Which Norris ?

[-David-]

While browsing Axminster today I bought the Garrett Hack 'Handplane' book. Its not that I had forgotten that I had a Norris, it was more a case of perverse postponed gratification stretching over many years ! So having dug it out of storage I have decided to at least find out its specification pending putting it to use once I have my workshop.

My only source of detailed reference are the 1914 and 1928 catalogue reproductions at http://www.handplane.com/archives/37 . I cannot see it specified here.
I have a confusion in cutter measurements - when a plane is specified as for a 2" cutter does that mean that the cutter is 2" wide or the throat?

Now, I know you will want to see a photograph, but please make do with a description for now.

It is as No 2 in the 1914 catalogue -
Improved Steel Smoothing Plane Round Sides
Open handle
No adjuster

But the fitted Tyzack blade is 1 7/8" and not the 2" as per catalogue.
The throat of the plane is 2"

There is a 1 7/8" smoother in the catalogue which is a No. 4 and is not in the style of mine.

Any suggestions ?

David

 

[Scrit]

Hi David

I have a confusion in cutter measurements - when a plane is specified as for a 2" cutter does that mean that the cutter is 2" wide or the throat?

Cutter, although Norris, et al did make specials to order especially pre WWI and the 2in wasn't necessarily all that accurate

It is as No 2 in the 1914 catalogue -
Improved Steel Smoothing Plane Round Sides
Open handle
No adjuster

But the fitted Tyzack blade is 1 7/8" and not the 2" as per catalogue.
The throat of the plane is 2"

If this is a Norris it will be stamped "Norris London" on the gunmetal lever cap. Post circa 1922 the model number will also be stamped inside the Norris and London. BTW not all non-adjuster Norris's are stamped Norris as quite a few were sold through tool merchants such as Musgrave of Lincoln. Pre-1916 (approx.) the knob on the bronze lever cap is cuspate, i.e. there is a pronounced "pimple" in the middle of the turning. Sometime during WWI Norris changed to a plain flat-top screw knob. The other thing that will be stamped "Norris London" is the cap iron (if it is original) whilst the iron can be either simply stamped "Norris London" (post circa 1916) or have a fancy full mark stamped on it with the maker's name (again pre-WWI) - either way it will be a parallel iron - consistent in thickness for the full length. Some Norrisses were sold with irons by other makers, most noticeably Sorby, but as Tyzack were tool merchants rather than makers it suggests that your iron is a replacement. All the above notes apply to production from early 20th century up until end of production (original firm) in around 1941.

I used to collect 'em, so that's why the details have stuck so well. Hope those notes help

Scrit

 

[-David-]

Thanks for all that info Scrit

From what you say -

It is not Post 1922 as it does not have a model no. stamped inside the Norris London on the bronze screw cap iron.
It must be Pre 1916 as it has a pimple on said screw.

The only other marks are 'STEEL' on the front edge of the sole, and something which I have just seen, - '58' stamped into the rosewood bed.

There have been at least 2 previous owners whose names are stamped, although the last owner did not add his name to the collection even though he stamped other tools of his that I have got.

The cutter iron itself is stamped -
S.TYZACK & SON
OLD ST.
E.C. (East Central ?)
WARRANTED 345
It tapers slightly from 3.73- 3.01mm

The cap iron is stamped
THOS IBBATSON & CO
SHEFFIELD
WARRANTED STEEL
HARDnd
With a circlip type logo

Now my big question is -
Would I be better off selling this an get myself a high performance modern smoother or would my Norris out perform these.
Whilst I would love to keep this for its history, tactile and aesthetic values, would what I would get in selling this, equip me with performance and collectables of the future.
I would resist keeping it as the beginning of a collection as that is not a slippery slope I wish to launch myself on.

 

[Scrit]

The only other marks are 'STEEL' on the front edge of the sole, and something which I have just seen, - '58' stamped into the rosewood bed.

"STEEL" indicates that it is a dovetailed plane, the cast iron ones sometimes had "ANNEALED" stamped on them indicating malleable cast iron. The number is thought by some to have been a bench maker's number (i.e. the number of the man assembling it) and the cutter and bed would probably be stamped identically when the plane was new. It is thought that Norris might well have farmed out the making of parts of his planes and even assembly to a few trusted tradesmen in much the same way as the batch processing done by the "Little Miesters" in Sheffield.

