> On Aug 15, 2017, at 10:01 , Bill Webber  wrote:
> 
> For the Norris type, the tails on the side plate are beveled creating a
tapered space between the tail and the pin on the sole plate..  The small gap
thus created is filled when the pins on the sole are peened into the recess.
> 
> For the Spiers type, a small trianguler divot is filed into the side of the
pin on the sole.  This gap is filled when the tail on the side is peened into
the recess.
> 
> In both cases, the objective is to make certain the sides cannot separate from
the sole.  My question: Is one approach better than the other?  Stronger?  With
knowledge of the two methods, does it become simply personal preference based on
tools, skills, point of view, etc?   Gurd Fritsche provides instructions for the
Norris approach.  I'm more familiar with the Spiers approach because of the
Shepherd kits I built and my experience with some other planes.  Any comments?

Without doing some kind of experiment, it's pretty much
impossible to tell. Either one is more than sufficient
to hold the sole together, in my opinion, so it really
comes down to the preference of the maker. I used a taper
saw file to put a divot on the corners of the sole pins,
at least partly because all of my pins and tails were
hacksawed at *ahem* inconsistent angles. 

I've never worked with a kit, but I expect the Norris
method is faster if you have machines/jigs for layout,
whereas the Spiers method will work with looser tolerances.

Adam