# Karl Holtey - flattenning



## bugbear (7 Jul 2009)

I was interested to note that Karl considers a surface grinder a bad choice for flattening a plane sole;



Karl Holtey":3qr53rni said:


> as grinding generates heat the structure would be compromised.



I'm assuming Mr Holtey know how to use a surface grinder to its full potential, so this is quite a statement, given how often a surface grinder is represented as the ultimate sole-flattener.

He is also rather careful to avoid any clamping distortion on the plane body when he (machine) flattens.

However, I do take issue on one minor point:



Karl Holtey":3qr53rni said:


> After peining, the amount of removal necessary to bring about a flat surface would be far too much for filing or abrading.



Filing simply takes more time and patience (and the correct use of a reference). The method I recommend is very accurate, but labour intensive, at least compared to machines.

However, to a home-shop worker, it has the remarkable benefit of proving consistent high accuracy with low(ish) capital cost.

BugBear


----------



## Jamesc (7 Jul 2009)

As an engineer I'd take issue with this statement. Certainly when dry grinding heat is generated. However if the machine is set up correctly you have a huge mass of cast iron to act as a heat sink so with care heat is not a problem. 

However just about all commercial surface grinders have inbuilt coolant systems (as does my machine at home). With coolant even quit aggressive cuts can be made which no discernable heating taking place. 

Hand methods can certainly produce good results (certainly good enough for all woodworking purposes), and I for one much prefer the look of hand scraped machines. Given that modern surface grinders are capable of producing optically flat surfaces so perfect that two pieces of metal can be joined by molecular bonding I think it fair to say that the surface grinder wins on flatness. 

Perhaps a better statement would be a dry surface grinder if used too aggressively can generate sufficient heat to distort the sole. 

If you really want to get technical have a look up the effects of carbon transfer from diamond grinding wheels into steel tools. A lot of very local heat is also required so I think we are all safe with our diamond stones. 

Kind Regards 

James


----------



## Mikey R (7 Jul 2009)

Jamesc":1wthmez8 said:


> As an engineer I'd take issue with this statement. Certainly when dry grinding heat is generated. However if the machine is set up correctly you have a huge mass of cast iron to act as a heat sink so with care heat is not a problem.



Some of Karl Holteys planes are steel sole with brass sides, so maybe the two metals will distort like a bimetal strip when heated? Also, I guess there are more internal stresses with the dovetailed joints than in a cast iron plane?


----------



## Jamesc (7 Jul 2009)

Hi mike, 

Sorry obviously didn't make myself clear. The huge mass of cast iron is the surface grinding machine. When I was taught to set one up we tried to get a good level of metal to metal contact to minimise any twisting loads and to allow any heat generated to harmlessly pass into the body of the machine. Modern coolant systems take away the heat so effectively that even on my own machine with a home-brew coolant system I cant detect any warming even after fairly heavy grinding. A surface grinding should be a finishing process so you shouldn't need to make very heavy cuts, my machine is graduated in 10ths of a thousandth of an inch!. 

Anyway please don't think I'm criticizing Holtey's planes or techniques. It's just that like with any discipline if you ask 5 engineers the best way to do a job you will have 10 different answers. I just took issue with the seeming sweeping statement. 

Kind Regards 

James


----------



## Mikey R (7 Jul 2009)

Jamesc":wytlqv4e said:


> It's just that like with any discipline if you ask 5 engineers the best way to do a job you will have 10 different answers.



So true!


----------



## woodbloke (7 Jul 2009)

Jamesc":y2sisj8p said:


> you ask 5 engineers the best way to do a job you will have 10 different answers.


...and if you ask 5 different woodworkers the best way to hone a blade you'll end up with 1000's of different answers :lol: - Rob


----------



## head clansman (7 Jul 2009)

hi

just seen this thread as I've just arrived in Holland to visit my daughter , Karl was perfectly right , any plane which has had a grinder used to flatten it sole, is only fit for one thing in the bin . hc


----------



## bugbear (7 Jul 2009)

Jamesc":12amo1u1 said:


> As an engineer I'd take issue with this statement. Certainly when dry grinding heat is generated. However if the machine is set up correctly you have a huge mass of cast iron to act as a heat sink so with care heat is not a problem.
> 
> However just about all commercial surface grinders have inbuilt coolant systems (as does my machine at home). With coolant even quit aggressive cuts can be made which no discernable heating taking place.



