Help me buy an old infill smoother

[Jim Belair]

No I don't mean send me some cash, although if you insisted... :rolleyes:

I am interested in buying a good quality user grade infill smoother. Not wanting to start any arguments but I realize I may be able to get (nearly?) as good performance and more flexibility, better steel, etc with a Veritas BUS. I just like the old tools and the connection they provide to the craftsmen of the past. And I decided to sell the retirement gift I got from the company and buy something I really want with the proceeds.

I've found a few listed at various dealers- The Best Things, Jim Bode, Meekers at prices from under $400 to $1000 or so. I'm hoping that high end will be more than I need to pay since I'm not a collector (heh-heh). Others are clearly way up there in price, as are the beautiful modern maker infills.

http://www.thebestthings.com/infill.htm
http://www.jimbodetools.com/Infill-c5/
http://www.patented-antiques.com/Backpages/T-F-S/miscplanes/patented_planes.htm

So can I get a decent plane in this range? I don't want to overbuy and then destroy collectors value by sharpening the blade away. Some of these are described as being "from xyz collection". And although I enjoy bringing tired tools back to life I'm not sure I want a major project on something like this. I've never bought anything on ebay and don't want to start with this.

I understand some of the makers quality went downhill near the end of their production. How do I determine when over the makers life a plane was made? I know with Stanleys for example pre-war are preferred, Type 11 coveted, etc. but what's the equivalent for infills?

There's some information over at Handplane Central- catalogs etc. that let me identify steel, iron or gunmetal from the model no.- for Norris at least.

Any words of guidance you can provide would be welcome.

Thanks
Jim B

[john brenton]

Jim Bode tools is 2LShark on Ebay. I'd say take whatever price he has and divide it in half to find what's fair.:rolleyes:

[David Weaver]

You could offer him half price, too, and stick to it and see if he takes it.

I have never bought from him, I've seen just enough comments about receiving something where full disclosure wasn't made to send me elsewhere, and the starting price levels are a slap in the face.

This, of course, is all just my opinion. I can be pretty easily separated from my money with tools sometimes, but have not bought from bode. People seem to have high regard for lee at TBT (I have only bought new tools from them), and I have bought from meekers (not infills) and have been pleased with their description vs. what I received.

As far as performance, I think you might be able to build a plane that will perform better than a vintage one you can buy - and cheaper, though there is a lot of work in them, and it's a pain in the hiney to find good dry wood that's suitable for an infill.

If you buy any plane that someone wasn't using yesterday, you're likely going to have to do a little tweaking to it, especially if it's one without an adjuster where the fit of the iron to the bed, around the mouth and lever cap is critical to its smooth use and predictable adjustment.

Joel Moskowitz had a short article on TFWW on his blog a couple of months ago discussing the virtues of infills, and I think it discussed some issues with finding the "good ones" vs the ones that aren't quite as good or as valuable (so you don't get taken spending dovetail rosewood price for a beech plane with a casting).

[Chris Vandiver]

Here's my vote if you want a vintage infill plane; http://www.thebestthings.com/oldtools/graphics/bm10097.jpg
Most likely a very good user. It's from this site; http://www.thebestthings.com/infill.htm

By the way, absolutely no affiliation.

[David Weaver]

There is a very nice very reasonable coffin-shaped spiers smoother on there, too.

[Ron Petley]

These ones are reproductions, but are of good dollar value, they are in your price range.
He also sells "kits" and you could put one together yourself.
http://www.stjamesbaytoolco.com/smoothing.html

Cheers Ron

[george wilson]

Be careful about buying bronze casting kits. The bronze is very hard to work by hand. I have some of his castings,and machine tools to use on them. A lot of bronze would have to be removed in hand filing. They offer pre machined castings. That would be a LOT more advisable,but their finished planes aren't a whole lot more than machined castings and a few parts. I think his prices are quite reasonable,especially the increase of only $50.00 for ebony infill. Ebony is very expensive,particularly large sizes as needed for infills.

