# Buying a Dick woodworking plane from Dictum



## Rhossydd (31 May 2015)

Has anyone here actually bought a Dick woodworking plane from Dictum ?
eg https://www.dictum.com/en/tools/woodwor ... =szmoX6-D_ 
With the only other alternative low angle jacks available in the UK are either poor quality like the Stanley or expensive like the Lie Nielsen & Veritas. With the current euro exchange rate being so good the Dick looks a good deal

Searching back through the forum it's alleged that these are from the same factory as Quangsheng/Wood River etc so ought to be decent quality, but I can't find any specific reviews online of this brand.

Does anyone actually own one of this brand and can comment on build quality please ?


----------



## pedder (31 May 2015)

Woodriver, Dick, Quengshang, Juuma, they all are made by the same factory, but to the quality goals of the retailer.
I'd never buy a Dick plane, becaue of the colour. The brown is... brown and doesn't work with the beech.
I'd buy Juuma or in England Quengshang from workshop heaven. 

Cheers 
Pedder


----------



## David C (31 May 2015)

Brown is a very strange choice!

David


----------



## Peter Sefton (31 May 2015)

The Dick plane is not the same as a WoodRiver and a Quangsheng is different again. I have the latter two in my kit and you can see the Dick is a different design from those seen in the UK.

Cheers Peter


----------



## RogerP (31 May 2015)

David C":c5909m9b said:


> Brown is a very strange choice!
> 
> David


... well it's certainly different. But not as bad as the sickly lime green of one maker!


----------



## Rhossydd (31 May 2015)

Colour is irrelevant. All I'm interested in is how well it's made and performs.


----------



## JJ1 (31 May 2015)

If you can stretch the budget a little by another 74 euros you can get the Veritas Low Angle Jack which is an outstanding plane. Not an answer to your question but just another option that may, or may not be of interest. At least you know you'll definitely be getting a top end plane with a proven track record.


----------



## Rhossydd (1 Jun 2015)

JJ1":3t3buty3 said:


> the Veritas Low Angle Jack


The problem with that particular model is that it doesn't have machined sides, so isn't so suitable for use on a shooting board.
Another issue is the cruder mouth adjuster on the Veritas low angle models.
Plus the jack/jointer planes are quite a lot bigger than the smoothers.
The Quangsheng and Dick low angles at 355mm seems just the right sort of size I'd like.


----------



## Vann (1 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":3ihn2ev4 said:


> JJ1":3ihn2ev4 said:
> 
> 
> > the Veritas Low Angle Jack
> ...


Ahem 




Looks good for shooting to me. And at 15" long it's very close to your preferred 355mm... (hammer) 

Cheers, Vann  .


----------



## woodbrains (1 Jun 2015)

Hello,

The Veritas LA jack is absolutely machined square for use on a shooting board, it was one of its design criteria. It has machined recesses in the sides for the thumbs when using it on its side. I'm not sure about the mouth adjustment being crude, either. It is extremely finely machined and has a settable stop, so mouth settings are retained when opening to remove the blade, and coarse work. It also stops the toe hitting the blade if the plane is run into a bench stop or the likes. Obviously a bit dearer than the Dick plane, but made to a higher quality, for sure. And not brown!

Mike.


----------



## JJ1 (1 Jun 2015)

> The problem with that particular model is that it doesn't have machined sides, so isn't so suitable for use on a shooting board.
> Another issue is the cruder mouth adjuster on the Veritas low angle models.



Really!!!! Who told you that? Low angle jack planes don't come much better.

The sides are perfectly square to the sole and the plane is superb for use on a shooting board. I wouldn't regard the mouth adjuster as crude either. It's as smooth as silk and can be fully opened or closed to within a fraction of the plane iron with a simple twist of the front knob. It doesn't get much easier and less crude than that IMO.
It's an outstanding plane and one I certainly wouldn't want to be without.





> Plus the jack/jointer planes are quite a lot bigger than the smoothers.
> The Quangsheng and Dick low angles at 355mm seems just the right sort of size I'd like.



The jointer is obviously much bigger but the jack isn't, the Veritas is approximately 37 1/2 cm long.


