Norris #61

[richarddownunder]

Hi

I was wondering if the Norris experts on here would be able to advise whether the handle on this looks original please. It looks OK in other respects to me.
https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/marketplace/antiques-collectables/tools/listing/3105939444?bof=xm7f1oDo

Cheers
Richard

 

[D_W]

I'm not an expert, but it looks original to me.

 

[JobandKnock]

Having owned one in the past, I'd say yes, too. They were a bit of a bargain basement tool, possibly produced during WWI (1914 to 1918), and in fact mine was marked with a War Office arrow. It had a walnut front bun and handle as opposed to rosewood and others I have seen were the same

 

[richarddownunder]

Having owned one in the past, I'd say yes, too. They were a bit of a bargain basement tool, possibly produced during WWI (1914 to 1918), and in fact mine was marked with a War Office arrow. It had a walnut front bun and handle as opposed to rosewood and others I have seen were the same

So possibly not up to the specification of a Preston or Spiers of a little earlier? I have a post-war Norris which is pretty rubbish and I wondered about 'upgrading' to an older one, but if it is only a marginal upgrade I might not bother.

Cheers
Richard

 

[D_W]

I wouldn't be surprised if that plane was a better plane than an A5, but the later norris irons are robt sorby and not a match for the earlier irons (at least every single one I've had would be accurately described by that comment).

It *looks* a little like it's rosewood for the rear handle, but the design is obviously made to eliminate the need to fit a handle/infill bed - if the handle is slid in within a reasonable range, the plane will work well.

(the irons aren't that bad, of course, but if you're used to a good crisp W&P iron, or a nice mathieson iron, they'll be soft comparatively.)

 

[JobandKnock]

The biggest problem with any pre-WWII Norris is that it'll be at least 75 years old (in the case of the #61 probably 20 more years older), and whilst the first owner may have taken care of it, subsequent owners are progressively less likely to have done so. The result is that I've seen some truly horrible examples sold as "users" when they were literally just expensive scrap.

As I said, I used to have one of these #61 planes. It was the second Norris I ever bought, after a post war A5, but TBH my A5 was a nicer plane to use than the earlier plane, although I admit it was little used when purchased (in the early 1980s).

 

[richarddownunder]

As mentioned, I have a post war Norris. The reason I bought it was it was unused. Still in the box but a bit rusty. I have de-rusted and sharpened it and it works OK. So the one above may be or have been a better made plane but its a gamble whether it will work as well or better than the one I have. It does look nicer though . Agreed, the irons aren't anything special.

 

[IWW]

Yes, you need to know your way around in the Norris world, it seems! I bought a post WW2 A5 about 25 years ago because I wanted to experience this magical Infill bliss folks were talking about in the various magazines & books where I'd seen them eulogised extensively. Instead of doing a little more homework, I just bought one from a dealer, thinking a Norris is a Norris, right? I was a little nonplussed when it arrived & I saw the two-tone woodwork - Beech front bun & Mahogany rear handle with Beech side-cheeks - where's the Rosewood?! To be fair, it was advertised as a "good user", so I should have been a little cautious.

Someone had tried to "fix" The scabrous original 'blending' coating on the wood & made it even worse, so I just took some alcohol & fine steel wool & cleaned the mess off. Fortunately, the shellac-based original finish (at least I assume it was original) prevented the varnish they'd applied from soaking in & the mess cleaned off easily. I just rubbed in another couple of thin coats & left it like that; at least it's honest!

So is it a "good user"? It's quite a good plane, but I didn't get the expected rush when I honed up the blade & put it to work. The cap-iron needed a bit of fettling, which improved matters a little, but the iron is a trifle soft compared with some of the current after-market blades (it's perfectly ok for 'sensible' woods like Walnut & Cherry, but it does get a bit sniffy about some of the less refined "colonial" timbers.. And as I've moaned about in other threads, the adjuster is very clever, but flawed, imo.

About a dozen years or a bit more ago, I got into making my own infills. My first effort was usable, which encouraged me to go on & make more. After a few planes, I started to get the hang of things & I've managed to produce a couple of infills which I think are better "users" than the A5 ( if nought else, the infill is a bit more attractive).

Note the lack of a Norris stytle adjuster. I have made adjusters & fitted them to a few of my 'user-mades', but I've long since become accustomed to the tippy-tap method of blade adjustment & can do it more quickly & with fewer expletives than using the screw-adjusters.

