples can be worked to an equivalent surface finish with a variety of quality planes, but the one of the primary reasons for possesion of a "super smoother" is to have a plane that will allow the optimal surface finish on the unusual and difficult samples of common woods, as well as the less common woods that are almost consistently challenging. As one example that I work with a lot, cocobolo, both my investigations (and yes, I know I am long overdue in getting some text from the latter into your hands) have shown some pretty wide ranging differences in performance on multiple samples of this wood. Even amoungst generally similar infills from several respected manufacturers, there were quite noticable differences in performance. So when I tout the performance superiority of the SMT plane, I am not expressing a preference (unless you wish to call using the criteria of the least tear out and best overall surface finish a preference), but reporting a finding. Yes, it is true that I haven't compared an Anderson plane to the SMT, and it would indeed be interesting to do so, but I have compared the SMT plane to several dozen other quality and high performing planes and overall the SMT was convincingly superior in the surface finish it could provide.

So why does the SMT perform so well. Honestly, I don't know for sure, but I have a couple of strong suspicions. One is the overall choice of geometries, materials and the precision of their fit (bedding angles, flatness of bedding, flatness of sole, location and fit of the cap iron, etc.). I suspect that this can be met or even exceeded by a few other planes, Wayne's and likely Holtey's quite possibly being two examples. The second suspicion is that the SMT's plane offers a greater opportunity to precisely adjust the plane in response to the individual characteristics of the wood sample planed. The precision of the SMT adjuster, its uncomman ability (for an infill) to adjust the mouth (I find this so important I will be paying more to increase the precision of this on the new one he is making for me than most other whole premium planes go for) are things that I have found to make a large difference in obtaining ultimate performance when the "chips are down" on a difficult section of wood. These are things that result in determinable differences, even when the differences are determined by a judge blind to the plane and settings being used.

So the recommendations I make are meant to be not merely preferences, but to reflect findings.

Now I do very much agree with you (and Rob and a number of others) that individual preferences to play a substantial role in which plane we are most satisfied with using. Aesthetics will always be a matter of personal preference (I love the look of a L-N # 4 in bronze and cherry, others love the look of an old Norris infill). Ergonomics, such as the fit of the tote to the hand, is very personal, and is not so much a true preference as a compatibility. Still, lots of room for variation here. But quality of surface finish is not a preference, it is a finding. And of the multitude of planes I have compared, most recently using a methodology involving multiple samples of wood species, multiple species of wood, multiple raters and with the rating done in two of the three instances blind to the planes being used, the SMT has been significantly superior.

Now when it comes to factors that are more matters of preference, the SMT is not my resounding favorite. I've planes that fit my hand better, planes that I think look nicer, even planes I reach for first, but when the criteria is the best possible surface finish I can achieve on troublesome wood, the SMT comes out. Not because I like (prefer) it more, but because it does the job better.

Again, I don't present this in any spirit of conflict, nor even argument over which plane is better, because I don't feel the one and I haven compared the latter. I just want to emphasize that one can offer recommendations that are more than expressions of preference, but can result from reporting data that can be objectively and repeatedly obtained.

Re: How About a Fly Pushing a Plane?

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>It's an interesting proposal, and a lot of fun to touch and feel all these "world class" planes, but one that I would approach differently. More personally meaningful to me would be to take that bunch of the "world class planes," have an "expert" plane user adjust them all to obtain the best possible performance, and then plane a multitude of woods with each plane, sending each behind the curtain to be rated by the group as to optimal surface finish.

I wouldn't be surprised if some under $100 dollar planes rated very highly, if allowed to complete blind against such exhaulted company.

Re: Hey!

steve knight

>so did I when I first started with planes.

Re: How About a Fly Pushing a Plane?

Joel

>This would be an excellent exercise with one small change. Instead of one "expert" plane setter upper - there should be several. Let's try to have each plane set up to best advantage by a person expert at setting up that type of plane. With wooden planes espceially the experience level of knowing how a peraticular plane behaves is very important.

Would that be in Cleveland ?

