my first infill

[condeesteso]

Seems odd that I have been planing for very many years, but never owned one single infill plane. Santa (Sputnik Jim in red strides) set me right back in December. It sat in the workshop and, frankly, got dusty. Then yesterday I had a sharpening session and decided to set-to on the infill blade (a fine old Sorby).
I maybe spent 10 minutes on the blade and iron, and it is a cracker. I am learning to adapt technique as I tend to press down a bit (woodies for you, maybe).
Looks lovely, works a treat, mouth bigger than... yet it cuts wild walnut grain to silky smooth. There is still something about those fine carbon steels that I like. They may wear a bit quicker, but they are equally quick to get back, and they cut LUVVERLY.

I like this plane a lot, enough to shift a few of the others further from the bench (I use the ones I can reach fastest). Paul's loss, my gain :lol: :lol:

 

[Cheshirechappie]

On first impression, do you feel that the infill plane a better performer than a well-set-up Bailey style plane?

(P.S. - It's not a trick question; I'm genuinely curious. In thirty years of amateur woodbutchery, I've never used an infill.)

 

[condeesteso]

My personal honest answer Cheshire... no, not really. The key is 'well set-up'.
At the far end (beyond my reach) the Holteys, Sauer & Steiners, Bill Carters and others are probably outstanding planes (so I have read). But a well set-up Bailey is still a great everyday user I feel (and readily affordable too).
I try to avoid passionate debates about tools these days - just use 'em :wink: - but I shall make space by the bench for this infill and I will get using it. It impresses me and it's pleasing that a tool so old can work so well. Odd that my Lie Nielsens sit 5 feet from the bench (on a shelf) so get used far less often. The old US Stanleys are right there at the bench and I reach for those first and every time.

 

[Richard T]

Looks like a good'un Douglas.
The handles and overall look seem to have been quite closely copied from a Norris, the lever cap is nice and low. Good Iron.

I was reading Konrad's blog again yesterday and he described one of his panel planes as having a 50 degree pitch being 'unusual' for a panel ... your's looks lower - is it 45?

 

[bugbear]

My personal honest answer Cheshire... no, not really. The key is 'well set-up'.
At the far end (beyond my reach) the Holteys, Sauer & Steiners, Bill Carters and others are probably outstanding planes (so I have read). But a well set-up Bailey is still a great everyday user I feel (and readily affordable too).
I try to avoid passionate debates about tools these days - just use 'em :wink: - but I shall make space by the bench for this infill and I will get using it. It impresses me and it's pleasing that a tool so old can work so well. Odd that my Lie Nielsens sit 5 feet from the bench (on a shelf) so get used far less often. The old US Stanleys are right there at the bench and I reach for those first and every time.

Interestingly Joel Moskowitz (who is in a position to make an informed comparison) says that the main benefit of an infill is not that it gives higher performance than a fully tuned Bedrock (or even Bailey) plane, but that it is easier to actually achieve high performance from an infill - the tuning is less critical.

BugBear

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Thank you, gentlemen.

That rather adds to something I read somewhere (damned if I can remember where); an infill, it is said, has a similar performance to a sharp, well set-up Bailey plane. However, where the performance of the Bailey drops away as the sharpness of the iron dulls, the performance of the infill remains even as the iron dulls. I'm not sure how much I believe this, but since I've never tried....

Maybe one day I'll make myself an infill smoother and maybe an infill panel plane (I'm far too much of a tightwad to shell out for vintage ones in decent order, or for new ones by a reputable maker). However, the job is so far down the 'to-do' list that it may be some years before I get there. In the meantime, I'll carry on with the LN smoother (bought in the late '90s when I was cash-rich but time-poor), which has done pretty much all I have asked of it so far, supplemented only occasionally by use of a scraper. The 1980s Record 04 has done quite good service, too; at least it has after major surgery to a seriously warped sole. So I'm not really sure that I need an infill....

 

[jimi43]

She will take a thicker iron if you need one...but we proved before that the size of the mouth on these panel planes does not really affect the performance. I think that this will be most useful as the wide smoother you suggested yesterday for um...panels!

