Planes - New v Old?

[Harbo]

I have been reading a few books on planes recently and they all generally extol the virtues of vintage planes especially the Norris ones. Jim Kingshott describes how he makes his own from dovetailed sheet steel and shop casting - a lot of skilled work?
I have never had the privileged of handling any of these ones, but how do they compare to a quality new one like a LN or LV?
A Norris A5 will fetch £300, a LN about £225 - the handmade ones priceless as they are beyond my metal working skills I think?
A realise the Norris is an antique and "collectable" but will it hold its own in use against the LV?

Rod :?

 

[woodbloke]

Rod - this is an interesting one and will no doubt be the start of a fairly long thread. We've had a couple of recent Bash's at my place and I've had a chance to look carefully at old planes, newer planes, LN, LV, Norris and woodies (the ones I have made or bought and those that Philly has made, not including his JK smoother)
Older planes of the Record or Stanley variety in my view are superior to the more modern offerings and can often be recognized by the low front knob and other details on the casting and frog. They can be made to work and look superb, I recently finished this one which now works superbly but took a vast amount of effort.....what Alf would call a 'fetish fettle':

The planes from LV,LN and Clifton (I used some of Paul C's planes at our MicroBash a few weeks ago.....still got your No6 Paul? :lol are all very,very good and differ only IMO in the feel they have when using them on difficult timber, all are made to exacting standards and have subtle nuances which make them slightly different...at the end of the day you pays your money etc. I recently have been playing around with the Low Angle Jack from LV and again have been hugely impressed, 'specially in use on the shooting board and for planing across end grain.
Philly and I have been making woodies (Phill's made a couple more than me :wink and these are interesting to make and perform very well 'specially when you are able to make and temper the irons, which is not as difficult as it seems.
I use as my main bench plane my Norris A1 panel plane:

which has a weight on the timber....I haven't found anything better to date. I also use a Record Calvert-Stevens smoother with a LN blade assy which again is now really good after a lot of fettling. There is currently an A1 Norris in PFT, not as pretty as mine going for lots, far more than the equivalent sized LN jack.
So, does an old Norris work better than a new LN? For my money it does, can't explain why, it's all subjective but just feels better on the wood.
If you're in Hampshire and fancy a bimble over one day to Salisbury let me know and you can have a play in the workshop - Rob

 

[JesseM]

I use as my main bench plane my Norris A1 panel plane which has a weight on the timber....I haven't found anything better to date.

Nice infills. I've never used one, but would like to try one some day. I particularly like the panel sized planes.

The LN #8 weighs in at 10+ lbs and is a monster. I've found it extremely useful when you need to power through knots and what not. Also good for end grain for the same reason, but its just not comfortable to use on its side.

 

[Anonymous]

Rod

There was a huge comparative test in popular woodworking magazine a while back and the conclusion was that Veritas and Lie Nielsen planes work as well as any inflls regardless of age and price.

It will come down to personal preference in the end, not plane performance

I only have LNs and LVs and they work great - i really don't like infills at all.

 

[Woody Alan]

Whilst admitting that I don't have the weight of age or years of experience... my limited findings are the same as Tony's to some extent. having started with dodgy Stanleys and then fettled them ...then put a decent blade in a fettled Record 4 1/2 and found the point at which I thought I was getting somewhere...a little cash came my way and I fell down the Lie Nielsen/lee valley slope and in my mind there is no doubt if you want to work wood with the minimum grief buy these planes. I say that unreservedly. If you want to learn a bit more about what makes them work (indeed going the route I did may help in the long run ) then by all means have a play around with these old un's. Whatever happens don't be misled into thinking as a novice with no help you can make one of these old Ebay planes sing. Having said all that I have an infill Shepherd kit (rip off con merchants whatever anyone says) that I am still playing with and am starting to get favourable results...but it's for fun at the end of the day, if I want a high quality smoother on tough wood I am going to get my Veritas bevel up smoother off the shelf, if I want to flatten a board and have a real smile I'll get the Li Nielsen no7 out. If i wa sbeing realistic and not lucky enough to own them I would use my No5 1/2 Clfton a cracking all round plane. My fettled record 41/2 (with clifton blade) sits unloved at the moment.