Dan Donaldson

>If so, I would definitely like to watch, even if I couldn't contribute much.

Re: Wayne Anderson performance

Christopher Schwarz

>Lyn,

I greatly admire your perseverence in keeping it scientific � and I (patiently!) look forward to the final report.

I know that you are focused on surface finish in your study and in this discussion. And many plane users I talk to (almost every day) are likewise focused on tear-out. Your study and findings will prove a boon for certain plane manufacturers, I'm certain. It's certainly not the reason for the study, but it is a likely outcome.

For me, surface finish is just one factor in selecting a tool. It's quite important, of course, but it is by no means exclusively how I select tools (and nor, I am certain, do you).

So here's my personal list of important variables in selecting a plane. They are woefully subjective.

I focus on the handles, where the adjuster is located (very important), the balance, where the mouth is, how wide the tool is, how easy it is to set, how well it keeps its settings (another oft-neglected trait), how easy it is to sharpen, how easy the chipbreaker is to set, lateral adjustment, weight, length, frog adjustment...

How it looks (ah vanity!). Here's a weird one: The spirit in which it was made. Value. And yes, how well it performs in difficult woods.

Your efforts will help me on that variable. Handling and using every plane I possibly can will help me with the others.

I can't wait to read your full report.

Chris

"They also serve who only stand and drool"

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>

Re: How About a Fly Pushing a Plane?

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Good rationale, yah, that would be good. The big issue is to get the best possible performance out of the plane, which hopefully would reflect the performance a commited user could potentially achieve with the plane.

It wouldn't dismiss that there are other factors present in why we would choose one plane over another for our personal use, but a blind rating sure would go a long way towards avoiding bias based on price, beauty, reputation, style, etc. It is basically the approach I've taken to the second study, though I must say that the blind ratings (using two different raters) and the open ratings really coincided quite closely. Still, part of that may be because I was the only open rater and I really didn't have a horse in the race.

Re: I completely agree with everything you said...

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>and must add how much I appreciate your support and generous patience with respect to this last investigation.

Re: I completely agree with everything you said...

Rusty Miller

>I love these discussions. I learn so much from this forum. I've been woodworking for a long time, but it is just in the last few years that I'm really learning about "woodworking".

Thank all you guy & gals for all you do here.

Rusty-Tye,TX

I could be wrong,...

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>... but I got the impression that Brian did not make them for sale. (?)

Re: How About a Fly Pushing a Plane?

Matti Kuikka

>You might include a high class japanese plane/user in the test,too.

Just my 0,2�

Matti Kuikka

Re: How About a Fly Pushing a Plane?

Joel

>Absolutely and you gave me an idea of another blind test.

OR even not so blind

A blind test of planes set up by experts is a great way to understand the potential of particular planes.

but it would also be interesting to be able to an individual to see how well they can get the same results as the expertly set up plane or using their particular plane.

IT was a real eyeopener for me years ago when I had a chance to compare a properly set up tool to my best effort. If you have a public forum where you are trying look at a real blind test at the best you can easily allow guests to use the same planes as a reference for their own tools.

Re: How About a Fly Pushing a Plane?

Joel

>Absolutely- THe learning curve on Japaense planes is high enough so setting them up is a real skill and part of the expericene. (I certainly don't know how to do it) Seeing what Japanese planes can do in comparison to other styles would be very very intersting.

Agree

Wiley Horne--Glendora CA

>Don,

That's what I was trying to say in my post-- that I don't know whether Brian will make planes on order, and it seems that the ones shown are for his own use. But rather than make guesses about these issues, I posted the link because his work is so inspiring.

Wiley

Re: Infill plane

ken c

>Joel,

I'm not sure what you disagree with.

That A51's were not made postwar?

Or that post war A5's work every bit as well as pre war -the only real difference being that the post wars are narrower.

I would stand by both comments.

Ken

Re: How About a Fly Pushing a Plane?

Matti Kuikka

>I'm beginning to feel a regret for not living in America ;<) Please publish the event well.

Matti