# Which Norris ?



## -David- (12 Sep 2006)

While browsing Axminster today I bought the Garrett Hack 'Handplane' book. Its not that I had forgotten that I had a Norris, it was more a case of perverse postponed gratification stretching over many years ! So having dug it out of storage I have decided to at least find out its specification pending putting it to use once I have my workshop. 

My only source of detailed reference are the 1914 and 1928 catalogue reproductions at http://www.handplane.com/archives/37 . I cannot see it specified here.
I have a confusion in cutter measurements - when a plane is specified as for a 2" cutter does that mean that the cutter is 2" wide or the throat?

Now, I know you will want to see a photograph, but please make do with a description for now.

It is as No 2 in the 1914 catalogue -
Improved Steel Smoothing Plane Round Sides
Open handle
No adjuster

But the fitted Tyzack blade is 1 7/8" and not the 2" as per catalogue.
The throat of the plane is 2" 

There is a 1 7/8" smoother in the catalogue which is a No. 4 and is not in the style of mine.

Any suggestions ?

David


----------



## Scrit (12 Sep 2006)

Hi David



-David-":375t4f6g said:


> I have a confusion in cutter measurements - when a plane is specified as for a 2" cutter does that mean that the cutter is 2" wide or the throat?


Cutter, although Norris, _et al_ did make specials to order especially pre WWI and the 2in wasn't necessarily all that accurate



-David-":375t4f6g said:


> It is as No 2 in the 1914 catalogue -
> Improved Steel Smoothing Plane Round Sides
> Open handle
> No adjuster
> ...


If this is a Norris it will be stamped "Norris London" on the gunmetal lever cap. Post circa 1922 the model number will also be stamped inside the Norris and London. BTW not all non-adjuster Norris's are stamped Norris as quite a few were sold through tool merchants such as Musgrave of Lincoln. Pre-1916 (approx.) the knob on the bronze lever cap is cuspate, i.e. there is a pronounced "pimple" in the middle of the turning. Sometime during WWI Norris changed to a plain flat-top screw knob. The other thing that will be stamped "Norris London" is the cap iron (if it is original) whilst the iron can be either simply stamped "Norris London" (post circa 1916) or have a fancy full mark stamped on it with the maker's name (again pre-WWI) - either way it will be a parallel iron - consistent in thickness for the full length. Some Norrisses were sold with irons by other makers, most noticeably Sorby, but as Tyzack were tool merchants rather than makers it suggests that your iron is a replacement. All the above notes apply to production from early 20th century up until end of production (original firm) in around 1941.

I used to collect 'em, so that's why the details have stuck so well. Hope those notes help

Scrit


----------



## -David- (13 Sep 2006)

Thanks for all that info Scrit

From what you say - 

It is not Post 1922 as it does not have a model no. stamped inside the Norris London on the bronze screw cap iron.
It must be Pre 1916 as it has a pimple on said screw.

The only other marks are 'STEEL' on the front edge of the sole, and something which I have just seen, - '58' stamped into the rosewood bed.

There have been at least 2 previous owners whose names are stamped, although the last owner did not add his name to the collection even though he stamped other tools of his that I have got.

The cutter iron itself is stamped - 
S.TYZACK & SON
OLD ST.
E.C. (East Central ?)
WARRANTED 345
It tapers slightly from 3.73- 3.01mm

The cap iron is stamped
THOS IBBATSON & CO
SHEFFIELD
WARRANTED STEEL
HARDnd
With a circlip type logo

Now my big question is - 
Would I be better off selling this an get myself a high performance modern smoother or would my Norris out perform these.
Whilst I would love to keep this for its history, tactile and aesthetic values, would what I would get in selling this, equip me with performance and collectables of the future.
I would resist keeping it as the beginning of a collection as that is not a slippery slope I wish to launch myself on.


----------



## Scrit (13 Sep 2006)

-David-":2rrq0p64 said:


> The only other marks are 'STEEL' on the front edge of the sole, and something which I have just seen, - '58' stamped into the rosewood bed.


