# Infill component planes...designed & manufactured by Hol



## Ian Dalziel (12 May 2006)

With the demise of Shepherd Tools recently it is felt that there is still a demand for Infill planes in component form.

Having spoken with Karl on this subject I discovered he has been looking at doing this for some considerable time. Before such a project is embarked upon there is a need to do a bit of research and gauge just how popular these will be.

It is proposed that there will be 3 component planes

A…… thumb sized plane. 

B…… Smoother Plane. probably an A13 

C……Panel Plane….either a 15 ½” or 17 ½”


All 3 planes will be available in kit form or as separate components, leaving adjusters as optional. No timber infill parts will be provided. All customers will receive General arrangement drawings, templates and instructions along with the components.


All components will be made at a high standard of accuracy not yet achieved in this format. 

The product is aimed at the competent woodworker and they will be able to build it with minimal equipement. This means sides with holes already drilled, profiled and bevelled; dovetails with no more work other than peining; and the bottoms complete with frog already in situ and machined with mouth. The adjuster, if purchased, will be complete.
The planes will be stamped with Karls initials and the blades will be standard issue with the Holtey logo

The pricing will be slightly above than that set by the defunct Shepherd tools but still be accessible making it a viable project. 

It’s still early stages as yet and feedback would be appreciated. It is planned that there will be the smoother plane available for delivery before Christmas. They will only be sold off the shelf, no deposit will be required and customers will only be charged once product is ready for dispatch. 

Regards
Ian


----------



## Corset (12 May 2006)

While i wouldn't call myself competent. I fancied one of the shepards kit as iwould like a project i can do in my cellar so the wife doesn,t complain i am going off the other side of town all the time to use the workshop.
So a yes for me in the next 12 months or so.


----------



## Nick W (12 May 2006)

Surely the answer has to depend on the price. Any clues? A ballpark figure would do at this stage.


----------



## Ian Dalziel (12 May 2006)

Hi Nick,
Thanks for the response….its still very early days and we are trying to source materials that will not require the same amount of machining time. We haven’t priced the thumbnail plane yet …this will be our entrance plane but we have done some sums on the A13 ….this will come in the region of £390 - £450 plus the adjuster if required. We are aware that this is above shepherds prices but we are doing far more work to the component parts and too a very high standard which should make life easier for the builder.

Regards

Ian


----------



## MikeW (12 May 2006)

What's good about y'all entering the market at this time, sad to put it this way, is Shepherd's demise.

It showed a few things. First, kits will sell. Second, they were priced too low, were underfunded, and didn't have a good business plan.

Karl has proved he has staying power, the expertise to avoid certain build issues were it was attributable to manufacturing quality problems and has an established customer base--as well as those of us who have wanted one and couldn't pony up the dollars.

While at first blush the price seems high, it really isn't that high in the scheme of things. While I personally may not be able to afford it, people spend money on the things they really want, even if like me it will take some time to save enough money.

I hope this additional direction works well for y'all. And I hope that one day I can afford a kit. Never have built one--though the Scottish infill I received as a gift will come close by the time I rebuild it :lol: 

My best to y'all.

Take care, Mike


----------



## houtslager (12 May 2006)

hmmmmmmmm ifthe qualiy control is up to Karl's normal standards then ?I believe the two of you will be very busy once you launch these models. I for one have LUSTED after K's 95.
So please tell me you are also thinking of adding this model to the kits please please 

from HS in a hot and sweat inducing workshop in Germany :?


----------



## Ian Dalziel (12 May 2006)

Cheers Mike....

With Shepherds demise this is why we are asking if their is still a market
did they go under because they werent selling or couldnt supply.

still early days 

Ian


----------



## JesseM (12 May 2006)

I had seriously considered one of Sheperd planes a while back but was reluctant because of the bad press they had received. I would be definitely be interested in Holtey kit.


----------



## Frank D. (12 May 2006)

As I understand it (just my opinion here) Shepherd wasn't selling enough so couldn't supply. They had counted on sales to provide a cash flow which just never came.
I had a high interest in Shepherd kits, indeed they owed me several kits when they went under. While I have no doubt that Holtey et al. would provide only the higfhest quality components, the price is definitely beyond what I find reasonable for a kit. For just a little more money I could get Wayne Anderson to build me a new plane, thus saving me even more time. 
FWIW I can get a panel kit from St-James Bay Tool CO. for $215 US, and machined castings for most planes for $125-$150. Of course it might be a lot more work than what Holtey wants to offer, but at that price I'd certainly be willing to put in more time. 
Another consideration is that since this is a kit I'm not sure how much difference Holtey quality would show in a plane that has been assembled and finished by someone else. It seems to me there's a lot more to lose if you screw it up, and the final fit and finish still depends on your own skills.
This said, I haven't seen what might be offered. I certainly would look at it with an open mind and wish you all the best if you decide to follow through.


----------



## Ian Dalziel (12 May 2006)

Thanks Frank,
This is what i'm trying to guage....your opinions and feedback is invaluable

cheers

Ian


----------



## Paul Chapman (12 May 2006)

Ian,

Being retired and therefore on a limited income I will probably never be able to justify buying one, even though I would like one. So I'm not sure how relevant my comments are, but here goes anyway.

I remember reading a series of articles by David Charlesworth about building one of these kit planes (can't remember what make it was). The one thing I remember about the articles was all the problems he had with it and the lack of precision of the components. At the time I thought I would be really annoyed if I had spent all that money and had to do extensive work to correct poor manufacturing tolerances and techniques.