[Ron Petley]

Spot on George, buy all the finished parts and put it together yourself for a personal touch, or just buy the finished plane, have the old look/style with a new plane.
Cheers Ron

[Terry Beadle]

I bought and built a St James Bay smoother in bronze. I did not find the bronze too hard to work except for opening the mouth. The sides, front and bottom were easy to get a high polish on fairly quickly. The mouth was a bit of a contest but once I got some diamond files ( Harbor Freight ) some few hours and elbow grease did the deed.

The cocobolo was not fun to work with. It was the hardest part of the build for me. It took a while for me to figure out how to mark the wood and get the right combination of my available tools to shape it.

If I had to do it again, I wouldn't do the micro adjustor. It's just not needed to set the blade right. IMO

Here's a picture just for giggles.

[James Taglienti]

do be careful... explain to the seller that you will be using it. i bought one in person from Pat
Leach and it took us a while for us to find the right cutter for it, from a box of parallell cutters he had, we found one that properly tightened the mouth. im very happy with the plane, but it came at a premium price.

[Harlan Barnhart]

Ya'll are a bunch of bad influences on me. Maybe I should not read this thread. Must resist... must resist....

[Jim Belair]

Thanks for the suggestions guys.

The Joel article on the Norris progression helps. I see one of the Meeker infills is described as a "late model" Norris with "ebonized" finish. Probably one to steer away from then.

I hadn't heard the comments about sketchy condition disclosure on some of the Bode listed items. His descriptions are a bit over the top and I see the same items listed on ebay Buy Now or Best as on his website, just marked a bit higher. An offer of 50% less seems quite a cut. Has anyone ever done this and had offer accepted?

I have heard nothing but positive words about The Best Things. If anything condition ratings are understated. I would have no problem working with them to get a user I'd be comfortable with.

I have build a small infill smoother from brass and rosewood. It came out pretty well but I keep thinking that must have been a bit of a fluke! Its on my Things to Do list to post photos and description here.

Finally, I had considered the St James Bay reproductions and will again. I do like that one can specify bed angle. You did a nice job on yours Terry.

Now some decisions to make
Jim B

[David Weaver]

It must not be the majority of folks (lack of disclosure), because most people say they're happy and the guy has a pile of feedback on ebay, I've just heard it more than once, and you expect satisfaction at that price level.

As far as offering half, it doesn't hurt to try, just make sure half isn't still a high price when you offer half, or if you plan on there being a possibility of going back and forth, start a little lower than where you want to end up. He must offer some significant concessions, or you'd expect nothing would ever sell.

[James Taglienti]

if you go to his &bay store and click on completed listings youll see that people indeed pay exorbitant amounts for his offerings. also note that not much of the stuff is cleaned... who knows whats going to show up after you knock the rust off.

[Frank Drew]

Jim,

I own both a Norris A5 smoother and an older Spiers panel plane, and although the Norris is a peach, I find planing a bit easier with the Spiers, perhaps due the the greater mass. I'd like to try out a Norris panel plane, but prices have skyrocketed since I bought my planes years ago.

I've never heard that the later Norris planes were any worse mechanically than the earlier models; dyed beech wood isn't as sexy as rosewood, but if you just want is a fine tool for using, I wouldn't consider that a dealbreaker.

[Jim Belair]

You're probably right Frank, a postwar Norris could be just as suitable a user as a prewar. In Joel's blog on the Norris progression he said they generally can work well but no where near as well as prewar. One man's opinion.
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/Merchant/merchant.mvc?Screen=NEXT&StoreCode=toolstore&nextpage=/extra/blogpage.html&BlogID=184
Jim B

[David Weaver]

One thing you definitely want to avoid is buying a plane that will not perform with a lie-nielsen smoother. If you're not a collector, all you have then is a white elephant.

.. the lie nielsen test is a pretty high bar to set.

When I put infills together, I hope that they will at least perform to that standard, and if they can't beat them, at least match them for performance and hope that there is a feel difference that makes them more pleasurable to use and adjust.

I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of older infills, especially the newer ones, wouldn't hang to begin with and even fettled, they would have issues (wide open mouths, coarse adjusters, damaged parts etc) that would make an LN superior in general use.

