I hope Jeff is asleep this time around....maybe I can slip this past him :^)

Good infills boast a tight mouth, but that can be had with a Stanley if you
want to futz around with it long enough. The 3/16"+ thick irons are great,
too, but you can get thicker than normal irons in a Stanley. Most infills are
thicker, though.

The real clincher is that infills offer a rock-solid bedding area with a
beefy lever cap and cap iron system that can eliminate any possibility of
chatter. This, coupled with the thick iron and tight mouth, is what makes them
the ultimate smoothing machines for difficult wood. 

Even so, you'd be better off getting a Stanley smoother first. If you
regularly use figured hardwoods that the Stanley can't handle, you can splurge
for a good infill later on. You should have a Stanley anyway, for preliminary
smoothing and knotty lumber, to save wear and tear on your infill iron.

I keep my Norris sharp as possible, and use it for the last few passes after
first smoothing with a Stanley to remove marks and major tearout from the
jointer or jack planes. I also try to never run it directly over knots, so it
doesn't get small chips taken out of the edge, which can cause small streaks
to show up in the work. Infills are the Terminators of smoothing planes, to be
called into play for the final cleanup.

Ray

Question, the overwhelming opinion of this group is that the Norris planes
are much better at final smoothing than the Stanley's. The question is, why?

I've heard two differing opinions. One, that the Norris' adjusters and
precision allows it to take a more consistent cut thickness. This permits
it to be adjusted to a thinner cut. Another group claims that the Stanley
can easily cut a thin enough slice but the planes basic design works
against it, it's too long and not heavy enough. 

Any comments?

I was thinking that a simple modification to the 604 could be made to add
ballast to increase the plane's weight. Though this would ruin the plane's
value (and probably cause most of you to throw stones at me!), it might
make for a better plane. Has anyone ever experimented along these line?
Before I buy a 604 just to modify it, I'd really love some feedback. Also,
does anyone have a 604 that's heavy on "patina" but mechanically sound that
is available for less than museum costs? One they wouldn't mind knowing was
being used for such genetic recombination experimentation? Perhaps one that
permenantly disfigured a loved one (OK, can that last one. I forgot, this
isn't rec.woodworking.powrtools).

I understand there is a 604 type that has frog adjustment with the irons in
place, is that true?

Thanks,
Philip 

God First, 
Your neighbors as yourself.
All else is commentary.

What about a LN 604? where does that figgure in... it should have more
weight..

Aaron

Philip Procter wrote:
> 
> Question, the overwhelming opinion of this group is that the Norris planes
> are much better at final smoothing than the Stanley's. The question is, why?
> 
> I've heard two differing opinions. One, that the Norris' adjusters and
> precision allows it to take a more consistent cut thickness. This permits
> it to be adjusted to a thinner cut. Another group claims that the Stanley
> can easily cut a thin enough slice but the planes basic design works
> against it, it's too long and not heavy enough.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> I was thinking that a simple modification to the 604 could be made to add
> ballast to increase the plane's weight. Though this would ruin the plane's
> value (and probably cause most of you to throw stones at me!), it might
> make for a better plane. Has anyone ever experimented along these line?
> Before I buy a 604 just to modify it, I'd really love some feedback. Also,
> does anyone have a 604 that's heavy on "patina" but mechanically sound that
> is available for less than museum costs? One they wouldn't mind knowing was
> being used for such genetic recombination experimentation? Perhaps one that
> permenantly disfigured a loved one (OK, can that last one. I forgot, this
> isn't rec.woodworking.powrtools).
> 
> I understand there is a 604 type that has frog adjustment with the irons in
> place, is that true?
> 
> Thanks,
> Philip

=================================================================
Aaron Ionta                          aaron.ionta@i...
Application Support Engineer         ajionta@m...  (Home)
Intranet Solutions Inc.          (612)903-2032 (W)
                                 (888)688-8324 x2032 (W tollfree)

=================================================================

RayTSmith Wrote:

>  Good infills boast a tight mouth, but that can be had with a Stanley if you
>want to futz around with it long enough. The 3/16"+ thick irons are great,
>too, but you can get thicker than normal irons in a Stanley. Most infills are
>thicker, though.
>
>  The real clincher is that infills offer a rock-solid bedding area with a
>beefy lever cap and cap iron system that can eliminate any possibility of
>chatter. This, coupled with the thick iron and tight mouth, is what makes 
>them
>the ultimate smoothing machines for difficult wood.

