Refurbing a cute little Spiers thumb plane

[IanW]

A cute little plane popped up in another thread (https://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/hand-plane-257184) & caused a bit of excitement amongst the plane tragics, including myself, to the point we hijacked the thread grievously, getting carried away about this somewhat rare (almost certainly Spiers-made) “thumb plane” (my apologies, Roy, but we did stay mostly with small planes, so not too far off-topic! ).

Anyway, in the ensuing discussion I offered to make some replacements for the missing bits,which was accepted and the plane was duly delivered to my door by my friendly Auspost man. My offer was partly altruistic, and partly because I have been thinking about making some thumbscrews with head shapes & knurling that is more in keeping with late 19thC designs, so here was an opportunity to test my ideas & see if I could produce a reasonable facsimile of the style fitted to these planes when they were made.
This is the plane “as found”: 532097

At some point in its life, the thumbscrew had been lost, and the blade either used up completely or lost (my guess is the former, this plane is around 150 years old & would appear to have been much-used in its day) and a chisel pressed into service instead. 532096

The missing TS was replace by a 5/16” BSW machine screw. There was some discussion about that – all the oldies of that vintage I’ve seen had square threads, but it would seem that pyramidal threads were also used. After studying the lever-cap closely, I agree with the plane’s current guardian (NeilS) that it shows no sign of tampering or alteration & a freshly-cut 5/16 thread fits nicely. Whitworth proposed his standard in 1841, so while it may not have been widely adopted at the time the plane was made, it certainly existed.

The body of the plane is in pretty good condition, though well-encrusted with rust in places - Neil had started a clean before he became aware that he had a moderately rare specimen on his hands, but stopped before doing very much other than knocking the rough off (a necessary act, imo). The ‘infill’ which iforms the blade bed, is either ebony or very dark, oil soaked, rosewood. The latter was used more commonly, but after peering at it for a long time I agree with Neil that it looks more like ebony than rosewood. A gentle pass over some flat abrasive showed the sole is slightly convex at each end, but flat around the mouth.

So the first job to tackle was a new blade. While the chisel was a rather clever idea, the tang had been cut down and a very hand-friendly knob applied, but as it was a bevel-edged job, the lever-cap only clamped down on about half its width, which would have worked ok in such a small plane, but is not ideal. The chisel blade had also run out of puff, the bolster was butting against the LC, preventing the blade from being exposed enough to cut. A rather naughty temporary fix had been to file off the bottom of the back of the LC to gain another mm or two of blade advancement, but that solution had been rather temporary : 532095

Whoever dunnit used a coarse file & didn’t bother to smooth it off!

Most originals had ‘snecked’ blades (possibly ALL originals, those which turn up with flat blades could easily be later replacements) so adding a sneck on the new blade was definitely desirable . I measured the mouth & first thought it was 1 1/8” (the only width in this style Norris made) but a scrap of that width I happened to have looked skinny, so I tried 1 ¼” and it fitted perfectly. Spiers did make other sizes as far as I can ascertain, so it’s highly likely that was the original size. The steel I chose is from a scrap of 3.5mm 1084 I happened to have & it slid perfectly under the LC, which tightened to a position close to parallel with the blade – also perfect! To form the ‘sneck’ I began by riveting a strip of metal to the top of the blade: 532094

If the surfaces are clean & the rivets clenched tightly, the join virtually disappears after it is all filed flush: 532093.

The top and sneck were then shaped to something resembling the old ones. I chamfered the sides to about the same degree but made the ‘cushion’ a bit longer than the pictures of original blades show. I find a longer sneck much more comfy against the palm of my hand: 532098

This plane fits entirely within a normal hand and a sharp top on the blade would chafe uncomfortably after a few minutes of use: 532091 532092

However, if a subsequent owner wants to file it to match the old blades more closely , that’s fine by me.

With the blade hardened & cleaned up, it was time to turn my attention to the thumbscrew. I’d been mulling over a few approaches to making the knurl without a dedicated knurling tool and came up with the following idea. First, I rough-turned the head and defined the section to be knurled with a parting tool, then used files to round the section. I started a straight knurling tool square-on to the curve & made a good pattern, then moved the carrier over & angled the tool post to work the sides, making sure the wheels caught in the first set of grooves. I then loosened the tool a bit & worked it right & left a bit to enhance & even up the grooves. Finally a series of fine lines was cut with a jewellers saw (I’m making a pair here, back to back): 532090

Then all that was required was to clean up the sides of the knurl I'd made with the parting tools, run the required threads on the screw & separate the two thumb screws. The Turks’ cap was made by a combination of cranking the cross & lateral feeds manually, and sanding the slightly jagged profile smooth. I was moderately pleased with the final product: 532089