[george wilson]

Personally, I have doubts that a cast Norris would perform less well than a dovetailed one,provided that the blade was equal,and both were properly bedded. There is no reason a dovetailed body delivers better performance. Indeed, I can see that a dovetailed body could be less rigid than a solid casting. Those dovetails can be jarred a bit loose with enough impact.

A big reason for the desirability of dovetailed planes was that they weren't brittle cast iron,and wouldn't break if dropped (though they certainly could get screwed up from such!) An annealed cast iron plane would be plenty good for anyone's use.

Norris's earlier blade adjustment mechanism was delicate,and engineered wrong,just plain wrong. There is a larger screw with a smaller screw threaded inside it with a left hand thread. Turning the larger screw caused the smaller screw to unscrew,DOUBLING the movement of the blade. It makes NO sense at all. Later Norris planes eliminated the SMALL,(about 1/8" diameter) internal screw. How would you like it if your LN or LV planes used such a tiny screw to adjust the iron? I don't think you would like it at all. Yet,Norris persisted in using this backward,delicate,wrongly thought out mechanism until their "declining" years,when they finally came to their senses and used just 1 larger,more robust screw,which did not multiply the effect of turning the adjustment knob.

All the Norris mechanisms used a THIN,WEAK metal ring to grasp the chip breaker's screw. The thin ring could easily go a bit oval from adjusting pressures,causing slop in the mechanism. There is a very weak connection between the thin screw and the ring,too. You would not like a feature like this on your LN or LV,either. Remember,Stanley planes and others were using more modern engineering for a long time by then,whether their overall quality could have been better or not.

Don't think I believe Norris planes were junk. I have one which I enjoy. But like the Jaguar car(another of my favorite British cars,especially the early XKE's),it did have its share of anachronistic engineering. I like better the plain,hammer adjusting infill planes,myself. Though,you do have to learn to properly adjust them with a bit of personal skill,but not really terribly dificult to master.

[David Weaver]

My shepherd panel plane uses that double-effect adjuster. You can get used to it, but you wonder why they think the complexity is necessary for something that is really annoying for fine adjustment.

[Joel Moskowitz]

Personally, I have doubts that a cast Norris would perform less well than a dovetailed one,provided that the blade was equal,and both were properly bedded. There is no reason a dovetailed body delivers better performance. Indeed, I can see that a dovetailed body could be less rigid than a solid casting. Those dovetails can be jarred a bit loose with enough impact.

A big reason for the desirability of dovetailed planes was that they weren't brittle cast iron,and wouldn't break if dropped (though they certainly could get screwed up from such!) An annealed cast iron plane would be plenty good for anyone's use.

Norris's earlier blade adjustment mechanism was delicate,and engineered wrong,just plain wrong. There is a larger screw with a smaller screw threaded inside it with a left hand thread. Turning the larger screw caused the smaller screw to unscrew,DOUBLING the movement of the blade. It makes NO sense at all. Later Norris planes eliminated the SMALL,(about 1/8" diameter) internal screw. How would you like it if your LN or LV planes used such a tiny screw to adjust the iron? I don't think you would like it at all. Yet,Norris persisted in using this backward,delicate,wrongly thought out mechanism until their "declining" years,when they finally came to their senses and used just 1 larger,more robust screw,which did not multiply the effect of turning the adjustment knob.

All the Norris mechanisms used a THIN,WEAK metal ring to grasp the chip breaker's screw. The thin ring could easily go a bit oval from adjusting pressures,causing slop in the mechanism. There is a very weak connection between the thin screw and the ring,too. You would not like a feature like this on your LN or LV,either. Remember,Stanley planes and others were using more modern engineering for a long time by then,whether their overall quality could have been better or not.

Don't think I believe Norris planes were junk. I have one which I enjoy. But like the Jaguar car(another of my favorite British cars,especially the early XKE's),it did have its share of anachronistic engineering. I like better the plain,hammer adjusting infill planes,myself. Though,you do have to learn to properly adjust them with a bit of personal skill,but not really terribly dificult to master.