That's what I thought - and indeed, elsewhere on Karl's blog he shows a surface grinder, lubricant flowing, preparing his raw stock?!? 

He does (tantalisingly) say of the miling:



Karl":12amo1u1 said:


> Although time consuming this system does work and I can achieve some tight tolerances of +/- .0015. This is only a way of removing the excessive material. The rest of the flattening process is another story.



BugBear


----------



## Mikey R (7 Jul 2009)

head clansman":pa2ljs2i said:


> hi
> 
> just seen this thread as I've just arrived in Holland to visit my daughter , Karl was perfectly right , any plane which has had a grinder used to flatten it sole, is only fit for one thing in the bin . hc



I wonder what tool Ray Iles uses to regrind the soles of his planes. He has a lot of old Stanleys and Records go through his shop, I doubt he grinds a scrapes them all by hand!


----------



## matthewwh (7 Jul 2009)

I must admit when I touched the sole of a plane being finished in the Clifton factory it was absolutely stone cold, they run a constant flow of coolant from a huge sump and the carriage pauses for a few seconds between passes, the whole process takes around 15 minutes per face. Mr H does mention that the grinding process is inappropriate for infill planes specifically, due to their thin walled box section although I don't fully understand why. Any chance you could expand on your earlier comment Martin?

I'm quite impressed that he matches Clifton and LN's accuracy standard of half the tolerance required by British Standards before he starts his flattening process!!! He says that he doesn't abrade them against a true surface but the only other way I can think of to improve upon 0.0015" is to abrade them against each other in threes - the same way that straight edges are made. 

I'm certainly looking forward to the next blog entry!


----------



## JohnCee (7 Jul 2009)

Mikey R":1oa35okl said:


> head clansman":1oa35okl said:
> 
> 
> > hi
> ...



I realise that this is a rhetorical question, but he uses a surface grinder, just like Lie-Nielsen, Clifton and Veritas do. 
With the greatest respect to all concerned, the suggestion that a surface ground plane is only fit for the bin is balderdash, poppycock and piffle.


----------



## Mr Ed (7 Jul 2009)

I'm no engineer, so I'm not going to enter the debate about the pro's and con's of the various methods of surface flattening. I have however dabbled in minor bits of toolmaking enough to realise that the products that Karl outputs are achieving unbelievable levels of accuracy and finish compared to what most can achieve. That being the case, I'm prepared to take his word for it that he knows more about the best way of doing these operations than the rest of us.

Cheers, Ed


----------



## Karl (7 Jul 2009)

EdSutton":3giq4nzt said:


> I'm prepared to take his word for it that he knows more about the best way of doing these operations than the rest of us.
> 
> Cheers, Ed



I agree Ed - given his wealth of high end experience, I doubt ANY of us are qualified to disagree with his methods.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## PaulO (7 Jul 2009)

Jamesc":2uf7wxme said:


> With coolant even quit aggressive cuts can be made which no discernable heating taking place.



I don't think throwing large amounts of coolant on the infill material is a good idea. If you look at the images he is machining the soles with the infill fitted, presumably as the infill may slightly distort the sides / sole. Although I thought the through tubes aimed to minimise that.

I would be interested to know if he surface grinds the base of the 98 and 982. 

The other consideration is the size of the fixtures he uses to clamp the assembled plane may not fit under his grinder.

I knew someone who used to buy a new Aston Martin every year. As part of the deal he spent a week each year at the factory as a trainee learning a different aspect of its construction. I wonder if Karl would accept the same sort of arrangement. Just need to check down my sofa then my apprenticeship can begin.


----------



## TheTiddles (7 Jul 2009)

Let's see if we can't spark a full-on forum fight...

Bearing surfaces in medical implants, bits of space craft, reflectors in telescopes, machined components so accurate and precise they have replaced gemstones for calibration... are all made using commerical grinding techniques, they're that good.

So how come they aren't good enough for a wood scraper?

