Thanks Thanks:  0
Needs Pictures Needs Pictures:  0
Picture(s) thanks Picture(s) thanks:  0
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lyonville
    Posts
    209

    Default Identifying an Infill Plane

    20170219_143009[1].jpg20170219_143029[1].jpg20170219_143041[1].jpg

    Can anyone help me identify and date this plane.

    I don't know infill planes well enough to know whether the iron is original or not.

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weaver View Post
    20170219_143009[1].jpg20170219_143029[1].jpg20170219_143041[1].jpg

    Can anyone help me identify and date this plane.

    I don't know infill planes well enough to know whether the iron is original or not.

    weaver,
    it doesn't have any of the "fingerprints" of the commercial makers.
    Most the design choices the maker has made differ from the more or less standard form that all the commercial makers used. In some cases they are close, and in others well outside expected parameters.

    Looking from the front to the back, what I see that makes this a user made plane are ... the front bun small with little undercut, lever set a little too far away from blade, making screw come down at an angle, not close to 90 deg, handle way down the back of the plane, upright, and flat sided.
    It was possible to purchase, make or have made the metal parts of a plane, and do the infill yourself right through the time these planes were popular. From around the mid 1800s to the early 1900s. Lever caps and screws were in most dealer and maker's catalogues. The planes were used in pattern making workshops, and woodwork magazines had articles describing how to make a pattern, have a casting produced, and to make a plane.
    Here are a couple of planes to compare...
    I'll get out a couple more for a few pics later today.
    Cheers,
    Peter


    <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <woNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lyonville
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Interesting. Thanks for your comments.

    I don't know much about infill planes. Just that they are expensive pretty and awesome (but then so are many other planes).

    In my googling last night I found a couple of other Hearnshaw Bros. planes and a feature they seem to have in common is no makers stamps on the plane just on the iron. Now that could mean any number of things like those other planes are all "user made planes". Now way of knowing if the irons are original or not.

    I going to give it some love today and give it a go.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weaver View Post
    .....
    I don't know much about infill planes......

    In my googling last night I found a couple of other Hearnshaw Bros. planes ......
    Hi weaver,
    I'm afraid you have been misled....
    It is a common mistake, perhaps unsurprisingly sometimes made by tool dealers, to claim a name found ONLY on the blade set as the "maker" of a poorly executed plane.
    Since a blade isn't fixed to the plane it should not be used to identify the origin, the era or the maker.
    Some commercial plane makers marked the blades with matching assembly numbers to make certain a hand fitted blade married up with the correct plane in final assembly and polishing.
    Hearnshaw was not a maker of infill planes, and your plane wasn't made by a competent commercial plane maker.
    Blades were sold as a stock item by plane makers and plenty of edge tool makers (like Hearnshaw), or re-purposed from other planes into USER made planes. Your plane is a user made plane. Most likely by the person who's name is stamped on it.

    Some jointers, planes 17 1/2 inch or longer. Front to back Buck, Bayfield, Late Spiers, Norris, Mathieson.



    Some panel planes, those shorter than 17 1/2 inch and longer than about 10 inch. Front to back Spiers, Slater, Mathieson, Late Norris


    Cheers,
    Peter
    <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <woNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lyonville
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Fair enough. The reason for my theory was that the only infill planes I found googling with Hearnshaw irons also didn't have a stamp on the lever. However, if Hearnshaw never made infill planes that's that.

    I gave it a bit of a sharpen today. Its got a partial back bevel which I mostly removed when I flattened the back but not completely. So its kind of sharp but not very. It worked pretty well but the mouth isn't as tight as I would like or expect from an infill plane. That fits with your theory of it being a poorly made user plane.

    Nice planes. Do you use them at all?

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weaver View Post
    .....Nice planes. Do you use them at all?.....
    Weaver, I think it would take Peter far too long to decide which plane to use for any particular job......

    I was thinking along the same lines as Peter when I saw the pic - a user-made plane, so nice to get a corroborating opinion from someone who knows about a thousand times more about old tools than I do. The two aspects that stood out to me were the set-back handle/tote and the distinct line along the side/sole joint. There is no hint of dovetails, & the line suggests it's probably not a casting, which leads me to wonder just how the sides & sole are joined - have you been able to figure that out, & can you give us a clear pic of the sole?