1- On Norris cast planes that are normally found (50 and 60 series) the iron isn't bedded on wood, but on 2 cast studs. Hence the decline in performance. The cast Norris 17 however has a rosewood bed and is in fact the top of the line. A 17 in good shape will sell for $2000 and over. With an adjuster even more. The big problem with cast planes (aside from the bedding) is keeping them flat. After 70 years metal moves. Note: the post war Norris planes are either welded or in the case of panel planes used steel channel. If a dovetail plane is properly made the double dovetails will never ever move. THe idea of jarring them loose won't happen. I am sure George is refferring to to the myriad of craftsman made planes out there where the dovetails are not so well done, the join isn't invisible, there are gaps, and yes I would guess those could come apart. Maybe also a brand name plane that has been so cleaned up from rust that the sides are missing significant thickness and the joints weak. However the a regular plane in original condition - no chance.


2 - I have never ever seen a oval adjustment ring. When you adjust a Norris you have to slacken the lever cap screw. If you don't you will damage the adjuster and maybe the ring I guess. While it is pretty common to find Norris's with worn adjusters it's not much of a problem - you need to get used to your plane and have a sense on the adjuster. THe lateral adjustment is actually more of an issue than the depth adjustement - the Bailey design is just so so much better all around.


THe real issue with infills is condition. My A5 which is in about as good a condition as you could possible want I have had for over 20 years and it's rare that ones in this condition come up for sale. If they do expect to pay $1400-$2000 now. For a postwar Norris in better shape from a reputable dealer - 700-900. Any infill from a major maker is at least 60 years old, with the best stuff far older. They just wear out. One key to wear is the length of the original iron. An infill from say 1900 in pristine condition, with a replacement iron or a very short original iron, has most probably been seriously reconditioned. If the rework is pristine then the work was done recently and I would probably steer clear. (I don't collect any refinished tools).
Personally If I was in the market for an infill now I would either buy and old one just for fun - and not expect top dollar performance - or more probably save my pennies and buy a plane from one of the many new makers some of whom do really really fine work.

joel

[george wilson]

As you said: "The Bailey design is just so much better all around."

It really doesn't matter what a plane will bring as a collector's item. That is a function of rarity,as in the Stanley #1's. I still stand by what I said. The cast plane will be as good "If properly bedded".

Precision machine tools have been made of cast iron for literally hundreds of years. They do work far more accurate than these planes. My HLVH lathe easily works to .0001",and it is a 1964 model. Naturally,a casting needs to be properly aged,or annealed. Anyone having trouble keeping their LN or LV planes flat? No,they deal properly with their cast iron planes,annealing them. Stanley wasn't so careful,though their basic engineering was sound.

I don't have a problem with Norris most likely assuming that their planes would have to be properly adjusted by knowledgable craftsmen to not get worn or distorted parts. But,the fact is,often,probably more often than not,tools are NOt properly used and carefully adjusted.

To take real examples to the extreme,Bugatti owners were required to remove the oil from their engines,warm it on the stove,and put it back in before starting them. How'd you like to have to do that every time you took the car out on a cold day? Then,how about driving home after work? (welI guess you don't work if you have a Bugatti:). But,you might go to a social occasion.

P.S.,once again,don't get me wrong. If I had my choice between a plane that was beautiful,stylish,and made of choice materials,I'd get the Norris,because I love beautiful tools,and I have the skill to adjust and use them properly. If I had to choose on functionality,I'd have to go for the LN. The tools I generally make look as if they were made in the great old period. However,I do think LV scored a hit with the new art deco block plane,which I have one of.

And,I'd just leave the Bugatti in the garage until suitably warm,dry weather.:) I have already warned you guys that I do everything the hard way,anyway.

[Frank Drew]

1- On Norris cast planes that are normally found (50 and 60 series) the iron isn't bedded on wood, but on 2 cast studs. Hence the decline in performance.

FWIW, I believe one of Carl Holtey's newer planes beds the iron at its upper end on two studs.

[David Weaver]

I think it's more than one. The studs themselves aren't a problem so much as the use of beech, castings that probably aren't as good as they should be and aren't seasoned properly and overall fit and finish that isn't as good.