It's actually easier to hand-turn that bit, but my wood-lathe was set up for something else & I didn't want to change it.
(continued)

[IanW]

So, what’s the little thing like as a user? Quite good – it made quite nice shavings on a scrap of jacaranda:
532104

And gave a good account of itself on a bit of she-oak: 532103

The blade still needs a bit of work to get the tip absolutely flat & polished - my thumb plane made similar shavings on the same piece but left a bit better surface 532102

The sole is a bit pitted and not perfectly flat, though the most crucial part fore & aft of the mouth is flat ( dealing with those issues is not my remit). I wondered if it has already had some lapping in its long life – the mouth, although fairly fine, is far from super-fine, and given the quality of the workmanship in the dovetailing I suspect it started out a bit finer than it is now. It’s not huge, but compared with mine it isn’t tiny: 532101

That isn’t a major setback for a plane like this, just something I noted.

The workmanship in the dovetailing of sides too sole is superb. I studied it very closely because I first thought there was an anomaly with the tails – what looked like a tail in front of the mouth lappeared to be the wrong way round to work! However, on closer inspection I realised it is the join between the two parts of the sole. This is a simple angled butt joint, no tongue & groove as on larger low-angle planes. There are a few very faint lines between the sides & sole in a couple of places and one font dovetail is moderately obvious due to wearing away of some metal (or was it rusted away?). But it’s an exemplar of how to dovetail up a body!

532099

It has a few minor details that need to be addressed to bring it to its potential peak performance, but they are a little project for tits new custodian, whoever that may be.

And here it is beside my thumb plane, which you can see is slightly longer because I extended to sole a bit front & back: 532100

So thanks, Neil, for entrusting me with this little beauty – I have enjoyed making the new bits to look a bit more like original parts than what was on it before, and learnt a little bit more about old planes….
:)
Cheers,
Ian

[auscab]

Beautiful work on a lovely rare plane Ian!
I was going to ask how you attached the sneck but I went back and saw your picture of rivet holes. Nice .
Rob

[NeilS]

So thanks, Neil, for entrusting me with this little beauty – I have enjoyed making the new bits to look a bit more like original parts than what was on it before, and learnt a little bit more about old planes….
:)
Cheers,
Ian

Well, it is me who needs to be thanking you Ian for your generosity on this, not just your time and effort (+ materials), but most importantly your invaluable expertise.

Also, many thanks for sharing this WIP for the benefit of those that may have similar projects or just for the others of us that get vicarious pleasure from seeing what we couldn't manage to do ourselves, which includes me!

No doubt Spiers would be chuffed to see the careful attention that one of his little planes is receiving so many years later.

[IanW]

Thanks Rob & Neil - tbh, I hadn't realised it was such a rarity when I made the offer to make the missing parts. When I saw the prices asked for them by the major dealers, I wished I hadn't put my hand up so quickly! :o :U

But my job was simply to make a couple of parts which can be replaced instantly, should genuine parts suddenly appear, so I certainly haven't done anything irretrievable. What more could/should be done is entirely in the hands of the next guardian,. Neil knocked off the really crusted rust & I've wiped it over with camelia oil (it's finally raining & humid up here & I don't want to send it home with any fresh blooms!). It looks quite good as-is, the real conundrum for me would be what to do about the slightly convex sole. A little more than half of the sole area is flat & it's evenly distributed fore & aft of the mouth and the plane works well enough so it is probably advisable to leave it as-is both for 'collector value' & to preserve what's left of the fine-ness of the mouth.

It certainly has experienced a few "slings & arrows" in its long life but that's to be expected of a tool that seems to have been much-used in that time. Fortunately, Neil spotted the stamping on the lever-cap before getting too vigorous with a scouring pad. It's well-worn, but legible enough that once you spot the remaining letters & realise what it says, there's no doubt about it, so as long as Spiers & Norris were the only suppliers of thumb planes to Buck, there's little doubt it's a Spiers because of the profile & because Norris doesn't seem to have made them in widths other than 1 1/8". At least that's all I've seen in the few old catalogues I've seen & on the Norris planes website (http://www.norrisplanes.com/norris-number-31-thumb-plane/).