So I think the main issue will be getting the quality right. If you can do that you may well succeed. 

Quality will always sell. How well will depend on the price. Poor quality will only sell until you are found out.

I guess that most people who would buy one of your proposed planes would really like a Holtey - so they will be hoping the finished article will perform like one (within reason).

Hope this is of some help and good luck if you go ahead.

Paul


----------



## Frank D. (12 May 2006)

Paul,
The Charlesworth article was on a Shepherd kit. Wiley graciously sent me a copy of it, and CHarlesworth was definitely frustrated by the lack of precision of both the metal components and the infills (he had to remill). Having received 3 kits from Shepherd (one for me, two for friends) and looked at them for fit, it does seem that they had solved the problems that Charlesworth complained about. Everything lines up perfectly and no remilling of any parts is necessary.
One option Holtey might want to think about is offering a kit with no infills. It might bring the price down enough to make a kit accessible to more people. The wood necessary to make an infill does not cost that much, and many of us could handle making these parts fairly easily. It seems to me the biggest obstacle for anyone wanting to make an infill is the accurate machining of the metal parts, which would be long and painstaking to do by hand in a small home shop.


----------



## Paul Kierstead (12 May 2006)

Frank D.":1izr5fln said:


> Paul,
> One option Holtey might want to think about is offering a kit with no infills.


 
You must have missed it: "No timber infill parts will be provided." 

For a Canadian, in Canadian dollars, it is a shocking amount of money; the kind of money which stops and makes you think: What if I screw it up? 

OTOH, I can't see anyway other way I could afford an infill, so perhaps it is a sensible price. I might not mind doing more of the 'machining' work for a lesser price, assuming said work doesn't involve years worth of muscle memory to do it right (i.e. newbie friendly machining work). 

I do question having your name on anything other then the blade; I envision poorly made versions coming up on ebay as genuine....


----------



## Ian Dalziel (12 May 2006)

Paul Kierstead":1gf985vd said:


> I do question having your name on anything other then the blade; I envision poorly made versions coming up on ebay as genuine....



Thanks for your input Paul......The initials KH will be on the plane bodies. The blades will have his usual logo.



Ian


----------



## Anonymous (12 May 2006)

Approximate numbers based on Shepherd's newsletter was about 1000 kits over 5 years. In the early part of their business many kits were sold at a discount on ebay. 
Since you are looking at a price point that is more than double the Shepherd kits and not including the wood, I would have to think the market would be much smaller.
The only Shepherd kit I built was a shoulder plane. The parts fit perfectly and the only problem I had was a couple of gaps in my peining that make me ashamed to show it. I'm afraid if I built a Holtey kit, I might still have some poor peining or other finish problems.


----------



## David C (12 May 2006)

Paul,

Delighted someone read the articles!

They will be coming out in a third book published by GMC, this year.....please don't ask exactly when.....

The infill dimensions *did not *match the steel plates, and I later discovered through the grapevine that mine might have been from an early batch of kits. The instructions also left a lot to be desired and the photocopied Photos were awful.

I think it is generally accepted here, that throat plates are riveted in before sidewall peining?

However, the process is fascinating, and I was sufficiently pleased with the result to take it to the Axminster show. The result was only possible due to some invaluable telephone support from a famous practitioner!

David Charlesworth


----------



## Midnight (12 May 2006)

with all due respect to Karl's workmanship (says he being suitably gob smacked), an infill kit sold without the infill is.......what exactly...???


----------



## Jake (12 May 2006)

Pretty much all the metalwork done?


----------



## Midnight (12 May 2006)

but only when you've done all the thumb mashing yourself...

still trying to get my head round that kinda price for an empty shell...


----------



## mr (13 May 2006)

Not trying to be funny but what justifies spending that sort of cash on a tool in any case? I mean that seriously what justifies it? The things may look lovely, Im not referering to Holtey in particular by the way but if something cheaper perfoms at least as well then surely its the better tool, taking the word tool to mean something which performs its task as efficiently as possible. So how are we to measure the value to ourselves against which we can guage what price we might be prepared to pay. I can understand paying these levels of cash for works of art and theres no denying the level of production value for want of a better word that goes into these tools, but partially the value here is derived from the provenance. I cant help feeling that for £4K for a plane the thing better whisper sweet nothings to me while it works not just perform as well as another possibly mass produced cheaper brand. The only other option is that they are destined to sit in collectors cabinets and there's nothing wrong with that per se. The problem with kits for me is that while they appear to be an affordable route to ownership theyre really not the same thing at all. You cant make a work of art from a kit and as a tool in kit form there's no guarantee of superior performance.


----------



## dchenard (13 May 2006)

To me it seems that doing kits is not a good idea for Karl. He can't control what happens once the kits leave his shop, so if some of them are shoddily put together then sold on eBay or elsewhere, the Holtey name will be tarnished.

My personal opinion is that in Karl's case I would not take that chance. It takes years to establish a reputation, and seconds to destroy it...

If Karl is intent on making kits no matter what, I would humbly suggest that he uses a different trade name for the kits. Then, seeing "Holtey" on a plane remains a guarantee that this is "the real thing". 

Just my two pence,

DC


----------



## Jake (13 May 2006)

I can't believe that people have swooped so fast to discouraging this. I would never in a million years buy a real Holtey, but I could imagine possibly buying one of these in a thousand years. The difference is clear, in collector terms, because the plane body mark clearly marks it as a kit and not the real thing. I really can't understand why some many people would try and discourage KH from spreading a bit wider this way - unless perhaps there are personal but not yet specified fears of dilution of value at stake?