None of my planes (except 9 1/2 @ 60 1/2 blocks) have what I consider to 
be a close enough mouth (I keep my frogs flush with the mouth). I have 
been wondering if I could just put a metal shim behind the (whole) blade?

Wm. "Bill" Brady - Working in the garden already. Happily making shavings 
now, no sawdust, no noise.

 RayTSmith wrote: 

The real clincher is that infills offer a rock-solid bedding area with a beefy l
ever cap and cap iron system that can eliminate any possibility of chatter. This
, coupled with the thick iron and tight mouth, is what makes them the ultimate s
moothing machines for difficult wood.   

Just to muddy the waters a bit, how does a wooden smoother with a tight mouth an
d a thick iron compare?   It seems like it has three of the four elements you me
ntion: solid bedding all the way to the bevel,   a tight mouth, and a thick iron
.

--   
Scott Post   spost@n...   http://www.netusa1.net/~spost

At 10:02 AM 1/13/98 -0600, Aaron Ionta wrote:
Lotsa snippage here

>> 
>> I understand there is a 604 type that has frog adjustment with the irons in
>> place, is that true?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Phiolip

This has probably been answered, but I'll throw in my 2 cents.  Beings how I
own a couple (well, ok, about 40) Bed Rocks.  There are three basic designs
of Bed Rock (60x) planes.  The very early (1898) type one and two which had
a Bed Rock frog and a Bed Rock lever cap, but were numbered like the
Bailey's (2-8).
The second; around 1900, Stanley decided to use the unique 60x numbers
(602-60x) - never was a 601.  The planes still looked like a (Stanley)
Bailey, but,
of course, had the Bed Rock frog.  For those not familiar with Bed Rock
planes,
the flat bottomed frog supposedly reduced blade chatter in wild grain.

Anyway, around 1910, they added a very useful feature, the third basic
design.  The 
frog was attached by two pins instead of screws which were forced downward
by pointed 
screws from the rear of the frog.  Thus allowing the frog to be adjusted
without
removing the blade.  ABSOLUTE genius!  Works great!  At the same time they
made the sides flat on top to give the plane a distinctive appearance.

The last Bed Rock was made around 1940.  If you stumble on a corrugated 602
of any type,
it lists at $700-1600.  I haven't heard of one selling for under $1200 for
several years.

If this is hard to understand, you can order the Bed Rock type study from
Bob Kaune - listed
with the Electronic Neanderthal for, I think, $3.00.  Use link to my links
below to get to
the EN.

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Larry
EMAIL: LKP@R...
HOME PAGE: HTTP://WWW.RUSTYTOOL.CNCHOST.COM
Shortcut to my Links: 
http://www.rustytool.cnchost.com/index.shtml#rustytools_links

>
>None of my planes (except 9 1/2 @ 60 1/2 blocks) have what I consider to 
>be a close enough mouth (I keep my frogs flush with the mouth). I have 
>been wondering if I could just put a metal shim behind the (whole) blade?

I have done something like that with some of my woodies, most recently I
used coated paper (People magazine front cover I think, wonder what the
galoots of 2050 will make of that!) to shim a beautiful old rabbet. Works
great!

Go for it!

Philip

God First, 
Your neighbors as yourself.
All else is commentary.

In a message dated 98-01-13 18:44:48 EST, spost@n... writes:

> Just to muddy the waters a bit, how does a wooden smoother with a tight
>  mouth and a thick iron compare?  It seems like it has three of the four
>  elements you mention: solid bedding all the way to the bevel,  a tight
mouth,
>  and a thick iron.

GG, Scott,

Did anyone ever reply to this very interesting question? How about it, can a
wooden smoother be a "best" smoother? Are there specific models or types that
could serve even if the average coffin wouldn't meet the standard? Or is this
function purely beyond the capability of a woodie?