----------



## Rhossydd (1 Jun 2015)

OK, I stand corrected about the machining. I'm mixing up the jack and jointer.
However I can't see the LA jack on Dictum's site, so where is it only 74 euros more than the Dick ?

The Dick works out at £135 delivered, the cheapest Veritas I can find in the UK is £275.

and I still don't like the Veritas mouth adjustment.


----------



## JJ1 (1 Jun 2015)

> However I can't see the LA jack on Dictum's site, so where is it only 74 euros more than the Dick ?




Dieter Schmid - Fine Tools


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Jun 2015)

It looks ok as a tool. However I'm not sure I could own a Dick plane. The amount of "banter" I'd experience in our workshop does not bear thinking about.


----------



## pedder (1 Jun 2015)

You'd certainly need a second one, a Kunz. A Dick is nothing without.
(hammer) 
:shock:


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Jun 2015)

:lol: Roflamo :lol:

I could start the banter but I think I'd be banned within seconds!


----------



## Jacob (1 Jun 2015)

JJ1":38k8xx2u said:


> ......I wouldn't regard the mouth adjuster as crude either. It's as smooth as silk and can be fully opened or closed to within a fraction of the plane iron with a simple twist of the front knob. It doesn't get much easier and less crude than that IMO.
> It's an outstanding plane and one I certainly wouldn't want to be without.......


I dumped mine on Ebay I couldn't see the point having all that money locked up in one very ordinary plane. But I agree - the mouth adjuster was very good, and better than the alternatives (Stanley mouth adjuster or bedrock design).
However the LV and the Dick both have the Norris lateral adjuster, which is hopeless, which is why it went out of fashion in the first place. You need a little hammer for fine adjustment. They both really are retro and rather stupid designs.

I've tried a few of these heavy expensive retro design planes and am not impressed. It's always a pleasure to get back to the old Stanley/Bailey variations.

If I wanted to spend time fiddling with novelty planes I'd do it with old woodies - they are at least very cheap!


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Jun 2015)

You never know Jacob, order one from Germany. You might enjoy fiddling with your.... :lol: . Ok no more :lol:


----------



## Rhossydd (1 Jun 2015)

Wow, 36 hours before a dick joke and Jacob butts in and says anything new isn't worth buying.

Thread now dead with no really constructive comment then :-(


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Jun 2015)

Sorry dude, they look decent enough planes. I'm sure it'd be perfect for anything you'd encounter.


----------



## MIGNAL (1 Jun 2015)

You might be lucky to get a definitive answer on this Rhossydd. Probably because not many in the UK have bought that particular plane. 
I'd be extremely surprised if it was 'hopeless', not many planes are. 
I've had a few planes with the Norris adjuster, including one on my Veritas apron Plane. Not my favourite type of adjuster but it's hardly problematic. 
What about the Quangsheng version? There's probably more people who have experience of that particular plane, a bit more expensive, though less than the Veritas.


----------



## woodbrains (1 Jun 2015)

Hello,

Like them or not, Norris adjusters (or a variation of) are fairly essential for LA planes. The minute amount of forward adjustment results in a fairly large difference in cutting depth, due to the geometry of those planes. In any event, they are not exactly difficult that the average woodworker could not get super precise adjustment with them, which is their point. Their lack of popularity or their demise, had nothing to do with their functionality; they were available on expensive planes and the cheap always seems to prevail. Contending that Norris adjusters are inferior is like saying micrometers are inferior to tape measures! Everything in their place.

I'm still confused about the OP's dislike of the Veritas mouth adjustment. It is positive, precise and extremely well made, I can't see how it could be bettered. The only difference I can see on the Dick and other variation is the brass cam adjuster, which works, but adds no precision, since using an arc to move the toe piece linearly is inconsistent. I and many others I know remove them from their block planes, anyway.

Mike.