If only someone would use a stress-releived ductile alloy like bronze or cast iron to make planes, then we could have much more accurate planes for a fraction of the price of an infill plane... :roll: 

Aidan


----------



## Modernist (7 Jul 2009)

What a load of self indulgent hype.

tolerances of 0.0015 are more than adequate for a wood plane and the suggestion that surface grinders render a wood plane compromised is rubbish.

Get real and get out there and do some woodwork instead of all this pointless anal discussion.


----------



## bugbear (8 Jul 2009)

PaulO":1gfzh63q said:


> I knew someone who used to buy a new Aston Martin every year. As part of the deal he spent a week each year at the factory as a trainee learning a different aspect of its construction. I wonder if Karl would accept the same sort of arrangement.



For the same annual expenditure, I'm pretty sure he'd be happy to!

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (8 Jul 2009)

Modernist":3oa7v5fn said:


> What a load of self indulgent hype.
> 
> tolerances of 0.0015 are more than adequate for a wood plane



Heh. I don't think Karl is aiming at "adequate".

BugBear


----------



## Modernist (8 Jul 2009)

bugbear":14kmmcxl said:


> Modernist":14kmmcxl said:
> 
> 
> > What a load of self indulgent hype.
> ...



I wonder if he is aiming at making tools to plane wood or, perhaps, something else?


----------



## PaulO (8 Jul 2009)

Modernist":10r674hd said:


> tolerances of 0.0015 are more than adequate for a wood plane and the suggestion that surface grinders render a wood plane compromised is rubbish.
> 
> Get real and get out there and do some woodwork instead of all this pointless anal discussion.



A £1 digital watch from the petrol station tells time as accurately as a [insert name of expensive watch here]. However, lots of people would rather have the more expensive watch, me included. Holtey is making a product which exhibits superior engineering to *all* other brands of plane. All of my LN planes have required work on the sole (except the #8 ), chipbreaker and blade. Having completed that work they will probably perform as well as a Holtey. In his blog he acknowledges that the level of flatness he aims for is probably over the top. Fortunately there are plenty of people like me that admire his attention to detail and will continue to covet or buy his products.

I think a lot of the issues surrounding grinding of plane soles come from the difficulty in adequately supporting it evenly and without distortion. The top of a plane has all sorts of knobly bits to make holding it difficult. Stanley, LN, LV and Clifton have fixtures to allow them to attempt this for volume production. They are by no means perfect (or even arguably sufficient) as you can easily see if you hold a straight edge up to any of these brands.


----------



## lurker (8 Jul 2009)

Modernist":f7989ndv said:


> I wonder if he is aiming at making tools to plane wood or, perhaps, something else?



Why Sneer?

The bloke has found a niche market and filled it.
He has a full order book.
His work & name is recognised worldwide
I assume he lives a happy life

Who are you to question the motives of his customers?


----------



## wizer (8 Jul 2009)

I had a few Holtey's once. But I got bored of them....


----------



## lurker (8 Jul 2009)

wizer":pmqm9aoi said:


> I had a few Holtey's once. But I got bored of them....



Do you have any left up in your loft?
Are you sure - would you double check.
PM me your sales price ( I have £100 burning a hole in my pocket!)


----------



## Karl (8 Jul 2009)

Modernist":13n7pag1 said:


> What a load of self indulgent hype.
> 
> 
> Get real and get out there and do some woodwork instead of all this pointless anal discussion.



There are many posts on this website to which the above could be said, but is it your place to tell people what to have a discussion about???

Cheers

Karl


----------



## wizer (8 Jul 2009)

lurker":33wd1a9v said:


> wizer":33wd1a9v said:
> 
> 
> > I had a few Holtey's once. But I got bored of them....
> ...




They're not worth that...






Sorry, that was a step too far. I'd love a full set of Holteys and wouldn't think twice if I had the cash spare. 




Back to arguing over the minute details...


----------



## bugbear (8 Jul 2009)

Modernist":27mab7wa said:


> bugbear":27mab7wa said:
> 
> 
> > Modernist":27mab7wa said:
> ...



Oh, they definitely plane wood. They may tick "other "boxes" too.

