Renovation of a Spiers infill smoother

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Dear friends

The link below will take you to a project of mine that has now come to an end. I'm sure that some of you will find it as interesting as I did. The link is to the discussion and contrubutions that was made on the Old Tools forum. This is still ongoing , and the article is constantly updated.

http://www.wkfinetools.com/restore/inFillSmoother/index.asp

The short story is that I won a derelict infill smoother on eBay for little money. My plan was to use it as the basis for a project. It looked craftsman-made, in other words nothing special or precious. However, it turned out to be made by Spiers, who is up there with Norris as the doyen of classic infill makers.

This is the story of discovery and the work I have done. It is not a restoration, for that would suggest that I returned the plane to its original state. What I have instead done is use a little Artist's Licence to create something to which I hope Stewart Spiers would give his nod of approval. All I really had was the original Spiers dovetailed steel body and lever cap. I constructed a new level cap screw and new infills, and added a 3/16" parallel Sorby iron (reduced from 2 1/4" to 2"). The bed is 47 degrees.

This is the original plane:

Then along came this Spiers example to act as a model for my work.

So here is what I came up with: Australians hardwoods - Tasmanian Blackwood for the infills and Jarrah for the tote.

And a few more pictures for perspective:

Thanks for looking.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Philly]

Beautiful, Derek!! :shock:
Love the shape of the handle,
Cheers
Philly

 

[Chris Knight]

Derek,
It looks like a very nice job and the handle is indeed very voluptuous. Big question - do you use it?

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Chris

"Do I use it" - I've only just finished making it! :shock:

However, I have taken a few shavings. The mouth is very tight - too tight - and I will need to loosen it up a smidgeon. Measured it at .06" (or .15mm). So far just a few very, very fine shavings in Jarrah.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Waka]

Derek

Very impressive, I like the contrasting woods, now if only I

 

[Jasper Homminga]

Derek,

Gorgeous!

Following the OldTools thread was interesting as well.

One question:
In the before pictures it seems the infill was screwed to the body. In the after pictures it seems you rivetted the infill to the body. Any particular reason for changing this?

before:

after:

regards,
Jasper

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

In the before pictures it seems the infill was screwed to the body. In the after pictures it seems you rivetted the infill to the body. Any particular reason for changing this?

Hi Jasper

The brass "rivets" are actually brass screws that have been filed flat. This was done for aesthetic reasons. Hopefully I will not have to replace the infill again in the next 150 years

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jasper Homminga]

The brass "rivets" are actually brass screws that have been filed flat.

Good solution (cheat). :wink:
I was wondering how you managed to get rivets through the plane: what would be the odds of the holes on both sides lining up.

proper job,
Jasper

 

[bugbear]

Chris

"Do I use it" - I've only just finished making it! :shock:

However, I have taken a few shavings. The mouth is very tight - too tight - and I will need to loosen it up a smidgeon. Measured it at .06" (or .15mm). So far just a few very, very fine shavings in Jarrah.

Are you sure that's "too tight"; people routinely speak of shavings down at 2-5 thou (0.005") for smoothing.

On this measure, 0.06 is easily big enough; it's over ten times the thickness of a shaving!

Ah (calculates offscreen). 0.15mm is actually 0.006" which might be "too tight". I'll file this one under "typo"

BugBear

 

[Shady]

Derek - at the risk of huge egg on my face, I presume you've discovered what the 7 is all about? Used in the manufacturing to keep a plane, iron and infills 'together' - ie they'll all have the same number on them if they're an original 'set'. I only say this because you appeared to question this earlier in the thread, but I saw no answers to it.

Lovely work - great looking result...

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Ah (calculates offscreen). 0.15mm is actually 0.006" which might be "too tight". I'll file this one under "typo"

BB

You are correct. Actually, I could only measure the mouth with metric feeler gauges. This came to 0.15mm - and then I tried to calculate the imperial, which should have been straight forward, but obviously I got it wrong. Mmm .006" sounds more like it.

I am hoping to get a chance tomorrow (Tuesday) to do some tuning, as it is a public holiday here in Oz.

I presume you've discovered what the 7 is all about?

Thanks Shady. Yes, I did find out about the numbers - I am sure that this was included among the various contributions in the article?

Thanks to all for your kind feedback.

Regards from Perth

Derek