And btw, I've had the Norris up for sale for 1/2 what I paid for it, but no takers - I'll have to wait for a new generation of woodworkers to come along & get enthused about this infill business, it seems...

Ian

 

[richarddownunder]

Well, it went for the princely sum of $359 or about 170 quid. Which is pretty cheap, but I convinced myself I didn't need another unless it was something special, which this one probably isn't. It does mean the post-war one I thought might be a collectable investment when I got it probably isn't either. Can't win 'em all.

I know what you mean about not getting the rush of excitement. The infills, including a turn-of-the-century Mathieson or my nice Preston I have don't really perform better than my 'regular' planes, but they are nice to get out occasionally and fiddle with.

I'm also embarking on making a infill panel plane from scratch, based on a Spiers - I might have enough infills after that ! That will undoubtedly take quite a while to get done as it'll be a spare time project I think.

Cheers
Richard

 

[Adam W.]

Call me a heretic, but they just don't float my boat.

Are they really that much better ?

 

[D_W]

Call me a heretic, but they just don't float my boat.

Are they really that much better ?

The early norris planes are probably better for an inexperienced user than a mid-aged stanley. A mid-aged stanley 4 is a better plane for an experienced user (tearout control is at least as good and adjuster is better than any norris adjuster - maybe not as interesting looking, but more practical and more productive).

Of course, a poorly made stanley or one with physical problems isn't that great, either, and Norris never made an iron as bad as a round top stanley iron.

 

[JobandKnock]

Are they really that much better ?

Frankly, no. I'd say that good ones were only marginally better than equivalent sized but good Stanley, Record, Millers Falls, Marples or (post war) Woden planes from the 1930s and 1950s when used on hardwoods but to my mind confer no advantage at all on most softwoods. BTW forget the war years production, say 1942 to 1946, when standards plummeted, and after the late 1950s when standards started to decline rapidly as well

One of the problems, though, is that any genuine Norris is now at least 70 years old and in many cases that quirky adjuster is going to be worn and sloppy. There's also the weight to consider - an A5 smoother is a nice chunky little plane with a bit of heft to it. To get that in a Bailey type plane you need to go to a #4-1/2 smoother. In jack plane size, a 14-1/2in A1 is nice and heavy, more like a Bailey #5-1/2 in weight, but as they get bigger, Norris A1s increase progressively in weight, meaning that a 22-1/2in A1 (and I've had both pre war and post war 22-1/2in models) is just too heavy for use for prolonged periods whereas a Bailey type #7 or #8 is far less tiring to use

At one time I was convinced that Norris planes were the dogs danglies, especially when compared to Stanley and Record offerings in the 1970s and later, but what persuaded me otherwise was using my first Lie-Nielsen bench plane in the 1990s (a #62) followed by various Veritas planes and more recently by a couple of Quangsheng/Luban planes.

All those made me realise that whilst Norris planes look good, and there's a certain cachet to owning them, they really aren't that much better at all. Is that heresy, I wonder?

 

[IWW]

Nope, J&K, not heresy in my book, just the plain facts. I think you've touched on the nub of the matter when you mentioned the superiority of (some) infills over the Bailey types produced after WW2. Almost anything had to be better than some of the garbage that was foisted on a public whose knowledge & collective memory of hand tools was rapidly waning as things with long tails that substituted brute force for finesse took over.

There is something about the heft & solidity of a good infill that's hard to beat & hard to describe objectively, which indicates to me that a good deal of it all is in one's imagination. As I think DW will agree, as long as the blade is properly bedded & firmly restrained, the ability of a plane to handle wild woods rests primarily in a well set-up cap-iron, & of course a very sharp blade. I have some very nice infills that work extremely well, but I confess I use a trio of Baileys (a #7, #5 1/2 & a# 4) as my primary workhorses. You just can't beat the convenience and finesse of a Bailey adjuster even with a good dash of backlash, no backing-off of the lever cap required & no slewing of the cutting edge. I also appreciate the lesser weights as my body goes into decline & muscular strength isn't what it uster-be. I don't think I could manage a 22 inch infill jointe & though I've toyed with the idea of making one just for fun, it's waaay down my priority list & unlikely to happen in this lifetime! My infills are set up for the final finish work, where the extra weight feels right, and doesn't worry me at all for the short bursts for which they're deployed.