"STEEL" indicates that it is a dovetailed plane, the cast iron ones sometimes had "ANNEALED" stamped on them indicating malleable cast iron. The number is thought by some to have been a bench maker's number (i.e. the number of the man assembling it) and the cutter and bed would probably be stamped identically when the plane was new. It is thought that Norris might well have farmed out the making of parts of his planes and even assembly to a few trusted tradesmen in much the same way as the batch processing done by the "Little Miesters" in Sheffield. 



-David-":2rrq0p64 said:


> The cutter iron itself .... tapers slightly from 3.73- 3.01mm


That confirms it as a replacement. An original Norris blade would be parallel, just like the Spiers planes that Norris started out copying in the 1880s



-David-":2rrq0p64 said:


> The cap iron is stamped THOS IBBATSON & CO


Which means it is probably also a replacement. 

It is possible that the earliest Norrises had bought-in blades and cap irons not stamped Norris, but as the Norris started-out as a copy of the Scottish Spiers plane (which had a parallel iron) and all Norris advertising literature found states that his planes had parallel irons it is probably valid to conclude that his planes were only ever available with parallel irons.



-David-":2rrq0p64 said:


> Would I be better off selling this an get myself a high performance modern smoother or would my Norris out perform these.


My experience is that a Lie-Nielsen or Veritas bevel-up low angle smoothers will at least match a _good_ adjuster Norris and have the advantages of probably less slop in the adjuster, the ability to use different irons (thus gain different pitches from a single plane) and an adjustable mouth in most instances. So, given the choice as a user I'd plump for the modern plane, despite the poorer aesthetics. 

Having now committed sacrelidge I think I might need to go and hide!

Scrit


----------



## Alf (13 Sep 2006)

Scrit":rk7pigsr said:


> My experience is that a Lie-Nielsen or Veritas bevel-up low angle smoothers will at least match a _good_ adjuster Norris and have the advantages of probably less slop in the adjuster, the ability to use different irons (thus gain different pitches from a single plane) and an adjustable mouth in most instances. So, given the choice as a user I'd plump for the modern plane, despite the poorer aesthetics.
> 
> Having now committed sacrelidge I think I might need to go and hide!


Don't know about anyone else, but I'm too busy picking my jaw up off the floor to comment... :shock: :lol:


----------



## Scrit (13 Sep 2006)

Alf":10jxvdyo said:


> Don't know about anyone else, but I'm too busy picking my jaw up off the floor to comment... :shock: :lol:


This Norris has a non-original taper iron which sound as though it's actually too narrow for the plane. It has the heft to be a good smoother, but lacks an adjuster which means it's more of a faff to set-up. Granted you get used to using a non-adjuster but it is quicker to alter the iron on a plane with an adjuster. All Norrises with adjusters had a quirk that the cutter moves slightly as you tighten the lever cap - that can be a bit of a pain. And anyone who collects them and uses them (as I used to) will tell you that the quality is quite variable. Given a choice between a post-war Norris A5 smoother and a Veritas BU smoother the Veritas will outperform the Norris almost every time - finer adjustment with much less slop, consistent blade quality, adjustable mouth opening and that ability to alter the pitch bay regrinding the iron all add up to a superier performance. Even the pre-WWII Norrises, which most agree are better than the post-WWII ones can be very variable in performance. If the modern plane matches or improves on the performance of the older plane then what's left? Aesthetics? But aesthetics don't get a piece made, planes do. I've yet to try a Holtey, but I gather that Karl Holtey has taken the making of the infill plane to a new level by addressing many of the shortcomings of the original, especially as regrds accuracy, and that his planes are considerably better than the original Norris in many respects.... Maybe one day.....