Castings should be a lot easier to deal with - from the mind of a non-machinist, if they are stress relieved properly, they should be easier to make better than a dovetailed plane with a proper machining setup. it's the hand of cheapening the process that would make me a skeptic - plus the fact that the shrinkage factor for beech is a lot worse than rosewood or ebony, and it is much less well behaved in mosture changes.

[Joel Moskowitz]

I think it's more than one. The studs themselves aren't a problem so much as the use of beech, castings that probably aren't as good as they should be and aren't seasoned properly and overall fit and finish that isn't as good.

Castings should be a lot easier to deal with - from the mind of a non-machinist, if they are stress relieved properly, they should be easier to make better than a dovetailed plane with a proper machining setup. it's the hand of cheapening the process that would make me a skeptic - plus the fact that the shrinkage factor for beech is a lot worse than rosewood or ebony, and it is much less well behaved in mosture changes.

THe norris A50s - the most common of the cast norris's have no beech. The common wood is English Walnut. But in any case the only wood parts are the front bun, and the handle, neither part comes even close to touching the iron - even if the wood was beech.

It most certainly is possible to make a superb cast plane - as I said previously the Norris 17, which is cast - was their top of the line. The reason for the bulk of cast infills being inferior is by design. The 50 and 60 line were designed to be less expensive and there is no wood to bed the plane on. Actually a 50 has less bearing surface for the iron than a regular Stanley.

I have written about this in my blog a couple of times - All of the great infill companies made lots and lots of planes. Some good, some superb, some crap. And that was by design for different price points. And when you take into account the near century that has passed and the wear these tools get, it's no surprise that there is such a wide range of preformance.

In my case I started using infills when good stuff was sort of available, and the lesser models were essentially unsaleable except to collectors. But friends and I would sometimes get together to compare all the different models of infills we could. And there are absolute differences in performance between models.

Sadly there just aren't enough great old planes to go around. Pre-WAr Norris A5's were by far the most popular plane norris made in the post depression pre war period. Yet today a good one is really hard to find. Very few come up for sale compared to Post war planes. The reason I would guess is that people hang on to the pre-war's and the post war planes which were also made in great quanitity have never had the user appeal. When I started using infills in the 80's a great A5 could be hade for $500-$700 - lower if you looked around at flea markets. A post war plane could be had easily for 150 or less. But except for collectors nobody bothered. I have heard a story from a reliable source that in the 1970's the airplane company that owned norris at the end had their closing auction and hundreds of parts of post war planes went into the furnace of the scrap heap because nobody wanted them. Times have changed.

[David Keller NC]

Jim - I own quite a few of the pre-war Norris/Spiers/Mathieson infill planes. If you get a good one, they are superb workers. Generally, that means one that hasn't been abused and has the original iron, as these planes were made as fitted pairs - the iron and the plane. That means that one with a period-replaced iron may have a more open mouth, which is not ideal for a smoother.

That said, the ones with replaced blades don't appeal to collectors (as much), and so are generally considerably cheaper. But - there's a solution. Lee Richmond at The Best Things sells replacement, thick Hock parallel irons specifically made for British infills. He sells two thicknesses of these irons, and the thicker version will likely need to be thinned down a few thousandths to fit precisely in an antique. I've done this and it is definitely a bit of work, but the result is a plane with a very tight mouth and an iron made of superb steel.

From the reputation standpoint, Lee does overcall any condition issues in the extreme, and backs what he sells with an unconditional "don't like it send it back" guarantee. I've bought most of my infills from him, and would again. I've no connection to his business, other than being a very satisfied customer.

[george wilson]

I have 2 Spiers. One with a tote,the other without. Back in the 70's I had a chance to buy a Norris A5,brand new,in the original box,for $500.00. I still sort of regret passing it up,but $500.00 was a lot back then. I was happy enough to make them myself,too. That's why I started making guitars: At 13,I couldn't afford a decent one.

[David Weaver]

I think the best option for the frugal is to make a set. Making a plane with a 4 thousandth inch mouth is easier than finding one with a fine mouth.

