The Green Baize Bag

[woodbloke]

Rod (Harbo) has been round this morning for a good old natter about planes and all sorts of other stuff.....saws, chisels, knives etc. But what do you think is in this little bag?

He brought an interesting handle in box from Ray Isles, best London octagonal pattern similar to the ones that Alf made some time back. I'm going to copy this design for a fish tailed chisel (cleaning out the bottom of dovetail sockets) with a handle in ebony, so it should be quite good:

Rod had also bought round his Norris smoother fitted with a Ray Isles blade which was very pleasant to use as well as a Norris jack (15") where the sole had been milled and a new rosewood infill fitted, again very pleasant to use:

But what was in the little green bag? This is where I turned a distinct shade of puce, 'cos it was this..........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Fabulous, no need to say any more really........just going to have a good sulk :mrgreen: in a corner somewhere - Rob

 

[NKE]

I love those bags (and their contents!), I see Karl has now got some green cord rather then the black stuff that came with mine……..
neil

 

[Alf]

I see Karl has now got some green cord rather then the black stuff that came with mine……..
neil

By gum, a dazzling drive-by under-taking manoeuvre worthy of Schumacher himself. Well played, sir! =D> =D> =D>

Cheers, Alf

 

[NKE]

 

[Paul Chapman]

No need to sulk, Rob - I'm sure you could easily knock up some green bags for the planes you made :lol: :lol:

Very nice 8) 8)

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[ByronBlack]

Overated rubbish, nowt wrong with an ol'cheapie from a bootsale!

Looks quite special though

 

[NKE]

I own several planes that might by some be considered “Overrated rubbish”, and having used them daily they have paid their way a multitude of times in the work I have produced and sold using them.
More importantly to me however is I love handling and using them, and seriously believe this fact gives the work I do an “edge” that I might not have achieved using a tool that could well be capable of functioning as well but doesn’t capture my imagination in the same way………..A year or so ago I was asked to talk to a group of violin making students about any aspect of the tools I use, here is a transcript of my rant…
. ……….. Confessions of a plane addict…………..

I have been asked to come and give a talk about tools, possibly more because of my reputation as a bit of a “tool nut” than due to any real in-depth knowledge I have on the subject.

Because I am not very comfortable about getting up in front of people and holding forth, and have no pretence that I have any expertise in this field, I have instead scribbled down a quick introduction to my “tool habit” which will be more of a personal view on what I like and use in my daily work.
So I will now just read this out with the hope that it will quickly degenerate into an open discussion about nice tools.
I’ve been a professional violin maker for some twenty years now, and although I started out on a shoe-string I have from the very beginning loved beautiful tools. I still can’t resist a tool stall on a flea market or car boot sale and I am still constantly looking out for something nice to bring home and use. Not only are tools that have been finished carefully also generally well designed and therefore work well, but I also feel strongly that nice equipment inspires me to do nice work.
My favourite tools are planes; I became a big fan of Lie-Nielsen’s work some ten years ago when I bought one of his low angle block planes for what at the time seemed a vast expense. The finish on this plane, its balance and weight together with the quality of the blade made this an almost unimaginable step up in function from the modern Record block plane I had been using before. Over the next few years I bought myself a scrub plane and a number six smoother from Lie-Nielsen. The scrub plane is fantastic for rough arching plates and the number six I use for jointing plates. Both planes were, like the block plane, such a noticeable improvement on what I had been using before that I quickly became a total convert to his tools.
A couple of years ago I decided to buy myself a jack plane from Lie-Nielsen and while waiting for them to wake up at the other side of the Atlantic I spotted and bought a Spiers “Plane-o- Ayr” jack plane in my local Oxfam shop for £30.
As I said before my historical knowledge of tools, and particularly of planes, is pretty limited; but I’ll give here a brief summary of the little I do know about infill planes.
Basically an infill plane is a metal bodied plane with the sides traditionally dovetailed to the sole. The bun, bed and handle are made of a hardwood in-filled into the metal body, although of course many infill planes don’t have a real handle.
Although Norris is probably the most well known name in infill plane making history, I think the founding of what I would describe as the classic British infill plane can be credited to Stewart Spiers of Ayr in Scotland, who on completion of his cabinet making apprenticeship in the early 1840’s started commercially producing dovetailed infill planes.
Between the 1850’s and the 1950’s several companies where producing infill planes in the UK. The best known names where probably Spiers, Norris, Preston and Mathieson. Each company evolved its own details and innovations, but probably the most important was Norris’s development of a system for lateral and vertical adjustment of the blade using a single shaft in around 1913. This system was subsequently refined and in around 1922 Norris applied for a patent for their “improved adjuster” which is today considered synonymous with the Norris plane.
Around 1944 the Norris factory closed and the company was taken over by Aeronautical and General Instruments Ltd of Croydon. They carried on producing Norris planes with welded joints rather than dovetailed bodies until the company ceased trading in 1958.
When I found my bargain plane in the Oxfam shop I knew so little about antique infill planes that I had no idea who Spiers was, but on sharpening the blade and getting the plane set up properly I discovered this was a fantastic new tool for my workshop. So I did a bit of online reading and became fascinated with the design of the classic infill plane and their makers.
I then started looking at some of the sites of modern infill plane makers and of course came across the site of Karl Holtey.
Before I get carried away waxing lyrical about my visit to Karl’s workshop and the tools he makes I’m going to say something that might to some be rather controversial ……………because we as violin makers expect our clients to spend well over twice their average monthly earnings on a tool from us, I find it extraordinary that many colleagues I know balk at the idea of spending over £100 on a first class plane such as one by Lie-Nielsen.
Violin makers are extremely lucky in that we can set up for business with the basic tools of the trade on a tiny amount of initial capital, so long as we are prepared to spend some time going around car boot sales and flea market stalls, and are capable of adapting and improving some standard tools. And this I think can make us a bit unrealistic about what a really well made tool is worth in terms of the time, materials and skill required to produce it ……. I know several of my colleagues look on me as being slightly mad because of the tools I buy!