As you get used to the weight being the motive force behind the cut and get momentum doing the work you will love it even more.

I think I would pick up my panel any day against any Bailey and Bedrock...but that's just me.

Now...coffin smoothers! :mrgreen:

Jim

 

[condeesteso]

Richard - I had a look before and it looked a 45 degree, but a careful measure now - 42.5 degrees. Not come across that before - were infills made 'approximately'? - or is this slightly lower angle not unusual.
I had honed secondary at 33 degrees, so still good clearance behind the edge. The 33 hone is my version of lazyness - I get there quicker.
It is a cracking plane Jim - don't get me wrong. It's not that I prefer Baileys in particular, I suppose I am being cautious about saying 'this is better / best' - and I am generally more of a mind these days to grab and use the tools that work for me. But the infill will definitely be one of those, right by the bench. I need to re-dress the benchtop soon and I think it will be excellent for final cut on that.
An outastandingly generous Christmas pressie, no doubt at all - very grateful.

 

[Richard T]

42.5 eh? I thought it looked shallow.
I have not come across the angle in planes before but I suppose it must be meant. 2 degrees the other way is very common after all; 47.5 is English pitch.

I suppose it might be a dedicated Try plane used for taking down the peaks left by a fore plane. I wonder if this is what Konrad meant by 50 being unusual. Maybe they are traditionally less. I'm just wildly speculating here.

 

[custard]

If you're ever in the New Forest area drop me an email and you'll be very welcome in my workshop where you can test drive a Holtey, a really good pre-war Norris with the choice of Norris and Holtey irons, Lie Nielsens ranging from Low Angle to the 55 degree frog, Stanley Bedrocks, and Philly wooden bench planes.

For what it's worth I can't see any difference between 'em when it comes to the shavings or finish; and romance apart I can't actually produce a single practical reason why you'd use anything other than a Bailey Bedrock design!

 

[bugbear]

If you're ever in the New Forest area drop me an email and you'll be very welcome in my workshop where you can test drive a Holtey, a really good pre-war Norris with the choice of Norris and Holtey irons, Lie Nielsens ranging from Low Angle to the 55 degree frog, Stanley Bedrocks, and Philly wooden bench planes.

For what it's worth I can't see any difference between 'em when it comes to the shavings or finish; and romance apart I can't actually produce a single practical reason why you'd use anything other than a Bailey Bedrock design!

Any comment on Joel's ... comment?

BugBear

 

[jimi43]

I'll give one....

My mate Ron and Picasso are both painters......

:wink:

Jim

 

[custard]

Any comment on Joel's ... comment?

BugBear

I'm sure Joel's got his reasons for saying this, and as you say he's massively experienced. But for the life me I can't think why an infill should benefit less from tuning than a Bailey? if an infill has a bowed sole, or a twisted frog, or an ill fitting cap iron, or a sloppy lateral adjuster; then surely these shortcomings would be equally deleterious on an infill as a Bailey. Or am I missing something?

 

[bugbear]

Any comment on Joel's ... comment?

BugBear

I'm sure Joel's got his reasons for saying this, and as you say he's massively experienced. But for the life me I can't think why an infill should benefit less from tuning than a Bailey? if an infill has a bowed sole, or a twisted frog, or an ill fitting cap iron, or a sloppy lateral adjuster; then surely these shortcomings would be equally deleterious on an infill as a Bailey. Or am I missing something?

All a question of degree - if the faults you posit are severe enough, they're clearly insurmountable.

Life (and physics) is very rarely black and white.

But to give an example - a massive thick iron (such as form part of the standard infill) has less need of excellent bedding, since, to some extent, it is its own stabilising mass. However, in the infill, the massive iron will have excellent bedding, Further, it will have a lever cap holding it down extremely firmly. The practical upshot is that edge stabilisation is achieved about three separate ways, which leaves a certain degree of "slack" before performance actually starts to fall away.

BugBear

 

[jimi43]

A fine observation there BB!

As someone who chose an infill as their first plane...(accidentally)....and who has taken some apart...rebuilt them and made them from scratch (with a little help from friends as well)....I have to say that in my opinion alone....an average infill is streets above a Bailey design....and a premium infill is a joy to use...an extension of your hand.

