About a year ago I bought this unhandled 7 1/2" infill smoother on eBay. It was cheap and I thought it might make a good project - which I also thought I might share with you all as I proceed.
The good points about this plane were that it was nicely dovetailed and very solid. There was no name that I could find, but inside was a stamped "5" (which might just represent the fifth plane made by the craftsman). The tapered Mathieson blade fitted created a tight mouth, but before anyone considers this a possible clue to identification, the cap iron is a Ward.
On the other side the infills were in poor condition. The rear infill looked original, and I suspect it is Rosewood. It was intact but a bit sorry. I though it a bit low and that it failed to support the blade properly. I did hone the blade and tried the plane out, but it did a poor job in spite of the tight mouth. Reason? The blade rocked on the warped bed. The front infill had been repaired with a top section of stained pine glued to a remnant of the original. All-in-all, there was no reason why I should not replace it all.
had a beautiful chunk of Tasmanian Blackwood for just this job.
The other areas for replacement include the iron. The tapered Mathieson is out, and in comes a 3/16" cast steel parallel Something-or-other (it has a stamp that looks a lot like Mathieson, but instead says "Warranted" where the Mathieson name goes, and "Cast Steel" underneath). It started life at 2 1/4" wide, and I have ground it to 2".
The lever screw was a crude, steel affair. I'm sure it was a replacement somewhere along the line. This is to go. Finally, the screws pinning the infill will be replaced with brass screws and filed flush with the sides.
The question is what shape should the infill take? Should I build something traditional, or something a tad different (but still user friendly). I like the coffin shape, but I do not see the point of the squarish rear that just does not look comfortable and, indeed, seems to encourage one to push forwards and not downwards. My thoughts run to a rounded rear for comfort, angled at 45 degrees for downforce, and a third higher to support the iron fully. I cannot alter the bed angle, as much as I would like to increase the cutting angle, since this would mean re-sitting the lever cap. So it will remain at 45 degrees (and, if needs be, the iron will have a backbevel).
So what about the shape? Below is what I have in mind. Here are a few pictures for consideration.
The first is another unhandled infill smoother, one that I have included as a basis for the modification.
The second image is the modification.
Note that it is not extreme modification, just a little different (I cannot recall having seen one like this, but I cannot imagine why not - it just seems so logical).
And just to show you where I am up to, the next image is of the shaping of the rear infill "blank". The essential step for a stuffed infill is to use the sole to mark out the outline. This was bandsawed, then the rebate shaped with a shoulder plane.
And here is the rear infill blank in its current form (that is, awaiting on the final design before completing shaping):
The last image is my attempt to make a knurled skew replacement for lever cap. Infill is Jarrah but will likely be replaced with Tasmanian Blackwood.
Comments please. E-mail: email@example.com
Updates - 04/04/2006
Executive Summary One: I noticed that the parallel iron was not a Mathieson.
<I think it's common enough that calling it "Mathieson" would be deceptive. A logo surrounded (above) by some text in an arc with a line of text (commonly a single word) below in a straight line is almost "standard".
I have uploaded images of the logos for comparison.
Executive Summary Two:
I had discovered the number "5" on the bed of the plane's body.
My friend in the Netherlands, Martin Hagen, then said: I discovered that my Spiers was marked inside on to the rosewood with an "7" which also stood on the blade and onto the chipbreaker.
This is very exciting! I believed this plane to be a well-made craftsman piece, but what if it were made by Spiers?! Here is the picture of the "5" stamped into the plane's steel bed:
And HERE is the picture of the "5" stamped into the underside of the lever cap!
So this plane COULD be a Spiers. What does the "5" and "7" stand for?
Update - 04/04/2006
Executive Summary: Larry draws attention to my discussion of tote angles in my review of the LV BUS, noting that I concluded that modern higher benches appeared to suit more vertical LV totes, while the 45 degree-angled Stanley totes were likely designed for lower, traditional benches.
You may recall that I was ALSO discussing the mass of the plane at the time.
I observed that greater plane mass (of planes such as the LV BU Smoother and LV BU Jointer), which translates into greater momentum, appeared to allow one to just push the plane forward, rather than have to also push the plane downward, as with lighter planes, such as the LV LA Smoother. Forward pushing is easier with a vertical tote (= LV), while downward pushing is easier with a diagonal tote (= Stanley).