A little price history might be interesting here just to put into context the change in value we place on quality and tools following the development of our throw away culture. Traditionally a cabinet maker or carpenter would be expected to own a tool kit that would include among other things a good smoothing plane such as a Norris.
With a quick search online I found references to a Norris smoother costing £3.17.6 in 1946 and at the same time an apprentice carpenter earning £1.16.0 a week, so the plane he was expected to purchase came close to costing three times his weekly wage…………. in modern terms on the conservative guess that a newly qualified apprentice might earn at the very lowest £10 000 a year, this must equate to spending well over £600 for the plane.
I personally find that having a clean, well organised work space, and a small array of the best tools I can find for each job helps me to produce the very best work I am capable of. So I find the relatively high price of one of Karl’s planes is very easy to justify…… In fact I see the luxury of owning and using one of Karl’s planes as being quite similar to that of a musician owning and using a classical Italian instrument; it certainly won’t give better results proportional to the cost which would be saved by having a first class modern instrument or a Lie-Nielsen plane, but the pleasure in using and owning such a truly beautifully made piece of equipment certainly does add a little extra to the finished results……and also gives the producer a little extra pleasure in the process.
Having found Karl’s web site and drooled at the photos of planes that he makes I gave him a call and subsequently went to visit him in his workshop…..I spent the best part of a whole day with him and came home having just bought myself one of his copies of a Norris thumb plane.
Most of the planes Karl makes are based on careful copies of the work of Norris; he started out restoring Norris planes and then decided to improve on some of the details with the view to making the very best imaginable infill plane……and having myself used planes from most of the great makers I think he has succeeded.
Karl is one of the few modern infill plane makers who has decided to go the whole hog with the aim of commercially producing the finest planes possible. He is by his own admission slightly obsessed with quality and detail, and his workshop is one of the most amazing combinations of artistry and high end industrial style engineering that for someone like myself was a revelation to see …and it was also somewhat reassuring to find someone else so fanatical about their job!
I am not suggesting everyone should or can buy such expensive tools, they are certainly not in any way a necessity to produce beautiful work and ultimately we each have our own personal priorities and circumstances. But I do feel that there is a lot of what I would call “inverted snobbery” around when it comes to how much people are prepared to invest in really good quality tools for their trade.
By this I mean there is a mind-set that seems to feel it is a frivolous indulgence to be prepared to pay a high price for really good equipment, and that it is somehow an artistic virtue to be able to make do with the cheapest possible. The type of muddled thinking that feels that it is wrong to have to pay a premium for high quality products doesn’t make sense to me, especially in a craft that relies so much on our client’s ability to recognise the true value in paying that little bit extra for real quality.
It is worth making clear here that the equally misguided concept that the most expensive must be the best is just as foolish, ultimately the most important thing is to do your research well and find the balance that suits your situation best.
I personally would happily forgo the short term satisfaction of an immediate luxury, such as a holiday, or going out regularly, to be able to invest in the long term pleasure of owning a tool that not only is inspiring to use and will last a lifetime, but that is also tax deductible.
I have brought along with me a few tools and also a violin to show you what I use them for, please feel free to ask whatever you like and I will do my best to give a sensible answer.
neil