----------



## MikeW (13 May 2006)

dchenard":nq7k7fr5 said:


> To me it seems that doing kits is not a good idea for Karl. He can't control what happens once the kits leave his shop, so if some of them are shoddily put together then sold on eBay or elsewhere, the Holtey name will be tarnished.
> 
> My personal opinion is that in Karl's case I would not take that chance. It takes years to establish a reputation, and seconds to destroy it...
> 
> ...


Welcome to the forum, DC.

My understanding is that the iron will carry the logo/name, but the kit bodies are marked differently, and so distinguishable. 

As I've thought about this today, I think the major sticky point about kitted planes is the machined parts. The better the machining, the more assured the body will go together with less a chance of error. I can live with a few errant hammer dings. Over-filing in a desire to "get done" is another issue altogether. If that can be avoided form the start, so much the better.

Take care, Mike


----------



## dchenard (13 May 2006)

Jake":286bbkp4 said:


> I can't believe that people have swooped so fast to discouraging this. I would never in a million years buy a real Holtey, but I could imagine possibly buying one of these in a thousand years. The difference is clear, in collector terms, because the plane body mark clearly marks it as a kit and not the real thing. I really can't understand why some many people would try and discourage KH from spreading a bit wider this way - unless perhaps there are personal but not yet specified fears of dilution of value at stake?



For the record, I don't own a Holtey plane, neither do I plan to buy one, just not in my budget...

But, by pure coincidence, I stopped by a plane collector's house tonight to pay him for my previous purchases (which included a Shepherd kit...), and he showed me five or six Holteys he owns... Quite stunning... And I've seen Garrett Hack use a 98 last week, it just blew me away...

Yes, dilution of value is my concern, not for myself (I have no financial stake in this), but for the current owners. When you plunk down many thousands of pounds for one of Karl's offerings, there is an expectation of value, which is maintained by the fact that Karl only makes top of the line tools, under his full control. Once his name is associated with potentially "lesser" planes, all of his tools lose value. It could end up making him more money in the short term, but over the long term the name Holtey would lose value.

It's as if Mercedes-Benz started marketing Skodas (or any other low-priced car line) under its own name...

In the early '80s Cadillac in North America started selling the Cimarron, which was a low cost Chevrolet with tons of makeup on it. People weren't fooled, and it took years for Cadillac to rebuild its image. The same could happen to Holtey...

DC


----------



## MikeW (13 May 2006)

dchenard":234ugipn said:


> ...It's as if Mercedes-Benz started marketing Skodas (or any other low-priced car line) under its own name...
> ...
> DC


 :lol: Except in your illustration it is the [relatively] low cost car company [technically] making the Mercedes...

And perhaps the illustration is truer of the situation: it wold be me assembling a Mercedes, so to speak. Now, it may not have the resale value as a true Mercedes, but I don't think my kit car would affect the value of the true Mercedes...

Bad analogy aside, time will tell if Karl does go forward and whether a collector or user of Karl's planes lose any value out of this potential undertaking. My feeling is it could well up the value.

Take care, Mike


----------



## dchenard (13 May 2006)

I guess time will tell, eh?

I still think that if Karl goes ahead with this, it should be done under another trade name. Like Felder does with its Hammer line. You then know that a Felder is a Felder, and the Hammer can be anything without affecting the Felder name... Eliminates any potential confusion...

Just my opinion, 

DC


----------



## Alf (13 May 2006)

Who'd provide the telephone/email support for the kit makers...?
I also can't help but recall that Karl Holtey's estimate of price on his "lower cost" #98 fell short by just a teeny tiny bit...
And I think DC (no, not that one, the other one - welcome, btw) has a good point about not muddying the Holtey name.
Other than that, oh, and the fact I couldn't afford one, sounds like it's worth a further look...  

Cheers, Alf

P.S. David, exactly when is the new book coming out...? :wink:


----------



## Sgian Dubh (13 May 2006)

mr":3qcfpj5k said:


> ---what justifies spending that sort of cash on a tool in any case? I mean that seriously what justifies it? The things may look lovely, ----- but if something cheaper perfoms at least as well then surely its the better tool.



---what justifies spending that sort of cash on a _piece of furniture _in any case? I mean that seriously what justifies it? The things may look lovely, ----- but if something cheaper perfoms at least as well then surely its the _better piece of furniture_.

I have no urge to buy a Holtey plane myself-- ready made or kit. I can't afford one, and the planes I already have work fine for me. It would be nice to own one and if someone wants to dip their hand in their wallet and buy one for me---- well I wouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth, ha, ha.

I'd like to own a really high quality car, but can't afford one of those either. And the customers that buy the sort of furniture some of us offer for sale could just as easily nip down to IKEA or the second-hand shop.

Karl Holtey sells aspirational tools and there are some out there mr that have the wherewithal to splash out on one or more. I like to think that those of us that produce extremely expensive furniture are appealing to a similarly aspirational client base. Slainte.


----------



## Chris Knight (13 May 2006)

I love infill planes and even own a couple.. I also like making things but I have not been tempted by a kit plane at all and for the same reason that I wouldn't build furniture from a kit - it would give me very little satisfaction. If all the tricky bits are done by someone else it wouldn't feel like much of an accomplishment. Of course this is a personal thing and yes I have built model aircraft etc from kits so it varies even with myself.

