# Lust after infill planes?



## Anonymous (16 May 2006)

Hi all

Ian's recent post about a new infill plane kit received a lot of reponses and made me wonder the following:

What is it about infills that make people (in general and on the forum) desire them?


----------



## Colin C (16 May 2006)

I was wondering the same thing untill I got one myself  
What a difference it made to planing some end grain on some sapele, like a hot knife through butter came to mind.
It was bought to sell no but now I have used it :-k , I will not be letting it go [-(


----------



## MikeW (16 May 2006)

Hi Tony,

For me it is really only about the look and feel. While the Preston I had--and sold to help start up the saw making--took wonderful shaving, effortlessly, it wasn't any better per se than say the LN #4 1/2 as to the shavings.

The Preston wasn't as "sticky" on the wood. Different material? Just older and more seasoned? Don't know. But it did glide easier with less application of wax.

As well, my Steve Knight smoothers took as good a shaving, albeit with a bit more set up time due to having an iron set with a wedge. But once set the results were the same.

But I do both love the look and feel of one. And that's not a bad reason, not that anyone is implying such. I have a Sargent made #4 which with a Hock blade works as nice as my LN planes. But the LN I had looked better and perhaps the totes fit my hand a little better as they were a little more generous in size. They certainly looked nicer being finished better. Moot now as I sold nearly all the LNs I had except the #112 and a couple block planes and the small infill shoulder plane.

Which brings up the point. I like infills. The small LN shoulder plane works well and feel good in the hand, just like my large infill shoulder plane.

But unless there is something more to Karl's infill, or an Anderson etc., as regards true performance...I'll buy one of Karl's kits for both the fun of building it and having/using it for its fit and beauty.

Take care, Mike


----------



## Scrit (16 May 2006)

I think it's the combination of shape and materials which create the desire. The use of gunmetal and rosweood certainly help evoke a feeling of quality and desireablilty. That, plus the comparative rarity. I've gone through sixty or so Norrises since the early 1980s and have owned almost all the models Norris made, with the exception of the mitre planes - built a collection, used them then sold off only to repeat the exercise a few years later :roll: . A lot of Norrises I seen have fairly ropey adjusters, and I sometimes wonder if getting a good one was luck of the draw, even when they were new, but the sheer heft of a 14-1/2in A1 panel plane coupled with that thick blade, and the fact that until Tom Lie-Nielsen and Veritas changed the ground rules there was nothing in anywhere near that league in terms of performance has generated this sort of mystique about them. Nowadays, if you compare them with the BU Veritas and low angle planes by L-N and Veritas it becomes obvious that they no longer hold the "quality crown" they once did, especially when you realise that the modern North American planes arguably have better ergonomics. I've become so worried about dropping my 1930s veteran, and now my sole remaining Norris, that I'm about to dispose of it - it will probably be replaced by a L-N 5-1/2 with a York pitch frog, but I'm not certain. Unlike the 1980s, when I acquired this plane from Geoff Entwistle, there is now a real choice in high performance planes.

I feel that Karl Holtey's planes are superb examples of the planemaker's art, but for me they are just too rich. In my eyes they are more a piece of art than a tool. but if yopu can afford one, why not? Even my missus finds them attractive - and she hates some of the tailed monsters I use :lol: 

Scrit


----------



## lugo35 (16 May 2006)

anyone got a link to the kit infill plane???thanx


----------



## AndyG (16 May 2006)

Been away from the forum for a while, but couldn't resist any longer...

I have to agree the combination of a wood core and metal surround can look very smart. But, I've never owned or used an infill and to be honest, I'm not too fussed.
I just can't see what it is about the nature of their construction that could make them superior to an all metal plane. Does a more even distribution of mass really make that much difference?
All in all, sure, they can look pretty, but I'd rather have an ugly plane that worked well. Mind you, I wouldn't be at all upset if one appeared on my doorstop.

Andy


----------



## Midnight (16 May 2006)

> What is it about infills that make people (in general and on the forum) desire them?



:shock: :shock: 

show someone asking that one of Karl's or Konrad's planes.. if they repeat the question, best answer is to quote Satch Mo when asked...what is jazz...

"Mann... if ya needs t axe da question....ya aint nevah go'n git the answahh..."..

nuff said..???