Perhaps Ian D would care to comment

Scrit


----------



## Alf (13 Sep 2006)

Scrit, you misunderstand. I agree with you 100% (except I don't that much care for the looks of infills either) - I'm just surprised _you_ agree with you, if you see what I mean! :lol:


----------



## Scrit (13 Sep 2006)

Alf":3qujfupe said:


> Scrit, you misunderstand. I agree with you 100% (except I don't that much care for the looks of infills either) - I'm just surprised _you_ agree with you, if you see what I mean! :lol:


I'd still be indecisive about the relative merits of a BU jack/jointer over a Norris, but use over the past 4 or 5 years has convinced me that the Norris isn't the undisputed king of planes it used to be. Many of the Norrises coming up for sale these days are very poor yet still fetch high prices from _collectors_, rather than users. I suppose my change of mind was really brought about by Veritas's excellent offerings which, whilst lacking the beauty of a Norris (I know, personal taste, etc....) and being a bit rough in one or two areas really do shine where it counts - how they cut wood. Thank you, Lee Valley!

Scrit


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (13 Sep 2006)

> Scrit wrote:
> My experience is that a Lie-Nielsen or Veritas bevel-up low angle smoothers will at least match a good adjuster Norris and have the advantages of probably less slop in the adjuster, the ability to use different irons (thus gain different pitches from a single plane) and an adjustable mouth in most instances. So, given the choice as a user I'd plump for the modern plane, despite the poorer aesthetics.
> 
> Having now committed sacrelidge I think I might need to go and hide!
> ...




Oh I do know ... My good friend and co-conspirator on the Marcou Smoother review, Peter Byrne, wrote the following after using the Veritas BUS, Marcou Smoother and his Slater infill:

_The tests were done on a variety of woods, some very hard, using effective cutting angles of the conventional 45 degrees and about 60 degrees.

At 45 degrees, both planes smooth superbly taking off full width wispy shavings. In this mode I could detect no difference between the planes. There was a noticeable difference experienced when taking a heavier cut (sometimes we do need to reduce the size of a piece of wood, not just smooth it!). With the heavier cut the Marcou was noticeably smoother and easier, doubtlessly due to its extra mass. Once moving it feels like a train. The only other difference I could detect was on some Tasmanian Blackwood on which the Marcou gave a noticeably superior finish against the grain. (Yes, we planed both ways with both planes, mostly without tear out!) At 60 degrees there was no noticeable difference in cutting performance at all, and no discernable tearout against the grain – a reminder of one of the advantages of these planes – the potential for different angled blades.

I brought along my 1890s Slater smoother (souped up with a Hock blade) and added it to the routine. Planing with the grain it is every bit as good as these newcomers. Against the grain it is not in the same game. The new breed has dashed the superiority held by good quality infills for a century or more. These planes are very, very good._

The full Marcou Smoother review is at http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCoh ... /index.asp

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Ian Dalziel (13 Sep 2006)

David, 
Youve had pretty sound advice from Scrit..personally i'd sell it and get either a new LV, LN, Clifton or Holtey :? whatever your budget will stand. You already said youve had it a long time and if you havent used it yet you probobly wont now. as scrit said the norris will take a bit of getting used too...whether you have or havent an adjuster it will take time to get used to setting the blade, you would end up being frustrated and not getting good results

I bought this lot off an old cabinetmaker, every one was a user. I dont use any of these they will probobly get split up and sold once i can be bothered.

Scrit...next time you are in Scotland drop me a line and i'll let you try some Holteys. youll like the 98's and the 11-S's and the others but these are my favourites. 











I

just been reading Phillys gathering....ohhh he has gone further down the slope than i thought....Mrs D has said poor Mrs Philly......she's been there and seen the cc bills....it gets worse...much worse....did i mention it gets a lot worse then just worse....says Ian who never owned a plane 18months ago and has now lost count.


----------



## bugbear (13 Sep 2006)

Scrit":1jpmhemj said:


> It is possible that the earliest Norrises had bought-in blades and cap irons not stamped Norris, but as the Norris started-out as a copy of the Scottish Spiers plane (which had a parallel iron) and all Norris advertising literature found states that his planes had parallel irons it is probably valid to conclude that his planes were only ever available with parallel irons.



