Norris Smoother

[mezzrob01]

I am being offered a Norris smoother from a relative. My question is are they normally good users. I know its going to sound crazy but I don't want to take it if it's just going to sit on a shelf. I am not a collector so I am not sure I will use it especially as I have a Clifton No.4 & a LN 4 1/2.
What do you guys think, would it get used in preference to modern high end planes?

 

[deema]

Why not take it for a spin and then make your mind up, I've never been fortunate to own one, but all of the literature I've read indicates that it's a real cut above anything else for smoothing. I keep my eye out for one that's selling for a low enough price!

 

[D_W]

If it's in good shape and the infills don't need refitting, and things aren't broken on it, it should be a very good user.

 

[AndyT]

I don't own one, but I did restore one - see this thread - don-t-put-norris-in-the-shed-t63466.html - and although it was a relatively late, less valuable one, I can confirm that the general high reputation is well deserved - I was quite sorry I had to give it back.

 

[essexalan]

I have a Mathieson 2 1/8" coffin smoother and a Norris #1 2 1/2", I use them a lot for smoothing and bought them before the prices went silly. Would not say they are any better for the job than a well set up Stanley/Record type but I enjoy using them, they just feel good in the hand if a little heavy for some. The infills may have shrunk if it has been stored indoors and the adjuster can wear with misuse (if it has one). Sharpen it up and give it a try.

 

[bugbear]

I have a Mathieson 2 1/8" coffin smoother and a Norris #1 2 1/2", I use them a lot for smoothing and bought them before the prices went silly. Would not say they are any better for the job than a well set up Stanley/Record type but I enjoy using them, they just feel good in the hand if a little heavy for some.

IIRC someone in the USA (with a large range of infills and bedrocks to choose from) said a well set up and sharpened infill performed no better than a well set up and sharpened Bedrock.

But the infill's performance was higher when the tuning and sharpening wasn't perfect. The performance is more intrinsic to the design than the tuning.

BugBear

 

[Bedrock]

Don't look a gift horse..... Unless your relative wants serious cash for it, try it out. As already advised, check the adjuster for wear, and particularly, how much useable blade is left. Norris blades are expensive, but there are a number of very good sources of new blades at realistic prices.
If you don't like it, it will find a ready market.
Be good to see a photo.
Mike

 

[ED65]

I am being offered a Norris smoother from a relative. ...I know its going to sound crazy but I don't want to take it if it's just going to sit on a shelf. I am not a collector so I am not sure I will use it especially as I have a Clifton No.4 & a LN 4 1/2.

If it's being offered to you gratis FWIW I would accept it without a moment's hesitation, even if just to give yourself the experience of using a Norris for a short time before mothballing it for a potential future user in the family.

Many of us will never have the chance to use a Norris or anything similar because they've been priced out of the range of the hoi polloi. And you have two very very good planes to compare it to so you can give the old Norris a proper run for its money

My question is are they normally good users.
What do you guys think, would it get used in preference to modern high end planes?

Condition plays a big part in this. They're of course made to be 'good users' (bit of an understatement there!) but the size of the mouth and one or two other things affect their present-day performance.

 

[ED65]

IIRC someone in the USA (with a large range of infills and bedrocks to choose from) said a well set up and sharpened infill performed no better than a well set up and sharpened Bedrock.

Related quote (which I can't find again no matter how hard I search) from someone who was obviously an old hand, he said, in short, that if he'd learned 20 years previously how to use a cap iron properly he'd have saved himself thousands of dollars.

As you might expect there's some 'polite disagreement' about the "Are infills just better or what?" thing on the Old Tools list, part of which I stumbled across the other day. The problem with reading these old exchanges now is we can't always know what the poster's knowledge of using the cap iron was, so while they may be stating a plain fact based on what they've observed – that any infill with a mouth that's still tight works better than any all-metal plane – you don't know what their basis for comparison was.

 

[bugbear]

IIRC someone in the USA (with a large range of infills and bedrocks to choose from) said a well set up and sharpened infill performed no better than a well set up and sharpened Bedrock.