Cheers Alan

 

[engineer one]

maybe there is another way to look at this.

norris and such have become very much "antique collectors" items, and thus are in many ways not practical for the average user.

i have recently used my LN 62 and LV no 6 to fettle some oak into decent squares, and some lime into a pair of decent flat panels. although they were relatively expensive in money terms, the time saved to get them up and running compared with re-doing old stanley, bailey or record items is worth bundles, also by the time you have added new handles, and blades, and maybe cap irons, you have added about another 50 quid to the item plus your labour.

why not save up the money, which is easier to replace than your time, and spring for either an ln. lv or clifton and then spend your time productively making things out of wood :twisted: :lol:

the other thing is that buying one of these will show you what a decent plane should be like, and then you can compare vintage ones.

paul :wink:

 

[Joel Moskowitz]

Rod

There was a huge comparative test in popular woodworking magazine a while back and the conclusion was that Veritas and Lie Nielsen planes work as well as any inflls regardless of age and price.

It will come down to personal preference in the end, not plane performance

I only have LNs and LVs and they work great - i really don't like infills at all.

THe test IIRC only compared freshly sharpened planes - and basically all planes if freshly sharpened will perform very well. If you want an interesting test try a quality cast plane with a quality infill and see what happens as the irons get dull and eventually need sharpening. -

There are also Norrises and Norrises - both condition and the model and age will effect performance.

 

[Anonymous]

Rod

There was a huge comparative test in popular woodworking magazine a while back and the conclusion was that Veritas and Lie Nielsen planes work as well as any inflls regardless of age and price.

It will come down to personal preference in the end, not plane performance

I only have LNs and LVs and they work great - i really don't like infills at all.

THe test IIRC only compared freshly sharpened planes - and basically all planes if freshly sharpened will perform very well. If you want an interesting test try a quality cast plane with a quality infill and see what happens as the irons get dull and eventually need sharpening. -

The same is true for any dull iron - the plane cuts less well regardless of whether Norris or other. Also, an A2 blade will hold an edge much longer than any old Norris etc. although new infills might well have blades of similar performance.
Metrology and materials science have moved on a lot since vintage Norris's were manufactured

 

[Harbo]

Rob thanks for the offer I would like to take you up on it one day - perhaps try-out Joel's test on dull blades?
I suppose I should come clean about a few things:-
I did woodworking and metal work at school (even got an "O" Level in it!!) but over the years my woodworking has been building extensions, DIY jobs and making toys with a few basic tools including a Stanley No.4 and dare I say it - an electric plane (shock, horror). Since semi retirement 3 years ago I have been gradually getting into woodworking and buying some decent tools and I have to confess to owning a LV LAJ, LV LAB & LV bull nosed/shoulder plane (all Veritas as the only local proper tool company is a Veritas dealer and can be persuaded sometimes to give discounts!).
I do not really want a plane just to be a collectors item (unless it was dirt cheap) and the prices of Norris's are very high - the A1 at PFT is for sale at £495 and does not look that good from the photo? An A5 there is £300.
If they do not perform any better than the modern quality ones then I see no point in paying this sort of money especially as they may require more expense and work to make them good?
I have seen that Ray Ilses makes an A5 copy at £395 and Classic Planes do a range of hand built's - anybody tried those?

Rod

 

[Joel Moskowitz]

The same is true for any dull iron - the plane cuts less well regardless of whether Norris or other. Also, an A2 blade will hold an edge much longer than any old Norris etc. although new infills might well have blades of similar performance.
Metrology and materials science have moved on a lot since vintage Norris's were manufactured

Actually - no.
When a stanley plane get dull on tricky wood it starts to chatter. When a norris plane gets dull it will simply be harder to push. And I would much rather have a plane that is harder to push than one that suddenly tears out on me.
But don't take my word for it - try the experiment yourself.

 

[bugbear]

I have been reading a few books on planes recently and they all generally extol the virtues of vintage planes especially the Norris ones. Jim Kingshott describes how he makes his own from dovetailed sheet steel and shop casting - a lot of skilled work?
I have never had the privileged of handling any of these ones, but how do they compare to a quality new one like a LN or LV?
A Norris A5 will fetch £300, a LN about £225 - the handmade ones priceless as they are beyond my metal working skills I think?
A realise the Norris is an antique and "collectable" but will it hold its own in use against the LV?

Rod :?

Apples, Oranges and other fruit.

You're not talking about comparing old vs new, but two uiqte different design.

