Thread: Plane love

Looks like someone else has been bitten by the bug.........enjoy the ride. Nice infill smoother, very lucky to have been given that.

Originally Posted by Mountain Ash

Looks like someone else has been bitten by the bug.........enjoy the ride. Nice infill smoother, very lucky to have been given that.

Yes it seems a nicely made tool, Were they the good stuff back then? I don’t know anything about the history of them. I’m certainly impressed by the way it performs.

Originally Posted by riverbuilder

This post is all Bushmiller’s fault.
After looking at his plane thread it got me to be thinking that I have been neglecting my hand planes and also Dad’s ones. So, because it’s been as wet as a shag here all week, I spent a couple of evenings down in the under house shed cleaning and “fettling”. I’ve always associated that word with people who look after the railway lines, not woodwork planes.
I found the old mans number 7 and 8 in his massive original tool chest and got to work on the 7, it cleaned up nice snd was still pretty sharp. It’s got high mileage but still cuts well. The number 8 I’m not touching as it’s hardly been used and looks almost new. I then turned my attention to my number 4 which I’ve had since first year apprentice, I reground the iron on the linisher then put a 5000 grit polishing belt on it and the iron came up beautifully, three or four licks on the diamond stone and it cuts lovely. Then came the compass plane. I recently bought this one and it needed a good clean up, after soaking the irons in a vinegar bath overnight, quick hit on the wire wheel and a grind and a bit of oil, it’s as good as new, maybe better.
Looking around my little workshop, up on the framework above the window I have lots of old stuff I’ve found and collected over the years, and one item is an old plane. I think it was given to me by a client whose grandfather was a carpenter, cannot remember exactly. It’s made by A.Mathieson &son, Glasgow. It’s in pretty good nick for an older tool. I just bathed the sole in the vinegar then used a Stanley knife blade to scrape the rust off then hit it on the wire wheel. Soaked and cleaned the irons and touched up the edge, bit of neatsfoot oil on the timber, looks good again. However, when I ran it across a bit of rosewood, it cuts exceptionally well, far better than I expected and I reckon it might come down from the relic shelf and start to see some regular use.
There’s something about using hand tools, for me, it’s a nod to the old man and his skills which I’ve been able to pick up and use, it’s cool.
So thankyou, Mr. Bushmiller.

RB

I just knew I was good for something.



Some very handsome planes there too.

Regards
Paul

PS: There is a strange quirk that pictures taken portrait style appear on their side or upside down when posted. To correct this, rotate the pix through 360 degrees wherever they are saved and make another copy in the correct orientation. That way they will appear the correct way up and save us standing on our heads to view them, which I can do, but not quite as easily as I once could.

Originally Posted by riverbuilder

Yes it seems a nicely made tool, Were they the good stuff back then? I don’t know anything about the history of them. I’m certainly impressed by the way it performs.

I’m far from an expert, but I’d say that you’ve hit the jackpot with that one. They’re lovely planes and quite collectable too, should you decide you don’t want to use it.

Originally Posted by riverbuilder

Yes it seems a nicely made tool, Were they the good stuff back then? I don’t know anything about the history of them. I’m certainly impressed by the way it performs.

Indeed they were considered pretty good back then, & still are by many! Mathieson was one of the top makers, at least as well-regarded as Spiers & Norris from what I read. Norris tends to hog the limelight nowadays, some say that's because they really were the 'best' though they produced various models at different price levels like everyone else. Some of the differences found when breeds are compared could be due to this, though I suspect much also has to do with the life the planes have led since leaving the factory.

Infills are a bit of an acquired taste, they are a little fussier to fettle than a Bailey type. When I started out, the lack of a screw adjuster seemed like a major fault to me, so I would have avoided anything like your little Mathieson. The aficionados assured us that wasn't so, but I didn't believe them for a very long time. Once I started using 'adjusterless' planes more I discovered it's not at all difficult to set a blade to any cut desired, and usually takes but a few seconds. Not having an adjuster getting in my way on a small rear-bun plane is a bonus! Now I have about an equal number of planes with & without screw adjusters.

Norris lasted the longest (they staggered on into the early 1950s), and I think it's safe to say there are more of them surviving, which is probably why that name is better known. They also got the kudos for their screw adjusters, about which there is as much controversy as anything else. I don't like them much, but plenty think they are miraculous. However, Norris don't have it all their way, there are devotees of Mathieson or Spiers ready to claim hey are the champs.

There's something alluring & addictive about infills (damhik!). I've got a Bailey #5 1/2 & a #4 that I use as workhorses every day, and a couple of infills that are also heavily used for a variety of jobs, but I keep a couple of my infills exclusively for fine finishing. In truth, both types are capable of fine work if set up appropriately, but I like the feel of the infills more. It's just personal preference rather than the infills being measurably superior, I could get my Stanley #4 to do just about anything my very best infill smoother can do...

Only my opinions; mileages vary greatly....

Cheers,