I am certain I would not get as good a plane as if I bought one from an established maker with a good reputation and that would irritate me each time I used it, especially if the cost of the kit were a substantial proportion of what I would have to pay for the "real thing"

Having said that, kit car manufacturers do make a business in a similar way and people still buy their products.


----------



## Ian Dalziel (13 May 2006)

Thanks for all the replies....

I have been inundated with pms and emails on this issue and many thanks for feedback.

Infill Kits....it might mean there is a business in it but whether it is big enough to support X amount of people is something different. It might mean its a viable proposition for part time rather than full time. 
whether we price the kits higher or lower there are always going to be people who think its worth the money or not and it one of the reasons i'm asking the questions.

If it goes ahead there will be initally a a page on Holteys website under the projects heading. eventually there will be a new web site created totally seperate from the one he has. On here will be FAQ's and complete build instructions and pictures....then if the builder is still in doubt their will be email support..

As stated earlier its not cast in stone as yet but taking in different views gives us something to consider seriously....basic market research in its infancy but i think its a worthwhile excercise and hopefully when i sit down with Karl again we can make decisions that will be a straight forward yes or no to kits.

regards

Ian


----------



## mr (13 May 2006)

Sgian Dubh":ldu6tebe said:


> furniture [/i][/color]in any case? I mean that seriously what justifies it?



Precisely, what justifies that? That is entirely my point. There is always a justification for purchasing something which costs more than something else which is similar but not the same. The point being that the value is "held" in certain things. In this case the Holtey name and hands, remove those and the reasons may be gone.


----------



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

It strikes me that there are a few reasons for buying an infill kit. There is the desire to create something that was both functional and artistic. Then there is the desire just to own a high quality handplane along with reduced costs over the same plane that is purchased complete. 

There are some infill planes that are no doubt purchased by a majority as objects of art, and only used by a minority of owners. I suspect that Holtey falls into this category. The name of Karl Holtey is synonymous with The Best there is in handplanes and, since their very high price places them in the rare category, they are collectable. 

Will a Holtey kit be seen to be a "short-cut" to owning Handplane Nirvana? There are be pros and cons. Unfortunately, these planes will never be as valuable as a Karl Holtey-made Holtey. In fact, an unopened kit may eventually be more valuable than a built-kit! Such is the good name of Karl Holtey. Will this water down his name? I don't think that this will apply to his custom-built work since no one could/would pass these off as a true oil painting instead of the graphic reproduction, albeit a signed one, to a knowledgable collecter. 

But what of the kit plane as a user? Well, the price may appear a lot to those who aspire to LN, but many pay the proposed kit price and much more for custom planes (such as those of Wayne Anderson and Philip Marcou). I believe that Karl and Ian have it right with their plan to market an infill-less infill since it is the metal work that seems to scare off most would-be craftspersons. Hey, if you screw up the wood you can start again. I have little doubt that there will be sufficient standing in line to purchase the kit to warrant producing it. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Sgian Dubh (13 May 2006)

mr, I thought I'd pointed towards an answer to your question in my earlier response by making comparative statements and allusions that you'd pick up on and extrapolate an answer of your own, but perhaps not.

The reputation Holtey planes have is of superb engineering and each item is something of a piece of industrial art. They are reputed to work beautifully but I can't verify that as I've never used one. For that matter I've never seen one in the flesh. 

They just have that reputation built up over several years. Karl Holtey is a highly respected maker of the tools he makes in hand tool circles. His reputation goes before him. You don't get a bad plane from Karl Holtey, you get excellence.


If you want an el-cheapo bit of furniture that's poorly made (but actually excellent value for the peanuts you pay) nip down to IKEA and chuck a piece of boxed KD crapola from China or some other low labour rate country in the back of your car and assemble the wobbler yourself at home. Put it in the landfill two or three years down the road when it's fallen apart and you've finished with it. 

If you want that excellence you'd better be prepared to pay the price. Crying and whinging is not an option. Pay up, or shut up. You're in with the big boys now not with the great unwashed know-nothings that ponce around with Mickey Mouse monkey metal planes from B&Q that never work.


If you want an individualised bespoke furniture item designed and crafted to exacting requirements and needs by a maker at the peak of their powers, reputation, public acclaim and recognition ask an Alan Peters (who is sadly not well) or a John Makepeace and commission them to do the job. In the same way, you're now in with the big boys. Don't think about complaining about the price. You don't ask if you can't afford these guys.

What determines that a Makepeace or a Peters is better than an IKEA item. Answer that question and I think you'll have an answer to the Holtey phenomenom. Slainte.


----------



## Ian Dalziel (13 May 2006)

Sgian Dubh":376jwg56 said:


> Mickey Mouse monkey metal planes from B&Q that never work.


LOL thats one i havent heard before

many thanks sgian for your feedback...it is well thought out and written but i dont want to start any arguments over something i am trying to guage and have the mods remove the feedback.

for wiw Karls planes are in a league you probobly wouldnt think possible. 
he is a cabinet maker by trade and turned engineer and is highly skilled in both areas which lends itself well to what he does. He has standards that he works too and produces something for a purpose and not a price but the latter inevitably kicks in this is also something that is very rare these days.
I have picked up some valuable information over the last few days and many thanks for all who have contributed


Derek,
thanks for your support.

like everything in life quality has a price you either accept it or dont. I remember thinking a LN was pricey now i think its cheap, not because he reduced the price but because i now have a different perspective on toolmakers products.

regards

Ian


----------



## Noel (13 May 2006)

Dubh,

That's a very elitest and unwelcome attitude you've expressed and the personal insults are totally uncalled for. So what if people buy from Ikea or B & Q? If they're happy, surely that's the best reason in the world to make that particular choice and likewise for those people that purchase a Holtey or similar item.
We're only talking tools here, no need to get so angry.