IIRC some Norris blades are stamped Norris on the front face and Sorby (I Sorby I think) on the back.

"Public" OEM'img, so to speak.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (13 Sep 2006)

Alf":1agowdn8 said:


> Scrit":1agowdn8 said:
> 
> 
> > My experience is that a Lie-Nielsen or Veritas bevel-up low angle smoothers will at least match a _good_ adjuster Norris and have the advantages of probably less slop in the adjuster, the ability to use different irons (thus gain different pitches from a single plane) and an adjustable mouth in most instances. So, given the choice as a user I'd plump for the modern plane, despite the poorer aesthetics.
> ...



it's an old (and well supported claim).

Here's Larry Williams in 1997
http://nika.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswi ... 37#message



> When Bill started this, his goal was to try to make a wooden smoother that
> would perform as well as an infill. For a benchmark I took my Norris to
> the machine shop next door, lapped and trued it's sole to get rid of this
> rounding of the mouth. Closing the mouth required making a new iron and
> ...



BugBear


----------



## bugbear (13 Sep 2006)

Ian Dalziel":1cev636g said:


> I bought this lot off an old cabinetmaker, every one was a user. I dont use any of these they will probobly get split up and sold once i can be bothered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was a bit unsubtle to be a drive-by, but that's certainly a gold-plated, top-o-the-line gloat!

BugBear


----------



## Scrit (13 Sep 2006)

Ian Dalziel":2t8ap327 said:


> Scrit...next time you are in Scotland drop me a line and i'll let you try some Holteys. youll like the 98's and the 11-S's and the others but these are my favourites.


You do realise that you'll need a pry bar to get them out of my hands afterwards, don't you, Ian?



Ian Dalziel":2t8ap327 said:


> just been reading Phillys gathering....ohhh he has gone further down the slope than i thought....Mrs D has said poor Mrs Philly......she's been there and seen the cc bills....it gets worse...much worse....did i mention it gets a lot worse then just worse....says Ian who never owned a plane 18 months ago and has now lost count.


At peak I owned over 400 planes of which there were generally 60 to 80 in working order - I had more than 60 Sargents at one time for example whilst my Record and Stanley counts both exceeded 100 at times. Largest number of Norrises at any one time was 34, all useable. Now that's what they call being hooked! Fortunately common sense preveiled (?) and I'm don to a user kit of under 20 these days. My comparisons were based on being fortunate enough to do many side by side comparisons over time. One thing I can say is that Patrick Leach _is_ right - these old plane makers would sometimes try selling _anything_ to make a (fast) buck. 

These days it's a lot less fraught - I'm down to my last 100! Alf, it must've been the DFPs that cured me :roll: 

Scrit


----------



## Alf (13 Sep 2006)

Chaps, you _all_ misunderstand me. It's not jaw-off-the-floor time 'cos it's sacrilege/unheard of or whatever - it's solely 'cos I didn't think I'd hear advice to buy a bevel-up from one of these old pros who's seen it all, s'all.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## -David- (13 Sep 2006)

Wow - what a lot of informative comment, which I have just scanned and will read again later. struggling with a reluctant AGA at the moment.

I will most probably be selling it on and reinvest, but I will not rush that and it will need to be deserved, that is, I have already got run of the mill smoothers and will need to raise my game in order to justify having such a fine piece.



> '58' stamped into the rosewood bed.



After very close inspection I have found 58 stamped on the reverse side of the screw cap and cap iron.

Will read all comments fully when got aga going.

David


----------



## Scrit (13 Sep 2006)

Alf":2i7frpgk said:


> .... it's solely 'cos I didn't think I'd hear advice to buy a bevel-up from one of these old pros who's seen it all, s'all.


Oi! Who're you calling old? Old dog, new tricks, eh? Never too old to learn something new, I say. Anyway, Stanley did the bevel-up more than a century ago - however it took Lie-Nielsen and Lee to do it right. That's all :wink: 

Incidentally I feel quite positively inclined towards cheap Japanese pull saws as well....

