Coffin Infill Question - Spiers

[D_W]

Question for anyone who may have ever taken apart an old Spiers coffin shaped infill: is the rear infill two pieces (stacked on top of each other) or one?

I got a bit of a beater a couple of weeks ago, and it's cracked in the middle of the rear infill right where the wood meets the metal. I'm assuming that this is due to one of two things:
1) the wood was two pieces to start with. I think that's doubtful, but could be. The wood is too dark for me to tell if there is grain continuation, and that's no guarantee of wood being one piece, anyway.
2) the wood cracks because as it shrinks, it's retained in the metallic parts by peened in rods, and eventually it's broken as the bottom part shrinks and stays with the rods and gets pulled away from the top.

That may not make sense unless you've looked at these planes. It seems that more than half of the dovetailed coffin shaped infills have a crack right at the top of the metal parts in the back, and the crack goes from one side to the other.

I'm thinking of filling mine to see if I can make it disappear (out of curiosity), but it will reappear with seasonal change, I'm sure. It's only a hairline.

The plane in question is a prior ebay item 292099964855, but the seller didn't disclose the crack, and probably didn't know to. I am by no means complaining because they made their main picture a photo of the cap iron only and ended up getting little for the plane (97 quid), plus it's got a fair amount of pitting that I will remove - a perfect candidate for the kind of cleaning I normally don't do.

Since I have no picture of it, I attached another one that I found courtesy of google image. Same crack, same place, different plane.

We have just about zero supply of decent infill planes for cheap over here in the states. I guess there's other things that we do have, but the UK is a far better place to go for:
* record planes
* any 4 1/2 or 604 1/2
* run of the mill (but very functional) infills
* century-old tang chisels of an english type pattern

Tangent over - question in bold is really the only question.

 

[iNewbie]

I've no idea, but a quick google bought another one here, David:

https://www.picclickimg.com/00/s/MTIwMF ... ane-_1.jpg

https://picclick.com/Spiers-Infill-Smoo ... 15521.html

 

[AndyT]

This might help.

http://contrib2.wkfinetools.com/hendric ... tew-01.asp

 

[D_W]

I've no idea, but a quick google bought another one here, David:

https://www.picclickimg.com/00/s/MTIwMF ... ane-_1.jpg

https://picclick.com/Spiers-Infill-Smoo ... 15521.html

That crack is irregular enough that it just about confirms that it's broken one-piece wood. It looks like someone inserted a plug into that one, too. Maybe it had a strike installed in it in the past.

 

[D_W]

This might help.

http://contrib2.wkfinetools.com/hendric ... tew-01.asp

Different break, but at least as common. I got three with that style of handle and it took a bit of time because most have been broken right where that one was. I'm sure one of mine was, too, but it has an old replacement that was nicely made.

I would assume most of those breakages (at the base of those open handles) are from being dropped because the handles themselves are reasonably stout.

 

[richarnold]

As far as I know , all the bun back spiers were made with two piece backs, and every one I have owned, or examined was made like this. On the other hand, Norris always used a one piece back.

 

[Konrad Sauer]

My first infill was an unhandled Spiers coffin smoother similar to yours, and like yours, mine was a 2 piece rear infill. I have not carefully inspected that many of them, but my experience is that they are all 2 piece rear infills. I didn't do anything to mine other than check the bed to make sure the infill and the insert block behind the mouth were co-planar, check to make sure the lever cap contacts the cap iron across the width squarely (to be done after checking and working the bed), and lap the sole.

 

[D_W]

Thanks, Konrad. I'm a little bit surprised to find out that these were two piece (I should've been smart enough to look at the bed), but if I had to make a few hundred of them, I would probably do the same.

I've done little more (no more) than what you suggest to the rest of my infills, and probably should leave this one as it is, but I'm curious about refinishing one that has little value, just for no reason other than curiosity. It functions fine (no issue with lateral adjustment due to a lever cap not gripping evenly from side to side), but like some of the norris planes, the iron will advance slightly when the lever cap is tightened. I think that's annoying, but not a big deal as you get used to a plane, you get used to adjusting around that. I don't know if it's the lever cap screw causing that (turning the on the surface of the cap iron at the top and pushing the iron down) or what.

 

[Konrad Sauer]

when the blade advances, is it consistently on one side? If it is - that suggests the lever cap may be putting uneven pressure on the cap iron/blade and it is caming out. Or... if the bed and metal block are not perfectly co-planar, the blade is flexing (bending) under the pressure of the lever cap.

 

[D_W]

when the blade advances, is it consistently on one side? If it is - that suggests the lever cap may be putting uneven pressure on the cap iron/blade and it is caming out. Or... if the bed and metal block are not perfectly co-planar, the blade is flexing (bending) under the pressure of the lever cap.

