Elephant Infill

[D_W]

Yesterday, I got an unexpected box in the mail. In it, was this, though the top was milled flat for me to finish. I've added some curvature to it, more just to see how it files and grinds. It is some kind of bronze that is extremely wear resistant - it looks more brass colored, but it's definitely not brass.

I haven't made an infill plane in a long time - probably 6 or 7 years, but this provides an opportunity to finally make a nice panel plane and maybe dump some of my other planes next year.

This lever cap doesn't have as long of a neck as George Wilson's elephant plane (George sent the lever cap), but it's otherwise similar proportions:


It's 2 1/2" wide, which is a good thing. Since I have no machine tools, I will mark, die grind and file some contours around the top and into the shoulders. the screw has the deepest and tightest acme threads that I've ever seen - it's space equipment tight right now with the intention that it should be worked with polishing compound to give it just a bit of room to move more easily but have no slop.

I have intended for a while to make a 15 1/2 or 17 1/2 version of the norris no 13, but dovetailed and not quite as heavy. But The other option is to copy a plane that George made, but make it double iron and some elements a little less 18th/early 19th century in style and more like late 19th century.

This is a picture of the infill - I'm referring to it as "the elephant" because if you look at the cheeks of the plane, you can see the back line of an elephant. Unfortunately, I don't have a bigger picture, but you get the idea:

I guess I'll add a poll to this - build the elephant, or build a refined version of the norris no 13 (sorry, I don't have a better picture of it, either)?

 

[D_W]

(The benefit of building a norris 13 would be that I could sell the norris 13 as the intent with it in the first place was just to have it on hand to copy at some point. It's a tank. If you look closely at the bottom, you can see that its casting is almost half of the thickness at the back of the plane bottom)

 

[Jorny]

The elephant!

 

[D_W]

The elephant!

(George was actually trained by a "real" designer named Will Reimann. He mentions that when he was learning from Will, there was no softening of criticism before it was handed out. I called George last night and thanked him for the lever cap and told him I would do my best to contour it and put it in a plane worth making and looking at. George doesn't have much for expectations of me, so he's never been harsh about anything - just helpful when requested. I don't bother him over anything at this point, just once every couple of years maybe, float something past him that I can't think of a way to make look any better and see if he has any ideas

Of course the elephant plane is something he sketched out, and not a copy of anything.

At some point, he said in the past that there's no great reason for tools to be ugly and he prefers that they're not. That sunk in for me. I have a much harder time making the first one nice, though - it takes seeing something that doesn't look quite right and refining if not copying something. I can live with that.

I'll mostly follow either one of these with some small adjustments instead of trying to sketch something out, though, as the making time is a lot longer than a pair of chisels or a test knife.)

 

[Jameshow]

Elephant too!!

Would a circular wooden tote be wrong!!

 

[D_W]

Elephant too!!

Would a circular wooden tote be wrong!!

within the design almost certainly

But a somewhat taller bun would be suitable without having to be as blocky as the chimney-like bun on the no 13.

 

[raffo]

I say go for the elephant plane!
You have the whole animal kingdom to fit another profile on the cheeks.

This seems obvious, but sometimes you see examples of homemade tools where the effort goes on the finish rather than on the function. If I were designing something, first I'd make sure the object (tool or furniture) is fit for purpose, then embellish it without compromising the function.

In other instances you see something that looks like a tool but has design flaws (e.g. tanged chisels without bolsters) or is a copy of machine made tools. Remember the discussion about a youtuber blacksmith making a chisel, it was very flashy, lots of steel pounding? Warren hit on the nail when he commented "who would want to reproduce a drop forged style chisel by hand?" or something to that effect.

Back to the infill plane design, how would you avoid gaudiness? what would you consider gaudy? Mixing dark and light woods, like maple and mahogany, looks gaudy to me.

Rafael

 

[D_W]

Yes on the finishing - I can make well finished chisels, but I could double the time making them by trying to really make them aesthetically perfect, and then there's something a little prissy about it.

I've posted wiley's parers many times - I think if chisels are going to be neat, the metalwork is a good compromise on those as there's not much added time to get to that point.




I also keep posting the same pictures because I have a new PC and little of what's on the old one is in the clouds. But george's are about as neat, just sans handles. And I made neat versions like these for several other folks, and then some (like Bill T's) that got less finish work.

The finish work thing is really a chance to go super prissy and create something I don't like - which is the first time you take these to a bench grinder, they will get marked one way or another. A burnish mark, whatever. I hate the idea that anyone would feel like they should waste time trying to prevent signs of use.

There are a lot of requests for london pattern handles, and those are ultimately what I wanted to learn to make quickly, but they are not nearly as good in actual use. They just look more interesting - and I can't get comfortable with the idea of doing something for looks that's worse when looking at them is only part of the point.

The ones I keep for me are less well finished than any of the rest.

This super high standard of finish that really doesn't have much function for anything other than proving someone could finish to that level is very popular in the very high end knife world. I'm not a huge fan and I doubt most of the knife makers really like making one perfectly finished knife better than two well finished knives in the same time period, but uneducated customers understand color and shiny and uniformity far better than whether or not those aspects are applied to something good in the first place, or if they can be like wire wheels on a camry (good wheels, good car, not the right match) or even worse, wire wheels on a pacer.
--------

Gaudy on an infill plane is anything that gets in the way physically or snags you (higher decorative cheeks look great, but they are an impediment to reaching in and pulling out shavings with lots of banged fingers reaching for that), or too-gaudy wood or poorly sawn wood that's rare just to use a rare wood.