----------



## bugbear (17 May 2006)

Scrit":9p01n1vb said:


> I feel that Karl Holtey's planes are superb examples of the planemaker's art, but for me they are just too rich. In my eyes they are more a piece of art than a tool.
> 
> Scrit



If you think the normal ones are rich, you ain't gonna like this:







BugBear


----------



## Jarviser (17 May 2006)

I think people love beautiful infill planes for the same reason some people (like me) love top of the range guns. An item capable of supreme accuracy, a combination of beautiful figured wood, engraved and/or polished brass and steel, with a wood-to-metal fit that shows off the skill of the maker and the wallet of the buyer - and the potential to do a lot of damage in the wrong hands :wink: .


----------



## bugbear (17 May 2006)

As a matter of opinion, I don't find Karl Holtey's planes over decorated, or gaudy.

Over engineered, possibly.

I don't mind essential features being done well or elegantly, e.g. the sides of a plane HAVE to be there; there's no objection to having them an elegant shape. It's when a feature is present purely as decoration that it grates on my sensibilities.

Some saw handles "cross the line" in this regard.

BugBear


----------



## Ian Dalziel (17 May 2006)

Lugo35....its 

http://www.holteyplanes.com

more shameless gloats...28 1/2" of pure craftmanship at its very best

Ian


----------



## Paul Chapman (17 May 2006)

8) Wow 8) 8) 

Good example of why people lust after planes :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Neomorph (17 May 2006)

The only thing I find gaudy about Holteys planes is the price!



> A1 22 1/2" £7,680.00



:shock:


----------



## Matt1245 (18 May 2006)

> The only thing I find gaudy about Holteys planes is the price!
> 
> Quote:
> A1 22 1/2" £7,680.00



I have to agree with that. But don't forget it's really £9024.00 including the VAT. Oh then there's the postage to pay for.

Can anyone say that these planes are really worth that much? After all it's only a couple of pieces of metal and wood. Yes they look fantastic and very accurately machined, but are they really worth as much as some brand new cars with hundreds of accurately machined parts?

Matt.


----------



## lugo35 (18 May 2006)

think of all the kit you could get for that or a very nice shed


----------



## cutting42 (18 May 2006)

Matt1245":1ikvut5s said:


> Can anyone say that these planes are really worth that much?
> Matt.



As my father was wont to pontificate whilst leaning back in his chair smoking a pipe (really)

"Something is always worth what someone is prepared to pay for it!"

We all make purchasing decisions based upon functionality, style, looks and affordability. I like to buy a piece of meat from the Real Meat Company once a month for over 4 times the cost of Sainsbury or Tesco because I think it is nice and can afford it not because I need to eat. I play a hand made Bass guitar worth many thousands of pounds not a £50 instrument from Woolworths and they both do basically the same thing and my abilities certainly do not warrent a top instrument.

We buy these luxury items because they make us feel good and give us pleasure whilst using them. In any market, be it cars, art or woodworking tools there is always an elite unattainable (for most) level to which many of us aspire. I for one welcome the existance of Holtey Planes and will never own one but would consider an LN plane which for many is excessive as well.

Not mean't to be too preachy but "Worth" is a totally subjective term IMO.


----------



## bugbear (18 May 2006)

Matt1245":1lldbiwt said:


> Can anyone say that these planes are really worth that much? After all it's only a couple of pieces of metal and wood.



plus design and manufacture. Claiming that a "made" object can be usefully valued by consdering the raw materials is silly.

Paper + Charcoal + Rembrandt = loadsa money.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (18 May 2006)

cutting42":nhgj5sky said:


> I play a hand made Bass guitar worth many thousands of pounds not a £50 instrument from Woolworths and they both do basically the same thing and my abilities certainly do not warrent a top instrument.



Interesting. In many fields it's easy to "tell the difference" between a "good" and "excellent" item.

I play piano (a bit), and can easily tell the difference between a Steinway concert grand and a Yamaha. I prefer the action and tone of the Steinway.

Sadly, I'm not good enough to play a sodding Rogers upright "to its limit", let alone concert grands.

This also applies to racing bicycles, another interest of mine. Anyone who's been time-trialing for a year can tell the difference between bikes by feel.

Even though for the vast majority of people the limiting factor is not the bike 

So - being able to tell the difference is not in itself an automatic justification for ownership. In many cases it comes down to the difference between "want" and "need".

I try to be honest with myself in this regard, but it's HARD!

BugBear


----------



## ike (18 May 2006)

> Can anyone say that these planes are really worth that much?