The cutter iron itself .... tapers slightly from 3.73- 3.01mm

That confirms it as a replacement. An original Norris blade would be parallel, just like the Spiers planes that Norris started out copying in the 1880s

The cap iron is stamped THOS IBBATSON & CO

Which means it is probably also a replacement.

It is possible that the earliest Norrises had bought-in blades and cap irons not stamped Norris, but as the Norris started-out as a copy of the Scottish Spiers plane (which had a parallel iron) and all Norris advertising literature found states that his planes had parallel irons it is probably valid to conclude that his planes were only ever available with parallel irons.

Would I be better off selling this an get myself a high performance modern smoother or would my Norris out perform these.

My experience is that a Lie-Nielsen or Veritas bevel-up low angle smoothers will at least match a good adjuster Norris and have the advantages of probably less slop in the adjuster, the ability to use different irons (thus gain different pitches from a single plane) and an adjustable mouth in most instances. So, given the choice as a user I'd plump for the modern plane, despite the poorer aesthetics.

Having now committed sacrelidge I think I might need to go and hide!

Scrit

 

[Alf]

My experience is that a Lie-Nielsen or Veritas bevel-up low angle smoothers will at least match a good adjuster Norris and have the advantages of probably less slop in the adjuster, the ability to use different irons (thus gain different pitches from a single plane) and an adjustable mouth in most instances. So, given the choice as a user I'd plump for the modern plane, despite the poorer aesthetics.

Having now committed sacrelidge I think I might need to go and hide!

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm too busy picking my jaw up off the floor to comment... :shock: :lol:

 

[Scrit]

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm too busy picking my jaw up off the floor to comment... :shock: :lol:

This Norris has a non-original taper iron which sound as though it's actually too narrow for the plane. It has the heft to be a good smoother, but lacks an adjuster which means it's more of a faff to set-up. Granted you get used to using a non-adjuster but it is quicker to alter the iron on a plane with an adjuster. All Norrises with adjusters had a quirk that the cutter moves slightly as you tighten the lever cap - that can be a bit of a pain. And anyone who collects them and uses them (as I used to) will tell you that the quality is quite variable. Given a choice between a post-war Norris A5 smoother and a Veritas BU smoother the Veritas will outperform the Norris almost every time - finer adjustment with much less slop, consistent blade quality, adjustable mouth opening and that ability to alter the pitch bay regrinding the iron all add up to a superier performance. Even the pre-WWII Norrises, which most agree are better than the post-WWII ones can be very variable in performance. If the modern plane matches or improves on the performance of the older plane then what's left? Aesthetics? But aesthetics don't get a piece made, planes do. I've yet to try a Holtey, but I gather that Karl Holtey has taken the making of the infill plane to a new level by addressing many of the shortcomings of the original, especially as regrds accuracy, and that his planes are considerably better than the original Norris in many respects.... Maybe one day.....

Perhaps Ian D would care to comment

Scrit

 

[Alf]

Scrit, you misunderstand. I agree with you 100% (except I don't that much care for the looks of infills either) - I'm just surprised you agree with you, if you see what I mean! :lol:

 

[Scrit]

Scrit, you misunderstand. I agree with you 100% (except I don't that much care for the looks of infills either) - I'm just surprised you agree with you, if you see what I mean! :lol:

I'd still be indecisive about the relative merits of a BU jack/jointer over a Norris, but use over the past 4 or 5 years has convinced me that the Norris isn't the undisputed king of planes it used to be. Many of the Norrises coming up for sale these days are very poor yet still fetch high prices from collectors, rather than users. I suppose my change of mind was really brought about by Veritas's excellent offerings which, whilst lacking the beauty of a Norris (I know, personal taste, etc....) and being a bit rough in one or two areas really do shine where it counts - how they cut wood. Thank you, Lee Valley!