Here is what I went on to describe in the BUS review:
"Back to the BUS and the Cherry board…. I push the plane…. It feels like a train on tracks….. It gains momentum and it seems as if nothing can stand in its path….. It feels quite effortless – quite a different sensation to both the LAS and HNT Gordon. The latter planes need to be pressed down onto the surface. The BUS just needs to be pushed forward – its weight provides all the needed pressure downward."
I weighed the infill smoother (steel shell, infills, level cap and screw, iron and cap iron). It came to 3 1/2 lbs. This is the same weight as a LV LAS, in other words a "lighter plane" (the "heavy" BUS weighs 5 lbs). So I thought that this infill smoother would benefit from downforce when planing.
Hence my question to the Porch (In addition, I also had in mind just being a little creative with design with this renovation).
<Why would you change the infill's rear end? Given your bench height it should be an advantage if your review is right. Maybe you've changed your mind?
Remember, my previous comments about bench height were speculations based on my experience. They have preoccupied me for some time. So, when I have had opportunity, I have been making/collecting totes of differing angles. So far I have a vertical (LV), a mid range (custom made) and a Stanley-angle. I have a research project in mind. This will examine the planer's arm extension (planer's height less bench height) correlated with tote angle. I have in mind to measure the amount of force required to push the plane. I welcome any ideas in this regard.
From Martin Hagen - 04/05/2006
Hello Derek and fellow galoots,
I am happy that there are a lot of reactions on Derek’s posting about the renovating/restoration of an infill smoother.
I still have some questions first: was the infill screwed to the plane body? Are there pictures of the old thumbscrew? And some more.
As the happy owner off the book about Spiers by Nigel Lampert published in 1999 (thanks to Andrew Fairbank and Tony Blanks from down under who put the connection with Nigel) I took the book from the bookcase and searched for some answers concerning Derek’s plane.
I read the following on page 27 : Although his first planemaking task was to finish off castings obtained from an Edingburgh cabinetmakers Shop, his early planes are almost without exception dovetailed and display these general characteristics:
Wrought iron rather than steel construction excepting for the sole.
Thicker soles which approximate ¼"
Screwed rather than riveted sides.
Lever caps of lighter construction with slender necks and decorative but bulbous lever cap screws.
Lever cap screws with thinner shanks or stems.
Lever cap screws of varying designs, with turned decorations above and below the centre of the screw head.
Removable lever caps which are retained by metal threads.
Tongue and groove rather than butt joints to bring the two sole plates together on miter, panel and smoothing planes.
Bridges and lever caps which are solid with no "hollow" underneath.
Bridges retained by metal thread screws rather than rivets.
Front and rear infills made using more than one piece of timber.
No added sole plate to strengthen the cutter bed behind the mouth.
No protruding heel in miter planes which may be fully dovetailed around the heel.
These features are not all present concurrently, and the strongest evidence of such planes is the immediate general style of the plane, its screwed sides and the nature of the lever cap. Spiers planes much more commonly use the lever cap and screw system to hold the cutter rather than a bridge and wedge, and as bridge design remained relatively unchanged throughout these are not ready indicators of early planes.
Nevertheless, early bridges are solid without relief on the underside, and some slight differences do occur in general shape. Checking the underside of lever caps and bridges can yield interesting information.
I also picked up the small booklet by Ken Robbers about Scotch and English metal planes published in 1979 to find some more info. The following list was mentioned:
Panel planes : 7 sizes
Jointing planes: 8 sizes
Smoothing planes without handle: 7 sizes
Smoothing with handle 3 sizes
I can't find anything about the numbering of planes by stamping a number into it. I do know that I have seen several Spiers planes on the bay for sale where a number is mentioned. Is it possible to assume that the number stands for the size of the plane, maybe some of the other Spiers smoothers owned by fellow Y B plane owners are able to look for a stamp, inside the plane and measure it and forward this info to me so that we have some material to start a search for the answers. I hope I didn’t bore the fellow galoots and hope to hear from you.
Kind regards, Martin Hagen
From Jim O'Brien (4/5/06):
<Derek whets our appetites with an impending infill transformation>
Infills seldom reach a state where they are not worth restoring. The one that I picked up on the cheap at M-WTCA back in October looked pretty doubtful to the unenlightened. My wife for instance, couldn't see spending over $100 on a dirty, rusty hunk of iron. But hey, it was my money.