Only the people that buy them. Personally I'd order a Veritas, and then buy a nice car with the change.

Ike


----------



## Alf (18 May 2006)

I've been thinking about this one, but loathed to post my confession. I don't really lust after infill planes at all. It's a terrible confession for a tool junkie, but there it is. I think Scrit's hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. While they were the only way to get a seriously good plane, and a higher pitch, I could see the point. That's no longer the case and heaven knows I barely make an LN or Veritas do half what they're capable of anyway, so I cease to see the point in something allegedly even better for practical purposes _for me_. Aesthetics are something different, but to be honest only the occasional infill really makes me think "wow, that's beautiful" and after analysis nine times out of ten that's solely down to the piece of wood that's been used for the infill. So it'd make more sense to me to buy a beautiful piece of wood, plane it up with a LN or Veritas, polish it, stick it on the wall and rejoice that the bank manager won't kill me for doing it... Going "ooo" and "ahhh" and "you lucky blighter" has become a sort of automatic response I think, 'cos I feel that's what I _ought_ to be thinking, and in the case of a gloat it's what the gloatist wants to hear and it doesn't cost me anything to oblige. :lol: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## mr (18 May 2006)

I posted some similar thoughts on the other thread and received a few strongly worded replies, four letters, the ole f word etc. But the point is that they may look fantastic but if they're supposed to be tools then the most effective tool is surely the one that does the job as well as any example of that particular tool at the best price in the best time. If its a work of art or a collectible thats a whole different thing. There is a case for form meeting function. Obviously some peoples wallets will allow them to upgrade the prettiness of their tools, there's nothing wrong with that but the defense of a tools cost on the grounds that its cost per se makes it a better tool is daft.


----------



## Mirboo (18 May 2006)

Alf":2dgyzooo said:


> I don't really lust after infill planes at all.



I'm with Alice on this one. I don't lust after infills either. I think some of them look nice, in fact the Holtey's pictured earlier in this thread look fantastic, but I don't want one. Lie-Nielsen planes on the other hand, well that is a different matter. Even if the Holtey planes pictured earlier were priced the same as their Lie-Nielsen equivalents (equivalent from the point of view of desired function) I'd choose the Lie-Nielsen every time.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (18 May 2006)

Do I get another chance to show off my Spier? Y-e-s!







And only cost $75 (Aussie of course) .... OK, there were a few hours of renovation time involved.

With respect to the thread, I have only a little experience of infill planes. I find this one to be a very nice, balanced smoother. It is a small plane (7 1/2"), but does not feel dainty. I used it to finish a Jarrah table top, and it worked effortlessly. I was quite surprised. It did the job as well as I would hope and expect from either LV or LN. 

Given that I already have modern smoothers and panel planes that will do just about anything I could ask of them, an infill is not really about doing it better but about the pleasure in doing it with pomp and circumstance.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Alf (18 May 2006)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Do I get another chance to show off my Spier?


Noooo!

Rats. Too late.

:wink: 

Cheers, Alf


----------



## GEPPETTO (18 May 2006)

Hi,
I don't know well the pros and cons, I haven't infill's, but it's a pleasure to look 
at  

Cheers
Gabriele


----------



## Mirboo (19 May 2006)

I reckon your Spier looks fantastic Derek, and I enjoyed reading the story of its refurbishment. You did a great job.

I have a preference for metal bodied planes though, like old Stanley's and Records, Lie-Nielsen's and Veritas. To me they look more like 'tools' than infills do.


----------



## Anonymous (22 May 2006)

Now, this has been an interesting thread. Thanks for the thoughtful and thought provoking replies. 

I'm afraid the reason for the thread was really because I sit in Alf's camp:



> Aesthetics are something different, but to be honest only the occasional infill really makes me think "wow, that's beautiful"



Except, I don't think I've seen an infill that moves me at all. For me, the most beautiful of planes are the LN bench planes - functionally perfect and designed by someone with an eye for proportion and shape. They move me.

If we all liked infills, it'd be a boring ole world


----------



## Alf (23 May 2006)

Tony":25dcwzim said:


> If we all liked infills, it'd be a boring ole world


No, no. If we all liked _braces and hand drills_ it'd be a boring ole world... If we were in Spain it'd presumably be a boring _olé_ world?

Good heavens, is that my coat I have in my hand? 8-[

Cheers, Alf


----------