Scrit

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Scrit wrote:
My experience is that a Lie-Nielsen or Veritas bevel-up low angle smoothers will at least match a good adjuster Norris and have the advantages of probably less slop in the adjuster, the ability to use different irons (thus gain different pitches from a single plane) and an adjustable mouth in most instances. So, given the choice as a user I'd plump for the modern plane, despite the poorer aesthetics.

Having now committed sacrelidge I think I might need to go and hide!

Then Alf wrote:
Don't know about anyone else, but I'm too busy picking my jaw up off the floor to comment...

Oh I do know ... My good friend and co-conspirator on the Marcou Smoother review, Peter Byrne, wrote the following after using the Veritas BUS, Marcou Smoother and his Slater infill:

The tests were done on a variety of woods, some very hard, using effective cutting angles of the conventional 45 degrees and about 60 degrees.

At 45 degrees, both planes smooth superbly taking off full width wispy shavings. In this mode I could detect no difference between the planes. There was a noticeable difference experienced when taking a heavier cut (sometimes we do need to reduce the size of a piece of wood, not just smooth it!). With the heavier cut the Marcou was noticeably smoother and easier, doubtlessly due to its extra mass. Once moving it feels like a train. The only other difference I could detect was on some Tasmanian Blackwood on which the Marcou gave a noticeably superior finish against the grain. (Yes, we planed both ways with both planes, mostly without tear out!) At 60 degrees there was no noticeable difference in cutting performance at all, and no discernable tearout against the grain – a reminder of one of the advantages of these planes – the potential for different angled blades.

I brought along my 1890s Slater smoother (souped up with a Hock blade) and added it to the routine. Planing with the grain it is every bit as good as these newcomers. Against the grain it is not in the same game. The new breed has dashed the superiority held by good quality infills for a century or more. These planes are very, very good.

The full Marcou Smoother review is at http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCoh ... /index.asp

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Ian Dalziel]

David,
Youve had pretty sound advice from Scrit..personally i'd sell it and get either a new LV, LN, Clifton or Holtey :? whatever your budget will stand. You already said youve had it a long time and if you havent used it yet you probobly wont now. as scrit said the norris will take a bit of getting used too...whether you have or havent an adjuster it will take time to get used to setting the blade, you would end up being frustrated and not getting good results

I bought this lot off an old cabinetmaker, every one was a user. I dont use any of these they will probobly get split up and sold once i can be bothered.

Scrit...next time you are in Scotland drop me a line and i'll let you try some Holteys. youll like the 98's and the 11-S's and the others but these are my favourites.

I

just been reading Phillys gathering....ohhh he has gone further down the slope than i thought....Mrs D has said poor Mrs Philly......she's been there and seen the cc bills....it gets worse...much worse....did i mention it gets a lot worse then just worse....says Ian who never owned a plane 18months ago and has now lost count.

 

[bugbear]

It is possible that the earliest Norrises had bought-in blades and cap irons not stamped Norris, but as the Norris started-out as a copy of the Scottish Spiers plane (which had a parallel iron) and all Norris advertising literature found states that his planes had parallel irons it is probably valid to conclude that his planes were only ever available with parallel irons.

IIRC some Norris blades are stamped Norris on the front face and Sorby (I Sorby I think) on the back.

"Public" OEM'img, so to speak.

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

My experience is that a Lie-Nielsen or Veritas bevel-up low angle smoothers will at least match a good adjuster Norris and have the advantages of probably less slop in the adjuster, the ability to use different irons (thus gain different pitches from a single plane) and an adjustable mouth in most instances. So, given the choice as a user I'd plump for the modern plane, despite the poorer aesthetics.

Having now committed sacrelidge I think I might need to go and hide!

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm too busy picking my jaw up off the floor to comment... :shock: :lol:

it's an old (and well supported claim).

Here's Larry Williams in 1997
http://nika.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswi ... 37#message

When Bill started this, his goal was to try to make a wooden smoother that
would perform as well as an infill. For a benchmark I took my Norris to
the machine shop next door, lapped and trued it's sole to get rid of this
rounding of the mouth. Closing the mouth required making a new iron and
spending hours at the surface grinder taking it down to where I had only
a 3/1000" shaving aperature. The rounding of my Norris must have happened
in a pretty short time as there was still about 1 1/2" of the original
Norris iron left. If a metal plane is so much better, shouldn't it's sole
outlast the iron? Repairing a wooden plane with this problem sure doesn't
require a whole machine shop.

