Here are four bullnose infill planes from the late 19th to the early 20th century: the oldest on the left is by Holtzapffel & Co (1828-1922); the two in the middle are by Norris (1872-1943); and the one on the right is by Arthur Price (1924-1967). All three companies were London makers. Bullnose planes are not that useful in a shop, so all of these planes show very little wear. The Holtzapffel plane does not have a steel sole for wear (planes without steel soles are less common that ones with steel soles). The two Norris planes are essentially identical, with the only real difference is the width - 1 1/8” vs. 1 1/4” - and wedges - one has a rosewood wedge and the other one has an ebony wedge. The plane with the rosewood wedge has never been ground and has just been honed a few times.
Who Made These Planes?
We know what brands the planes are stamped with. We also know that Norris didn't have a foundry. At the very least, someone else did their castings. Or did they buy castings from one of the various vendors that sold infill castings and simply finished them? Or did they outsource all their small cast planes like these bullnose planes in their entirety to a special maker that only made cast planes like Slater or Price? Norris and Holtzapffel planes are quite collectible, so we know a lot more about them. But there were many retail sellers of infill planes. For example, in Rd. Melhuish’s 1912 catalog, a complete range of infill planes are shown with their own brand. However, while there are "Meluish" planes that survive, I don't know if the catalog branding extended to stamping the actual tool too.
I admit that these questions may not be that interesting to most plane collectors. But for someone like me who is fascinated by the process of manufacturing, these technical questions are very interesting indeed.
First let's take a look at the castings. All of these planes share the same DNA. The castings are essentially the same, but they are not from the same pattern. There are slight differences in proportion in the Arthur Price plane versus the Norris. The Holtzapffel plane is a little smaller. This difference can be attributed to one of three reasons: Each company had its own patterns that they had cast via third party foundries when they needed to make bullnose planes, all derived from the same original design; they all used the same castings from the same vendors and the differences reflect the fact that these planes are made over a period of about 90 years. They also might have purchased casting from one of the various retailers that sold plane castings. The last solution is certainly the easiest. All these makers were capable of filing a casting to clean them up. The hand filed decoration details by the different makers are quite different.
But I think the real answer is that Norris and other companies went to makers such as Arthur Price for small cast planes. The number of surviving Norris cast planes is quite high. The number of early Arthur Price planes is quite low, but the number of Arthur Price planes that date from the 1950’s - after Norris closed - is actually high. Normally you would assume that a tool maker like Arthur Price, which stayed in business for a good stretch, would have more surviving planes. Unless the company dramatically altered either the number of planes produced or the method of production, their earlier planes should not be so scarce. This makes me think Arthur Price's early plane-making was devoted to planes sold under other brands. It also makes absolutely no sense for Norris to spend time making the cast planes when they have the special expertise for dovetailing steel planes. Outsourcing was incredibly common. Norris itself made planes for other brands. Robert Towell, the early 19th century plane maker pioneer, made planes under his own brand but also made many planes under other people's brands. As far as I know, Holtzapffel made very little outside their lathes. In general, the practical maker assesses their capabilities and resources and outsources everything for which they don't have a unique advantage. That having been said, we don’t have any real evidence one way or another, so my theories are just theories.
I enjoy the premise that planes' commonality of design, and the efficiency of outsourcing, point to a London community of tool makers that supported each other.
I would love to find some documentation about how the hardware manufacturing business worked in London in the 19th century.
House brand infill planes in the Rd. Melhuish 1912 catalog
Machined casting ready for stuffing from the Rd. Melhuish 1912 catalog
Join the conversation
04/22/2026 Eric O’Grey
The Record 077A bullnose/rabbet is very useful in my shop as the front bullnose section can be removed to also make it work as a chisel plane. It’s great for cleaning glue from right angles and getting exactly into corners.
Absolutely wonderful article. Your "Theory" may be less theory and more fact than most would realize. If you were to visit what is left of the Sheffield industrial area you would find the remnants of a ton of small closet sized shops. Local historians would describe those little shops as "specialist shops". They would make a single component or perform a single operation before passing those parts onto the factory to be assembled and packed for sale or they would send them onto another specialist for further processing. One tool could have come from a dozen or more shops that would do work for all of the brands in the area. As always Joel your article is absolutely on point!
04/22/2026 Gary Lacher
All completely new to me. Very interesting, thanks for sharing your theory!
Joel's Blog
Built-It Blog
Video Roundup
Classes & Events
Work Magazine