I'm still intrigued by the construction. Norris examples are said to be in malleable iron, implying they have cast bodies. This plane could be cast, with the toe-piece applied, but I'm 99% certain it's dovetailed. The internal corners between side & sole and at the back curve are too sharp for a casting. There is a definite join of the sole at the mouth & a single dovetail at the front right corner is clearly evident, but man, it's superbly done, not even the teeniest gap on the inside of the D/Ts where I can see the insides. There's at least one small gap on every plane I've made (fortunately, completely covered by the infill), so even on my all-steel examples future restorers will be in no doubt about their construction. Gives me a goal to aim for, some day... :;


Cheers,

[NeilS]

The ‘infill’ which iforms the blade bed, is either ebony or very dark, oil soaked, rosewood. The latter was used more commonly, but after peering at it for a long time I agree with Neil that it looks more like ebony than rosewood.



Rosewood was the wood that was mostly used on these planes, so I think that the ebony was a refit at some later stage.

In my initial attempts to identify the maker of this plane I researched the H. MOORE stamp on it to see if that was a known plane maker's mark, but got nowhere with that so took that to be an owner's mark.

My speculation is that H. Moore was one of the Moore brothers of Moore and Moore, the piano and organ builders, who had their workshop in Bishopsgate in London, which is about a mile away from the Buck tool merchants on Tottenham Court Rd. Ebony is stock in hand for that trade and I wonder if they might have replaced the infill with ebony at the time they were refitting it with the replacement chisel blade. Furthermore, the small chisel blade is very typical of the hand carving chisels used for decorative detail on piano and organ cabinets, which fits in with that thesis

Anyway, all of this is mere speculation on my part!

[IanW]

An excellent bit of research & speculation Neil! The number of stamps Mr. Moore put on the plane is far more consistent with what some owners did than what manufacturers did - the latter were usually content with putting their marks in one place. On a plane with a bronze lever cap, that was the softest metal & the easier part to stamp, no doubt, & that's where you find 'em on the majority of metal planes.

Your suggestion of the blade-bed being a refit has merit. It's not inconceivable that it was originally infilled with ebony, Spiers certainly used the stuff occasionally, so it's highly likely there would have been small bits kicking about the shop that they might have used where they could. Spiers was a Scot, after all & would surely have abhorred waste! :U But your connection to a piano maker makes a very plausible story. The plane has had a LOT of use by the looks, and something may have happened that required the infill to be replaced. That would neatly explain why the lever-cap has been removed & replaced at some stage (I'm 99.9% certain of that), I can tell you from personal experience it is a very awkward task to replace a blade bed with the LC in place!

Speculating on its past life would have to be a good part of the pleasure of owning a tool like this....
:U
Cheers,
Ian

[mic-d]

Very impressed with your work on this little plane when I visited yesterday. Mr Moore is so loose and free with his stamping that he has stamped 2 of mine too. But what was the initial?

[NeilS]

Very impressed with your work on this little plane when I visited yesterday. Mr Moore is so loose and free with his stamping that he has stamped 2 of mine too. But what was the initial?

H. MOORE

But on the base plate it is just H.M., twice!

If there were two Moore brothers or relations working together in the same shop that might explain the excessive stamping all over the plane... a way to avoid that thing where all the tools ín the workshop gravitate to one worker's bench... and the culprit is usually the one who doesn't look after his tools... :U

[IanW]

:U Yeah, my old dad used to work with a bloke who was notorious for "borrowing" tools & not returning them. Dad said he would read the "W" for "Wilkie" upside down so it was "M for mine".....

I guess with a name like "Moore" you have to stamp it more..... :roll:

[IanW]

Well, I am a happy camper tonight. My success with Neil's thumbscrew knurling prompted me to get myself into gear & do something I've been "getting 'round to", for a very long time.

Some years ago I made myself a chariot plane (well a couple, really, this is Vers 2.0): 532143

At the time, I had just one diamond-pattern knurling tool so every thumbscrews I made got that. The knurling was crisp (it took a few attempts to get that right), & at first I was very pleased with my efforts, but after a bit I became increasingly irritated by them. They were perfectly functional, but looked a bit blah & as time went by, the blah factor increased.

I later got some different knurling wheels & branched out a bit with my knurling patterns & thumbscrew shapes, in attempts to imitate the TS of old a bit more closely: 532144

Making Neil's TS was the most adventurous I've got & it worked so well I decided it was definitely time to give the older chariot plane a bit better hardware: 532142

That's better! (The observant types, as some of you are, will notice I had also changed out the screws holding the bridge for flush pins - I did that quite a whil ago)

I never thought I'd fuss so much about such details - I claim to make planes to use, not look at! But I freely admit, the new TS are far more in keeping with the era when chariot planes & thumb planes were having their time in the sun: 532141

:)
Cheers,

[NeilS]

:U Yeah, my old dad used to work with a bloke who was notorious for "borrowing" tools & not returning them. Dad said he would read the "W" for "Wilkie" upside down so it was "M for mine".....