And it gives someone a chance to really learn what makes a plane fit well and adjust well.

I know I posted this a while ago, but this was infill #2 for me, the first "real" one that I built, and aside from having some taste issues, it is a really nice plane to use. I would love to know what the wood is, I have a hunch, but I don't know.

I did not make it with anything other than a hand drill and a belt/disc combo sander. Ron brese sells lever caps and irons that make the process a lot easier, and you can do the rest with hand tools if you like. The wooden bits are small enough that you can hand saw them and then plane them to size / fit. (I guess I did cut the bed with a CMS, but that could easily be done just by marking and planing carefully, it needed to be trued after the CMS, anyway).

Total cost even with the mystery wood and the "store bought" lever cap and iron was under $300, and I got by on the first one without any pillar files or swiss files, I just modified saw files and bastard files I had lying around.

Physically, it is hard hand work, but fitting everything is very intuitive.

177430

[george wilson]

I know you have limited resources,David. You seem to turn out very nice work anyway!!:) Not cocobolo?

[Frank Drew]

Jim - I own quite a few of the pre-war Norris/Spiers/Mathieson infill planes. If you get a good one, they are superb workers. Generally, that means one that hasn't been abused and has the original iron, as these planes were made as fitted pairs - the iron and the plane. That means that one with a period-replaced iron may have a more open mouth, which is not ideal for a smoother.



When I bought my Norris and Spiers planes both companies were of course long out of business, so for spare irons I turned to Henley Optical Co., then still operating and making maybe the first in the commercial renaissance of British infill planes; supplying replacement blades for older planes was a sideline for them.

The irons are for all intents and purposes identical to the originals, both in dimensions and appearance (no name markings, though) and performance.

[Joel Moskowitz]

Ray Iles in England (The Old Tool Store) will surface grind a plane iron to whatever thickness you need - just give him a dimension in thousands. It's not a big deal for him and he strongly believes that a correlty sized iron really makes a difference. I agree. In the old days Infills were sold as fairly general purpose planes with not super tight mouths (the 17 excepted) But now we use infills primarily as uber - smoothers so a super tight mouth is a desireable feature. You can send Ray Email - he's sort of lx on that - or just give him a call that's the best way.

[David Keller NC]

I would love to know what the wood is, I have a hunch, but I don't know.

David - I strongly suspect your wood is Boise de Rose. Here's a link to a description:

http://www.exoticwood.biz/boisderose.htm

[David Keller NC]

When I bought my Norris and Spiers planes both companies were of course long out of business, so for spare irons I turned to Henley Optical Co., then still operating and making maybe the first in the commercial renaissance of British infill planes; supplying replacement blades for older planes was a sideline for them.

The irons are for all intents and purposes identical to the originals, both in dimensions and appearance (no name markings, though) and performance.

Wow - I bet you wished you'd bought one of the Henley Optical planes instead of just the irons (or perhaps you did?). Other than the super-rare Norris planes like adjustable gunmetal bullnoses, miter planes and A17s, the Henley Optical company planes are easily the most valuable infills on the collector's market.

[Frank Drew]

Wow - I bet you wished you'd bought one of the Henley Optical planes instead of just the irons (or perhaps you did?). Ha ha, I wish :D! An article on them in FWW, back when, was my introduction to the whole world of infill planes, but they were priced way out of my league and I never saw them on the secondary market; I got (relatively) lucky with the Norris and Spiers (both from a dealer in England.)

I think Henley Optical were just about at the end of their run when I bought the irons from them, and they seem to have sunk like stone, with barely a mention nowadays. Clearly you're aware of them, David, but it's even hard finding anything about them using Google.

[David Weaver]

David - I strongly suspect your wood is Boise de Rose. Here's a link to a description:

http://www.exoticwood.biz/boisderose.htm

Thanks for that, I've never heard of it but that looks a lot like it. I'd recognize the smell instantly if I cut another piece open.

it worked wonderfully, and it was very dry and not oily like cocobolo. I didn't itch or sneeze at all working with it.