It has now been restored to fine working trim by Wayne Anderson.
It was done I think pretty close to original specs, but the front bun is taller because there was a dark patch that Wayne wanted to save so it would match the rear infill. The original iron was shot, so he replaced it with one of Vlad Spehar's (which is a good deal thicker than the Spiers iron by Herbert). It is quite comfortable in my hands and compares favorably with the Spiers in the last pic, that is I believe original.
If you have the time, try a couple of bun and infill shapes in softwood. Or even Styrofoam might be a good idea before committing your piece of prized Tasmanian bloodwood. Looking forward to more pics for tool drool time.
Good luck, Jim
From Peter McBride - 04/05/2006:
Derek is exited... and has good reason to be!
Because Martin Hagen said, "I discovered that my Spiers was marked inside on to the rosewood with an "7" which also stood on the blade and onto the chipbreaker."
Derek: This is very exciting! I believed this plane to be a well-made craftsman piece, but what if it were made by Spiers?!
Good possibility you are both correct. Have a look here:
Derek I took the liberty of pasting your picture next to a pic of a Spiers lever cap (stamped small, right way up...early about 1870). The body it came from is a small screw sided smoother that may have been in a fire. Stamped 4 inside.
Hope this helps,
Australia - website
From BugBear - 04/05/2006
Derek Cohen wrote:
"The good points about this plane were that it was nicely dovetailed and very solid. There was no name that I could find, but inside was a stamped "5" (which might just represent the fifth plane made by the craftsman). The tapered Mathieson blade fitted created a tight mouth, but before anyone considers this a possible clue to identification, the cap iron is a Ward."
Here's a photo (tricky to do, BTW) of 2 of my I Sorby Irons:
Derek's original blade:
I believe the defaced logo on Derek's iron to be the same.
Martin has supplied a great deal of fascinating and new information about Spiers infills. He goes on to say,
I still have some questions first: was the infill screwed to the plane body?
Martin, yes it was. I assumed that this was because the body is coffin shaped and that it would be difficult to insert a pin across curved sides.
However, I have since seen this done, so now I am not sure. Am I reading too far into your sentence to think that a screwed infill was an early method?
The screws are shortish. Below is a picture of sides, sole and mouth in which the screws can be seen. Keep in mind that the front infill was replaced, and that these screws are not as well fitted as the rear ones. Actually, neither end were well fitted, which is why I am replacing them.
And here is a picture of the removed infills. You can see the remainder of the old (original?) front infill still in the body. I suspect that the rear infill was also not original (but a much older replacement, if this was so) since its height is much lower than anything else I have seen.
For comparison, here is the side elevation once again.
<Are there pictures of the old thumbscrew?
I am certain that this is not the original thumbscrew. It is definitely a one-of-a-kind. Here is a close up.
When I began this project, I decided to build my own thumbscrew. I do not have any machinery to do so, but produced a couple using decidedly dubious methods, which I shall own up to as long as no one tells on me. I managed to access a brass bolt with the correct thread. Then I searched through the local Borg's gardening section for solid brass hose fittings. I came up with these.
I then made up these two thumbscrews. The first is solid,
and the second is a Jarrah infill
But now that the plane appears almost certainly to be a Spiers, I am inclined to try and use a more original-looking thumbscrew. If I cannot make one, then I will need to buy one. The one above is too modern. What do you think?
I will return to my shaping of the infill this weekend.
Esteemed Galoots-of-the-Porch, a few updates on my progress.
As is always the case, I set my sights on far more than I am able to achieve I take some comfort in having been a good dad and outfitted my son's built-in robe (closet to those in the Americas) this weekend. This took much of my spare time. I did, nevertheless, complete a few items on the infill to-do list.
The major accomplishment was to complete the restoration of the iron. The 3/16" parallel Sorby iron (as identified by BugBear) was a present from a friend and is replacing the tapered Mathieson iron. The iron was in fair condition - no rust, per se, but many, many pits and deep scrapes (as though someone had attempted to remove surface it with a angle grinder!). A little over 2" below the slot. The iron was 2 1/4" wide, which I had already reduced to the needed 2" by grinding 1/8" off each side. To do this I used one of my tailed apprentices, my large belt sander (which is reserved for grinding blades). The disc sander is used as a motorized strop (chamois leather glued to a sanding disc). The advantage of the belt sander is that it runs relatively cool. As soon as the iron began to get too warm to hold I would dunk it in water.