Cheers/Don Carron

Scott writes:

<< Just to muddy the waters a bit, how does a wooden smoother with a tight
mouth and a thick iron compare? >>

From what I understand, a wooden smoother can do a fine job, as long as the
mouth remains tight. Being subject to wear, and having to be reflattened due
to wood movement, the mouth would get wider and wider until it needs patching.
I imagine it would be a pain to keep the mouth on a wooden smoother straight
and tight. (Say, .003, like my Norris with the Hock blade.)

I've never used a wooden smoother myself, but plan to if I ever get around
to patching the mouth on one. I've never seen one with a mouth tight enough to
just pick up and start working. The beauty of a good infill is that the sole
stays true and the mouth stays tight. You just sharpen the blade and go. If
it sits for a few weeks without being used, you just pick it up and go again.
No need to re-adjust like you would if the humidity loosens the wedge on your
woodie.

Ray

At 07:45 1/14/98 EST, SpeedCom wrote:
>In a message dated 98-01-13 18:44:48 EST, spost@n... writes:
>
>> Just to muddy the waters a bit, how does a wooden smoother with a tight
>>  mouth and a thick iron compare?  It seems like it has three of the four
>>  elements you mention: solid bedding all the way to the bevel,  a tight
>   mouth, and a thick iron.

I use a small coffin too. It's a recent addition and I'm hardly proficient
at its use yet, so I didn't feel qualified to add 2 cents, how bout just a
penny?

I love how wooden planes feel in use. I also have begun to get the hang of
depth adjustment, it really is all THAT difficult. However, I am not yet to
the point where I can get depth and square set accurately enough for final
finishing. I miss that ability to turn the knob just that itty little 1/32
turn.

I've also found the coffins to be too light, the added momentum of a 4
pound plane seems to help (though I'm not sure why). 

I was thinking of making a transitional out of ebony (for science, of
course!).

Philip

God First, 
Your neighbors as yourself.
All else is commentary.

At 07:45 AM 1/14/98 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 98-01-13 18:44:48 EST, spost@n... writes:
>
>> Just to muddy the waters a bit, how does a wooden smoother with a tight
>>  mouth and a thick iron compare?  It seems like it has three of the four
>>  elements you mention: solid bedding all the way to the bevel,  a tight
>mouth,
>>  and a thick iron.
>
>GG, Scott,
>
>Hello,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have a J. Kellogg 7" coffin plane made of
maple that I laminated a piece of rosewood to, to close up the mouth which
left
me a mouth a little bit bigger then a 32 of an inch, and I use this on any
figured woods that I'm working on with great results, theres just something
about using a nice old woody.

Carl Murphy
Eastport, Maine
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------

Scott asked,

>Just to muddy the waters a bit, how does a wooden smoother with a tight
>mouth and a thick iron compare?  It seems like it has three of the four
>elements you mention: solid bedding all the way to the bevel,  a tight mouth,
>and a thick iron.

I have a wooden smoother which was fitted with a fine steel sole by the
father of the retired old cabinetmaker I bought this plane from.  It is at
least 90 yrs old and was used by both of them solely for finish work on wild
grained hardwoods, one of the specialties of their custom cabinetmaking
workshop.  It has a superfineslit of a mouth, a razor sharp Ward blade (you
don't even need to wonder how I discovered this but I did clean the blood
off the sole and the blade), and it works WONDERFULLY.   But then I am also
lucky enough to have a Norris A5, but only a very late one, and that is very
nice to work with too.  I don't have a Bedrock, and in this part of the
world I doubt that I ever will.

Perhaps there is no "best" plane, or solution, just a variety of solutions
to the same problem which are easch the "best solution: depending on the
prevailing circumstances....

Regards to all

Tony B

Ray T Smith wrote:
>
>  I hope Jeff is asleep this time around....maybe I can slip this
>  past him :^)

Refusing to rise to bait point-by-point, 8-), might one respectfully 
suggest that those who wish critically to evaluate Ray's enthusiastic 
summary, look into the depths of the archives where I estimate that 
we have covered all his points (ad nauseam to some no doubt, with 
only one ad vitriol that I recall).

Whazza 604 anyway? 8-).

However, since lever caps, adjusters, friction and all that have been 
recent interesting topics, here's an previous posting from my store:

"Given a long and strong enough lever and a suitable fulcrum, it is 
said one
could lift any load. This is because the user's end can be made to
move a greater distance than the load end. The ratio of the distances
being known as the "velocity ratio" (ie the distance moved by the
effort divided by the distance moved by the load). It plays a
fundamental part in determining the efficiency of a machine.