The Norris is an example of an "infill", a plane design characterised by thick blades, high blade clamping pressure, solid blade bedding, and high mass body.

Further, this design is so elaborate that most instances of the design are made to high precision standards, and using the best materials.

Such planes are still made in small quantities, and (unsurprisingly) are marketed at high prices.

"Bedrock" design planes have been made since around 1900. They were first made by Stanley, and are now made by both Clifton and Lie-Nielsen. This is a superior design to the more common Bailey design, and (in particular) the 2 current makes use excellent materials, and higher machining precision than Stanley used to.

These Bedrock planes also cost a good deal more than (current) Bailey models.

One can have a long (and interesting) debate about exactly how much better an infill performs compared to a Bedrock, but comparing a new Bedrock to a vintage infill is to change two variables at once - never a good experimental practice...

BugBear

 

[Anonymous]

[
Actually - no.
When a stanley plane get dull on tricky wood it starts to chatter.

I have not mentioned Stanley planes. They are not in the league of the planes I have discussed.

My LNs never chatter, however any dull blade will give inconsistent and undesirable results on wood.

As for trying the test myself, i do not like Norris's (or any other infills) and so have none to compare agianst my planes (only 1 Stanley come to that)

At the end of the day, anyone who uses a blade that is dull enough to tear out or chatter badly needs their head examined :wink: :lol:

 

[Joel Moskowitz]

[
Actually - no.
When a stanley plane get dull on tricky wood it starts to chatter.

I have not mentioned Stanley planes. They are not in the league of the planes I have discussed.

My LNs never chatter, however any dull blade will give inconsistent and undesirable results on wood.

As for trying the test myself, i do not like Norris's (or any other infills) and so have none to compare agianst my planes (only 1 Stanley come to that)

At the end of the day, anyone who uses a blade that is dull enough to tear out or chatter badly needs their head examined :wink: :lol:

By Stanley I meant cast stanley design planes + bedrocks. But getting back to the subject at a hand a dullish iron in a good infill will not "give inconsistent and undesirable results on wood". which is what makes them so desirable and that's the performance difference I would like you to see. It's a wonderful think not to have to worry that your plane will tear out even if it's not at pristine sharpness.

When I studied with Maurice Fraser in NYC many years ago when we did planes he brought in a complete set of Stanleys and bedrocks and a set of Norrises. This way the class could feel the difference between different size smooth planes, the balance of different planes, and also get a feel for what an infill does.

 

[David C]

Joel,

I have never heard the "works better when the blade is blunt" argument before, and it is an interesting proposition.

How blunt?

I would like to try this experiment. Are you suggesting that a good infill will outperform a L-N with an equivalent mouth width?

One thing I am certain of, is that a blunt blade will often cause less tearout in a cranky timber because the roundness associated with blunting creates a higher effective pitch, at the "cutting" edge. I know this from bitter experience, before I discovered the joys of raised effective pitch, which I chose to do with a minute back bevel, on the flat side of a blade in a regular 45 degree pitch bench plane.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

 

[Joel Moskowitz]

David,
I didn't say "blunt" I implied blunter. What I am saying is that the performance curves of the two designs are different and when really sharp the performance of the tools is very similar. When duller you start seeing the design of the planes effecting performance. Your own article awhile ago in F+C proves this out. You sharpened up 4 planes IIRC an LN 45 deg smoother, a LN 50deg JACK, a RI A6 and I think your Shepherd you built.

And then you planed some tricky wood and said you couldn't find any significant difference between the 4 planes - using this to show a conclusions that the performance between the LN and the infills were the same. But at the same time you also got the same performance from your 45 and 50 degree LN - which if your point on higher angles tearing out less (and this is common knowledge of high angle smoothers - so I would certainly agree with you on this) is to be believed the test should have shown much more difference in performance on such a tricky wood. But they didn't. Why? Your conclusion about performance Infill vs LN I think is in error. The conclusion I get from that article is that all planes sharpened to D. C. Sharpness will work incredibly well. And this is what I was taught also - I can basically plane anything with just about any plane (in decent condition) I have every owned as long the iron is really sharp. With a stock stanley in good shape however you can only do this for a very short time, with a thin shaving, before the dullness of the iron catches up with you. With a LN you of course have a longer period. and an infill much longer - it just gets harder to push.
But just for jollies try running your test setting all the planes to a moderately thin shaving (too thin takes too long to dress wood in practice - use something realistic for someone dressing stock by hand*) and see how long before the planes start tearing out significatly. Also take note of the feel of the planes - see if you can start telling if the plane will tearout. After all the goal in planing isn't to plane until you tearout but to stop just before. If you can get similar chemistry irons that would be an even better comparison - as an D2 or A2 iron will last longer than a carbon steel iron and of course the mouth opening should be similar.
I think you will find the performance differences greater and greater as the irons wear and that the infill have better feedback on iron condition. You also might try to compare basic bed angles because the higher the effective angle the harder the plane is to push and that's more work.