I had used the belt sander to remove most of the worst of the grazes and pits, and now it was time for handpower and more careful lapping of the back of the iron. The main help here was my 220 grit King waterstone.
If I had any concerns earlier that the heat from grinding the sides of the iron might have affected the temper, well, now they were put to rest. This mother was Hard, Hard Work.
For those who have interests in a coarse waterstone, this 220 works well. I was also pleasantly surprised to find that it remained flat for a long time (although I would re-flatten it after about 5 minutes on 220 grit drywall mesh).
The main "strategy" in lapping the back of the iron was to keep it flat on the waterstone, and to achieve a strong and even pressure over the area below the slot. To do this I used a length of hardwood with a piece of leather glued to the back (to act as a non-slip). The pictures below will demonstrate.
Once this was done, I worked my way up through 800, 1200, 4000, and 8000 grits (all King waterstones). A 25 degree bevel was ground on my belt sander set up, beginning at 80 grit and stopping at 400 grit. The aim was just to get a clean bevel, not a final honing. Before I can set the rear infill I need to file the mouth for this iron. This can only be done with an iron that is prepared to its final size. Interestingly, I measured the thickness of the iron after all this work and it measured 3/16". I guestimated that I had removed at least 1/32", so this must have been unusually thick.
Here is the completed Sorby iron and Ward cap iron.
Before packing up for the weekend, I managed to bandsaw the front infill.
The next chance I will have to work on the plane will be the forthcoming Easter Weekend. Hopefully I shall complete it then.
From Martin Hagen - 04/09/2006
I took some pictures for you the length of the screw is: 49,3mm the shaft with screw thread is 11,7mm and the head is 23,8mm.
I also have taken a picture of the infill with the stamp no. 7 and the inside of the levercap inside on the left you can slightly see the no. 7.
The book of Nigel also mentioned that Spiers delivered plane bodys to Mathiesson and maybe some others.
Here is the latest series of pictures charting the progress I have made renovating the infill smoother.
First of all I must tell you that what follows is all the fault of Peter McBride. Blame him. It was his idea to send me the following picture of his Spiers smoother with the comment, "Is it possible it was a handled plane originally??"
Well, the plane could have been anything. I am not convinced that the rear infill was original. I am inclined to believe that it started life as an unhandled smoother … but, on the other hand, I do like the look of the handled version … what am I saying?! A handled renovation is too much work! And some will say that this is sacrilege. … except the wood is not original, the blade is not original, the cap iron is not original , and certainly the lever screw is not original.
So I talked myself into building a handled version of the Spiers infill smoother, and modeled it on Peter’s plane. I also decided to take a little "Artist’s License" – the front and rear infill would be Tasmanian Blackwood, previously decided, but the tote would be a contrasting Jarrah. The rivets were originally steel screws. I plan to replace these with brass and file them flush with the sides of the body. The level cap was originally help on with a peened and filed rivet, and I will do the same. I considered changing this to a brass screw but think that this will look too busy.
Firstly I made a new lever screw. I think I got pretty close to the model (the thread is long in the picture and will be cut shorter at the end).
I decided to build a new rear infill since I was not happy with the bed angle of the one I had made. This measured 44 degrees. I wanted something closer to 50 degrees.
The following picture is of the templates I made to shape the infills.
The next image is that of shaping the rear infill.
As before, after the basic outline is roughed out on the bandsaw, shaping begins with a shoulder plane. It is vital to keep everything square. It was useful to occasionally square up the edge with a side rabbet plane, then clean up with a chisel.
At this point a few pictures were deleted in error. These included the completed front infill and much of the shaping of the rear infill. I was not thrilled.
What is not conveyed by these pictures is just how finicky it was to fit everything to reasonably close tolerances. I am sure that it is easier to built the infill before the body is dovetailed together than to add it afterwards. I was constantly testing a fit, paring a snitch, retesting the fit, paring a tad more …
One of the questions that I have is what the sequence of shaping could otherwise be to avoid clamping non-parallel shapes. The problem with a coffin-shaped plane is that the infill is .. well .. coffin-shaped. I managed to stabilize the pieces in my vise using wedges, but this procedure was not ideal.