 

[Chris Knight]

Neil,
I think you need to have seen some of the BB/Grimsdale correspondence to appreciate his comment :lol:

I love your rant though!

 

[ByronBlack]

As it happens, my comment was just me joking around (I would love to have the resource to use a holtey plane - who wouldn't?)

the comment had nothing to do with Jacob.

 

[newt]

Is the sole ductile so it does not break when dropped. A lovely looking specimen. I would have to have it attached to a length of string so it could not hit the floor. Could you insure for full face value.

 

[engineer one]

no newt it needs to be a bungee cord, just when you think it will hit the floor, it bounces and smashes into the ceiling :lol: :twisted:

that is without doubt the most audacious and yet subtle one so far. 8)

the standard has been raised now guys, no ordinary drive bys. :lol:

you 're gonna have to pull us in like a fish on a line =D>

paul :wink:

 

[Scrit]

The relative value of a Holtey plane to a week's wages is probably moot as the relative values of so many things are so very different now to what they were in the 1920s. Yes, infills are things of beauty, however I dispute their value in many modern workshops where the equivalent might well be a wide belt sander (at £30k) or a decent 400mm wide x 2.5 metre long overhand planer in combination with a 24 x 9in thicknesser (another £15k worth). I do own a Norris (in the past I've built and disposed of collections of them twice over) as well as planes by Lie-Nielsen, Clifton, ECE Primus and Lee Valley. I doubt that many of these planes, other then the block planes and low angle jack truly justify their cost.

Scrit

 

[engineer one]

interesting and pithy as usual scrit.

my thought is that if we take the view that a "normal" plane needs fettling to bring it up to the standard of what we now take to be the 3 preferred choices for using planes, ie LN/LV and Clifton, in no particular order,
and actually cost in the labour to do that, then they are all comparable.

ignore the cost, and your comments are slightly truer, but valuable none the less since unlike most of us you have had both types.


paul :wink:

 

[Scrit]

My thought is that if we take the view that a "normal" plane needs fettling to bring it up to the standard of what we now take to be the 3 preferred choices for using planes.......

No joiner I know of wants to spend time "fettling" a tool to make it work better. If it doesn't work it gets skipped, and as Mr. G rightly says elsewhere many accept the fact that their tools aren't perfectly straight yet still crank out excellent work. This obsession for engineering accuracy in woodworking planes is just that - an obsession. I therefore refute your contention that you need to take into account the time required to rework a tool.

If you take the wage for a bench joiner in this part of the world at £400 to £450 per week (pre-tax) then a LN plane costs less between 1/3 and 1/2 of his weekly wage. A heavy router, such as a DW625 (discounted to around the £210 mark) is about 1/2 a weeks wage. That is actually a greater percentage of his income than a #78 would be - however, the router would end up doing service as a replacement for a rebate plane, a plough plane, a set of wooden moulding planes, etc. There is no way to compare relative costs, I'm afraid, because the technology has moved on a long way in 70 years

Scrit

 

[engineer one]

ok mate i surrender :lol:

however few of the craftsmen you mention would i think invest if that is the right word, in a holtey.

i think we go back to my percieved difference between a workshop based person who does mainly hand work, or the site worker who wants to be in and out, and is not refurbishing.

even joyce mentions hand tools :roll: see i have read it.

the thing is horses for percieved courses.

paul :wink:

 

[woodbloke]

