4,272.22 for a hand plane?

[rooster]

http://cgi.ebay.com:80/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150277419760&ssPageName=ADME:B:EF:US:1123

[rooster]

WOW:eek:

http://www.holteyplanes.com/

[JimConlin]

Why not? It's much more useful than a Rolex.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Oh, a Norris? As for Holtey, nuff said.

I believe the record, set at auction, was over US$100,000 for a plough plane.

There are users, and then there are collectors...:rolleyes:

Like I said on a nearby thread, one does not pick up a Norris to knock down surplus epoxy after a glue up!

[rooster]

[quote=Andrew Craig-Bennett;1938411]Oh, a Norris? As for Holtey, nuff said.


Are Norris and Holtey two different makers? I'm a lil' confused:confused:

[Jim Ledger]

Like I said on a nearby thread, one does not pick up a Norris to knock down surplus epoxy after a glue up!

It's belt sander first, then the Norris.:D

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

[quote=Andrew Craig-Bennett;1938411]Oh, a Norris? As for Holtey, nuff said.


Are Norris and Holtey two different makers? I'm a lil' confused:confused:


Yes, quite a difference. They both made/make British infill handplanes.

Norris were a small firm making hand planes on a commercial basis for the bespoke cabinet making trades; their planes were expensive - maybe six to ten times the price of a Stanley equivalent - but you could buy a Norris plane in your local hardware shop, if it was a good one.

Karl Holtey makes the best planes in the world, period, regardless of price, and i doubt if they are ever used in a workshop.

He is to planes what George Daniels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Daniels

is to mechanical watches - quite simply the best in the world, with a devoted following of millionaires.

[Pernicious Atavist]

The question is: How does one explain that purchase to SWMBO?

[Jim Ledger]

The question is: How does one explain that purchase to SWMBO?

One don't have to, do one?:D

[SchoonerRat]

The question is: How does one explain that purchase to SWMBO?
"Oh, that old thing? I've had that for years!"

But then I'm single! Anybody wanna guess why?:D

[paladin]

I was wondering....If I have an old handcrafted wood plane made in the middle east a long long time ago, maybe I could advertise it on e-bay as the original plane that Noah used in building the arc, along with several prepared layers of gopherwood.....and set the price starting at 3.5 mil..........should I run the advert for 1 week or a full 10 days?....

[Keith Wilson]

Looks awful purty.

http://i8.ebayimg.com/07/i/001/01/a5/789f_12.JPG

I doubt I've ever spent over $25 for a plane, mostly early 20th century Stanleys. SWMBO is OK with that. I value domestic tranquility over art.

[Mrleft8]

Kid at Marlboro College did an internship with Hotley... His planes that he made were outrageous. Garret Hack offered him an undisclosed, but apparently very generous sum for a rabbet plane..... I think the kid took it, but not sure.
As Andrew says, there is no comparison....Like saying Chevy or Ferrari....

[ssor]

If a plane has a flat sole and a rigid means for holding the iron at the correct angle with no chatter and comfortable handles, what can you add that I don't understand. A watch should keep time and a plane should make rough wood smooth.

[Bob Smalser]

As Andrew says, there is no comparison....Like saying Chevy or Ferrari....


Or pure voodoo.

Read his site. At least he's honest about all the problems he's had with seasonal movement on his infills. That means they go out of true when the wood swells and shrinks, and for $6 grand likely perform as poorly as any plane out of true. So his latest, most reliable planes are no longer infills at all. And are entirely non-Albion in the looks department. Downright Stanley in fact. The early Stanleys without the lateral adjuster. Full circle.

http://www.holteyplanes.com/982_002.jpg

[John Meachen]

As has been mentioned earlier I doubt that any Holtey plane sees regular workshop service in the hands of a professional.To give some idea of the value of a Norris when new,an old joiner I knew who happened to be exceptionally capable had bought new Norris smoother after completing his apprenticeship and it had cost him three weeks pay.The Holtey prices are some way ahead of this.
I also think Bob has made an uncharacteristic error in overlooking the presence of a Norris style lateral adjuster on the new "improved" Holtey.For my money,and a lot less of it,a prewar Record would be better value and would do work of excellent quality.

[Bob Smalser]

I also think Bob has made an uncharacteristic error in overlooking the presence of a Norris style lateral adjuster on the new "improved" Holtey.

http://www.holteyplanes.com/982_004.jpg

I'm sure you are right and I stand corrected. He began reproducing infills but came full circle back to a second-generation Stanley design with a better iron and better adjuster. Not that there's anything less than functional elegance about that.

But my point is, if Holtley has a lot of trouble with seasonal movement, why didn't Norris or Spiers? The woods are the same but the shop and drying conditions in their time were much worse.

I suspect they certainly did have occasional trouble with athletic wood, and can only thank Mr. Holtley for not perpetuating mythology. Anything too good to be true usually isn't. ;)

[Keith Wilson]

Y'know, not too be too hard on Mr, Hotley, but I know at least a little about making things out of metal, and why in God's green earth would one want to join a couple of relatively simple plates with a zillion little pins, or dovetails even? I doubt the plane body is anything exotic you can't weld, if a casting is beyond his means, and stress-relieving before machining is scarcely exotic; they've been doing it for over 100 years. That plane looks like art, not technology.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Keith, you've just touched on the great mystery of British infill planes. So far as I am aware, nobody knows why they are dovetailed! The working assumption is that the first infill planes were made by men (probably not by women, but we cannot be entirely sure) who were cabinetmakers themselves, and who adapted cabinet making technology (dovetails) to the unfamiliar new material, metal.

My skills are not up to cabinet work - I am accustomed to fixing up old boats and have built one small new one - for me, an old Stanley or Record is fine. Of course, I would like to have a Norris, a Spiers or a Mathieson, but for what they cost I can buy a lot of other stuff. For instance, I could complete my collection of hollows and rounds...

...or buy some more clamps...:D

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

These are not merely dovetails - these are Nejiri Arigata
HowTo (http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/readarticle.pl?dir=furniture&file=articles_442.shtml)

They have the neat trick of resisting tension at right angles to either plane.

I cannot imagine why they were thought superior to a properly ground casting - except that the earliest were made in the early seventeen hundreds - perhaps the casting technology of the time....

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Look what I just found in one of Tony Murland's catalogues:

A Perspective on Metal Planes

Karl Holtey

What are my views on dovetailing in metal planes? A question recently put to me.

Well, what are dovetails in metal planes? I would describe them as an elaborate form or riveting two pieces of metal at right angles together. From my point of view this does not compare with the strength from casting, welding or silver brazing. However there are some advantages to be gained from dovetailing, such as access to the mouth and achieving a better fit for the filling. It can also be cosmetic, such as brass on steel, though when working with steel sides and steel bottom it would seem ironic the time and trouble spent to produce an invisible result.
In a short article by Nigel Lampert on British Metal Planes (http://www.antiquetools.co.uk/data/plane4.htm) he leaves two questions open. One of which was "from which trades did the skills used for making dovetailed planes emerge?". Well, I can only guess at the answer. I would say that the first tradesmen were Cabinetmakers. Stewart Spiers was a Cabinetmaker and many of the planes that I have seen appear to be user made. When you come to think about it, all you would require is a metal saw, file, drill and patience.

I don't think there was a problem as far as skill. I feel that most Cabinetmakers have the necessary dexterity. In my days as a Cabinetmaker I can remember homework projects appearing during break periods, so it is easy to imagine these early journeymen producing their little bundles of metal during moments of respite. To them it would also seem logical that any form of jointing combined with riveting would use a dovetailed format. They would have discovered that metal lends itself to dovetails more readily than wood. The principle of dovetailing in wood is that the strength is two dimensional because the third dimension depends on glue. However, in metal we can file a secondary dovetail form on the pins and by allowing excess material on the dovetail this can be peined to fill in the voids created by this filing, hence we have this impossible joint.

I am privileged to know someone who worked for Norris up until the 1940s and he assures me that all dovetailing was done by hand, and it would seem that many commercial companies in the 19th century found fabricating by dovetail convenient. For my part I find dovetailing compatible with my quality and objectives.
Appeared 1997 - Toolshop Auctions Catalogue

[Keith Wilson]

Right. Very clear. A dovetailed metal plane is weaker than a cast, welded, or brazed assembly, and requires a lot more work and skill. The reason it's done that way is tradition, which started because those who first made them didn't have arc welders, torches, or casting equipment, much less CNC machine tools, but they were good at making dovetails. Sure looks pretty though. A modern one is art, not engineering.

[John Meachen]

I was aware of the pins in the dovetails being peined to fill the sideplates and would go along with the belief that this was familiar technology to those involved in the process.I suspect that Karl Holtey's comments about movement of infill relate to the technology at his disposal a the time he carried out his checks.His website refers to checking the sole for flatness to an accuracy of 0.0005" and I doubt that any measuring equipment with this kind of resolution would have been in the tool box of any plane maker in the era of Norris or Spiers.I would also believe that the body of a wooden plane would move several times as much making the infill plane look really good in comparison.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Good point,

(How did people true up wooden planes before they had metal jointing planes? I have sometimes wondered...)

My comparison with George Daniels in watchmaking is intended.

Norris planes must have been worth craftsmen spending three weeks' wages on them.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

....checking the sole for flatness to an accuracy of 0.0005" and I doubt that any measuring equipment with this kind of resolution would have been in the tool box of any plane maker in the era of Norris or Spiers.....

Sounds like a serious number - but it's only "half a thou" in common parlance - you can go a whole order of magnitude better with seventeenth century technology.
Did you ever get talked into grinding a telescope mirror?

[PeterSibley]

[quote=rooster;1938422]
He is to planes what George Daniels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Daniels

is to mechanical watches - quite simply the best in the world, with a devoted following of millionaires.

I followed that link Andrew .I'm goobsmacked !http://www.watchmaking.com/daniels/

[BBSebens]

the young married guy in the room is wondering what SWMBO is?

hmm??

[Kermit]

I've driven Ferraris, and in the end, they are just cars. I prefer to drive my 53 year old Chevy truck and have a house to live in. But I could be wrong...

[Tom Robb]

She Who Must Be Obeyed - cf Brit TV show Rumpole of the Bailey speaking of his formidable wife.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Yes, and Rumpole was in turn referring to the terrifying immortal female ruler, known only as She Who Must Be Obeyed, in Rider Haggard's novel, "She".

Sir Rider Haggard
Was completely staggered
When his bride-to-be
Announced "I AM SHE!"

By long tradition, married men of a certain age here in the wbf refer to their dear wives as "SWMBO". I am not sure who started it but I believe the practice enjoys the sanction of the Committee.

[Mrleft8]

The reason that these planes are dovetailed, without doubt, indeed without ANY doubt at all, is very simply that these planes are British. After watching Carter beating her head against the proverbial wall for the last 7 plus years working for a British company, trying to save them money, streamline "the process", make life easier for all involved, and provide a better product, only to be told time and again "That's all very well and good, but THIS is the way we've always done it, This is the way it was done when the industry started back in 1918, and this is the way we shall CONTINUE to do it!". (Cue the orchestra to play "Rule Britania!") "The sun shall NEVER set on the British EMPIRE!!! GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!"
Would you believe me if I told you that Virgin Atlantic Airways still issues hand written paper tickets at ticket counters all over the world? Including the USA.... Would you believe that they still use credit card presses instead of magnetic swipers?
And what do they do when confronted with the obvious? They fire the messenger.

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

....
By long tradition, married men of a certain age here in the wbf refer to their dear wives as "SWMBO". I am not sure who started it but I believe the practice enjoys the sanction of the Committee.

And, by implication, their wives.

It is indeed a venerable tradition, dating back to the Last Century. (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31200#15)

[Keith Wilson]

If anyone would like to read about the orginal SWMBO in H. Rider Haggard's Victorian potboiler, you can find her here: http://www.classicreader.com/booktoc.php/sid.1/bookid.1313/

[paladin]

Youse guys gottitt all wrong again....it's "She who married boat owner".......sheeesh!

[BBSebens]

lol. I think SHE WHO MARRIED BOAT OWNER is hilarious! It helps though, that I married into a boat family.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Youse guys gottitt all wrong again....it's "She who married boat owner".......sheeesh!

I have an American friend who is thought by all his acquaintances to be closely associated with the folks in Langley. Far be it from any of us to say so, of course.

Far be it from me to suggest that Chuck is in any way associated with, let alone a member of, the Committee!:D

[Kermit]

And the reason the Brits were so late into the computer industry was that they couldn't figure out how to make 'em leak oil.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

And the reason the Brits were so late into the computer industry was that they couldn't figure out how to make 'em leak oil.


Kermit, old son, have you ever heard of COLOSSUS?:rolleyes:

Or Lyons Corner Houses?:rolleyes:

We INVENTED the blasted things!:p