It's uniform, just the depth of cut changes, but not the lateral adjustment. Three later norris planes that I had do the exact same thing, which makes me suspect that either the iron is flexing (as you say - strange that it would adjust deeper, though, unless it was high centered on the middle of the bed) or that the cap screw moves the iron as it's tightened. It the screw would have to have a pressure bias on the cap to do that, i'd think. I notice that adjusterless planes generally if you loosen the cap and re-tighten it quickly (to reduce the depth of cut), many will change lateral adjustment slightly. I'm getting off track a little bit...I'll have to check the bed. It's something I can live with, though, as I've gotten used to it and can adjust around it.

 

[essexalan]

I think the CB and blade should be locked down together when tightened underneath where the cap screw makes contact. The cap screw on my two contacts the CB at an angle so that just the edge of the flat on the end of the cap screw makes contact with the irons. I do not tighten the cap screw down that tight just light finger pressure.

 

[D_W]

I agree with all of that. If they're bedded well, the cap screw doesn't need to be that tight. Some of mine don't change regardless of the tightness. Some do, and some do a lot (late norris). All of them work well once tightened down.

Even though the later norris types move a lot, they work well in the whole range of tightness, so lever cap tightness can be used like a micro adjuster.

 

[swagman]

DW; if the blade assembly is advancing as you apply tension to the lever cap, you will likely need to reshape the thread end of the lever cap screw so its mating area is more like a centre point. Note from the following photo how the thread end has been cone shaped to re-direct the contact point.

http://www.norrisplanes.com/files/2013/ ... ane-62.jpg

http://www.norrisplanes.com/norris-numb ... ing-plane/

 

[Racers]

Is the blade advancing or is it being clamped down tighter to the bed which would increase the depth of cut.
My LN 60 1/2 does change the depth of cut depending on the cap tension.

Pete

 

[essexalan]

DW; if the blade assembly is advancing as you apply tension to the lever cap, you will likely need to reshape the thread end of the lever cap screw so its mating area is more like a centre point. Note from the following photo how the thread end has been cone shaped to re-direct the contact point.

http://www.norrisplanes.com/files/2013/ ... ane-62.jpg

http://www.norrisplanes.com/norris-numb ... ing-plane/

If you look closely at the first pic you will see that although the screw is actually shaped conically it has a flat on the end and as I said it tightens down on the circumference of the flat. Makes sense to me to have a conical end all the way and so a single point of contact but my two are not like that with no problems. All cap irons with the exception of the flat Clifton CBs will bend the cutting iron to a lesser or greater degree so that might be worth looking at. Tightening the lever cap screw has to have some effect on the relationship between the frog surface and the blade surface.

 

[D_W]

Is the blade advancing or is it being clamped down tighter to the bed which would increase the depth of cut.
My LN 60 1/2 does change the depth of cut depending on the cap tension.

Pete

I'm just not sure which one it is. I've bought 10 infills in the last year in anticipation of having them to play with to see what I'd like to copy and make, and they all have a little different personality. Of all of them, only a cast kit-plane that someone put together and a Norris #2 are really perfect (and even the norris has its quirks having not been used for a very long time - it needs to be "worked back in").

The screws on all 10 (plus a couple of others that I have) run the full gamut of shapes at the end, but I don't see a correlation so it might be bedding. I've given each of these planes the 20 minute setup (completely flattening of the back, setup of the cap properly, honing and lapping of the sole) and they all work very well (despite the internet advise that old infills always need some kind of heavy tuning to be back in shape) with only one smoother having a handle a little loose.

At any rate, I suspect bedding being the issue, or it may really not be a defect at all - for example, if the cap iron and iron change shape under different tension in some planes but not others - between the cap iron and the point of contact for the lever cap screw, if that makes sense. Just as a stanley cap iron is never really flat, these may not be with the effect being some more than others.

 

[D_W]

DW; if the blade assembly is advancing as you apply tension to the lever cap, you will likely need to reshape the thread end of the lever cap screw so its mating area is more like a centre point. Note from the following photo how the thread end has been cone shaped to re-direct the contact point.

http://www.norrisplanes.com/files/2013/ ... ane-62.jpg

http://www.norrisplanes.com/norris-numb ... ing-plane/

Here are the two biggest offenders.

The Norris:
https://s7.postimg.org/w610dmhuj/20170610_101648.jpg

The spiers:
https://s7.postimg.org/kuycp9azf/20170610_101749.jpg

I suspect it's probably something else because I can't see a discernible difference between these and the rest of the planes that I have.

I have been using the panel plane to make wooden planes - it's quite nice, and I've gotten used to its habits and I would forget about them because it becomes a subconscious adjustment to know where the iron has to be after the adjuster is used for it to end up at the right place after the cap iron is tightened, if that makes sense. On the panel plane, the cut duty is heavy enough that it's much less of an issue vs. the smoothers (which I resold pretty quickly - it's a pain with them, but I'm sure that could be tolerated, too).

This is a case of learning a lot by overbuying.