Noel


----------



## mr (13 May 2006)

Noel":386uga9b said:


> Dubh,
> 
> That's a very elitest attitude you've expressed and the personal insults are totally uncalled for.
> Noel


YOu should have seen his unedited version. :wink: He also appears to have missed my point entirely. Rather than whinging about the price or questioning the value I was asking whether the object is greater than its function and whether by removing the thing that makes it great you remove its value entirely. But never mind eh.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (13 May 2006)

I wasn't 'angry' Noel, just plain spoken. I didn't make personal insults. I made general observations on the choices we all make, or have to make. You probably noticed that I said IKEA furniture is actually very good value for money-- perhaps you didn't. I can't tell.

I believe you are incorrect in your "we're only talking tools here," comment because when you sell planes for hundreds or thousands of pounds each, that is by definition, elitist. 

If it was a common or garden tool everyone could buy one without troubling their bank balance or savings unduly. Holtey planes are outwith my financial scope. Perhaps if I was rich enough I'd buy one of everything he offers--- after all they're reputed to work beautifully. I can't afford them, therefore his offerings are for people in a significantly higher tax paying bracket than I am.

There is nothing wrong with that. Western society isn't egalitarian and we can't all buy top of the range things. Most of us get around in ordinary cars, live in typical run-of-the-mill houses, and fret about paying the next round of bills. Slainte.



Noel":zqj7fmgk said:


> We're only talking tools here, Noel


----------



## Sgian Dubh (13 May 2006)

Again mr, I thought I'd answered your question. What makes a Holtey plane great? They work extremely well (so it's said) they are (to my eyes anyway) beautiful examples of industrial art, and they have a reputation of engineering excellence amongst the hand tool cognoscenti.

What else can I do to make my point? What makes a Hockney painting valuable, a Titian, a Vettriano, a Matisse, an Emin installation, or an embalmed shark or sheep from Damien? They're all artists that are highly sought after. It's hard to fathom out why in some cases, but their work commands large or even vast sums.

Somehow these artists have a reputation and people will pay hundreds of thousands, or even millions of pounds to own one of their pieces. The reputation would have come from those that 'understand' and 'talk' about art. They could all be talking through a hole in their head for all that most of us know, but their opinion has weight and word gets around that an artist is 'collectable.'

Sometimes trying to describe what makes one persons work valuable over anothers is hard. You could possibly pick up a Holtey plane and compare its performance against any other plane to see whether or not the talk is merited. Or it might be that we just have to take the word of those in the know regarding the excellence of his tools if we're never going to get the chance of using one in anger for ourselves. Slainte.


----------



## Midnight (14 May 2006)

> If you want that excellence you'd better be prepared to pay the price. Crying and whinging is not an option. Pay up, or shut up. You're in with the big boys now not with the great unwashed know-nothings that ponce around with Mickey Mouse monkey metal planes from B&Q that never work.



  

soft words... softly spoken.. 

<making a note that today was obviously a good day.


----------



## Ian Dalziel (14 May 2006)

We have got a picture of parts that will be used for the kits. Things will differ slightly and the name stamp wont be used but rather initials. 

this picture will appear on the his projects page shortley

We are trying to show the quality of kit parts that will be offered if it goes ahead.


Ian


----------



## Paul Chapman (14 May 2006)

8) 8) 8) 

Paul


----------



## Alf (14 May 2006)

Very luscious. Not sure I'd have the nerve to bring a hammer within 10 feet of it though... :shock:  

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Colin C (14 May 2006)

:shock: 8-[ ( mutters to self, I must not look I must not look)
Dam its not working 8) :tongue9:


----------



## Corset (14 May 2006)

Wow. They look awesome. All i can say if you like, you can afford it and it makes you happy buy it. I've wasted £1000s on rubbish things like cars which lose 30% of there value when i sat in them the first time. Hobbies don't make sense that is why they are fun. If i can afford one in years time on my birthday i'm all for it.


----------



## Horst Hohoff (14 May 2006)

Hello,
Corset takes the words out of my mouth. 
I was seriously thinking of buying a Shepherd kid. If the price doesn't exceed the calculated figures too far, the A13 would attract me much more than any of the Shepherds.


----------



## houtslager (14 May 2006)

houtslager":127azwdq said:


> hmmmmmmmm if the qualiy control is up to Karl's normal standards then ? I believe the two of you will be very busy once you launch these models. I for one have LUSTED after K's 95.
> So please tell me you are also thinking of adding this model to the kits please please
> 
> from HS in a hot and sweat inducing workshop in Germany :?


----------



## Ian Dalziel (14 May 2006)

Alf,
you dont want to be taking hammers to it....theres trickery to everything :roll: :lol: 


Ian


----------



## Alf (15 May 2006)

Ian Dalziel":94o5xe39 said:


> Alf,
> you dont want to be taking hammers to it....theres trickery to everything :roll: :lol:


Yuri Geller mind bending the dovetails together? He's gonna work out expensive to hire isn't he...? :lol:

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Shady (15 May 2006)

> Alf,
> you dont want to be taking hammers to it....theres trickery to everything Rolling Eyes Laughing



Darn it - now I'm getting seriously interested - it was the thought of that foreign land called 'metalworking' that had me scared off after reading DC's review... We shall see - must resist... self-control weakening...