----------



## n0legs (1 Jun 2015)

Buy the plane, if it's no good send it back.
If it's a keeper please review it here. FWIW the colour doesn't bother me either.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2015)

woodbrains":2ytusu6u said:


> Hello,
> 
> Like them or not, Norris adjusters (or a variation of) are fairly essential for LA planes. The minute amount of forward adjustment results in a fairly large difference in cutting depth, due to the geometry of those planes. In any event, they are not exactly difficult that the average woodworker could not get super precise adjustment with them, which is their point. Their lack of popularity or their demise, had nothing to do with their functionality; they were available on expensive planes and the cheap always seems to prevail. Contending that Norris adjusters are inferior is like saying micrometers are inferior to tape measures! Everything in their place.......


They simply don't work as well as the Stanley Bailey design. Both to/fro and lateral adjustment is coarser and less positive. 
The S/B isn't a cheap alternative it requires more engineering and has been designed to work effectively - it's the S/B which is closer to the micrometer in your comparison - you've got it the wrong way round!
You get to know this if you have a lot of planing to do and have several planes to do it with: speed of sharpening and super precise ease of adjustment become important and the S/B is streets ahead.
The Norris adjuster looks nice and logical and is cheaper engineering, but that's about it. 
Retro styling: Emperor's old clothes anyone? :lol:

PS another thing that p'd me off about Norris adjusters is the way they come out with the blade and you have to fiddle about getting it back in place. But if they aren't a tight fit then they are too sloppy - you can't win!


----------



## JJ1 (2 Jun 2015)

> PS another thing that p'd me off about Norris adjusters is the way they come out with the blade and you have to fiddle about getting it back in place. But if they aren't a tight fit then they are too sloppy - you can't win!




Not if you remove the blade carefully they don't. Having used my low angle jack most days for the last two years I would say the adjuster has come out 2-3 times at the most and it's hardly fiddly popping it back in place. Considerably less fiddly in fact than having a screwdriver to hand, removing, reinstalling and resetting a chipreaker, attaching the cap iron, etc. etc. Not to mention adjusting the frog position,etc.
I find the set up couldn't be quicker and less fiddly in fact. The Norris adjuster certainly allows for extremely fine adjustments. Horses for courses I guess.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2015)

JJ1":3fmr76c3 said:


> > PS another thing that p'd me off about Norris adjusters is the way they come out with the blade and you have to fiddle about getting it back in place. But if they aren't a tight fit then they are too sloppy - you can't win!
> 
> 
> Not if you remove the blade carefully they don't. Having used my low angle jack most days for the last two years I would say the adjuster has come out 2-3 times at the most and it's hardly fiddly popping it back in place. Considerably less fiddly in fact than having a screwdriver to hand, removing, reinstalling and resetting a chipreaker, attaching the cap iron, etc. etc. Not to mention adjusting the frog position,etc.
> I find the set up couldn't be quicker and less fiddly in fact. The Norris adjuster certainly allows for extremely fine adjustments. Horses for courses I guess.


It's a bit of a myth - in fact "fine" adjustment on a Norris is not as fine as a Stanley/Bailey. I was surprised too when I did a side by side comparison - I thought there must be some point in having a Norris adjuster but no there isn't - they are worse in every respect.

On mine (LV 4) the adjuster came out every time. 

I've got stay-set cap irons on most of my S/B planes and they are the one added extra worth having IMHO. I never adjust frog position. Also thanks to the thinner blade the sharpening downtime is very small compared to many of the new ones. Which is why they were such a success, in their day, and still my favourite if I actually have to do a lot of planing. 
I just did a load of long 4x4" newel posts, face and edge (too cumbersome for the planer but OK through the PT after hand flattening) so I put them all to the test! Basically down to a Record 5 1/2 for jacking down, a 22" woody for an arris and a Stanley 7 for straightening/smoothing.
The Stanley has an old Stanley laminated blade and after a lot of use I get the feeling that it's the best of them all. It's very subjective you can't be sure.


----------



## iNewbie (2 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":1n210q5w said:


> Has anyone here actually bought a Dick woodworking plane from Dictum ?
> eg https://www.dictum.com/en/tools/woodwor ... =szmoX6-D_



Currenly out of stock This UK company has that same plane listed on their site. Probably more expensive than Dick's price though.


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Jun 2015)

woodbrains":1ma2o4k4 said:


> Like them or not, Norris adjusters (or a variation of) are fairly essential for LA planes.