Having shaped the plan of the rear infill, then cutting the bed (at 50 degrees), it was time to cut the rear curve (which provides space for the hand when the tote is gripped). This could not be cut on the bandsaw as it was not possible to hold the shape in a stable manner, so I turned to my fret saws. The next picture in the series shows the remnants of broken blades from cutting into this hard wood.
The curve was then refined with rasps and sandpaper.
Time to shape a tote. The basic outline was taken from the model. This was drawn onto a board, and the outline was cut roughly to shape. The inside curves were cut out with a Forstner bits.
Here is the sequence in the development of the tote. Note that the lower side has extra length to form a tenon (to be mortised into the rear infill).
The bed was intended to be 50 degrees. However, on testing this out, the result was a large mouth. Lowering the bed angle would close the mouth down.
Through trial-and-error and with a large measure of luck the bed measure 47 degrees with the mouth closed completely. I believe that this was the original specification!?
The rear infill was now ready for the cap iron screw groove. This was created by first drilling out the waste, then leveling with a router plane.
And, finally, here are all the parts together.
Hopefully tomorrow, Easter Monday, will see the plane completed.
Just a little more to report. We are almost there but it will be another week before the finish.
Today I attached the tote with a mortice-and-tenon joint. This was painstaking, finicky work. The easier part was drilling and chiseling out the mortice in the base of the rear infill. The tenon, formed on the base of the tote, also had to be scribed to the rounded rear end of the infill.
It may not be clear from the picture, but the mortice-and-tenon to tapered slightly to function like a dovetail and prevent the tote being pulled out.
Before epoxying the pieces together, I gave all exposed areas of wood a coat of BLO. This would prevent any epoxy contaminating the finish.
A note about the epoxy. I added a touch of brown oxide pigment to color it.
This was it could aid to filling any gaps and, if these were external, it would blend in with the surrounding wood.
While the epoxied two rear pieces were curing together, the front infill was epoxied into the shell. Once this was done, the rear section was epoxied in.
It was vital that the bed lined up perfectly with the steel wedge at the mouth (several dry runs and careful tweaking had previously established that they should do so). But you get once chance only to get this relationship right once the epoxy is in! So it is important that a fence is used to align everything. To do this I first placed a piece of thin plastic over the bed (as a barrier to leakage), then a flat edge over the top of this (a small, but flat and solid diamond plate).
Here is the result.
And here is the current state of affairs
Left to do: pin the infill, rivet the lever cap, file all flush, cut down the lever cap screw, tune the mouth (and bed, if necessary), and wax the wood. And make some shavings!
The time has finally come when I am able to show you what the derelict infill that I bought a year ago as a project plane has come to be. Before we get to the showing, there are a few further steps that may be documented.
The first task for the final stage was riveting in the lever cap. I had decided to use a mild steel rod, as was originally used. The rod runs through the lever cap and is then peened on each side of the body.
The anvil I am using is an up-turned length of railroad tie.
For the body I decided to use my Artists License to replace the steel screws with ones in brass, and to file them flat like rivets.
Here are close-ups of the lever cap screw after shortening it.
The sole was lapped. The aim here was to ensure that the toe, area in front of the mouth and heel were all level. On closer inspection I noticed that the mouth had not been flattened evenly (upper picture), and this was now remedied.
For lapping I use a 1 meter long sheet of 12mm float glass that is supported by 3x20mm MDF boards. This lies on the floor, not just for additional support, but also so I am able to press down on the plane (and so avoid pushing it forward like a plane). For sandpaper I use sanding belts. Here I used a 120 grit to flatten the sole, and a 240 to smooth it out.
Need I mention that the iron was honed to 8000 grit? I chose to grind and hone a flat 25 degree bevel. For bevel down planes my preference is to hone freehand. However, I am not sure what the edge-holding of the iron will be, and it will be easier to add a 5 degree micro bevel if needed.
I spent some time refining the rear tote with sandpaper. There had to be no flats anywhere. I really do like the flow of the final shape. The wood was then given two coats of BLO and waxed.
OK, so it is time for the final unveiling!!!
Let me take you back to the original plane for a reference of where this project started.
And here is the final renovation.
And a little more for perspective.
There we are. I have only taken a few test shavings so far, and there is some final tuning to do. The mouth is possible too tight (I measured it at 06" or .15mm) and I am just taking wispy shavings of Jarrah.