I have yet to own an S&S but I have used a Holtey...and it was stunning. I have had the pleasure of touching a Carter and watching the maker glow with pride.

A plane is a device for holding a piece of metal with an edge...full stop. But it's not only that....it can be a masterpiece in itself...a work of art itself...and a joy to just own.

When the war ended...these beauties faded out....the good Baileys stopped being made....and cheapness set in.

Thankfully today, there are some who want to change this and I salute them...the Karls and the Lie Nielsens....and the little makers across the world. Thankfully they are still making planes a craftsman owns for life...treasures....and which helps them be a better craftsman.

Am I being emotional about them....hell yes...damn right I am! :mrgreen:

The Bedrocks can stay with Fred and Barney as far as my shelves are concerned. :wink:

Jimi

 

[Richard T]

Well said sir.

But I think I am missing something too ... who's Joel? :duno:

 

[Vann]

I have had the pleasure of touching a Carter and watching the maker glow with pride.

:shock: (hammer)

The Bedrocks can stay with Fred and Barney as far as my shelves are concerned. :wink:

Damned sexist! What about Wilma & Betty? :mrgreen:

But I think I am missing something too ... who's Joel? :duno:

I believe BB is refering to Joel at Tools for Working Wood (USA). His blog: http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/stor ... %20Quality (hope the link works).

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Richard T]

Aha.

Thanks Vann.

 

[custard]

Any comment on Joel's ... comment?

BugBear

I'm sure Joel's got his reasons for saying this, and as you say he's massively experienced. But for the life me I can't think why an infill should benefit less from tuning than a Bailey? if an infill has a bowed sole, or a twisted frog, or an ill fitting cap iron, or a sloppy lateral adjuster; then surely these shortcomings would be equally deleterious on an infill as a Bailey. Or am I missing something?

All a question of degree - if the faults you posit are severe enough, they're clearly insurmountable.

Life (and physics) is very rarely black and white.

But to give an example - a massive thick iron (such as form part of the standard infill) has less need of excellent bedding, since, to some extent, it is its own stabilising mass. However, in the infill, the massive iron will have excellent bedding, Further, it will have a lever cap holding it down extremely firmly. The practical upshot is that edge stabilisation is achieved about three separate ways, which leaves a certain degree of "slack" before performance actually starts to fall away.

BugBear

I thought the whole point about physics was that is testable, verifiable, and therefore ultimately black and white!

That aside, I'm still not convinced by the examples you give.

Thick irons? The irons on my Holtey, Norris, Stanley Bedrock (with Rob Cosman replacements), and Lie Nielsen are all pretty similar. So any benefit from thick irons accrues equally to the infill and Bailey bedrocks.

Lever caps? I'm not able to measure the force applied by the cap on my Holtey or Norris, but given that the shavings are identical to the shavings produced by my Lie Nielsen and Stanley bedrock I can only conclude the bedrock design delivers adequate pressure for the task in hand. Furthermore, I've heard Karl Holtey claim there's a design error in the Norris adjuster, in that it can only be safely used with the cap slackened, and as this protocol was often breached it has left a legacy of damaged and sloppy infills out in the market. Certainly it took me some years of searching to find a pre war Norris that fully met my expectations.

Excellent bedding? Maybe any particular infill does have excellent bedding, but then again maybe another does not. Surely that depends on the stability of the wooden infill, which I believe is why Karl Holtey is moving away from infills for his latest designs.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not anti infills in any way...after all I'm pretty heavily invested in them! But after using some of the finest infills on the planet I've concluded that they're delightful and even inspirational tools that are a joy to own and use, but they don't actually produce a better result than a good bedrock.

However, if anyone can stand at my bench and deliver a superior performance with my Holtey or Norris (or any infill you care to bring along) than I can produce with a Lie Nielsen or a Stanley Bedrock, then I'll be perfectly willing to acknowledge the fact and change my mind.

 

[bugbear]

I believe BB is refering to Joel at Tools for Working Wood (USA).

Well, yes. I did actually post the name "Joel Moskowitz", not just Joel.

BugBear