The wood in george's plane is high density cuban mahogany (the plane is long gone. Someone with means offered in a dumb amount of money for it and I think if you're a maker with wants it's hard to resist the urge to take the money and use it for other things). It's well sawn, doesn't really stand out but doesn't look cheap, either, and holds crisp detail.

Overly fancy curves on the sides or really bold unnecessary sweeps up and down, outsized parts (bad proportion) like big gaudy screws or handles with unnecessarily large long horns (again, likely to break off and sometimes physically uncomfortable) are also a no go.

I think what george did above is really excellent - in a real "georgian" move, he draws one, makes one and the first one is good. and it's the only one. the design is right, and the execution is right, and he doesn't work slow, either. I admire that.

 

[D_W]

Speaking of design, there is a visual issue with my chisels that I'm not fond of the bolsters are big. I'm considering maybe adjustments to the shoulders transitioning into the tang, too.

the bolsters are a little big because I am a chicken on the forge weld. If the tang was butt welded to the bolster, it would be a lot easier to have the bolster integral to the tang instead of forge welded on, and then the "grab area" wouldn't be an issue. but I don't want someone to get back to me later and tell me the bolster came loose.

I think the handles look better gloss, too, but wiley wanted "close finish", so they are pore filled and feel like silk, but won't get dirty.

Wiley asked how the lands could be ground so finely freehand on a round wheel and that takes less time than perfect sanding of the surfaces would. it's a compliment, or I took it as such - the looks of the lands visually tapering down are something I trouble with more. They can just be there, they can be there and thin, but there's always a little something to think about in making them look as nice as possible in terms of how they follow the thickness of the chisel, but not literally like a perfectly matching curve.

it'd be nice to start with stock a 16th thicker to continue the taper up into the tang, too, but it's not available.

'
(I remember the blacksmith chisel - it was neatly made. I think it may have been 5160 or something, and it was sort of blocky with voids in the weld. The blacksmithing skill is beyond me, but it doesn't make a better chisel - it makes for a much more interesting process to watch in making one, but unfortunately, it will not improve the quality of the edge and there's a good chance that it will be some detriment. I'm holding on to the carbon that's in 26c3 like a cheapskate grips the dollars they're handing over - I want to preserve that).

I did find some other chisel pictures!



these are mine.



a set of tubby bench chisels that I made for another toolmaker. I thought he'd be using them like heavy firmers. I regret making them that fat now.


George's parers and then two of mine (mine have handles)


And another set of parers that went south.

 

[D_W]

If the first three responses are an indication, it looks like this is going to be the elephant plane.

I'll start making some patterns this weekend to compare to planes on hand just to make sure I don't get something out of place, or poor in balance. I hope to use whatever it is I'm making, and not just because I made it. I haven't made a cap iron before, either, but that won't be that big of a deal - just haven't had the need, but it would be nice to make one with aesthetics matched to the plane.

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

The more I stare at “The Elephant”, the more I love it. Beautiful plane!

 

[D_W]

It's not like there has been a lot of views, but I kind of figured half of the responses would be for a more crisp norris just because the form is familiar.

 

[Jameshow]

We like the underdog!

Style trumps a brand too!

 

[essexalan]

Norris style for me but the bun on that plane in the photo above just looks wrong. Rosewood if you can get it.

 

[raffo]

I don't know why this reminds me of Le Petit Prince and the snake that swallowed an elephant.

 

[D_W]

Norris style for me but the bun on that plane in the photo above just looks wrong. Rosewood if you can get it.

Definitely have plenty of plantation indian rosewood. it's been plentiful here for several years now. I already have a good bit of it several years old, which is a good idea in an infill plane because minor instability either leads to telegraphing dovetails or ugly gaps that appear if things go the other way.

Plantation has pretty sizable growth rings, but linseed oil does a pretty good job of making them disappear for the most part without dyeing.

 

[D_W]

Norris style for me but the bun on that plane in the photo above just looks wrong. Rosewood if you can get it.

you mean on the no 13? It's original. The smoothers had sort of a plain fixture for the front, and that knob style is maybe more like what's on the no 1 panel planes. I never noticed how awkward it looks on those, but browsing pictures of them, it does. Spiers did a better job of cutting it back (I have a very nice spiers panel, which would've been another option, but I think it's the one that most infill panel planes are based on, so it'll just end up looking like "a spiers plane with a different screw".

 

[essexalan]

you mean on the no 13? It's original. The smoothers had sort of a plain fixture for the front, and that knob style is maybe more like what's on the no 1 panel planes. I never noticed how awkward it looks on those, but browsing pictures of them, it does. Spiers did a better job of cutting it back (I have a very nice spiers panel, which would've been another option, but I think it's the one that most infill panel planes are based on, so it'll just end up looking like "a spiers plane with a different screw".

Mine is a No 1 14 1/2 inches and the bun looks lower and somehow neater than that particular No 13. Is that a post war Norris? There is also about a 1/2 inch overlap of the sole at toe and heel. The lower part of the bun meets the first upward curve from the toe, I will try and sort a pic out.
Spiers planes look better still but then you are building a one off special that will suit you so get sketching .

 

[D_W]

I think this one would have to be prewar. I believe all no. 13s ceased before 1930.

Some of the bits may have changed on the A13

 

[naughtymoose]

Elephant. There is more to look at!