Not so. The Lie Nielsen #164 low-angle smoothing plane uses a Bailey-style adjuster. It works really well and, in my experience, far better than the Norris-style adjusters used in the Veritas low-angle planes.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2015)

Paul Chapman":3ao8p5zg said:


> woodbrains":3ao8p5zg said:
> 
> 
> > Like them or not, Norris adjusters (or a variation of) are fairly essential for LA planes.
> ...


Right there yer go then! I didn't know that. Am I right in thinking that other LN low angle planes with norris style adjusters don't have lateral adjustment via the lever, or did I imagine it?


----------



## woodbrains (2 Jun 2015)

Paul Chapman":2vuadwme said:


> woodbrains":2vuadwme said:
> 
> 
> > Like them or not, Norris adjusters (or a variation of) are fairly essential for LA planes.
> ...



Hello,

The exception that proves the rule, since it is the only one and done so because the rear handle would foul a Norris. Their other LA planes have Norris as well as LV and almost any LA block plane having a variation on the Norris theme. I'm never arguing the Bailey adjuster is bad, just different. Not a single argument against the Norris adjuster is either true or actually relavant. Once the lateral adjustment has been made, once only, it is set until next sharpening. Not hard to do and unlike Baileys, will not be knocked out again, with that silly lever back there. Depth adjustment on the fly, never done it and can't be done on hammer adjustable woodies anyhow, not something to miss not having. I definitely don't miss 2 turns of backlash on sloppy Baileys either!

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jun 2015)

woodbrains":2dt71dc8 said:


> .......Not a single argument against the Norris adjuster is either true or actually relavant. Once the lateral adjustment has been made, once only, it is set until next sharpening......


Hmm that says a lot. :roll: Anybody doing any serious planing knows that the lateral adjuster is immensely useful - if it works!

Clever that LN 164 - the adjuster sits on top instead of underneath. But does it adjust laterally?
https://www.lie-nielsen.com/product/low ... ing-plane-


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Jun 2015)

Jacob":mm2uou7g said:



> Clever that LN 164 - the adjuster sits on top instead of underneath. But does it adjust laterally?



No - I use a small hammer for lateral adjustment.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## JohnCee (4 Jun 2015)

Paul Chapman":v15su4cx said:


> woodbrains":v15su4cx said:
> 
> 
> > Like them or not, Norris adjusters (or a variation of) are fairly essential for LA planes.
> ...



Pain in the buttocks when you want to use the plane on a shooting board, though.


----------



## Paul Chapman (4 Jun 2015)

JohnCee":3t2c3pf9 said:


> Paul Chapman":3t2c3pf9 said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":3t2c3pf9 said:
> ...



Not if you have one of these (which also has a Bailey-style adjuster)





Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Andy Kev. (5 Jun 2015)

Jacob":20rwyvdm said:


> JJ1":20rwyvdm said:
> 
> 
> > ......I wouldn't regard the mouth adjuster as crude either. It's as smooth as silk and can be fully opened or closed to within a fraction of the plane iron with a simple twist of the front knob. It doesn't get much easier and less crude than that IMO.
> ...



Have you had the chance to see this clip where the chap compares and contrasts BU vs BD planes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnrOtbnUaVg

In essence he says that he thinks BU planes, being mechanically simpler, are great for beginners but he finds that with time he has moved more and more to BD while saving the BU for certain situations.

When I bought my first plane I went for BU mainly because by looking at the thing it was crystal clear how it worked. Last week I took delivery of a BD jack plane and I've still not achieved competence with it although that is obviously down to my need to acquire the necessary skills. I can't see that tapping the blade with a little hammer to adjust a BU plane is a problem (I do it when I need to). I've also found that by moving the mouth close towards the blade, I can see very quickly and accurately whether it is straight or not.

It's fairly obvious from all the accounts on here that both systems work equally well, the big advantage of BU being mechanical simplicity. I wonder what the key advantage for BD is?


----------



## Jacob (5 Jun 2015)

Andy Kev.":nw8mqza6 said:


> ......
> It's fairly obvious from all the accounts on here that both systems work equally well, the big advantage of BU being mechanical simplicity. I wonder what the key advantage for BD is?


