# Quangsheng No 4



## mr grimsdale (20 Mar 2010)

Any opinion on the Quangsheng No 4?
I'm actually thinking of buying one. I need a good smoother. I've got several No 4s; Stanley, Marple, Acorn, they are all OK but if the QS4 is better then I need one.


----------



## woodbloke (20 Mar 2010)

mr grimsdale":1hnxr1tu said:


> Any opinion on the Quangsheng No 4?
> I'm actually thinking of buying one. I need a good smoother. I've got several No 4s; Stanley, Marple, Acorn, they are all OK but if the QS4 is better then I need one.


I had a look at a brand new one at Wizer's bash the other week and was seriously impressed. Not the fit and finish of a LN, but as far as 'bang for buck' I think there's little to touch them.

I reckon there's hope for you yet Jacob :lol: - Rob


----------



## jimi43 (20 Mar 2010)

I agree Rob...it was a nice plane but strangely I prefer my Record...

I got quite put off by the shiny bits...I would ditch them...its a shame because clearly they are making some fine soles and frogs...I just don't get the trend for bling on the cap...it cheapens it.

Of course this does not affect the functionality which was rather impressive!

Jim


----------



## mr grimsdale (20 Mar 2010)

woodbloke":3okaobzx said:


> ...
> 
> I reckon there's hope for you yet Jacob :lol: - Rob


Yes I'm thinking of coming out of the closet! 
Needs must when the devil drives.
TBH I don't reckon it'll be anything but very slightly better than my Irwin/Marples No4 (ebay £12), if at all. But I would like to know.


----------



## Max Power (20 Mar 2010)

Buy a clifton you tight old git , if you hurry up you might you might get one of the anniversary ones :lol: :lol:


----------



## Vann (21 Mar 2010)

jimi43":fi35hklp said:


> I got quite put off by the shiny bits...


I agree. I'm not considering a Quangsheng. However I'm strongly considering a Clifton 4 1/2 (I e-mailed CHT but I can't afford the extra for an anniversary jobbie). I find the least attractive thing about the Clifton is the over-polished lever cap.

I love everthing else about them: the forged iron, the 2-piece cap-iron, the rounded sides. I have a Cliffie No.3 that I'm learning to love.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## mr grimsdale (21 Mar 2010)

Yebbut I'm not looking for love, I just want a good smoothing plane. If it works well it can look like a pile of dogshit as far as I'm concerned.
No convincing answers. I guess I'll stick with my Irwin/Marples.


----------



## SNight (21 Mar 2010)

I have got the QS No4 and it will work twice as good as your Irwin / Marples.


----------



## Alf (21 Mar 2010)

Well I've looked at the No.3, if that's any help. The gist will be the same, even if the size is not. But watch yourself, Jacob - you might get the bug and suddenly start wondering how a Cliffie would compare... :wink:


----------



## bugbear (21 Mar 2010)

mr grimsdale":2natn1v1 said:


> woodbloke":2natn1v1 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



If you didn't perceive any benefit in the LN smoother, I can't see a QS (which is just another bedrock copy, with less "engineering" than the LN) holding any additional magic either. So probably best to save your money.

BugBear


----------



## mr grimsdale (21 Mar 2010)

That was when I was comparing Stanley and LN 4 1/2s. 
No discernible difference on a variety of woods. Surprised me too.
I guess you are right, I'll save my money. But one lives in hope!


----------



## woodbloke (21 Mar 2010)

mr grimsdale":2583ef64 said:


> That was when I was comparing Stanley and LN 4 1/2s.
> No discernible difference on a variety of woods. Surprised me too.
> I guess you are right, I'll save my money. But one lives in hope!


Best thing to do Jacob would be to get along to a Bash in your locality and see if someone could bring a QS No.4 along for you to have a play with - Rob


----------



## mr grimsdale (21 Mar 2010)

Brian did the QS6 here which looks pretty positive, as does Alf's review.
I've ordered one from WorkshopHeaven but they aren't available immediately so I won't be reporting back for some time.
It's only got to be a bit better than what I've already got and it could pay for itself quite quickly i.e. save a lot of time with a belt sander on various difficult woods.
I don't like spending money on flash trendy gear though!


----------



## mr grimsdale (29 Mar 2010)

Got it. First impressions here.


----------



## jimi43 (29 Mar 2010)

I don't get it Jacob.

That thread is 90% abuse and 10% confusion.

Why not post a complete analysis here with tests on the extremes of wood that you purchased it for.

I am also confused by the comments on thick blades. I think it is generally accepted and certainly is by me, that the thicker blade will perform better because of less chatter...the same goes for the chip breaker.

I also disagree totally with your comments about the SS on Record planes. For me there is no discernable difference to the stock cap and certainly, when sharpening...the whole process if far faster.

I am not sure where you are going with this "review" but rather than join the ever increasing band of confused...I invite you to clarify.