I guess with a name like "Moore" you have to stamp it more..... :roll:


.... : ~}

[NeilS]

I freely admit, the new TS are far more in keeping with the era when chariot planes & thumb planes were having their time in the sun:

532141



I agree with you Ian that those new thumbscrews are looking more at home there on your chariot plane.

There seems to be two distinct ways to go with making infill planes; the uber-engineered approach, as exemplified by Karl Holtey, and the approach that you have taken that I would characterise as being crafted in the historical tradition of the great 19th century plane innovators and makers like Spiers. Both approaches work well in their own way.

[IanW]

Thanks Neil; and I'm hoping that once they oxidise a bit & get a bit shop-soiled & maybe an odd nick from bumping against something that shouldn't have been on the bench, they'll look even more at home. :)

I've often added a few whimsical touches when making planes, like the scrolled front bun on the Chariot plane above - that has no precedent in the 19th/early 20th C planes. So far, I have never tried to make an exact reproduction of any Spiers or Norris, though I certainly have taken "inspiration" from various types they produced. But because I really didn't know how certain things were done by Mr. Spiers or Mr. Norris, and didn't have access to an original, I had to make some of it up as I went along, which often results in something a bit different from the old model I was using as my start-point (not to mention an occasional disaster!).

It's interesting that you describe Holtey's work as "uber-engineered", I reckon that's a very good way to describe it. Although I admire Holtey's flawless workmanship, there is something rather sterile about his planes, I don't think I've ever seen one I'd like to go home with. It's quite the contrary with Konrad Sauer's planes - they look equally flawless (the file-work both Konrad & Karl do is soo neat!), but Sauer planes have a beauty of line & form that demands fondling. It has always seemed to me that Holtey is an engineer-turned-planemaker, who has never used any of his planes for a serious session of planing, and fine tolerances are far more important to him than function & comfort.

Maybe it's because I'm from a biological background so the organic lines of Sauer planes appeal to me - I'll leave the Holteys to the engineers who lust over the micro-precision.....

:U
Cheers,

[NeilS]

I've often added a few whimsical touches when making planes, like the scrolled front bun on the Chariot plane above - that has no precedent in the 19th/early 20th C planes. So far, I have never tried to make an exact reproduction of any Spiers or Norris, though I certainly have taken "inspiration" from various types they produced.



That is what craftsmen and women do, they honour the tradition and skills of their craft while innovating and forging their own pathway. Even a traditionalist like Bill Carter break out at times as seen in some of his planes that repurpose brass sawblade backs, which are both whimsical yet functional...


532218

532220

532219

[auscab]

Nice little Mitre planes that Bill Carter Makes .
If the thumb plane is the earlier version of what became the Block plane then those miniature Mitres are the earlier version of what became the Thumb plane. The original ones that Bill is copying I mean. I got to see a Cox and a Towell mixture mitre once.
I saw this on Martin Shepherds website yesterday. 4 inches long . It must be about 1 inch wide? Lovely plane ! I want one. Making it is the only way It’l happen. I’ve got the cow bones stacked up ready at least. One day maybe.
532221

[IanW]

Funny you should mention Bill Carter, Neil. I had a yen to make a box mitre for many a year, but shied away from it because I thought it would be exceptionally difficult. After watching Bill's videos on making one (all 24 or however many it is) I decided to give it a go. I was amused by his patter & watching him putting things down & then hunting all over the bench for them, just like I do, gave me the confidence I needed. :U

Anyway, the plane turned out easier to make than I'd feared - funny how some things you think will be difficult turn out to be easy & some things you think will be easy turn out to be difficult! So for a sort of encore, I made myself a teeny-weeny one like Bill's saw back planes you posted (I used new brass, no saws were injured in the making of my plane :) )

532224 532223

The surprising thing to me is just how handy this silly little thing is - I think I use it far more than its big brother....
:)
Cheers

[NeilS]

532221

Rob

No doubt there as to who the maker was!

[NeilS]

I made myself a teeny-weeny one like Bill's saw back planes you posted (I used new brass, no saws were injured in the making of my plane :) )

532224 532223

The surprising thing to me is just how handy this silly little thing is - I think I use it far more than its big brother....
:)


Ian

That one is definitely 'a cute little' plane!

Thank you for sharing those photos and the story behind its genesis.

[IanW]

Rob, that plane isn't much bigger than mine if it's 100mm long (it looks a lot bigger, but pictures are deceivinbg). Mine is 85mm overall, with a "box" about 65mm long; it has a bit more sole overhand front & back than the little one you showed.