BugBear


----------



## karl5005 (8 Jul 2009)

Jamesc":3ms2udwe said:


> As an engineer I'd take issue with this statement. Certainly when dry grinding heat is generated. However if the machine is set up correctly you have a huge mass of cast iron to act as a heat sink so with care heat is not a problem.
> 
> However just about all commercial surface grinders have inbuilt coolant systems (as does my machine at home). With coolant even quit aggressive cuts can be made which no discernable heating taking place.
> 
> ...



I will try and answer all your points James. I am not an engineer and I have had to gain all my knowledge through experience and common sense.

The item that I am grinding is basically a U section of mild steel so fits the description of a thin walled box section. Whatever work holding method you can use it will be suspended above the surface of the chuck. Therefore does not have the benefit of the heat sink. This could still be a problem even if it was flooded with coolant; it takes a very small temperature change to cause distortion. This is one area in which I do have experience. Where there is a small increase in temperature, which is barely detectable by touch, a plane body of say 10” long would want to bend and this would be upwards into the grinding wheel, by several thou. Considering that I like to work with a half thou cut this can be catastrophic. Even if the depth of cut was increased by another half thou this would just generate more heat and then the whole thing compounds. Things could go a bit pear shaped.

If you look closer, as someone else has commented, you will see that the plane already has its wooden infill and I don’t think I would want to spread coolant over this.

My No 982 plane was born out of many difficulties of which the grinding was one of them. Now I am producing super flat even textured surfaces which might be a common goal for all of us.

I have nothing against surface grinding and I try to use this method where ever I can.

Karl Holtey


----------



## karl5005 (8 Jul 2009)

Mikey R":1de9r3jf said:


> Jamesc":1de9r3jf said:
> 
> 
> > As an engineer I'd take issue with this statement. Certainly when dry grinding heat is generated. However if the machine is set up correctly you have a huge mass of cast iron to act as a heat sink so with care heat is not a problem.
> ...



I do not like using bimetals and I make it a rule that I don't make dovetailed planes in brass and steel over 10" long. Where there are any reasonable temperature changes you are quite right there will be flexing.

Karl Holtey


----------



## karl5005 (8 Jul 2009)

bugbear":2rx2dws2 said:


> PaulO":2rx2dws2 said:
> 
> 
> > I knew someone who used to buy a new Aston Martin every year. As part of the deal he spent a week each year at the factory as a trainee learning a different aspect of its construction. I wonder if Karl would accept the same sort of arrangement.
> ...



Yes, please

Karl


----------



## karl5005 (8 Jul 2009)

head clansman":3jxmesz4 said:


> hi
> 
> just seen this thread as I've just arrived in Holland to visit my daughter , Karl was perfectly right , any plane which has had a grinder used to flatten it sole, is only fit for one thing in the bin . hc



Quite a lot of newly discovered antique infill planes usually end their days on the grinding table.

Karl Holtey


----------



## Mikey R (8 Jul 2009)

karl5005":zb32a7cs said:


> I do not like using bimetals and I make it a rule that I don't make dovetailed planes in brass and steel over 10" long. Where there are any reasonable temperature changes you are quite right there will be flexing.
> 
> Karl Holtey



Thanks Karl - and thanks for the blog and contributing on this forum! Its really interesting seeing your processes and your products part way through the process!


----------



## Modernist (8 Jul 2009)

Well my comments seem to have stirred up some deeply held views.

It was not my intention to stifle debate but to make the point that there is a dividing line between making planes for even extremes of use and planes almost as "art" objects. 

It is normal to expect to do some fine finishing to any new blade and someone made the comment above that having done that then there was little or no difference between the serious quality brands. I doubt that any re-finishing to the bed of any of the big 3 would produce any noticeable improvement in end result.

There is a danger that the craft gets too precious as we see with those drooling over planes containing "shavings from the master"

Anyway each to their own


----------



## head clansman (8 Jul 2009)

hi Karl

all my planes have been flattened by hand , I'm no engineer i can't afford the luxury of the machine that some have , and don't have that sort of experience to use those machines anyway , if i cant find the puff to do it after a half days work and it still need more flattening then it's simple bin it , it aint worth the effort and if it needed that much time spent on it it wasn't right in the first place.

excellent blog , keep it coming when it's quit tonight I'll take a more in depth look see , really enjoyed what i seen earlier. hc


----------



## ivan (8 Jul 2009)

When doing careful work a shaving is 1 to 1.5 thou thick. If the plane is not flat you won't get a shaving!