----------



## mahking51 (15 May 2006)

Alf
Ian has probably knocked up a multi faceted , diamond/ruby/plutonium laser peiner over the weekend to save using a hammer.   
Martin
(Also getting slight salivary tinglings, which is never a good sign....)


----------



## Ian Dalziel (15 May 2006)

Alf":27uxrzyc said:


> He's gonna work out expensive to hire isn't he...? :lol:
> 
> Cheers, Alf



probobly :roll: 

The accurecy of the dovetails will be to less than a thou therfor you wont need to bash it with a big mash hammer to get it to fit. punches are better and more accurate.

Martin can i assume its tickling your fancy and you might have a go.....


Ian


----------



## mahking51 (15 May 2006)

Ian
You may assume exactly right!
BTW have a look at my mystery object you are bound to know what it is!
Regards
Martin


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (15 May 2006)

I have a premonition. We will see Holtey plane kits purchased by some, who then contract well-known cabinetmakers to build them. This developes a new market:

Karl Holtey, styled by Garret Hack
Karl Holtey, styled by David Charlesworth
Karl Holtey, styled by James Krenov (can you imagine what he would make?!)
Karl Holtey, styled by ................. 

Probably would cost less than a Karl Holtey, styled by Karl Holtey. :lol: 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Alf (15 May 2006)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Karl Holtey, styled by .................


...Trinny and Susannah?


----------



## dedee (15 May 2006)

Are you sure a metalworking novice would be able to put one of these kits together? I'd be happy to volunteer :roll: and I would not charge you for what I see as essential market research :wink: 

Andy


----------



## Wendell (15 May 2006)

Ian Dalziel":av952iyz said:


> The accuracy of the dovetails will be to less than a thou therfor you wont need to bash it with a big mash hammer to get it to fit. punches are better and more accurate.
> 
> Ian



Can you give more details on the punches you use? After reading about using punches for infill building, I tried to use a punch on my Shepherd thumb plane kit. I ended up with deep dimples that are going to take significant sanding/filing to remove. I suspect that either I don't have the right shaped punch (it has a somewhat pointy nose) or I was overly aggresive with it.

Wendell


----------



## MikeW (15 May 2006)

Already signed up on the website, Ian :lol: 

Great news about going forward. My very best to you both.

Take care, Mike


----------



## Ian Dalziel (15 May 2006)

Good Bit of news,

It is now going to happen......Karl has put up a new page on his website via the projects heading.

I would be grateful if people from here who are interested sign up for his updates.

Thanks to all who gave honest opinions and answers and we hope to make it work.

regards

Ian

goodness Mike you were quick


----------



## Paul Chapman (15 May 2006)

The very best of luck with your venture, Ian. I'll probably never be able to afford one but it will give me something nice to dream about  

Paul


----------



## Ian Dalziel (15 May 2006)

Hi Wendell,
sorry i missed your post earlier....its been a busy day. 
It sounds like your hammer is maybe to big and you are hitting too hard.
a very small hammer and 2 or 3 nice round tip punches dont inflict damage to surrounding areas and doesnt buckle the plane. Punches also make your aim accurate but most of all dont rush...


Ian


----------



## engineer one (16 May 2006)

having studied the photo provided by ian, i can see very little to really 
frighten a non metalworker.

peining over the metal pieces to ensure that the metal dovetails
do not pull out, is only a gentle idea of persuasion, not clouting with 
a bloody girt hammer.

given the way in which i believe that Karl makes his planes, and thus 
may well make his kits, the amount of metal which needs to be 
spread is not that great, so only should require "gentle massaging".

what you need as a punch is, as suggested a rounded bottom one, 
not a pointed one, and maybe only a 4 0z warrington type hammer.
what some might call a cross pein one.

i think anyone who has made their own wooden dovetails by hand,
could given time and patience make one of these. 8) 

so i have started saving too, and hope that i can get one if the queue
is not too long. then the only problem is what wood to put in as 
the infill. any ideas about what are the best selections of wood
for infills???/

any way my 2cents

paul :wink:


----------



## Shady (16 May 2006)

> any ideas about what are the best selections of wood
> for infills??



2 issues here: functionality, and appearance. Functionally, you want stable and heavy wood. Appearance wise, it's your plane - whatever you like that fits that bill!!

classics include rosewood and ebony... Have a look on HNT Gordon's site under this link for some nice - and some frankly weird (check out the set of bright pink 'things'!!) - choices for plane wood:

http://www.hntgordon.com.au/specialtywoodcat.htm


----------



## bugbear (16 May 2006)

Ian Dalziel":2dg8gdgq said:


> a very small hammer and 2 or 3 nice round tip punches dont inflict damage to surrounding areas and doesnt buckle the plane.
> 
> Ian



For the sake of explicit detail, Ian;

* What diameter of punch tip?

* Are the round tips full hemispheres, or more like a hammer face (slightly rounded)

* when you say "small hammer", what head weight?

BugBear


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 May 2006)

For those that are more uninitiated than I - I have some but not much experience of peining - the type of hammering one does is really very gentle. It is more like Chinese Water Torture, with a drip .. drip .. drip, than anything with heft and anger. This permits a lot more control than one realises.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Nick W (16 May 2006)

Perhaps Karl should supply a punch with the kit?