Related quote (which I can't find again no matter how hard I search) from someone who was obviously an old hand, he said, in short, that if he'd learned 20 years previously how to use a cap iron properly he'd have saved himself thousands of dollars.

As you might expect there's some 'polite disagreement' about the "Are infills just better or what?" thing on the Old Tools list, part of which I stumbled across the other day. The problem with reading these old exchanges now is we can't always know what the poster's knowledge of using the cap iron was, so while they may be stating a plain fact based on what they've observed – that any infill with a mouth that's still tight works better than any all-metal plane – you don't know what their basis for comparison was.

Presumably if their woeful ignorance of cap-iron setting was applied to both planes being tested, any disparity in results is still informative?

BugBear

 

[custard]

I am being offered a Norris smoother from a relative. My question is are they normally good users. I know its going to sound crazy but I don't want to take it if it's just going to sit on a shelf. I am not a collector so I am not sure I will use it especially as I have a Clifton No.4 & a LN 4 1/2.
What do you guys think, would it get used in preference to modern high end planes?

I bet they were all great users when they were first made, but many (and I'm talking about the ones with the Norris adjuster here) have now been owned by clueless clowns who have abused them. The adjustment mechanism is very sensitive, if you harden down on the cap and then adjust you'll soon find your expensive Norris won't be much fun because every time you adjust for depth of cut you'll start to also see a tiny change in the lateral adjustment. For a practical user that's a nightmare.

I wanted a Norris panel plane to use alongside a Holtey smoother, I looked at quite a few before I found one that actually worked properly. Consequently I think most people would be far better served with a Norris that doesn't have the adjuster.

The other key thing about a Norris is the pitch, it's a bit higher than your existing planes, but small changes in pitch make a big difference in usability. Depending on the timbers you're using that will either be a significant advantage or just make life harder for no benefit.

Finally, and most importantly, even though a quality infill plane is an inspirational delight to use, for most people it's pretty pointless. Just keeping those big thick irons in good shape is a challenge in itself, and if you're fairly new to furniture making an infill plane is basically yet another rabbet hole to fall down that'll only delay you cracking on and actually learning how to make real life furniture!

Good luck!

 

[Bedrock]

Custard
I agree re the sensitivity of the adjuster, although I have never found it a major disadvantage, you just get used to it, in the way you learn to adjust a plane without an adjuster.
Don't agree that keeping the irons in good shape is a chore - a quick drift across the grinder seems to suffice, very occasionally. After all, it is no thicker than any older thick iron from a woodie.
As far as I am aware, Norris' were designed and made at a time when there was virtually no significant amateur market sector, and to appeal therefore to professional users. Whether you agree with the design principles, they were intended for day in, day out use in commercial workshops. Mezzrob, I don't know what other planes you have to compare it with, but surely you must give it a try.
If it works for you, you won't be tempted by the glossy new Cliftons, LVs and LNs, and if it doesn't, sell it on. They seem unlikely to lose their value, even after the Referendum.
In your position, my resistance to the temptation would last about a nanosecond.

Good luck with it. Mike

 

[DTR]

another rabbet hole to fall down

Pun intended?

 

[D_W]

I have a Mathieson 2 1/8" coffin smoother and a Norris #1 2 1/2", I use them a lot for smoothing and bought them before the prices went silly. Would not say they are any better for the job than a well set up Stanley/Record type but I enjoy using them, they just feel good in the hand if a little heavy for some.

IIRC someone in the USA (with a large range of infills and bedrocks to choose from) said a well set up and sharpened infill performed no better than a well set up and sharpened Bedrock.

But the infill's performance was higher when the tuning and sharpening wasn't perfect. The performance is more intrinsic to the design than the tuning.

BugBear

Was this a user? One of our well-educated dealers over here suggested that he felt infills work a lot further into the sharpening cycle than stanley planes.

The equalizer in all off these planes (aside from them being tight and fitted well, all planes should be compared in good working condition, even if such a thing includes unsightly cosmetics) is the double iron. If it is prepared well on a functional stanley and well on a functional norris, they will both operate the same. Feel of the plane (weight, orientation) then becomes the differentiator.