According to my book, mitre planes were not huge sellers in any case by the last quarter of the 1800s, and very few of them were small ones less than about 8 inches, it seems. So it's likely that not only will you wait a very long time for one to become available, the price is probably out of reach of the common man....

So you are definitely left with no alternative but to make your own, I'm afraid.....
:D
Cheers,
Ian

[IanW]

....No doubt there as to who the maker was!.....

Yebbut - who was Edward Davies??? :?

Google found me a saw made by one Edward Davies (https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/steel-edward-davies-12-open-handle-1816489201) of Sheffield - was he the same bloke, who made just one saw & one plane???

Or was he a saw maker with a plane-making hobby (I get that! :U ). He must have been pretty pleased with his little mitre plane to go to the trouble of hand engraving it. I sure wish I could engrave letters like that....
:)
Cheers,

[NeilS]

Yebbut - who was Edward Davies??? :?

Google found me a saw made by one Edward Davies (https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/steel-edward-davies-12-open-handle-1816489201) of Sheffield - was he the same bloke, who made just one saw & one plane???

Or was he a saw maker with a plane-making hobby (I get that! :U ). He must have been pretty pleased with his little mitre plane to go to the trouble of hand engraving it. I sure wish I could engrave letters like that....
:)
Cheers,

Perhaps related to George Davies (Davis), planemaker in Birmingham from about the 1820s. Reportedly sold out to Marples. George had a workshop in Cheapside, Birmingham in 1835 directory...


https://specialcollections.le.ac.uk/digital/api/collection/p16445coll4/id/218289/download


One source has George listed in 'Planemakers from 1700', 3rd edition, by Jane and Mark Rees.


According to the researcher Martin Shepherd, the early mitre plane maker John Sym took on the apprentice John Davies in 1784. Some later planes made by the Sym/Syme/Sim family in London had a J Davies/Davis stamp added to them. The spelling of names were still fluid at that time.

So, maybe Edward J Davies is related to that Davies/Davis plane making family. That would certainly explain that mitre plane with his name engraved across it with such certainty!

[auscab]

Rob, that plane isn't much bigger than mine if it's 100mm long (it looks a lot bigger, but pictures are deceivinbg). Mine is 85mm overall, with a "box" about 65mm long; it has a bit more sole overhand front & back than the little one you showed.

According to my book, mitre planes were not huge sellers in any case by the last quarter of the 1800s, and very few of them were small ones less than about 8 inches, it seems. So it's likely that not only will you wait a very long time for one to become available, the price is probably out of reach of the common man....

So you are definitely left with no alternative but to make your own, I'm afraid.....
:D
Cheers,
Ian

Ian. It looks like Bill Carter bought it at the David Stanley auction and has made some copys of it . No more info on the dimensions. Martin Shepherd said it was 4 inches long. This is it in Bill"s hand . And a link to his website showing more. I might see if I can find out which David Stanley auction it was in. Dimensions may be there. Just interested to see if they can be added to the info I have so far on it. Just checked the auction records don't go back that far.

532262

billcarterwoodworkingplanemaker - Spring 2019 (http://www.billcarterwoodworkingplanemaker.co.uk/latest-blog/spring-2019/)

Rob

[old workshop]

Hi Ian and all,

I have been following this link
with much interest. Bill Carter's name has
come up a few times and Ian has posted a
picture of a Small Box Mitre plane he copied
off Bill Carter. I have a small one Bill made and
sold to my father. It is 130mm long overall.
Bill wrote on the picture he sent to my father
This is the first plane in the world with Cupid
Bow Dovetails and now it belongs to you!.
I assume the Cupid Bow Dovetails are underneath
as i cannot see them.532263

Martin.

[auscab]

Nice looking Plane Martin. They must be underneath.

Ian Neil and all.
I was just watching this YouTube video and its very interesting. There is talk about the Davies Plane just before the 28 minute mark and other small original mitres and how rare they are. " The rarest" he says.


Bench.Talk.101 Bill Carter Talks English Dovetail Mitre Planes - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4onVv4z9tE)

Also
At the 9.45 minute mark. Bill talks of the Sneck and the Nib on the plane irons . What we all know as the Sneck is actually called a Nib ! And a Sneck is the hook you see on the side of a plow or shoulder plane blade! Wow.

I haven't watched the whole thing yet so am going back now to see what else I can learn.

Rob

[IanW]

Rob, thanks very much for the extra info on the plane, seems like it's even rarer than I thought!