After Bill saw the results I got, he tuned his LN #4 to the same specs in
about 10 minutes with only a little work on cleaning up the corners of the
mouth. The LN proved to be capable of everything that the Norris was. Only
it's more adjustable and can be made to take a thicker shaving. I think
the LN is a better plane for about 1/2 the money.

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

I bought this lot off an old cabinetmaker, every one was a user. I dont use any of these they will probobly get split up and sold once i can be bothered.

I

It was a bit unsubtle to be a drive-by, but that's certainly a gold-plated, top-o-the-line gloat!

BugBear

 

[Scrit]

Scrit...next time you are in Scotland drop me a line and i'll let you try some Holteys. youll like the 98's and the 11-S's and the others but these are my favourites.

You do realise that you'll need a pry bar to get them out of my hands afterwards, don't you, Ian?

just been reading Phillys gathering....ohhh he has gone further down the slope than i thought....Mrs D has said poor Mrs Philly......she's been there and seen the cc bills....it gets worse...much worse....did i mention it gets a lot worse then just worse....says Ian who never owned a plane 18 months ago and has now lost count.

At peak I owned over 400 planes of which there were generally 60 to 80 in working order - I had more than 60 Sargents at one time for example whilst my Record and Stanley counts both exceeded 100 at times. Largest number of Norrises at any one time was 34, all useable. Now that's what they call being hooked! Fortunately common sense preveiled (?) and I'm don to a user kit of under 20 these days. My comparisons were based on being fortunate enough to do many side by side comparisons over time. One thing I can say is that Patrick Leach is right - these old plane makers would sometimes try selling anything to make a (fast) buck.

These days it's a lot less fraught - I'm down to my last 100! Alf, it must've been the DFPs that cured me :roll:

Scrit

 

[Alf]

Chaps, you all misunderstand me. It's not jaw-off-the-floor time 'cos it's sacrilege/unheard of or whatever - it's solely 'cos I didn't think I'd hear advice to buy a bevel-up from one of these old pros who's seen it all, s'all.

Cheers, Alf

 

[-David-]

Wow - what a lot of informative comment, which I have just scanned and will read again later. struggling with a reluctant AGA at the moment.

I will most probably be selling it on and reinvest, but I will not rush that and it will need to be deserved, that is, I have already got run of the mill smoothers and will need to raise my game in order to justify having such a fine piece.

'58' stamped into the rosewood bed.

After very close inspection I have found 58 stamped on the reverse side of the screw cap and cap iron.

Will read all comments fully when got aga going.

David

 

[Scrit]

.... it's solely 'cos I didn't think I'd hear advice to buy a bevel-up from one of these old pros who's seen it all, s'all.

Oi! Who're you calling old? Old dog, new tricks, eh? Never too old to learn something new, I say. Anyway, Stanley did the bevel-up more than a century ago - however it took Lie-Nielsen and Lee to do it right. That's all :wink:

Incidentally I feel quite positively inclined towards cheap Japanese pull saws as well....

Scrit

Not sure if he's ready to be an old codger yet, or not. I don't believe it.......

 

[Ian Dalziel]

Lie-Nielsen and Lee to do it right

you missed Karl :lol:

:lol: :lol:

agree there....i really dont need another but....a 22 1/2 jointer for christmas is what i'm hoping for under the tree. but wont get to play with it until january.

Never too old to learn something new

its harder teaching someone that already knows everything.
:shock: 8)


Your most welcome to drop by if i'm home.


I

 

[Scrit]

...you missed Karl :lol:

Let's leave the master planemaker to the gentry out of this, shall we? :wink: The L-N and more particularly the Veritas BU planes are very usable tools at attainable prices. Somehow I don't think that a second hand non-adjuster Norris will raise enough to buy one of Karl's masterpieces [-X

Scrit

 

[Scrit]

Wow - what a lot of informative comment.....

Ex-propellor head turned plane geek! What more can I say

Good lucjk with the Aga, another antique concept.......

Scrit