OK, over to you all now. I could do with a few final tuning tips.
Here are a few points on the tuning I have done to prepare the infill smoother for use.
Having already flattened the back of the iron, determined that the toe-mouth-heel of the sole were coplanar (by lapping), and honed the bevel to 8000, I reckoned that I was set to go. Recall that the mouth was pretty tight – perhaps too tight – I measured this with feeler gauges as .006” or .15mm
Adjusting the iron in a plane like this - one that does not use an adjuster – involves placing the plane on a flat hardwood surface, inserting the iron so that it goes through all the way to rest on the hardwood surface. Then tighten the cap skew to lock the iron in place. This is identical to setting a woodie-with-wedge.
What I discovered at this point was that the plane could take very fine shavings but the iron would not stay in position. It would either slide back into the body (and not take any shavings) or it would increase in depth (and dig into the wood surface).
First I noted that the cap iron was loose. I had replaced the original screw (which was very chewed up – don’t people know how to use screwdrivers any more?) and the replacement was not the perfect match I believed it to be. So I “restored” the original screw – by soldering in the old chew marks and cutting a new slot - then returned it to the cap iron. The cap iron and iron were now a solid fit.
Unfortunately this did not make any difference to the stability of the blade, and the same symptoms persisted.
Looking down the bed at the iron under the lever cap I could see that there was a gap between the lever cap and cap iron. The lever cap was applying downward pressure only to one corner of the cap iron. When planing, the force created pushed the unsecured side of the iron back. So why was it doing this? The bed was flush and lined up with the mouth, the lever cap was lined up with the bed… Oh, I see .. the bend at the front of the lever was not even and canted to the one side. About 1mm worth. A few taps of a hammer evened this up. Back in the plane again … and this time everything is tight.
Now for a few shavings ..
The first are hardly a real test .. a Cherry board is to hand. Nice full width shavings leaving behind a shiny surface.
And now for a real test. Here is a Jarrah board, planing AGAINST the grain (look at the side of the board for grain direction).
This Spiers is a nice plane. It is too early to rate it against my other smoothers just yet. I like its balance and I think it has promise.
The remaining issue is the iron. After all the work done on it, it is not doing the job. It hones up to take a very sharp edge, but it loses this very fast. So I will either need to re-temper it, or replace it. Advice here please. Note that this is a laminated blade.
Great pix Derek! Good write up too.
I'm still loving this adventure
My advice is to not give up on the blade yet. It takes me several rounds of sharpening to really get down to the meat of fresh steel whenever I'm renovating an old blade. I have no concrete reason but I suspect micro pitts in the steel you can't really see weaken the edge until you're sharpened though and into the genuinely fresh stock. Look close with a loupe and see if it's chipping away just a little? If it's chipping bad you might have to bake a batch of brownies and anneal just a bit more.
Not all the old blades are great though and you may very well end up replacing it, but it costs you nothing but a little time to keep tying it. I've been glad I kept at it a couple/three times.
Peter J McBride
I've watched with lots of interest as you have been posting reports on this renovation. A great pleasure to have a small input at the start.
<<Oh, I see .. the bend at the front of the lever was <<not even and canted to the one side. About 1mm worth. A few taps of a hammer evened this up. Back in the plane again … and this time everything is tight.>>
6 or 7 years ago I sold 3 infill planes to a bloke in the US, I think it was a smoother a jointer and a panel plane, but 2 of them had this problem you describe. Well there wasn't a thing I could say to get him to tap the front corner of the lever cap, or take it out and file away a little to "re- align" it with the blade set. He sent them all back...at his cost (Postage both ways - over AU150.00) simply because he didn't think that was "tuning" and it was a non reparable fault. Of course he had friends that consulted in the designing of planes for LN, taught woodwork classes, made planes...he was THE plane expert.
A few times I've had blades from usually good makers, Mathieson, Ward etc that just don't hold up. Was that the original blade from the plane.??
A clue might be that the infill had been replaced...perhaps it was in a workshop fire?? That'll take away the hardness in a blade. It's a surprisingly common occurrence. I have 4 or 5 plane infill bodies awaiting restoration like yours, that I'm certain were partially destroyed in fires.
Thanks again for the extra time you've spent to make your reports, I've really enjoyed them.
In Melbourne, Australia
Slowly getting over the worst head cold in the Southern Hemisphere...
Visit Peter's website