Using stop shavings and a flat plane on a furniture sized part will get it about 2 thou concave; no bumps to upset your square, and flat enough to give accurate dimensions when squaring across a carcass part.

Cast iron moves with time; both LN and Clifton planes have been out of spec at purchase time by 3 or 4 thou, and those in spec have later moved outside the mfrg limit. Flattening will thus be needed periodically until the casting settles down. You can do a fair job with wet/dry/film on a granite plate, as evidenced by engineers blue.


----------



## PaulO (8 Jul 2009)

Modernist":1niukv21 said:


> I doubt that any re-finishing to the bed of any of the big 3 would produce any noticeable improvement in end result.



Sorry but you are just plain wrong. If you have a plane from the big three with a sole you haven't touched I'd be happy to prove you wrong.

But maybe your standards of work are lower than mine? :wink:

As I said in my previous post I have flattened the sole of five LN all of them were improved ( #5, large shoulder, #9, block plane, 112 scraper). I'd go so far as to say the shoulder plane was unusable before flattening. The #8 had a perfect sole out of the box, but I gather they do extra manual flattening of these in the factory.


----------



## Benchwayze (8 Jul 2009)

woodbloke":2vx2l9bg said:


> Jamesc":2vx2l9bg said:
> 
> 
> > you ask 5 engineers the best way to do a job you will have 10 different answers.
> ...




There's only one way Rob...
Properly!
As you say though, that can mean a thousand different things to a thousand different workers! 

When I was in the Navy there were three way of doing everything.
The right way
The wrong way
and the Navy's way!

 

John


----------



## Modernist (8 Jul 2009)

PaulO":2f3aabw5 said:


> Modernist":2f3aabw5 said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt that any re-finishing to the bed of any of the big 3 would produce any noticeable improvement in end result.
> ...



You may well operate on a higher plane than a mere mortal like me but I wonder how much your timber moves in the week after you've planed it? I can easily produce shavings of less than 1 thou on my LN 4 1/2 with the body straight out of the box so what more could I need.


----------



## bugbear (9 Jul 2009)

Modernist":1kmiewee said:


> Well my comments seem to have stirred up some deeply held views.
> 
> It was not my intention to stifle debate but to make the point that there is a dividing line between making planes for even extremes of use and planes almost as "art" objects.



Yes - this is (fairly) obvious. The question then comes down to; is it legitimate for some people to make, and some people to want planes that ARE at the level of Art?

I see no justification at all for forbidding it - I find it rather pleasant to live in a world that has wonderful, (but uneccessary), things.

BugBear


----------



## Mikey R (9 Jul 2009)

bugbear":28nmy9vl said:


> I see no justification at all for forbidding it - I find it rather pleasant to live in a world that has wonderful, (but uneccessary), things.
> 
> BugBear



Surely thats what we're all in this to make - functional objects that are a little bit better than absolultely necessary!  Otherwise theres Ikea.


----------



## Modernist (9 Jul 2009)

bugbear":380r8k8n said:


> The question then comes down to; is it legitimate for some people to make, and some people to want planes that ARE at the level of Art?
> 
> I see no justification at all for forbidding it - I find it rather pleasant to live in a world that has wonderful, (but uneccessary), things.
> 
> BugBear



Of course it is, and so do I. What I find difficult is the degree of near religious fervour which tends to accompany these tools. A focus on _effective _function and an acceptance of the law of diminishing returns is a useful yardstick. Karl Holtey makes wonderful objects in the form of planes with a staggering standard of specification and finish but as such they distance themselves from the process of planing, other than in clinical conditions and also by virtue of their price. The price may well be justified for the particular object but not as a means to smooth a piece of timber.

Of course they have their place but lets not attach so much emotion to them that we lose sight of the purpose.


----------



## bugbear (9 Jul 2009)

Modernist":366cnd7l said:


> Of course they have their place but lets not attach so much emotion to them that we lose sight of the purpose.



In the same way that people that own and drive Mondeos might consider Ferraris as a Platonic ideal, yer' typical user of Record and LVs (in which category I fall) might consider a Holtey in a similar light.