Using the extra pics of it in Bill's hand and the most full-on of the other shots. I estimate it's about half as big again as my mini, with about a 1" blade (mine is 20mm). That probably makes it more useable for "small" work vs mine which is more in the "miniature" class. The difference in linear measurements would not be all that great, but it looks like Mr, Davies' effort would be a lot more comfy for old arthritic hands to hold onto.. :)

A wall thickness of 1/16" does seem flimsy, and I would've been tempted to go thicker, which of course would make it less accurate as a copy, but he put his cupid-bow 'signature' on one, so he obviously wasn't trying to make an "authentic" copy anyway. Despite the thin sides, it has hung in for a very long time - a testament to sound construction & perhaps careful owners?

Dammit, all this plane talk has rekindled a bit of enthusiasm for making another box mitre, perhaps something around the size of the Davies example. On the 3 I've made so far, I used a lever-cap, mainly because it's easier to do accurately because it can be installed after the body is constructed, whereas if you use the traditional through-tenon method with a bridge for a wedge, it has to be fitted before the sides are attached to the sole . That demands very, very accurate bending of the sides so the pre-cut holes line up precisely. I was too cowardly to try for that on my first attempt or two, hence the lever-caps. The old makers had all adopted LCs by the latter 1800s (perhaps for the same reason?), but you could still order one from Norris with traditional bridge & wedge almost up to the last.

I do like the look of the traditional wedge, and I reckon it would feel more friendly in the hand, so there has been a small voice nagging me ever since to pluck up the courage & give it a try. I would like to do at least one by the traditional method, just for the challenge, but there is also a compromise method I could use, which is to pin the bridge in after the sides & sole are attached, as I've done with several small planes.

The holes for the pins are laid out & drilled, then the bridge tapped into place and marked for drilling & tapping. I first used this method with cheese-head screws: 532270

The screw heads are flushed with the sides for a reasonably neat appearance: 532269

Using cheese-head screws makes it easier to get them nicely flush, but they don't provide any lateral holding because the heads go right through the thin side-walls. While the bridges were nice & firm, I was a bit worried about the long haul and a few accidents maybe causing the walls to spread a bit and creating an unsightly gap, so after the first plane or two I decided to substitute threaded brass rods for the screw and peen them into counter-sunk recesses: 532268

Not a 'proper' traditional bridge-fix, but close, & functionally not too inferior, I think....

Cheers,

PS - thanks for that video link. I've watched a few of those "benchtalk" videos that were a bit drawn-out, but Bill was terrific. I identified with so many of the points he makes about all the little things you need to watch when banging a mitre plane together. He's such a wonderfully humble bloke and never afraid to admit to his errors & stuff-ups. I have read somewhere he's made more than a thousand mitre planes, so when he says he's made "very few skewed mitres, maybe 3 dozen", it puts things in perspective! Three dozen is almost my entire lifetime's production of all types of metal planes... :roll:

[IanW]

... Ian has posted a picture of a Small Box Mitre plane he copied off Bill Carter.... .

Martin, I didn't copy any of Bill's planes directly, it was the small planes like yours made from old saw backs that gave me the idea, so "inspired by Bill's example" is perhaps more accurate. The miniature I made was actually a 'copy' of one of my own, scaled down.

I used a lever-cap on my mitre planes whereas the vast majority of BIll's mitre planes of any size have traditional bridge & & wedge construction, something I've been afraid to try for the reason given above. If I live long enough & my hands don't freeze up entirely, I will probably relent & give one a go some day.... :U
Cheers,
Ian

[old workshop]

Hi Rob
I watched the Bench talk with Bill Cater,
and at the 20.30 minute to the 22.30 minute
he is referring to me in Jersey. I have that
plane.:U

Martin.

[IanW]

I wondered if it was you he was talking about, Martin - there can't be all that many tool collectors in Jersey with a Bill Carter plane.......
:U

[auscab]

Hi Rob
I watched the Bench talk with Bill Cater,
and at the 20.30 minute to the 22.30 minute
he is referring to me in Jersey. I have that
plane.:U

Martin.

Nice to have one of his planes Martin. Its a cast body Mitre plane is that correct?
Got a Pic of it now please :).
How do you (the original owner) leave a plane on a hot plate with your cup of tea?
A cold English morning maybe and he wanted a warm plane to hold?
Rob

[NeilS]

Bill wrote on the picture he sent to my father
This is the first plane in the world with Cupid
Bow Dovetails and now it belongs to you!.
I assume the Cupid Bow Dovetails are underneath
as i cannot see them.

Martin.

If underneath, the cupid bow dovetails might look like this one that Bill made...

