Improved hand tool myth.

[Jacob]

Jacob, as far as I am aware, Clifton did not use ductile iron. Same old stuff as Stanley.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Well whatever it was it wasn't as hard as old Stanley or Record.
It picked up a deep scratch very easily, but then was easy to flatten and remove it. Nothing like the oldies at all.
That wasn't the only reason I sold it on - I just didn't rate it as value for money compared to an oldie. It was 4 Bedrock design.
Main thing about ductile iron is it's supposed to be cheaper. In fact one of my experiments was with a rubbish Ess-Vee no 4. Cheapo Indian and badly made. The blade was OK but the body was soft (ductile?) like the Clifton
I went through quite a few of modern and other alternatives just to find out. Non of them were keepers, Record consistently best.

 

[Michael_b]

I have tried them but I didn't like the extra weight or the price. Quite happy with a set of ancient Stanleys and Records. Sharpening is the key, whichever you choose.
PS just remembered what P'd me off about a LN I owned briefly - the thick blade slow sharpening and the totally useless Norris style adjuster. Ditto Stanley SW - norris adjusters look neat but don't work very well at all.

I've never seen a LN plane with a Norris style adjuster. Can you provide a link*?

I also have never observed anything "totally useless" about any of the LN (or LV, or vintage Stanley for that matter) planes I own. Can you elaborate*?

*queue dodging of the question or outright failure to respond.

 

[Hornbeam]

I really like the veritas shoulder planes which have a couple of clear improvements over the older style record/prestons etc. The clampimg mechanism is much better, I like the little knobs which give you a nice holding option and generally I find the plane fits in my hand better than some of teh alternatives of which I have a few.
On side handles I note that some manufactures are offering clip on side handle but if i remember stanley or record did a "technical" jack plane with a screw on side handle specifically to use with a shooting board

 

[Jacob]

I've never seen a LN plane with a Norris style adjuster. Can you provide a link*?

It must have been the low angle 62. You have to tilt the blade by tapping the side. Have found similar on other planes too.

I also have never observed anything "totally useless" about any of the LN (or LV, or vintage Stanley for that matter) planes I own. Can you elaborate*?

Norris style adjusters for one.

*queue dodging of the question or outright failure to respond.

What does that mean? Is it a spelling mistake? Do you mean "cue: dodging...." etc. Are you trying to be sarcastic again?

 

[Michael_b]

I really like the veritas shoulder planes which have a couple of clear improvements over the older style record/prestons etc. The clampimg mechanism is much better, I like the little knobs which give you a nice holding option and generally I find the plane fits in my hand better than some of teh alternatives of which I have a few.
On side handles I note that some manufactures are offering clip on side handle but if i remember stanley or record did a "technical" jack plane with a screw on side handle specifically to use with a shooting board

I, too, very much like the Veritas shoulder planes: I own the Large and the Small and both are wonderful tools that are capable of high precision work including precision fitting of one component of a joint to another where appropriate. Since (more recently) acquiring the Small, I find I am using it more often than the Large.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Michael_b said:
I've never seen a LN plane with a Norris style adjuster. Can you provide a link*

It must have been the low angle 62. You have to tilt the blade by tapping the side. Have found similar on other planes too.

Norris style adjusters for one.

Jacob, the LN #62 does not have a Norris adjuster. Only the Veritas does.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Michael_b]

It must have been the low angle 62. You have to tilt the blade by tapping the side. Have found similar on other planes too.

Norris style adjusters for one.

What does that mean? Is it a spelling mistake? Do you mean "cue: dodging...." etc. Are you trying to be sarcastic again?

Queue as in there might be a lineup of such responses based on previous experience, and taking advantage of the pronunciation overlap with "cue." Not a spelling mistake but rather the ironic use of a homophone for a double entendre.

The LN 62 doesn't have a Norris style adjuster, just a depth adjustment. I submit that one should judge a Norris style adjuster based on actual Norris style adjusters instead of simple depth adjusters.

What's "totally useless" about a Norris style adjuster? You dodged the question by repeating your premise rather than actually elaborating. . . have we started the queue?

 

[Jacob]

Queue as in there might be a lineup of such responses based on previous experience, and taking advantage of the pronunciation overlap with "cue." Not a spelling mistake but rather the ironic use of a homophone for a double entendre.