Over here in the US where infills were not the norm, there was a stupid hierarchy that was pitched. It went something like this:
* If you have plain wood, you can use a stanley plane, but if the wood is a little harder you have to...
* buy a premium plane for the wood that's a little bit harder, but if it's really difficult figured wood, you have to...
* buy an infill because only infills can handle really difficult wood

And then the follow up instruction was "close the mouth and sharpen sharpen sharpen", I guess until you are literally doing nothing but sharpening and trying to push a 1 atom thick layer through the plane.

I hope that is dead, but that kind of nonsense had a lot to do with the first wave of infill value jumping - american buyers thinking they were getting a plane with superior capabilities. And then as americans, since we have such large houses made of kindling and vinyl siding, we all needed to have 50 of these types instead of 1. Thus, our dealers came over to your auctions and bought the planes right out from under you, which is a shame. For a while, a beech infilled norris that needed to be refitted would bring something like $750.

All of that said, if someone offered me one for free, I would take it without question and if it needed repairs, I'd make them. If nothing is broken, all of the elements are there to plane anything that can be planed, but the feel of an infill in short runs is nicer than stanley. It feels more like it goes on its own a little.

 

[essexalan]

Must be a lot of infills sitting in glass cabinets which is a waste, they are for using. Difficult to adjust the mouth on one though you can only pack the iron to make the mouth tighter or use a thinner iron which is kind of pointless. Interesting that Bailey took a completely different route compared to the infill makers who stuck to the tight mouth, thick iron and heavy plane lore. Still a lot of parallel cast steel irons about, not in the 2 1/2" size, but you will not find many good Norris irons out there and when you do they go for silly money. No idea about sharpening cycles I just sharpen when it needs doing and keep the sole waxed.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Difficult to adjust the mouth on one though you can only pack the iron to make the mouth tighter or use a thinner iron which is kind of pointless.

There is something to be said for a slightly thinner blade - it will open the mouth and enable the plane to be used with a chipbreaker. I have a Spier that I restored literally from a shell and levercap. I built the infills and made a new levercap screw. Of course. the aim then - this was about 10 years ago - was to create a fine mouth. The result was a plane that took fine shavings but was not in the league of my high angle planes for coping with tearout in the interlocked woods I use. It went into the shelf, sadly. A couple of years ago I decided to try again, but now I knew how to use the chipbreaker. The mouth is just a touch too tight. Even so, the performance has improved many times over. So, either I find a thinner blade, or open the mouth.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[custard]

Custard
I agree re the sensitivity of the adjuster, although I have never found it a major disadvantage, you just get used to it, in the way you learn to adjust a plane without an adjuster.
Don't agree that keeping the irons in good shape is a chore - a quick drift across the grinder seems to suffice, very occasionally. After all, it is no thicker than any older thick iron from a woodie.
As far as I am aware, Norris' were designed and made at a time when there was virtually no significant amateur market sector, and to appeal therefore to professional users. Whether you agree with the design principles, they were intended for day in, day out use in commercial workshops. Mezzrob, I don't know what other planes you have to compare it with, but surely you must give it a try.
If it works for you, you won't be tempted by the glossy new Cliftons, LVs and LNs, and if it doesn't, sell it on. They seem unlikely to lose their value, even after the Referendum.
In your position, my resistance to the temptation would last about a nanosecond.

Good luck with it. Mike

Mike, I guess I didn't explain myself very well. The point I'm making is that there are plenty of Norris planes out there which have been inconsiderately handled, probably by their later collector owners. Maybe they've not slightly slackened off the cap/bridge screw before adjusting the depth of cut and the lateral adjustment, consequently whenever the depth of cut is now adjusted there will be an unintentional shift in the lateral adjustment. Sometimes small, sometimes not, but from a user's perspective this makes the plane far less convenient in use, especially when a Bailey style plane at a tenth of the price doesn't suffer in the same way. Furthermore, this is not the way a Norris plane was designed to behave, so it can only be seen as a fault!