----------



## Ian Dalziel (16 May 2006)

Bugbear,
I'm at work right now and not due home until next week....my punches are different sized and i dont have the sizes here. My hammer is probobly around the 4oz mark which works well try tapping your finger and you'll find out the force it can land......different stokes for different folks.....there are different ways for doing lots of things....i did it the shepherd way and will never do it again....i've done it the 'Holtey way and yes its better for my style.

Infills can be anything even something here that will shock the purists
http://www.ivoryalternative.com/pages/otherproducts.html

' what an infill plane done in plastic' :shock: :roll: ooohhh yesssss

its coming....thats an exclusive here...no movement.... bring it on


Ian


----------



## Alf (16 May 2006)

Erm, wouldn't it be a bit slippery to hold...? :-k Ack well, whatever. I can see sourcing suitable timber for the infills could be a potential problem though.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Wendell (16 May 2006)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> For those that are more uninitiated than I - I have some but not much experience of peining - the type of hammering one does is really very gentle. It is more like Chinese Water Torture, with a drip .. drip .. drip, than anything with heft and anger. This permits a lot more control than one realises.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



This assumes you didn't over file the dovetails (DAMHIK) in the first place. Maybe with right punches I wouldn't have had to apply as much force to fill the gaps. On the other hand maybe I was just pineappled that I overfiled the dovetails in the first place and needed to vent 

Wendell


----------



## Ian Dalziel (16 May 2006)

I have also had a few emails with regards to my involvement with Karl

To avoid any confusion i wish to make my position clear....I am helping with researching,marketing, promoting, and with the build instructions of the componet planes.

The component planes will be designed and manufactured entirely by Karl Holtey



hope this clears up any confusion

Ian Dalziel


----------



## bugbear (16 May 2006)

Alf":3u1z49k4 said:


> Erm, wouldn't it[man made ivory] be a bit slippery to hold.



Since french polished hardwoods are the norm (oops) here, I don't see any extra difficulty.

BugBear (whose handles are only danish oiled)


----------



## Ian Dalziel (16 May 2006)

bugbear":9zcnvj13 said:


> BugBear (whose handles are only danish oiled)



actually Bugbear....Thats what Karl Holtey uses....I have also started to use it as Its very difficult to hide any blemishes with oil in fact its almost impossible 


I


----------



## Shady (16 May 2006)

> Erm, wouldn't it be a bit slippery to hold...?



Nope - a very similar form/function debate is centred on gunstocks. The tradition is beautiful walnut and the like, but synthetics offer dimensional stability, total imperviousness to water, sweat and oils, and greater strength...:








It's just a question of what the user wants, and how you shape, finish and etch the surface. I love traditional tools, and use them extensively, but I prefer them to be functional before they have to look beautiful - does that make sense? 

Sorry, I'm a bit 'wound up' tonight - the regiment I served in for 18 years is just arguing over its amalgamation, and I've received an emotive letter from a retired officer I really respect. He's wrong about the course of action, but his pain is a sadness to feel. Anyone need anyone killed, or just roughed up a little? - it'd make me feel a whole lot better to indulge in some meaningless violence...


----------



## ike (17 May 2006)

> Anyone need anyone killed, or just roughed up a little?



Erm, yes please!. Shall I PM you the details? 
I don't know what the going rates are, but do you do mates rates for UKWorkshop membership like?
 :twisted:


----------



## philip marcou (17 May 2006)

As a professional cabinet maker and potential planemaker here are some thoughts:- 
Kit planes produced by Karl Holtey can only be good for both woodworkers and those keen to try their hand at making a plane. Those woodworms unable/unwilling to pay the price of a completed plane can get something potentially just as good-but the difference must be made up with their own labour input-fair deal methinks. Those wanting to make a plane can get into it gradually by use of a kit, rather than go off the deep end: they gain confidence and see how each component should be made. One could even use the parts as patterns for producing a tweaked version-if one is a bit dodgey. 
Folk should stop whingeing about prices-qualitymust be paid for. I think those ballpark introductory prices sound on the low side, as I cannot see any lowering of standards happening just because the end product is now a kit. 
Altogether a winwin situation I would think.[/img]


----------



## Alf (17 May 2006)

All right, all right, anyone else want to jump on me while I'm here? :roll: T'was just a musing on my part. Anyone want to slap some garolyte on the sole while you're about it? 

BTW, welcome to the forum, Philip.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## Anonymous (17 May 2006)

Alf":2cfsph0i said:


> All right, all right, anyone else want to jump on me while I'm here? :roll: T'was just a musing on my part. Anyone want to slap some garolyte on the sole while you're about it?
> 
> BTW, welcome to the forum, Philip.
> 
> Cheers, Alf



Of course not, Alf. I'm (nearly) always on your side :lol: . 

Some random musings:
I have used the infamous garolyte plane and it is OK. You don't see the green stuff on the sole while you are working, you don't touch it.
Synthetics for on a plane (or firearms) are nothing new. Gutta Percha has been used on both in the past, i.e. Colt revolver grips and tote on the Champlain patent planes. I would rather hold wood and my planes are not subjected to hunting conditions such as a duck blind in a swamp. :lol: 

Welcome, Phillip, I am an admirer of your work.


----------



## philip marcou (19 May 2006)

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/ ... aller1.jpg 
Thanks to Roger and Alice for their messages of welcome.
Here is a picture of the smoothers that are currently in production (by me).
The real thing- fully assembled-no further work to do.....