Scrit

Not sure if he's ready to be an old codger yet, or not. I don't believe it.......


----------



## Ian Dalziel (13 Sep 2006)

> Lie-Nielsen and Lee to do it right



you missed Karl :lol: 

:lol: :lol: 

agree there....i really dont need another but....a 22 1/2 jointer for christmas is what i'm hoping for under the tree. but wont get to play with it until january.



> Never too old to learn something new


 its harder teaching someone that already knows everything.
:shock: 8) 


Your most welcome to drop by if i'm home.


I


----------



## Scrit (13 Sep 2006)

Ian Dalziel":v0oegmq1 said:


> ...you missed Karl :lol:


Let's leave the master planemaker to the gentry out of this, shall we? :wink: The L-N and more particularly the Veritas BU planes are very usable tools at attainable prices. Somehow I don't think that a second hand non-adjuster Norris will raise enough to buy one of Karl's masterpieces [-X 

Scrit


----------



## Scrit (13 Sep 2006)

-David-":341gd6bx said:


> Wow - what a lot of informative comment.....


Ex-propellor head turned plane geek! What more can I say  

Good lucjk with the Aga, another antique concept.......

Scrit


----------



## Ian Dalziel (13 Sep 2006)

> At peak I owned over 400 planes of which there were generally 60 to 80 in working order - I had more than 60 Sargents at one time for example whilst my Record and Stanley counts both exceeded 100 at times. Largest number of Norrises at any one time was 34, all useable. Now that's what they call being hooked



ohh yes you were definately hooked....looking at Phillys get together he is already there. way ahead of me :? 


David.....that is a good book you got...i like Garrets other books as well. well worth reading.

another couple of books I have enjoyed reading recently are 
Patented transitional and metallic planes in america vol 1 and 2 but are quite pricey, and more for the stanley enthusiast. Excellant books none the less



> Let's leave the master planemaker to the gentry out of this, shall we?



well with the 98 he did make them fashionable again. He is involved behind the scenes with a few other plane projects and makers :wink: 

I


----------



## -David- (13 Sep 2006)

Sorry about delay - got nice blue conical flame at last  .

Yes, I admit it, I know more about Aga's than planes - out of the closet at last - phew what a relief :wink: .

As I am not a cabinetmaker or anything approaching what could be called fine work it is pointless speculating on the very high end hand crafted masterpieces - they would just be wasted on me. If truth be known a well tuned Stanley would probably do me.

I have a Bailey 4,5 & 8.
Stanley 10 rabbet
Record 04
Stanley Bedrock 604 1/2 which looks very similar to LN 4 1/2"

Rownson Drew shoulder plane ?

And this one which as yet I have not been able to identify.

Nearly 3kg
Closed handle
Screw Cap as Norris
What seems to be a one piece cast body - very rectangular - 8 1/4" X 2 5/8" sole and 2 1/2" high.
No makers mark or any marks at all.
Overall length 11"
2 1/4" throat?

Back to the comfort Zone of the Aga.

David


----------



## Scrit (13 Sep 2006)

-David-":1u6f68mq said:


> And this one which as yet I have not been able to identify.
> 
> Nearly 3kg
> Closed handle
> ...


Hmmmm. Norris weren't the only infill makers by a long chalk - there was Spiers, Preston, Marples, Mathieson and Slater to name just five more (although I think that Spiers and Mathieson didn't do cast smoothers, but I'll happily stand corrected on that one). Then there were those enterprising iron founders, particilurlay it seems north of the border, who cast bodies for tradesmen to finish off themselves - as a point of fact that's how Stuart Spiers started out.....

I think we need to see acouple of photos. :-k 

Scrit


----------



## Alf (14 Sep 2006)

Scrit":toqgu2nl said:


> Alf":toqgu2nl said:
> 
> 
> > .... it's solely 'cos I didn't think I'd hear advice to buy a bevel-up from one of these old pros who's seen it all, s'all.
> ...


