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)

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