    Being user-made doesn't mean it's a dud, it could be an excellent user if the maker paid attention to essential details, like getting the blade nicely bedded. Having the lever cap screw at an angle like that might cause some instability, but if it does, I'd try making a cupped shoe that the screw can bear on & distribute the force more evenly. Don't despair with the wider mouth, on a panel/jointer (you didn't tell us the length, but it looks borderline for either from the pic?) it doesn't need to be super close. With a sharp blade it should do the job of levelling your work, and a smoother can take care of any minor imperfections this one leaves.

    Let us know how it goes after you've lived with it a while....
    Cheers,
    IW

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Age
    74
    Posts
    6,132

    Default

    There's something a little bit off in the geometry of the bedding angle and location of the lever cap hinge point. The lever cap screw can't be shorter because it would then interfere with the cap iron retaining nut.

    But, I can't for the life of me put my finger on where the problem is.

    One of these days I'm going, to hassle Peter for more advice and to get back to making another infill plane.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weaver View Post
    Fair enough. The reason for my theory was that the only infill planes I found googling with Hearnshaw irons also didn't have a stamp on the lever. However, if Hearnshaw never made infill planes that's that.

    I gave it a bit of a sharpen today. Its got a partial back bevel which I mostly removed when I flattened the back but not completely. So its kind of sharp but not very. It worked pretty well but the mouth isn't as tight as I would like or expect from an infill plane. That fits with your theory of it being a poorly made user plane.

    Nice planes. Do you use them at all?

    Hi Weaver,
    My comment above "the "maker" of a poorly executed plane." wasn't directed specifically at your plane. I'm sorry if that's how you read it ... and I can understand my clumsy writing may have been to blame.
    I was making a comment, more about the offerings I often see in catalogue sales and on ebay by people who DO or SHOULD know better, and still want to "improve the sale" by specifying incorrectly that they know the maker of a plane from the mark on blade. It seems to get currency from repeated re-posting and referencing on the net.

    The Mathieson Jointer at the back has a spare sharp blade I keep in the draw under my bench.....BUT, it is such a heavy beast of a plane I rarely ever want to use it for more than a few minutes.
    I have a nice old thin_walled 1890's Stanley #8 I prefer to push around for lengthy periods.
    The infill planes I usually use are the ones I've made myself.
    Having more than a couple to use as templates means I avoid exactly what Ray was talking about above. That pivot pin position is critical to the fraction of a mm.
    It's the first thing I see, and is a great indicator that a maker is on their first plane. If you get it wrong once, and understand why, it's a mistake that should not be made a second time.

    I agree with IanW, get the blade set up as best you can, it will be interesting to see how well it behaves. If the blade takes a good edge, and you shape and set the back iron up nicely it will cut wood...that's for sure.

    Looking at the side to base join from the pics, it may have been a welded construction, even Spiers did that for a while between the wars!

    Cheers,
    Peter
    <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <woNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

  10. #9
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,357

    Default

    The lack of refinement within the shaping of the front bun and the rear tote is a likely giveaway to its lack of authenticity.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lyonville
    Posts
    209

    Default

    This is the plane that I like to use that is closest in size to my new infill. Much lighter. I've also got a record no. 6 but it is not as fun to use.

    This one is 550mm long.
    20170221_134044.jpg
    The new infill is 455mm
    20170221_134111.jpg
    But here are some more shots as is.

    20170221_134133.jpg20170221_134148.jpg20170221_134159.jpg20170221_134220.jpg20170221_134311.jpg

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lyonville
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by planemaker View Post
    The lack of refinement within the shaping of the front bun and the rear tote is a likely giveaway to its lack of authenticity.
    I wouldn't say its not authentic because its not purporting to be something it isn't. That is after all one of the things about it, it doesn't have a makers mark on the plane body.

    It works even with just getting a cursory sharpen.
    20170221_140422[1].jpg
    The dull area with minimal scratches is where I've worked the iron on a 1200 grit water stone. Shiny scratched area is as it came.

    I worked the back for a while and then put a tiny back bevel on with a 6000 grit water stone. Later I'll take some more time to bring the flattened area all the way to the front. Except maybe for that left corner. That might take a while.

Similar Threads

  1. Infill Plane ID
    By Gaza58 in forum ANTIQUE AND COLLECTABLE TOOLS
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 21st July 2016, 11:57 AM
  2. Infill Plane
    By Gezawa in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 27th December 2010, 03:23 PM
  3. Infill plane
    By Gezawa in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 4th November 2010, 12:15 AM
  4. infill plane
    By John Saxton in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 24th October 2006, 04:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •