Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 38 of 38
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    blue mountains
    Posts
    4,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Armstrong View Post
    Colin
    The early Mathieson infill planes seemed to of been made by Spiers and are very rare. But yours is not one of those, they used that stamp on the lever cap from 1890 to 1930’s the shape on the top of bolt on the lever cap would date it in the 1890’s no earlier.

    If the iron goes all the through the mouth the problem is not with iron it’s the lever cap or the chip breaker.

    Peter

    Peter may be on to something. If the blade fits through the mouth then check the recess for the chip breaker screw. The fix may be as simple as extending the slot in the wood to get blade where it needs to be.
    Regards
    John

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





     
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    10,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Armstrong View Post
    Colin
    The early Mathieson infill planes seemed to of been made by Spiers and are very rare. But yours is not one of those, they used that stamp on the lever cap from 1890 to 1930’s the shape on the top of bolt on the lever cap would date it in the 1890’s no earlier.

    If the iron goes all the through the mouth the problem is not with iron it’s the lever cap or the chip breaker.

    Peter
    This would be an interesting conundrum

    Mathieson began building planes in 1792, although no doubt this focussed on wooden planes at the time. Alexander Spier claims 1840 as his start point.

    I am sure that they influenced each other, especially since they work within a stone's throw, but the fact is that Mathieson came first. The Mathieson in the advert so resembles the early Spier infills, that it is easy to see one as the copy of the other. In retrospect, the lever cap screw of (early) Spier has slightly finer detail, but the shape is near-identical. This plane design became the model for the many who followed.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek
    Visit www.inthewoodshop.com for tutorials on constructing handtools, handtool reviews, and my trials and tribulations with furniture builds.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Age
    66
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Derek
    Yes I agree the Mathieson and Spiers planes are similar but the Mathieson sell for more. In the early days the view is the Mathieson infills were made by Spiers.

    My reference is Has Burnners Mathieson tool guide.

    Peter

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    10,810

    Default

    Peter, Spiers may well have manufactured for Mathieson. At least from 1875 onward they appear to have done so. However, this is not evidence that they preceded Mathieson when it came to building infill smoothers. Mathieson was in the business long before Spier came along. I have looked for more documentation. Hans Brunner has re-published a book on the subject, but I have not read this.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek
    Visit www.inthewoodshop.com for tutorials on constructing handtools, handtool reviews, and my trials and tribulations with furniture builds.

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin62 View Post
    ....there is definitely a rivet near the back. There are also a couple of bits where it looks like there is a tiny gap between the sole and the sides. If you look inside the mouth you can also see the join - I don’t know if that means anything though.......
    Colin, a bit of cleaning found those rivets, eh? I can only see 3 for the back stuffing, so p'raps you will only need to remove one to get the remainder of the handle/tote out (if & when you decide to have a crack at it). Replacing a rivet is easy-peasy; nails make excellent rivets.

    From the pics you've posted so far, I'd be prepared to make a small wager it's a dovetailed body. I reckon I can see a few very faint lines along the sole, but the small gaps at the ends, and the fact that the inside corners are a sharp 90 degrees rule out a casting.

    Cheers,
    IW

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Armstrong View Post
    If the iron goes all the through the mouth the problem is not with iron it’s the lever cap or the chip breaker.
    I’ve taken a pic to try and show what is happening. The lever cap can’t lift further, because the bottom edge is already engaged with the bottom of the chip breaker, but the chip breaker can’t advance any further because there is no room under the lever. The lever cap isn’t movable, and I rate the chances of it being the wrong one as being negligible compared to the blade/chip breaker combination having been swapped.

    The blade is 15mm shy of the mouth at that point. Removing the chip breaker and holding the blade level with the mouth leaves a very small mouth opening (the second picture) and pushing the blade through to make a cut narrows that gap even further. The chip breaker without the blade can drop far enough to extend 15mm through the mouth, so the screw position and the chipbreaker itself are able to fit.
    To summarise:
    • The Mathieson blade and chip breaker, 5mm and 3.2mm thick respectively, leave the blade 15mm shy of the mouth;
    • A Spiers blade and chip breaker, 4mm and 3.2mm thick respectively, allows the blade to be set correctly;
    • The Mathieson blade with the Spiers chip breaker allows the blade to reach the mouth, but the chip breaker engages the inside of the mouth, meaning there’s no-where for the shavings to exit. The Spiers chip breaker lies flatter and the brass boss for the screw to engage in is thinner);
    • The Spiers blade with the Mathieson chip breaker allows the blade to be set correctly to take a shaving.


    The screws on each chip breaker are just long enough to fully engage the thread when used with their blade, and that leads me to believe that the chip breaker and blade is a set, and the screw will need to be shortened if the blade is ground thinner.

    Alternatively anyone with a 2 1/4” Mathieson blade 5/32” thick could make an easy sale if they sent me a PM.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    950

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanW View Post
    From the pics you've posted so far, I'd be prepared to make a small wager it's a dovetailed body. I reckon I can see a few very faint lines along the sole, but the small gaps at the ends, and the fact that the inside corners are a sharp 90 degrees rule out a casting.
    Although a bit dark, this pic of the inside of the mouth clearly shows the base and sides are separate pieces. The other side is the same - a definite joint.

    7475B7AD-0FED-48E1-83E7-4D36AE5821D9.jpg

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,095

    Default

    I reckon you've established beyond doubt that the blade is at fault, Colin. Those old infills were renowned for their fine mouths, so the small gap you get with the Spiers blade doesn't surprise me. I have no idea what they aimed for in mm, but from the couple of originals I've seen, it looks like something about 0.25mm was the gold standard. Having made a few mouths for infills, I take my hat off to those makers of old getting them so fine & consistent. Opening mouths has got to be the most fraught part of the build. It's a job you can only do right at the end, & besides being awkward once the plane is assembled, I seem to go from not-quite-through to slightly wider than planned over about 3 file strokes! I console myself with the belief that the cap-iron does as much as, or more than a fine mouth to control tear-out, but it's reassuring to have both if you can.

    BU planes are worse still - if you over-do the mouth there's no way back, you can't just substitute a thicker blade. By coincidence, I just finished this little 1/2 inch shoulder plane yesterday. Half inch RG infill.jpg

    Got the finest, straightest, mouth I've achieved so far. It's even less than .2mm, but still allows a generous shaving through. I was pretty damn pleased with myself. Then after polishing the sides I noticed the rivets are standing out clearly despite being perfectly set. The rivet material is from a different source from the side material, but both are supposed to be 60/40 "yellow brass" alloys. Something is different in the two mixes. Perfection eludes me again!

    Cheers,

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Just one more infill plane
    By IanW in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 28th September 2017, 07:53 PM
  2. Infill Plane ID
    By Gaza58 in forum ANTIQUE AND COLLECTABLE TOOLS
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 21st July 2016, 11:57 AM
  3. Infill plane
    By Gezawa in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 4th November 2010, 12:15 AM
  4. Rusty Plane
    By Twisted Tenon in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 28th March 2010, 12:54 AM

Posting Permissions

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