Pesky spell checker - it was meant to say "wise" #-o :wink:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## -David- (14 Sep 2006)

Lets see if this works :? 















David


----------



## -David- (14 Sep 2006)

:evil: 

 

:roll:


----------



## -David- (14 Sep 2006)

I have a bad feeling about this - 

















      


David


----------



## Scrit (14 Sep 2006)

Hi David

The first is a nice early non-adjuster Norris #2, as identified. The cutter us definately too narrow and non-original. The other I think I'd describe as a.....

as a......

Frankenplane - craftsman made but where on earth did he get that shape? Oh, and how well does it plane?

Scrit


----------



## -David- (14 Sep 2006)

Scrit

Frankenplane ? Isn't that a cobbled together piece? apart from non original cutter an cap iron it is all integral like a more modern take of a Norris type. It is a one piece casting with fine machine marks on the outside.

I suppose it could be an apprentice piece? The visual design feels a bit American.



> Oh, and how well does it plane?



I'll come back to you on that one!

David


----------



## Scrit (14 Sep 2006)

I'll stick with my original description. Until the 1950s it was possible to buy pre-cast bronze/brass screw lever caps from various places (Charles Stirling at Bristol Design still does them). The blades were an off the shelf item, too. That suggests to me that either someone was making plane bodies to standard designs (indeed someone must have been as that's what allegedly started Stuart Spiers off in the early 19th Century) or that tradesmen were making their own casting patterns and having the bodies cast. There's certainly still one ferrous founder in this area who will cast almost anything you want as long as you turn-up with a wooden pattern. And I've had milling done for me in the past as a barter-favour: machine two spindle fence locking bolts (16in long @ £ 80 each from SCM) for one set of very heavy duty shelves and some drawer repairs to an old chest. Perhaps your maker even worked in a foundry or a patternmaker's shop? After all, patternmakers frequently made almost all their own tools and if the fit of the infill to the body is good that would possibly be the case. But in terms of design it's nothing like any plane I've seen come from a planemaker

Actually, it doesn't matter what it looks like - it's how well does it work that's the most important bit. Because it's a home-brew job, if it planes well then that's the one to keep as it will have a lower percieved value. Use the Norris to fund something else you want 

Scrit


----------



## Ian Dalziel (14 Sep 2006)

David,
first is a nice Norris 2, lower one i'm not so sure.

reading Scrits reply i would probobly agree on a homebrew. 
The overstuffing looks to be well done and the rear handle looks custom.
what scrit says about a patternmaker is possible but i would go for a cabinetmaker who new someone that could cast. 
The casting looks a fair bit pitted, and probobly a one off. The pattermakers i know wouldnt have used a casting with imperfections on it like that, they are generally quite fussy and would have remelted and made a another, 
hence i plump for a cabinetmaker with a casting friend hence nice woodwork but casting with imperfections.

it should still be possible to get it working fine though and the weight of it would make it an asset for using.

Ian


----------



## -David- (14 Sep 2006)

Thanks for all your observations, I am now very much the wiser.

Because I have just learnt how to post pics today, please let me indulge myself and post these two planes. I promise not to add any more - honest! 


No marks on this one. 












Rownson Drew & Co on this one. And no cutter.












David


----------



## Scrit (14 Sep 2006)

Probably more Alf's field than mine :lol: At first sight the upper one looks like a one-sided door check plane, a type of plane used to clean-out door casing rebates (wide, shallow rebates), but a type of plane which I've only seen double sided. It was really a carraige maker's plane. In reality I reckon it's a wooden jack which has been converted by the tradesman presumably so that it could be used to clean-out wide shallow rebates such as door casing rebates and/or to field panels (with the slip removed) whilst fulfilling its' main role as a jack with the slip screwed in place. Possibly converted by someone who'd seen a door check plane in a carraige makers and wanted the use of one without the need to carry two planes to site.

