Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Armstrong
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
This would be an interesting conundrum :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Armstrong
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
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
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin62
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,
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Armstrong
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. :)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanW
Attachment 463816
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. Attachment 463824
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,