The blade-shifting system in engineering terms, is a machine. The
distance moved by the effort is related to the diameter of the
adjuster knob.

I measured the increase in set by means of a dial gauge resting at
right-angles to the sole of a 51 year old Stanley #4 smoother and a
late production Norris smoother. The actual distance moved by the
blade, measured along a 45 degree frog will be 1.4 times the actual
set.

(At Patrick Leach's instigation, a few of us discussed the bed angles
of Norrises some time ago, and those who a responded showed that most
have an angle, as near as makes not much difference, of 45 degrees, 
ie
the same as a standard Stanley smoother, whatever some writers may
say).

The diameter of the Norris adjuster is about 22.5mm. Playing
mathematicians tricks, one can say that the distance moved by the
effort will be 22.5 x pi. One revolution of the Norris produces a set
of approx 1mm. So the velocity ratio is 22.5 x pi/1 x 1.4 = 16pi. .

The Stanley adjuster diameter is 31.7mm approx. One revolution of my
Stanley #4 smoother adjuster knob, gives a projection of approx 
0.3mm.
So the velocity ratio is 31.7 x pi/0.3 x 1.4 = 75.5pi.

(Sorry about the metric, but my dial gauge has seen the light).

So the velocity ratios, and hence the efficiency of the adjusters in
overcoming friction will be 75.5pi/16pi = 4.7.

(Note that the Norris compound screw makes for a coarser adjustment, 
not a finer one as is sometimes believed.)

Of course one cannot fully quantify the difference between the
adjusters of the two planes because the actual relative frictions
between the frogs will not be known. However, the differences would 
have
to be in the order of 4.7 to bring the effort to be the same. This 
would
take some doing, so I reckon one could justifiably say that the feed 
on a
Stanley is significantly easier to adjust than on a Norris. Anyway my
fingers tell me so, so there! 8-). There are other factors, such as 
the
ability to tweak the adjustment of a Stanley smoother while still 
retaining
the grip on the tote.

The weaker adjuster might explain why I and some infill users /have 
to/ ease the lever
cap screw to adjust the blade, yet the Stanley/Record owner need not
do so, and in fact until this discussion arose, I had never heard of 
a
plane being adjusted with a cam-type lever cap released (and at one
time I related to well over a hundred woodworkers).

Now I understand why a one-presssure lever-cam is OK for the Stanley,
but perhaps less suitable for the Norris. Of course, fine adjustment
of the lever cap is easy with this type of plane, but is not
accomodated by the design of a Bailey mechanism. Funnily enough UK
Record are now producing planes with a screw-adjusted lever cap. I
find it unsatisfyingly small in diameter.

One snag with loosening the Norris lever cap for a preliminary
adjustment is that if there is some give between the frog and the
blade (or maybe for some other reason), tightening the screw can
increase the set. In fact I was taught that this was the way to do 
the
final setting on this type of plane, and while this has been 
confirmed
by other users, it reportedly does not always work. It certainly does
on my plane, and because this also upsets the lateral adjustment, 
this
is one reason why I don't use it. (No, it isn't for sale. It will do 
as
a photo prop sometime, 8-)).

The mechanics of the lateral adjustment is also interesting. For 
homework,
to the lateral adjustment systems, apply the principles
outlined above, /assuming/ that the blade pivots about a point just
behind the bevel."

Then ask yourself whether the Stanley, having independent feed and 
lateral adjusters, is not a better-conceived design.

Apologies if the layout of the re-post section comes out badly 
formatted at your ends.

Jeff
--
Jeff Gorman - West Yorkshire
Jeff@m...

>Question, the overwhelming opinion of this group is that the Norris planes
>are much better at final smoothing than the Stanley's. The question is, why?
   In my opinion it's the solid bed and thick blade that gives the
better performance.  The Norris has a long wood bed for the blade to
rest on.  This along with the higher pitch of the blade is the reason.
The adjuster is no bargain.  I have just as much trouble setting the
blade on my Norris as I do on my wood planes.  
  This is just an opinion.  I'm certainly no expert on planes.

Lawrie