The LN 62 doesn't have a Norris style adjuster, just a depth adjustment. I submit that one should judge a Norris style adjuster based on actual Norris style adjusters instead of simple depth adjusters.

It looks like a Norris adjuster and that's good enough for me. Does the fact that it isn't supposed to work make it a better adjuster in your view?

What's "totally useless" about a Norris style adjuster?

They don't work very well. Otherwise they are perfect in every way! You can't have too many brass knobs!

You dodged the question by repeating your premise rather than actually elaborating. . . have we started the queue?

Which question have I dodged? Please don't bother answering.
PS The Norris style adjuster on the Stanley SW 4 didn't work too well either. Was that also not supposed to work?

 

[Michael_b]

It looks like a Norris adjuster and that's good enough for me. Does the fact that it isn't supposed to work make it a better adjuster in your view?

They don't work very well. Otherwise they are perfect in every way! You can't have too many brass knobs!

Which question have I dodged? Please don't bother answering

I'll ignore your request exactly as much as you've ignored mine. You've dodged the question of why Norris adjusters are "totally useless" once again. Queue indeed. "They don't work very well." Very detailed and descriptive. Your detailed and poetic prose never fails to inspire (yes, that was sarcasm).

"It looks like a Norris adjuster and that's good enough for me."
No, it doesn't (avoid derogatory epithet here). Have you actually seen a Norris style adjuster?

 

[Jacob]

No, it doesn't

Yes it does.

Have you actually seen a Norris style adjuster?

Certainly have! They don't work very well do they.

 

[Distinterior]

I think it is a thread to create argument and not add knowledge. Any tool you like and suggest will just be a launching platform for the "just do it my old way" argument that is at the heart of all his posts. Try to disagree and get pounded and worn down with the same repetitive replies. Can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Pete

Guy's,....Please note Pete's comment above from earlier in this thread.....

 

[Michael_b]

Yes it does.

Certainly have! They don't work very well do they.

Dodged the question again. I was definitely correct in my word choice.

If you'll allow me to educate you, a Norris style adjuster incorporates depth *and* lateral adjustment in a single mechanism. It includes a pivot point about which the entire mechanism rotates to adjust the skew of the blade independently of how the linear screw adjusts depth.

The LN #62 has a linear adjustment with no pivot of the adjuster.

Can you spot the difference?

 

[Michael_b]

Guy's,....Please note Pete's comment above from earlier in this thread.....

Full disclosure: I'm largely pursuing this as pure entertainment. Maybe I'm a (avoid derogatory epithet here).

 

[Jacob]

Dodged the question again. I was definitely correct in my word choice.

If you'll allow me to educate you, a Norris style adjuster incorporates depth *and* lateral adjustment in a single mechanism. It includes a pivot point about which the entire mechanism rotates to adjust the skew of the blade independently of how the linear screw adjusts depth.

The LN #62 has a linear adjustment with no pivot of the adjuster.

Can you spot the difference?

Yep. The Norris adjuster in general doesn't work very well (everybody agrees on this, it isn't just me, you don't have to take my word for it - google it!).
The LN version of the Norris adjuster works even less well.
The other thing I was not too keen on was the thick bevel up blade. And the price!

 

[Michael_b]

Yep. The Norris adjuster in general doesn't work very well (everybody agrees on this, it isn't just me, you don't have to take my word for it - google it!).
The LN version of the Norris adjuster works even less well.
The other thing I was not too keen on was the thick bevel up blade. And the price!

"Queue" was absolutely the correct word.

*Why* (according to *you*) does the Norris style adjuster not work very well? Simple question. Can you answer?

 

[Jacob]

"Queue" was absolutely the correct word.

*Why* (according to *you*) does the Norris style adjuster not work very well? Simple question. Can you answer?

You tell me!
That they don't work very well is well known and is my experience too.
I thought they looked a very neat and clever design until I tried them out on various planes which came my way.
Do you have planes with Norris adjusters which work as well as the standard Stanley/Bailey design? Simple question. Can you answer?
This is getting really boring so sorry you are on "ignore" again.

 

[MikeK]

And on that note, this thread has run its course.