532303

They are purely decorative, serving no functional purpose, but distinctively Carteresque!

532308

They are more obvious on the sides of this example...

532305

[IanW]

.... the cupid bow dovetails .... are purely decorative, serving no functional purpose, but distinctively Carteresque! ......

Yep, I'm not sure he was the first to do the cupid bows along the dovetails like that, but he certainly has made them a Carter 'signature'. They were put on bridges & wedges on may planes long before Bil, of course, and I've seen a few imitators copy his idea, but no-one else uses them as freely & prolifically! They must add hours & hours to the build.

I suppose when you have made more than a thousand planes it starts to get a bit ho-hum & you look for ways to make it more interesting, but at my stage, I'm struggling enough to make tight, flawless simple dovetails without making it even harder for myself. A 'cupid's bow' on the bridge is about as much decoration as I can manage safely:

532309

:U
Cheers,

[NeilS]

While looking at the Bill Carter website I came across this example of a very early thumbscrew...

532311

532310

It has a steel thread with a distinctive brass knob that was used by this plane maker. Not exactly a quick whirl with the knurl to get that. I expect that the TS design was one way of indicating the level of craftsmanship and standing out from the competition.

Early TS design could be a whole area of study in itself!

[IanW]

Neil, that plane is "different" in several ways!

Apart from the knobby TS (I thought the knobs were indentations at first, but then my brain flipped & saw they are extending out of the surface, not in), the lever-cap has some extra work on it too, from the little we can see. But the over-over stuffing is also unique in my experience. It gives a very interesting effect, as if the wood was plasticised & pressed into the plane body, with some flowing over the sides like bread dough.

Interestingly, the infill looks like common old beech. I'm surprised someone going to all that trouble didn't use an exotic wood like rosewood. I wonder if it's an apprentice-finished plane - one of my books mentions there are quite a few planes bought as castings & finished by apprentices & cabinetmakers kicking about in Britain & some are exquisitely done (it doesn't show pics of any, unfortunately).

But back to the point, I have no idea how you would make that knob other than by casting, but maybe it was rolled using a dedicated tool. You're right, I reckon you'd be standing at the lathe for a while to roll that pattern...
:)
Cheers,

[NeilS]

Neil, that plane is "different" in several ways!



Ian

I should have provided a link to where Bill has that plane on his website, so to remedy that, see towards the bottom of this page... About Bill (http://www.billcarterwoodworkingplanemaker.co.uk/about-bill/) ...it starts with his words ..."Is this not the most beautiful smoother in the world, I think so. I could write a book about this plane... "

Bill describes the infill wood as walnut. He has owned two of the three known planes from this maker.... so perhaps from an over achieving apprentice...:U

Someone else said of the infill that it "appeared to be poured in, flowing over the sides". Your description of bread dough rising and overflowing is also very apt.

[IanW]

Struth, Neil - I think I need my eyes checked - I would have sworn that first plane's infill was beech - I can even see rayfleck in it & the colour looks nothing like any walnut I've ever seen! But if Bill says it's walnut, then it's walnut & it goes to prove what I am always saying, "colour is the least reliable guide to a wood's identity". Funny Bill used the same terminology, "over-over stuffing" to describe it - I just made that up, btw, but it shows how great minds think alike, eh? :roll:

It's not surprising that a few very well-made and obviously related planes turn up now & then - there must have been plenty of blokes busy making planes in their basement or wherever, 100 plus years ago, just as in later years. Some, like George Fraser (http://www.petermcbride.com/fraser/)in NZ were quite prolific given the known number of his planes that survive, unmarked, but recognisable as siblings from one maker. A discussion occurred in another thread some months back as to how well an "amateur" maker could make a plane with simple hand tools & I maintained that there are 'gifted' folks who could probably match a Spiers or Norris on their first or second try (not me! I've still got quite a way to go :U ), so it's also not surprising that some odd, unmarked planes of excellent quality show up occasionally.
:)
Cheers,

[old workshop]

Hi Rob,

It was not me who left the plane on the stove.
It was the first owner who was Bills Friend. I posted a photo
of the plane a while back. I will see if I can find It.

Martin.

[auscab]

Hi Rob,

It was not me who left the plane on the stove.
It was the first owner who was Bills Friend. I posted a photo
of the plane a while back. I will see if I can find It.

Martin.

Hi Martin . I didn't phrase the question well.

"How do you (the original owner) leave a plane on a hot plate with your cup of tea? "
I meant the guy Bill was talking about who ruined it.