There is a lot of sense in Scrit's argument. Professional makers just do not want to spend hundreds of pounds on hand tools when a suitable power tool will do the job just as well, far more quickly and thus.....more cheaply :wink: . I've worked in two shops for a couple of years and it was the case in both places. In fact in the first shop I was in making for Linley the only hand tools one maker had was a tatty Record No4, an old 25mm bevel edged chisel, a Norton oil stone, a 300mm steel rule, Stanley knife and flexible rule....nothing else. However, he could make a full size panel saw stand on it's end if he wanted to :wink: :shock: . The obsession with these sort of planes is that they are nice things to have (and do help me to do better work strangely) in the same way that it's nice to have a Rolex on your wrist, it won't tell me the time any more accurately than my Pulsar (probably less accurate in fact) but it would be pleasant to have a chunky bit of quality stainless steel to tell the time with. Collecting these type of tools I think is maybe a bit of PlaneBling and definitely an aid to faster progress down the dreaded Slope - Rob

 

[engineer one]

scrit, at the risk of digging an even bigger hole for myself :twisted:

it occurs to me that many of the contributors to this forum are people for whom woodworking is not the primary earning method, and they come from other trades which involve real or percieved accuracy.

many of us seem to have spent some time as engineers. a lot of us had our training a long time ago, and have memories of badly set tools and difficulties of setting and sharpening.

so in returning, to woodworking, we tend to make small items more cabinetry than joinery, and having probably read for some time, feel that it might be easier with tools that are more comfortable. thus many of them spend a lot of their time fettling. since they are amateurs, then the sums do not correctly apply, but if you relate it to time not woodworking, then there is a cost.

being able to buy and properly use a handtool almost out of the box leads one to try harder, and reach further. no wonder many are attempting their own hand made woodies now.

neither side is i suggest wrong, it is just who makes a living doing it, and who does not really. :twisted: :roll:

paul :wink:

 

[Scrit]

I think we go back to my percieved difference between a workshop based person who does mainly hand work, or the site worker who wants to be in and out, and is not refurbishing.

In many cases there is little differentiation these days. In smaller shops you need to have the skills and tools to do both quite often. It is only in larger outfits that fitters are exclusively site-based. Me, I do both.

The "workshop based person who does mainly hand work" is generally called an amateur (or "gentleman") woodworker simply because the rest of us need to earn a living..........

Scrit

 

[engineer one]

i fort only cricketers and golfers were still only amateurs or gentlemen.

what is certain is that practice makes perfect, and the more you practice the more perfect you become.

once you get comfortable with a particular tool, particularly if you are making a living with it, there is little or no need to change.

the most interesting thing is that you found at one time, either norris planes were quite cheap, but usable, or once having collected a few you found two sets of "mugs :lol: :twisted: " to buy them as an "investment 8) " neither of which i can argue with.

certain tools have become collectors items, whilst others are hoped tobe same, but in the mean time can be used.

anyway off to learn to use more of my handtools more effectively

paul :wink:

 

[Scrit]

The most interesting thing is that you found at one time, either Norris planes were quite cheap, but usable, or once having collected a few you found two sets of "mugs :lol: :twisted: " to buy them as an "investment 8) " neither of which I can argue with.

They weren't cheap, neither were more esoteric Stanley's, Sargents, Unions, Records, etc I acquired, but having had a lot of these tools it has given me an opportunity to compare old with "new generation" from a user perspective. I've come away with the impression that Tom Lee and Tom Lie-Nielsen in particular have done much to advance the quality and useability of hand tools - their tools are, in general, improvements over the originals. Certainly the Veritas BU smoother is a match for a good Norris smoother, and often better than some of the beaten-up examples which appear in tool dealers and auctions, whilst the L-N #62 low angle jack is a significantly better tool than it's Stanley forebear in part because of better quality castings and that thicker iron. They may not look as nice as the "originals" to some people, but so what when they perform as well or better? I've had the opportunity to sample a couple of Karl Holtey's products, as well as planes from Sauer & Steiner, Ray Iles, Geoff Entwistle and Henley Optical which are all improvements over the "original" Norris - but of them only the Ray Iles smoother is really affordable and at more than twice the price of a Veritas BU smoother I feel it becomes a vanity to own one rather than a neccesity.

Scrit