The lower is a plough with a screw depth adjuster, used to "plough" grooves with the grain. It should have a set of 8 tapered plough irons, from 1/8 to 9/16 in in 1/8in increments of 1/16in . These normally have a rather distinctive v-groove up the back so that they'll rest on the steel sole plate a bit better

I'll now stand back whilst Alf tells me I'm completely mistaken.... again :wink: 

Scrit


----------



## Alf (15 Sep 2006)

Don't look at me. Having seen Philly's bookshelves I'm totally out-classed in reference books on wooden planes! :lol: Looks like rather a handy conversion on the jack, though. BPMs merely has the Rownson Drew & Co stamp and no other info at all, not even location. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Scrit (15 Sep 2006)

BPM = Goodman?

Don't you find it interesting how tradesmen were once more than happy to modify tools to meet an end?

Scrit


----------



## Alf (15 Sep 2006)

Yeah, sorry - British Planemakers from 1700 by W L Goodman, Edited by J & M Rees, 3rd Edition (I should have that handy to copy 'n' paste and save heaps of time. :lol: )

The altering and adapting thing is interesting, yeah. I've got one or two examples about the place - a skew rebate neatly turned into a moving fillister f'rinstance. Not so sure about the "bullnose" round, but the owner must have had a need for it. I must confess to having had the heebie-jeebies about doing it myself until coming under Rob's evil influence, and I do still pause for thought before starting. Our antipodean cousins don't seem to have a problem with it though. 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Scrit (15 Sep 2006)

The look of the slip reminds me of the removaeble slipd you see on some beaders, although for the life of me I've never found a need to remove one

Scrit


----------



## bugbear (15 Sep 2006)

-David-":3dtzj3qk said:


> Thanks for all your observations, I am now very much the wiser.
> 
> Because I have just learnt how to post pics today, please let me indulge myself and post these two planes. I promise not to add any more - honest!
> 
> No marks on this one.



Really? That does surprise me on such a nicely made tool. Check the toe front carefully, possibly cleaning it using a brass brush (e.g. suede brush) with thin beeswax and turpentine polish.



>



I've seen a few of these. I've always presumed (disclaimer) that they were an easier (hence cheaper) to build variation on the badger plane.

The ones I've seen have such a good fit with the slip piece, and such even and consistent patination between the slip and the body that I've presumed (again!) that this was factory made, not user converted.

BugBear


----------



## -David- (15 Sep 2006)

My apologies - old age / failing sight/ patina / grime etc. etc.

Yes bugbear - I. SORBY SHEFFIELD on toe (with logo in middle)

Alf - same excuses, the Rownson Drew & co has LONDON imprinted

David


----------



## Alf (15 Sep 2006)

Thanks, David; I've added an annotation to that effect in my copy of BPMs 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## MikeW (15 Sep 2006)

Scrit":llqpwt85 said:


> Don't you find it interesting how tradesmen were once more than happy to modify tools to meet an end? Scrit





Alf":llqpwt85 said:


> I must confess to having had the heebie-jeebies about doing it myself until coming under Rob's evil influence, and I do still pause for thought before starting. Our antipodean cousins don't seem to have a problem with it though.


And it is looked upon poorly here by and large--except as Scrit notes, by tradesmen.

Me--I'll modify something in a heartbeat. Beats buying another purpose-made widget even if it were available. Or fix something that came not quite right? Oh yeah. :lol: 

Take care, Mike


----------



## Scrit (15 Sep 2006)

MikeW":2w6sg86w said:


> Or fix something that came not quite right? Oh yeah. :lol:


Of you have any Stanleys then you must have been a very busy man indeed! I'm in accord with Patrick Leech that Stanley produced a veritable cornicopia of boat anchors to part the tradesman from his cash.

Scrit


----------



## Evergreen (15 Sep 2006)

David

You've had a feast of information from the experts. Now I may be able to add a crumb of interest from an amateur. 

Way back at the beginning of this thread you mentioned a "circlip type logo" under the name of Thos, Ibbotson & Co. I think you'll find the trademark is in fact a stirrup.

Regards.


----------