If you are actually doing a lot of planing, speed and ease of sharpening the thin blade becomes very important. I think this is probably the single main reason for the rise of the Stanley/Bailey design. 
The next main reason is ease of adjustment - the S/B is best and most precise by far, as compared to Norris adjusters or woodies.

LN LV keep reintroducing things from the back catalogue - then it's just a matter of time before we discover why they were in the back catalogue in the first place (i.e. they were not good enough - deficient in one way or another). :roll:

PS that video is 27 minutes long! That's about 25 minutes too long!! Didn't watch it.


----------



## Andy Kev. (5 Jun 2015)

Jacob":yjxvtp8d said:


> Andy Kev.":yjxvtp8d said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...


You're a professional so I respect that anything which offers more speed/efficiency is to be siezed upon. However, is it not so that most of the time sharpening is confined to touching up the secondary bevel? No difference there but you're right that it will take a couple of minutes longer on a BU when doing the primary bevel. Time's not an issue for me as an amateur.

I have to say that I've yet to come across a deficiency in my three LV BU planes (Jack, Jointer and BU Smoother).

The video could actually run at about 8 mins. He needs to sort out some script cards in advance! However, you'd probably find time to watch it while you were having a brew. He does make a lot of interesting points.


----------



## Corneel (5 Jun 2015)

When you have trouble with tearout, you need a higher cutting angle in a bevel up plane, while you can set the chipbreaker closer to the edge in a BD one. The first strategy causes more resistance (plane is harder to push) and it tends to push the edge out of the cut instead of pulling it into the wood, like a 45 degree plane does. The capriron also helps, when it is not quite close enough to the edge, to prevent the depth of tearout, while a single iron plane is more all or nothing, it either leaves a smooth surface or it rips out chunks.

These are factors not very obvious on first sight, but could be one of the explanations why double iron plaes took over the market in the 19th century.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jun 2015)

Andy Kev.":3tc05y8b said:


> ....
> I have to say that I've yet to come across a deficiency in my three LV BU planes (Jack, Jointer and BU Smoother).
> 
> ......


You won't, until the going gets tough :shock: 
Then when push comes to shove they are all outa the window except an oldish Record 5 1/2 with a thin but laminated blade. The plane of planes; nonpareil.


----------



## n0legs (6 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd, have you ordered the plane yet :?: 

Another Jacob against the world topic :roll:


----------



## Rhossydd (6 Jun 2015)

n0legs":21j7qutp said:


> Rhossydd, have you ordered the plane yet ?


Not yet, with no reviews or user reports, it's a bit of a gamble. If I do I'll report back on what it's like.



> Another Jacob against the world topic


Yes, just tedious unhelpful and irrelevant comments spoiling yet another thread :-(


----------



## Jacob (6 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":xdmark1i said:


> n0legs":xdmark1i said:
> 
> 
> > Rhossydd, have you ordered the plane yet ?
> ...


Just buy it if you want it you don't have to listen to anybody else!


----------



## MMUK (6 Jun 2015)

Jacob":hc2v5icz said:


> Rhossydd":hc2v5icz said:
> 
> 
> > n0legs":hc2v5icz said:
> ...



And you don't HAVE to post rubbish all the time. But you do :wink:


----------



## Andy Kev. (6 Jun 2015)

Rhossydd":2gfwgbpr said:


> n0legs":2gfwgbpr said:
> 
> 
> > Rhossydd, have you ordered the plane yet ?
> ...



The only woodworking course I've managed to attend was run by Garret Hack who you probably know is a bit of a guru on hand planes. He expressed the view that the Dick planes aren't quite up to scratch. I know that that hardly constitutes a review or user report but his views are probably worth taking into account. For what it's worth, if you save the extra money and get the Veritas BU jack plane, I do not think you will be disappointed. I can't fault mine.


----------



## Rhossydd (6 Jun 2015)

Andy Kev.":2hrmlwll said:


> The only woodworking course I've managed to attend was run by Garret Hack who you probably know is a bit of a guru on hand planes. He expressed the view that the Dick planes aren't quite up to scratch.