I get myself into deeper water tackling phrasing and correct grammar all the time :). Before I joined the forum here in 2007 I hadn't typed or written much since leaving school in 1979 and I wasn't so good at it then. 27 years of Just working and not writing much at all had passed when 2007 came around. I wrote the occasional letter or invoice out and that's it. Getting onto the internet changed that for the better. Ive always read but that didn't transfer over to good writing. These more thoroughly educated blokes around here amaze me by the speed a reply can come back and the length of it sometimes. Its just an interesting observation I think about.

Rob

[IanW]

Rob, don't beat yourself up over an occasional mis-wording, you have much to say that is useful & interesting & usually get it across perfectly clearly, imo. :U

Martin, I went searching for any old posts of yours concerning mitre planes - this (https://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/help-identify-plane-244424)was the only one I found. Reading my responses reminded me of how little I knew about mitre planes just a couple of years ago, and how little I've managed to learn since. The darned things have intrigued me since I first saw a picture of one at least 40 years ago, but so little has been written about them based on contemporary written records. Most info seems to come from catalogues, which don't provide much info on how the planes were intended to be used. The sites ian linked to in the thread (post #9) are very interesting, the Shephed site shows a lot of planes, but sheds little light on what they were actually used for, while Joel's suggestions, while based on some sound premises, are still speculative.

I've been wracking my brains trying to remember where another handled mitre plane was shown recently - damn this ageing memory, it was very recent, so someone will remember & put me out of my misery, I hope...
:)
Cheers,

[NeilS]

Struth, Neil - I think I need my eyes checked - I would have sworn that first plane's infill was beech - I can even see rayfleck in it & the colour looks nothing like any walnut I've ever seen! But if Bill says it's walnut, then it's walnut & it goes to prove what I am always saying, "colour is the least reliable guide to a wood's identity". Funny Bill used the same terminology, "over-over stuffing" to describe it - I just made that up, btw, but it shows how great minds think alike, eh? :roll:



And here I was thinking that "over-over stuffing" was an established term in the world of infill planes...:U

On the walnut, I am currently turning some English walnut (Juglans regia) and its colour is highly variable, not just between the sap and heartwood. The species of walnut they have in Nth America can be very dark and given names like Northern California black walnut (Juglans hindsii), whereas the English walnut can be a lighter colour with the sapwood becoming a honey colour with aging.

Here is the variation that can be seen when I was green-turning it earlier in the year. The lighter sapwood area will become more honey coloured with exposure to light and closer to the colour of the infills in Bill's over-over stuffed plane.


532384

[NeilS]

Rob, don't beat yourself up over an occasional mis-wording, you have much to say that is useful & interesting & usually get it across perfectly clearly, imo. :U



And IMO, too!

[auscab]

I've been wracking my brains trying to remember where another handled mitre plane was shown recently - damn this ageing memory, it was very recent, so someone will remember & put me out of my misery, I hope...
:)
Cheers,

Post 37 here ?

Hand Plane (https://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/hand-plane-257184/3)

Rob

[NeilS]

Some, like George Fraser (http://www.petermcbride.com/fraser/)in NZ were quite prolific given the known number of his planes that survive, unmarked, but recognisable as siblings from one maker.



Had a look at those planes by George Fraser and thought his own personal rebate plane with the removable lever cap a nice 'innovation' and, if not an original idea, nicely done. I imagine that would leave scope for readily adjusting how the lever cap sits in its cradle with just a few swipes with the round file...


532385


But, where he did it as part of the rebate mouth perhaps not so practical for when getting the blade in and out?...


532386

[IanW]

Post 37 here ?

Hand Plane (https://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/hand-plane-257184/3)

Rob

:doh: Yes, that's it.

I used to have a memory once, honest!
:C

[old workshop]

Hi Rob and all,

Ian posted a link which reads THIS (https://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/help-identify-plane-244424).
If you click the middle picture it is the plane at
the top of the shelf with the ornate mouldings
which Bill is referring to.

Martin.:q

[IanW]

..... where he did it as part of the rebate mouth perhaps not so practical for when getting the blade in and out?... 532386

Yes, I think the way he did it for his own plane makes more sense to me, the way he did it for the above plane seems less practical. Unless I'm missing something that retains the LC, you would have to hold it in place while you tightened it down enough to stay put when inserting the blade assembly.

I wonder if it was just to speed things up a bit & save having to saw/file the notch for the LC axle? Apparently, George had a bit of a thirst, and the planemaking was to cater for that - one article I read said he sold each plane for the equivalent of a bottle of Scotch, quickly purchased after the transaction. :U

There's no denying he was pretty good at banging up infills...
Cheers,