Car owners don't seem to "lose sight of the purpose" of cars just because Ferraris exist.

I see no reason for conflict or confusion here.

BugBear


----------



## Modernist (9 Jul 2009)

bugbear":2vkgsl1s said:


> Modernist":2vkgsl1s said:
> 
> 
> > Of course they have their place but lets not attach so much emotion to them that we lose sight of the purpose.
> ...



I don't think that is a valid metaphor because the gulf in performance between a ferrari and modeo is not replicated between KH and the big 3.

I think that to suggest, as you did yesterday, that a LN was "unusable" out of the box is highly unrepresentative of the true situation. If that was so then you should have sent it back as clearly faulty. I use a mixture of planes from all the common names, plus some European woodies, except Clifton, where I am not attracted to the Preston style aesthetics - so I excercise my choice. The better ones LN,LV etc are simply superb at their function with normal fettling and completely adequate for purpose.

KH is a different thing in a different place to which it has every entitlement.


----------



## frugal (9 Jul 2009)

Modernist":qbfzy3ny said:


> bugbear":qbfzy3ny said:
> 
> 
> > Modernist":qbfzy3ny said:
> ...



In 99.9% of the cases the Ferrari and the Mondeo are used for the same thing, doing 30 mph around town and 70 mph on the motorway[1][2]. At which point the ferrari does exactly the same job as the mondeo.

If they are both doing the same job then the only reason to go for the more expensive one is down to asthetics and style. I will admit that the ferrari will let you accelerate faster, brake later and corner faster, but for most journeys you will get to the destination at about the same time.



[1] I will accept that some Ferrari owners race them on a track, but not many
[2] Yes many ferrari owners will go above the speed limit, but I have been passed by more Mondeos doing 120 than I have Ferraris.


----------



## bugbear (9 Jul 2009)

Modernist":230kguf9 said:


> bugbear":230kguf9 said:
> 
> 
> > I see no reason for conflict or confusion here.
> ...



I think you're confusing me with someone else....

PaulO said that his LN's "required work". I don't think this implies that they were "unusable" prior to the work, merely that improvement was possible.

BugBear


----------



## Modernist (9 Jul 2009)

PaulO":1qqkbkm9 said:


> Modernist":1qqkbkm9 said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt that any re-finishing to the bed of any of the big 3 would produce any noticeable improvement in end result.
> ...



Sorry Bugbear - I did - but I stand by the rest


----------



## bugbear (9 Jul 2009)

Modernist":fj5edh8r said:


> Sorry Bugbear - I did - but I stand by the rest



That's fine - if you're not interested "look away now".

But please don't presume to tell the rest of what should (and shouldn't) be of interest.

BugBear


----------



## Modernist (9 Jul 2009)

bugbear":29t1atio said:


> Modernist":29t1atio said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Bugbear - I did - but I stand by the rest
> ...



I think I made it clear that I was not telling the rest what should be of interest but expressing my own viewpoint. I note you took it upon yourself to tell me what I should and should not presume.

You don't have to agree with me, and clearly haven't,which does not cause me a problem.

Any chance of seeing the results of these superb implements?


----------



## bugbear (9 Jul 2009)

Modernist":38i3cbr3 said:


> bugbear":38i3cbr3 said:
> 
> 
> > Modernist":38i3cbr3 said:
> ...



Oh really?:



Modernist":38i3cbr3 said:


> What a load of self indulgent hype.
> 
> tolerances of 0.0015 are more than adequate for a wood plane and the suggestion that surface grinders render a wood plane compromised is rubbish.
> 
> Get real and get out there and do some woodwork instead of all this pointless anal discussion.



As good an example of telling other people what they should do as I've seen, and quite not very politely expressed to boot.

BugBear


----------



## Modernist (9 Jul 2009)

You don't give up easily do you BB?

I've just re-read page one and stand by my comments.

Others have pointed out the many precision items produced by grinding to far lower tolerances that .0015"

Toolmakers have been filing off peining for decades if not hundreds of years without any great difficulty.

The inherent instability of timber makes tolerances tighter than a certain limit meaningless in practical terms. It is likely that variations in planing technique would have greater impact on the finished surface.