Karl Holtey went to considerable lengths to design out this problem and was largely successful, even after a lot of less than sensitive use the lateral adjustment on his planes doesn't move unless you want it to. How many Norris planes are affected? I've no idea, but when I was looking for a Norris panel plane with an adjuster I examined maybe five or six before I found one that still performed satisfactorily.

Regarding your comment about grinding the iron. I'm not saying it is a chore, but neither is it the sort of job that a beginner can easily accomplish on a bench stone. If someone new to woodwork takes the thick iron route then they should realise that they'll need a power grinder, a place to put the grinder, a modicum of skill with a grinder, a wheel levelling tool, and in all probability a new cooler running wheel and a replacement tool rest.

I call these diversions "rabbit holes", because new woodworkers keep plunging down them and then fail to make much progress against their original objective of crafting furniture.

Just my personal opinion, but the OP has all the planes he needs. So, unless he wants to become a tool collector, which is of course fair enough, he'd be better off developing more experience with the kit he already owns rather than buying yet another smoothing plane.

 

[ED65]

Presumably if their woeful ignorance of cap-iron setting was applied to both planes being tested, any disparity in results is still informative?

Possibly? The Norris planes should have had tight mouths regardless of other factors because the guys fully in love with them all seem to be very clear on this one point, the mouth must still be tight for the infill to be worth buying. And of course that by itself will help control tearout.

With a Stanley/MF or whatever I think there's a QED: they can't have been using the cap iron to its full potential or otherwise they'd have been able to equal the performance, since we know this is possible.

 

[D_W]

Must be a lot of infills sitting in glass cabinets which is a waste, they are for using. Difficult to adjust the mouth on one though you can only pack the iron to make the mouth tighter or use a thinner iron which is kind of pointless. Interesting that Bailey took a completely different route compared to the infill makers who stuck to the tight mouth, thick iron and heavy plane lore. Still a lot of parallel cast steel irons about, not in the 2 1/2" size, but you will not find many good Norris irons out there and when you do they go for silly money. No idea about sharpening cycles I just sharpen when it needs doing and keep the sole waxed.

I think a lot of those irons are being sold to put in a plane thought to need them for better value (the original norris irons). If a norris plane was worth $50, I doubt anyone would've bought the irons.

There are some people over here who have half a dozen norris, spiers, et. al, and there are a few who have hundreds (one I can remember who suggested he was using them partially has hobby and partially as investment). A toolmaker friend of mine always corrects me when I suggest that it's a shame the planes are tied up with collectors - in his view, it keeps some around for the long term (and he's right).

Parallel irons come up over here from time to time, but if you felt the need to have one NOS condition without rust pitting anywhere and matching your infill's make, you probably would look for a while and pay a lot. As they are, they bring about twice what a good tapered double iron would.

As derek is suggesting, getting a little more room in the mouth, especially at the front of the mouth if it's not filed toward the front bun, allows the double iron to come into play and they turn into monster planes in terms of capability at that point. I have never seen one that is inexpensive enough to get me to buy a vintage one, but they don't show up at yard sales here like they show up at boot sales there. There's all kinds of stuff that you could draw the same parallel on - where there is an ebay and internet price, and generally something entirely different on the ground. Axes and hatchets are a good example here. Buying good vintage ones on the internet is a good way to get poor, but Kelly and Sager and others made tons of them with many having a lot of life left. You can often find heads for a fraction of what they bring on ebay.

 

[D_W]

Presumably if their woeful ignorance of cap-iron setting was applied to both planes being tested, any disparity in results is still informative?

Possibly? The Norris planes should have had tight mouths regardless of other factors because the guys fully in love with them all seem to be very clear on this one point, the mouth must still be tight for the infill to be worth buying. And of course that by itself will help control tearout.

With a Stanley/MF or whatever I think there's a QED: they can't have been using the cap iron to its full potential or otherwise they'd have been able to equal the performance, since we know this is possible.

The trouble with the mouth is that tearout elimination occurs somewhere around 2 times shaving thickness, or once a shaving gets thin enough that it doesn't have the strength to lift. There is less tearout with a mouth of a hundredth of an inch, but such a plane cannot provide a suitable finished surface in turning grain just based on sharpeness and the mouth, unless you take lots of thin shavings.