Thanks, an interesting view. Although a lot will depend on what he's comparing them to.
At the price, I wouldn't expect perfection, but it would be nice to know what compromises there are with them.


> For what it's worth, if you save the extra money and get the Veritas BU jack plane, I do not think you will be disappointed. I can't fault mine.


I've handled one in Axi and although it's very nicely made, there's just something about it that didn't convince me to get the credit card out. The Lie Nielsen 164 might tick the boxes though.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jun 2015)

MMUK":oqpeqjej said:


> Jacob":oqpeqjej said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...


Not rubbish at all. 
There's a lot of self deception goes on about these fancy bits of kit - such as the idea that the Norris adjuster is "better" or more precise then the S/B. This is completely wrong.
But if you prefer self deception and wishful thinking, you don't _have_ to let reality get in the way of your shopping - just go for it! :lol:


----------



## Rhossydd (6 Jun 2015)

Jacob":2tx2t8m0 said:


> Not rubbish at all.


No, he's right.
Your contributions to this thread have been unwanted and useless, the exact definition of rubbish.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jun 2015)

Go on just buy it - we all you know you want to! :lol:


----------



## Peter Sefton (6 Jun 2015)

I have the Veritas Low Angle Jack and it is one of my favourite planes, the only thing I don't like about the Noris adjuster is that it sometimes comes out when removing the blade but otherwise fantastic.

Cheers Peter


----------



## iNewbie (6 Jun 2015)

Jacob":233gvhpp said:


> MMUK":233gvhpp said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":233gvhpp said:
> ...



The self deception and wishful thinking is only in your own world. Thats ok though, we're not living in it. Thats the only reality here.


----------



## Andy Kev. (7 Jun 2015)

[/quote]Not rubbish at all. 
There's a lot of self deception goes on about these fancy bits of kit - such as the idea that the Norris adjuster is "better" or more precise then the S/B. This is completely wrong.
But if you prefer self deception and wishful thinking, you don't _have_ to let reality get in the way of your shopping - just go for it! :lol:[/quote]
I don't think this is about self-deception and wishful thinking. Consider this: I have more or less mastered my Veritas BU jack plane i.e. I can get it to do what I want it to do without any difficulty and I understand how all its components interact.

On the other hand my new old Bailey style jack plane is still resisting my efforts to get to the same state. It's crystal clear, given the number of people like yourself, who get the right results every time with a Bailey plane, that the reason for this is that I have yet to develop the necessary user skills. I assume I will get there over the next few months. I will, however, be surprised if I can ever get it to produce _better_ results with a piece of wood than my Veritas.

The Norris adjuster certainly works albeit it with your rider that sometimes the blade needs a light hammer tap for final adustment. Peter Sefton (above) reports mild annoyance at said adjuster popping out of its hole when removing the blade. For anybody who can live with the resultant three seconds needed to put it back in, that isn't a reason to discount consideration of this kind of plane. In fact it provides the perfect opportunity to smear a very thin film of oil on the lower side of the adjuster.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jun 2015)

Andy Kev.":1n1th7dp said:


> ....
> The Norris adjuster certainly works albeit it with your rider that sometimes the blade needs a light hammer tap for final adustment. ....


I'd call that "not working properly". The S/B adjuster is finer and more positive in both directions - in/out and lateral. You won't need a hammer!
Yes the S/B adjusters often have slack but this is OK as long as you get a positive feel as the slack is taken up. Norris are also prone to slackness but don't have that positive feedback - you sometimes can't be sure that you are moving the blade.


----------



## Andy Kev. (7 Jun 2015)

Jacob":axogzptb said:


> Andy Kev.":axogzptb said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...


Whereas I accept it as a characteristic of the design with which I can happily live. It takes me little time to do and so I don't mind. An alternative would be to ease off the pressure on the cap and use the mechanism directly, then do the shaving test on a small offcut (as seems to be recommended for all types of planes) which would probably, come to think of it, take up about the same time as it takes to adjust the cut on a BD plane.

The point is that I think for most people other than the busy professional, that such a factor is not a big deal. Once any necessary adjustment is made, the plane stays set and then you get to what matters: the results.