There is not a single practical example of the issues anywhere in the thread.

Without any link to real outcomes these discussions which frequently occupy these forums are simply academic exercise.

Readers can accept or ignore my comments as they wish if they find the presence of non-believers uncomfortable.

The same readers may be surprised to learn that I am, in fact, a plane enthusiast with a range of 20 or so to cover most jobs. The difference is I am focussed on practical outcomes. I have frequently published pictures of such outcomes, and problems, on woodwork forums.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jul 2009)

Modernist":2fyoqodi said:


> You don't give up easily do you BB?



I wasn't aware it was an arm wrestling contest.

I don't suppose I'll persuade you to buy a Holtey (Karl! I'd want commission), and I find it difficult to believe that you'll stop me admiring Karl's work. But on we go...



modernist":2fyoqodi said:


> There is not a single practical example of the issues anywhere in the thread.
> 
> Without any link to real outcomes these discussions which frequently occupy these forums are simply academic exercise.



Absolutely - I think Karl is simply (!) trying to make the most perfect planes he can, by eliminating all "issues", even where the issues are very minor indeed. 

On the cost front, some of Karl design features have quite marginal benefits, and quite high costs. This is in the nature of the normal price/performance curve as one approaches 100% of what is possible.

I have no doubt there are many planing tasks where the overkill performance of a Holtey, (or even a LN) will make no difference what so ever.

I own (and enjoy using) a Bernina sewing machine. I have no doubt that every task I've ever put it to could have been performed by a far more "practical" machine, but I do get a kick out the sound (lack of!) that the precision made engineering makes when I use it.

Neccessary? - Hell no!

Glorious? - Yes, I think so.

BugBear


----------



## Racers (10 Jul 2009)

Hi,

If we had never strived to improve things we would all be still rooting around in the mud, its one of our best traits, in my humble opinion.


Pete


----------



## Mikey R (10 Jul 2009)

Since the cost is a big part of the debate - just out of interest, does anyone know what the resale value of one of Karls planes is? Does it depreciate significantly?


----------



## bugbear (10 Jul 2009)

Mikey R":1ng7nudu said:


> Since the cost is a big part of the debate - just out of interest, does anyone know what the resale value of one of Karls planes is? Does it depreciate significantly?



I've seen a few come through Trinders, but buyers seems to be keepers.

Which may (in itself) say something.

BugBear


----------



## Racers (10 Jul 2009)

Hi, Mikey

unfortunately not, they are still not very many about so they don't depreciate, the ones i have seen o Ebay go for nearly the orignal price or more. come on Carl flood the market :wink: 

Pete


----------



## Karl (10 Jul 2009)

Racers":te2zns8v said:


> come on Carl flood the market :wink:
> 
> Pete



At 200 hours labour each, I doubt he could :shock: 

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Racers (10 Jul 2009)

He could if he let his standards slip :wink: :wink: :wink: 

Pete


----------



## woodbloke (10 Jul 2009)

Racers":tgkq8eu7 said:


> He could if he let his standards slip :wink: :wink: :wink:
> 
> Pete


...but then it wouldn't be a _true_ Holtey - Rob


----------



## Mikey R (10 Jul 2009)

So if a Holtey plane doesnt depreciate, then the car analogy doesnt hold either. 

And its not even like a classic car, that needs constant attention otherwise it rots.


----------



## ivan (10 Jul 2009)

Of course wood moves; that's why parts get cut roughly to size and stacked for a bit. After they've settled you can do a bit of precision planing, and mark out some joints, and cut and assemble them. The wood may move again afterwards. No one is suggesting it makes sense to attempt to size your furniture project to a couple of thou!

I'm sure, if you're lucky, a LN No4 will take a 1 thou shaving without any sole flattening. If you buy a longer plane, it may not, as the casting may have moved after leaving the factory. Mine had. Even stress relieved cast iron continues to move, and _Clifton actually says so with every plane it sells_. One of LN's DVDs with young master Charlesworth points out _every LN shoulder plane needs flattening_, as the body is ground without a blade under pressure from the spinwheel (which distorts the sole by a couple of thou so it won't cut). This probably applies to all the rebate planes too.


----------