I once had the rather smug idea that I could make a 'modern' Bailey work as well as any pre-WW2 model. For many years I used a post WW2 (1960's?) #4 English Stanly as my everyday workhorse smoother. After much fiddling & fettling I had it working extremely well, but then I got hold of an old type 11 and tidied that up a bit and there is no doubt in my mind that even a beginner would feel the difference. I presume it's the more extensive frog mounting that gives it a feeling of everything being absolutely all together as it sails over knots & the gnarliest of woods. The newer plane has found a new home..

But there is so much subjectivity in what makes us like a particular tool - one of my favourites is the old 5 1/2 I inherited from my father. It had a very hard life and the sole has some damage on one side of the mouth, but the frog is solid and I've got the the blade & chipbreaker as good as I'm capable of getting them. It does a very good job, but even better, every time I pick it up it makes me think of the old pot & the times we shared & puts a silly grin on my mug. None of my infills can do that!
Cheers,
Ian

 

[D_W]

Once the basic elements of a plane are working properly, the rest is just details. What makes a stanley better than a norris for actual work aside from the adjuster is that they can plane anything with the cap set, from cedar to cocobolo and they wear out a user less than a norris.

The early norris planes without an adjuster are really nice, though - very nicely made. But not more capable or more productive than a decent stanley plane.

 

[Adam W.]

That's fine by me, I've never seen the attraction of the things.

I had a rheumy eyed old joiner lovingly show me his Norris panel plane and all I could do was shrug. I guess it must have bought back some memory of the good old wood planing days for him.

Days in his rose coloured memory banks before he got the Wadkin and the plane was retired to live the rest of it's life as a paperweight on the filing cabinet.

 

[IWW]

To each his own, Adam. I think if you ever got to use a nice infill in the right circumstances, you'd get a small thrill, even if you are a dyed-in-the-wool power tool junkie. However, there's little doubt in my mind that part of the pleasure comes from having something that's not your ordinary, everyday what-everyone-else-has sort of tool. It's an attitude that's not restricted to tools or we'd all drive Hyundais.

It all goes back to the first bloke who tarted up his spear or club - he probably killed no more mammoths than he did with a plain spear, but it made him happy & his mates envious, & started the whole silly show.....

Ian

 

[richarddownunder]

Personally, its about craftsmanship. Whether or not they work better, I do like the fact that they are so beautifully made - at least the early ones are - and made by someone rather than stamped out by a machine. Using hand-made tools to hand-make something - perhaps it's a romantic notion of a past age - it's one reason I rather like Ashley Iles as they are hand-ground chisels. But in the end, when I actually want to achieve something, I reach first for my trusty Record or Cliftons (which are also nicely made) as they are so easy to use, sharpen and adjust...and I guess I'm just used to them. The infills take a bit of getting used to as they sit differently on the wood, so I probably haven't really mastered them.

Cheers
Richard

 

[Adam W.]

It's a design thing.

I think they've got the proportions completely wrong, with that great big fugly bun and clunky handle they look like door stops.

 

[IWW]

It's a design thing.

I think they've got the proportions completely wrong, with that great big fugly bun and clunky handle they look like door stops.

Beauty's in the eye of the beholder, me lad, I thought infills looked very spiffy at first sight, & have not changed my mind in the 40 years since. If you want fugly, take a gander at a few Bridge City tools! No accounting for taste, is there?

You could argue all day about whether or not infil planes do anything better than an equivalent Stanley or Record or Clifton or Lie-Nielsen. For starters, the performance of any plane is dependent on how well it was made, how well it's been cared for, how sharp its blade and how well it's set up for the task in hand. Then there's a very strong "placebo effect" when it comes to any hand tool; if you find a particular tool feels/looks/works well, then it will be so & your work is likely to be better for it. Someone else, with a different set of experiences & prejudices, will find your favourite tool detestable. C'est la vie.

The first infill I ever got to use was handed to me by it's owner saying "Here, try a real plane". The blade was dull, the cap-iron set too coarse and the well-fettled #5 Stanley l had been using did a much better job. I was so underwhelmed & disappointed, I decided the people who lauded the things had no idea of what a plane should be. However, subsequent experience with a well set-up Norris revived the love.

Cheers,
Ian (who has just spent the day making yet another infill plane...... )

 

[Adam W.]

I do confess to owning infill planes, but they are shoulder planes by Holland.

The other is mahogany, brass and has a horn.