----------



## Corneel (8 Jun 2015)

For your information Andy, it is certainly not recommended to test every plane setting on a piece of scrap. That's too much faffing around. You sight down the sole to look for the blade projection. Then any finetuning is done on the work itself. 

BTW, I only have experience with a norris adjuster on blockplanes. They work fine enough. I have more trouble with the cap. Each time I removed the blade I must find the exactly right clamping tension again. Too tight and the adjuster hardly moves, too loose and the blade can move. A knuckle cap blockplane is much easier in that regard.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jun 2015)

Corneel":2adu56ta said:


> ...
> 
> BTW, I only have experience with a norris adjuster on blockplanes. They work fine enough. I have more trouble with the cap. Each time I removed the blade I must find the exactly right clamping tension again. Too tight and the adjuster hardly moves, too loose and the blade can move. ...


Surely that's another description of them _not_ "working fine"? Though no suggestion of "fine" adjustment with a hammer :lol: 
We used to have a TV which you could fine adjust by thumping it on the side.

Yes they work but not very well, as everybody seems to admit, but reluctantly. 

What makes the difference with the S/B? Well the S/B is more complex with more components and lower gearing (more leverage = finer adjustment). I wonder if the main detail is the piece of spring steel under the lever cam. Maybe this gives firm downwards pressure but with less frictional resistance to the movements of the blade? But I suspect it is the total design which counts.


----------



## Corneel (8 Jun 2015)

Exactly. I am a big fan of the Bailey design. Works as advertised, despite the amount of slop in my antique ones. I am a big fan of wooden planes too, but must confess, adjusting them is quite a bit more fidly.


----------



## MIGNAL (8 Jun 2015)

You need a transitional, best of both worlds. :wink:


----------



## Corneel (8 Jun 2015)

It seems so! But they are rare on the ground overhere.


----------



## MIGNAL (8 Jun 2015)

They are rare over here too. I suppose you could import one from the US or. . . . build your own:

marples-transitional-revival-t88700.html

They are very good for certain aspects, like the true use of a Jack plane in softwoods and medium density hardwoods. I've even used it across the grain in Indian Rosewood, using it like a gentle scrub plane, thick shavings. No plane I've ever tried (and I've tried a few) is faster or indeed more comfortable to use. They are lighter in weight than your average woody Jack, by a significant margin. But rather like many things in life, it's advantage is also a disadvantage in certain circumstances. The light weight doesn't like gnarly difficult grain. You can use it on such grain but it means the user has to put in more effort to prevent it being deflected. To a certain extent that defeats the objective. 
I'm going to start a shorter smoothing plane version shortly, probably at York pitch or slightly higher. That should negate the disadvantage of lightweight woodies. Slightly harder to push but much lighter in weight, the higher pitch dealing better with tearout.


----------



## Corneel (8 Jun 2015)

Watch out Mignal with higher pitch. A 45 degree plane has a strong downwards pulling force on the edge. It keeps the blade in the cut so to speak. Higher pitch reduces this effect quite a bit. So a light weight plane with a high pitch doesn't sound like a very good idea. You must bear down on it even more.


----------



## MIGNAL (8 Jun 2015)

6 or 7 years ago I made a small smoother woodie at 65 degrees. It's not too bad. 
If the transitional proves to be too problematic I'll take the Plane apart and reconfigure it, so it's going together with Hide glue. :wink: 
Unlike the guitar that I'm restoring that dates from 1750(ish). Someone obviously decided that the best way to fix it was to use 10 tubes of superglue on the inside and on the soundboard cracks. :shock: 
Complete incompetent nutters.


----------



## MMUK (8 Jun 2015)

At the end of the day each of us has our own preference for either Norris or Bailey, LN/Isles or Stanley/Record.

Personally I'm more than happy with my mottley collection of second hand Stanley and Record planes mixed with my bargain basement Faithfull and Silverline offerings. I can achieve what I consider good results with any of them. Certainly good enough for what I want and need.

I'm sure you'd find it extremely boring if everyone decided to agree with you, Jacob :wink:


----------