----------



## philip marcou (19 May 2006)

Sorry about that last transmission- after finally working out how to get an image onto the message said images have turned into mirages!
Maybe Derek Cohen will be able to retrieve them....
BTW, what is Garolyte?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 May 2006)

I am in the process of completing a review of Philip's smoother, so I have several pictures to hand. Here are a few:
















I will leave it to Philip to say more.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 May 2006)

Philip asked:


> BTW, what is Garolyte?



I suspect that the current topic of using plastic (and similar synthetics) for plane bodies was based on Malcolm McPherson's recent post on Knots regarding his use of Delrin:

http://forums.taunton.com/fw-knots/messages?msg=29791.1

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Alf (19 May 2006)

Ah, garolyte goes back a few years to Badger Pond. Roger will better remember the details than I, but basically there was a certain amount of to-do amongst folks when Steve Knight made a plane with a garolyte sole (for better wear I think?). Toys were thrown out of prams in all directions, IIRC. :lol: It's been a bit of a running joke amongst some neanderthals ever since.

Cheers, Alf


----------



## philip marcou (19 May 2006)

Thanks Derek. The pictures are showing two planes there-both smoothers, bevel up Veritas bladed with adjustable mouth.The one is fitted with Imbuia handle and knob, the other with Rhodesian Teak. I welcome comments, questions, even criticsm from the assembled ranks of planeophiles out there.
Garolyte-thanks Alice you confirmed my worst suspicions. May the Load spare us , but there is some mighty garish artificial stuff out there-Iwouldn't want to see it on even my A.K47 imitation weapon......BUT, then again there , there are other choices which may just barely find a place on a plane that I may make-I am talking of certain grades of TUFNOLL and MICARTA, both known to those who like custom made knives. However, there is nowt to beat good wood, I believe.


----------



## Paul Chapman (19 May 2006)

They look lovely, Philip  

Paul


----------



## bugbear (19 May 2006)

philip marcou":1bmdfg2u said:


> I am talking of certain grades of TUFNOLL and MICARTA, both known to those who like custom made knives. However, there is nowt to beat good wood, I believe.



Here's a TUFNOL (I think) small router. The plan was published in a magazine IIRC. This one was bought by Bill Taggart.







BugBear


----------



## philip marcou (19 May 2006)

> Here's a TUFNOL (I think) small router. The plan was published in a magazine IIRC. This one was bought by Bill Taggart.


Yes, Bug, that looks like the layered type of tufnoll. There is another smooth brown one which polishes up nicely and makes great handles, jig bodies etc. Would make a practical plane handle, should one suffer a rush of blood to the head. 
I have a nasty suspicion that these products contain noxious substances when sanded or heated.


----------



## Frank D. (19 May 2006)

Hi Philip,
You do lovely work. 
I remember seeing your plane on another forum, and I was wondering why you chose a bedding angle of 15° (IIRC). The bedding angle on the 98 is slightly over 20° (I always forget the exact angle), which, for an A2 blade sharpened at an optimum 30 or 32°, gives a planing angle of around 52-55°. As I see it the a higher bedding angle gives more clearance and, along with the sharpening angle that isn't too big, contributes to longer cutting life between sharpenings.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (19 May 2006)

> I was wondering why you chose a bedding angle of 15° (IIRC).



I will try and answer that Frank, since Philip is probably still tucked up in bed.

There are similarities between Holtey's #98 and Philip's smoother, but there are many more differences. The #98 is designed as a dedicated smoother with a cutting angle in the York range (actually, the bed is 22 degrees and the bevel is 30 degrees, so the cutting angle is 52 degrees). I discussed the design with Karl and he noted that the length was 9 1/2" + 1" overhang from the tote. It weights 2 kgs. 

Philip's smoother is substantially larger and heavier. It is about 11" long and weighs 4 kg. The length comes from adding sole where the tote overhang would be. I will say more about this in the review. Essentially, the plane is a long smoother/short panel plane. It is also intended to function on a shooting board. So the bed angle must accomodate these options, in the same way as the Veritas LA Smoother and LA Jack do. The 15 degree bed is really just a "rounded up" number to make it easier to determine cutting angles. Philip is also building more dedicated smoothers with a bed angle of 20 degrees. It is my contention that this higher bed permits a lower bevel angle, which should hold a sharp edge longer than a higher bevel angle on a lower bed.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Frank D. (19 May 2006)

Hi Derek,


Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> It is my contention that this higher bed permits a lower bevel angle, which should hold a sharp edge longer than a higher bevel angle on a lower bed.


That's what I suspect too, hence my question, but the shooting capabilities explain the lower bedding angle (especially since I seem to be the only one who prefers a 20° bedding angle for shooting too...).
Thanks,


----------



## Ian Dalziel (19 May 2006)

very nice Philip,
Lot of work in this.....i saw it a few weeks ago from derek....have you had difficulties in peining with your dovetails at that angle.

I use a purpose made dovetail cutter at 77 degress which leaves a 13 degree dovetail. these are not cheap and i wondered about going the route of 45 degree cutters or not, i was just a bit hesitent at that angle, i got a bit concerned of overpeining .....hardening it ......then chipping but yours look fine.


The plastic i was referring to will be tortoiseshell and going on a very popular stainless plane soon.....nuther exclusive....beautiful

Ian

coat....going


----------



## philip marcou (23 May 2006)

Thanks Ian. Actually there seems to be confusion over the description of angles and dovetail cutters- I use a "60 degree" cutter, which gives a 30 degree dove, I believe. Anyway, it is a standard(expensive) cutter. I treat them with some care as the sharp look is dependant upon them.


----------