*when finally smoothing a nearly finished project it makes tons of sense to have a really sharp iron and take a very fine shaving - as fine as you can with the tools at hand. But if you dress stock by hand (as I do) you want to work as fast as you can so there is a tendency to plane with thicker shavings. And of course that makes for more potential tearout which has to be removed. I don't think it is a coincidence that the first metal infill bench planes - (when mitre planes grew handles in the early 1800) were panel planes - the perfect plane for dressing timber with less risk of tearout than any wooden plane except ones in really tip top shape.

----
"One thing I am certain of, is that a blunt blade will often cause less tearout in a cranky timber because the roundness associated with blunting creates a higher effective pitch, at the "cutting" edge......"

This is a really interesting idea, and I've certainly never looked at plane performace that way. I do know that on a heavy planing session it's no uncommon to get a slight rounding of the back from wear. Certainly if the design of the plane allows for longer and more reliable planing for less effort maybe blunt is a good idea.
----

Joel

PS - I realized after I wrote this long bit (I think my longest post on any subject in any forum ever) that in the nature of full disclosure I should mention that personally in my shop most of the planes are in decent shape and my preference is usually what's closest. People shouldn't be discouraged about all this plane testing and performance comparisons - it's just fun to push performance - like racing hot rods. Any good plane that's sharp will work pretty darn well in most woods that are typcially used in cabinetmaking, and personal preference is not just about the ability to plane some exotic but also about the feel of the tool in hand, the balance, the history, etc. Most of the really great furniture on the planet was made by really highly skilled people, working by hand, on piecework, using tools far inferior in many aspects than what we have available to us now. With practice and paying attention come better technique and lots of the mechanical issues float away.

j

 

[David C]

Joel,

Lots to try and take in there, let me ponder awhile before responding to your post.

Fortunately or unfortunately I have a class for 5 days tomorrow, so it will be a while .....as the students are very keen and absorb most of my energy.

The only thing I feel able to say at the moment, is that when the timber gets really cranky, I think a 5 degree change of effective pitch is far too small to be significant. I find it necessary to go to 60 deg for complex English medium hardwoods and at least 70 degrees for dense exotics. All figures approximate, I would not pretend to have tried intervening angles, life is too short....

P.S. I do think this is a very interesting question, I did not run the planes in that comparison untill the blades became appreciably dull.

Best wishes,
David

 

[David C]

Joel,

I still stand by the conclusion I came to in that article which is now in my third "collection" book. It was based purely on shavings of about 1 thou" in difficult timber. I cannot respond to your point about thicker shavings as I prepare my stock with good machinery, and rarely use a shaving of 4 thou"!

During most of the last century, all Stanleys and Records etc had thin blades so all serious craftsmen who worked difficult wood wanted the much higher quality infill planes with good bedding, clamping and thick, quality carbon steel blades.

However things changed radically when Lie-Nielsen and Veritas started using thick A2 blades in high spec machined ductile bodies. Mouth adjustment whether by frog or moving front sole means we can set as tight a mouth as we wish.

There are fundamental design flaws in infill planes, the main problem being the movement of the timber infill relative to the steel sides. This movement can also upset the bedding of the iron.

None of these points detract from the aesthetic desirability of first class infill planes which work extremely well. The work of some current makers has raised the standards to the level of engineering masterpieces, while Ray Iles has managed to produce a tool which functions extremely well at very reasonable price.

Incidentally I have just discovered a very good timber for testing a planes tendency to cause tearout. It is a small piece of Satinwood exhibiting the "Bees Wing" figure. Dense and brittle with interlocked curley grain! This particular piece came from the workshop of Stanley Davies, a famous arts & crafts maker whose workshop was in Windemere, in the lake district.

David Charlesworth