Cheers

Jim


----------



## big soft moose (29 Mar 2010)

mrgrimsdale":102mf18w said:


> Another passing thought. This plane looks very neat and practical, no excessive brass, bling, hand-done details, polish. Brown handles. Neat, well finished but utilitarian.
> Visually has much in common with Crown tools which are also very practical, well made, lowish price.
> In fact this is the plane which should be being made, in Sheffield, instead of the OTT Clifton range.
> C'mon Clifton - we don't want fancy goods; we want good practical tools, made in Sheffield!



help me - i'm starting to agree with mr grim , is there a treatment or am i doomed.... :lol:

Those were pretty much exactly my thoughts on the QS6 ive got - this is what uk manufacurers ought to be building , and while okay labour costs more in the uk on the other hand goods made here dont have to be shipped halfway acroos the world.

if clifton dropped the fancy twiddly bits and made good honest planes like the QS appears to be they could get their prices down to a point where they'd be a realistic buy british competitor for the QS market


----------



## mr grimsdale (29 Mar 2010)

jimi43":3izvyrpc said:


> ...
> That thread is 90% abuse and 10% confusion.


Yeah that's how it is over there :lol:


> Why not post a complete analysis here with tests on the extremes of wood that you purchased it for.


I haven't got all day I'm trying to do some woodwork


> I am also confused by the comments on thick blades. .....


Thin blades are easier to hone and work well thanks to the Bailey design. I'm into freehand honing + no grinding.


> ...
> I am not sure where you are going with this "review" ....
> Jim


Well nowhere really :shock: take it or leave it.
NB the 'review' such as it is, is at the end of the thread. The rest is all abuse and confusion.


----------



## jimi43 (29 Mar 2010)

Ok perhaps I should be more specific.

This post is yours which, I for one would like to read if it were another opinion on the QS in general...I am teetering on the edge so far...

I read it as if it were going to be a review...not ending in a link to another forum where, to be honest, there was little point in reading anything.

I guess my comment is...I was expecting a review...all be it informal, that was someone else's opinion.

Tell me if I am right and I will look forward to reading it along with all the other personal views. If not...then by all means go use it mate...and I will hit the "don't watch this thread" button as I have no interest in reading abusive tittle tattle...I get enough of that at work!  :wink: 

Jim


----------



## mr grimsdale (29 Mar 2010)

It's quite safe to join in over there you know. It's not like Facebook - which gives you syphilis by all accounts.


----------



## big soft moose (29 Mar 2010)

mr grimsdale":3vjy4iyp said:


> It's quite safe to join in over there you know. It's not like Facebook - which gives you syphilis by all accounts.



why would we want to do that - we can get involved in slanging matches and pointless arguments right here :lol:


----------



## mr grimsdale (29 Mar 2010)

I could be wrong anyway (about the diseases) :shock:


----------



## mr grimsdale (29 Mar 2010)

big soft moose":234kyk0r said:


> .....
> if clifton dropped the fancy twiddly bits and made good honest planes like the QS appears to be they could get their prices down to a point where they'd be a realistic buy british competitor for the QS market


As Crown (and other Sheff makers) are to the American stuff, if only they could get their marketing and presentation a bit better.


----------



## big soft moose (29 Mar 2010)

mr grimsdale":x0o186vn said:


> I could be wrong anyway (about the diseases) :shock:



i'd shudder to think what you might get off your lot if one was that way inclined :lol:


----------



## big soft moose (29 Mar 2010)

total off topic grim but i was just looking at your website - nice site btw

and if your name is jacob butler, how did you come to be known as mr grimsdale ??? (okay i get that its a pseudonym , but theres usually a reason behind them - for example i have a big soft moose - and was once photographed passed out drunk cuddling it)

also swimbo asks what with the paint on the furniture - iho (thats in her opinion  ) "what's the point of making something in nice wood then painting it - you might as well work in mdf"


----------



## mr grimsdale (29 Mar 2010)

big soft moose":2n74pcad said:


> ... how did you come to be known as mr grimsdale ??? ...


Its a long (and boring) story.
I blame Alf.
I signed on here years ago and typed in "Norman Wisdom" as a user name without thinking about it. (I've been Marilyn Monroe, Billy Bunter, Ghengis Watson, etc. all over the place)
Then people started calling me Norm. This got confused with a famous Norm woodworker (of whom I had never heard) so I asked to change it. 
Alf said "what, Mr Grimsdale? ho ho ho" which was fine by me.
Mr G is a fictional boss of N Wisdom in the films.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/13/netnotes


----------



## big soft moose (29 Mar 2010)

okay - ive nver seen a norman wisdom film , not old enough, so thats why i didnt get the refference

going even further off topic do you know why she's called alf - given that shes a laydee i'm assuming its not her name ( I know they are ecentric in cornwall but there must be limits



mr grimsdale":1u29sfxm said:


> I blame Alf.


----------



## Harbo (29 Mar 2010)

Initials


Rod


----------



## Harbo (29 Mar 2010)

Initials


Rod


----------



## Karl (29 Mar 2010)

big soft moose":2fmdnpes said:


> okay - ive nver seen a norman wisdom film , not old enough, so thats why i didnt get the refference
> 
> going even further off topic do you know why she's called alf - given that shes a laydee i'm assuming its not her name ( I know they are ecentric in cornwall but there must be limits
> 
> ...



From memory her name is Alice Frampton (?) - Al F 

I think...........

Cheers

Karl

Edit - or as Rod says.


----------



## promhandicam (29 Mar 2010)

From Alf's website:



> Why [Alf]? Simple when you know; they're my initials. The "L" will remain clouded in mystery ('cos a bit of mystery's no bad thing), but the bank manager and other official bodies know me as Alice Frampton. Practically everyone else ends up shortening it to "Alf" in print, and "AL" in the flesh. Or Auntie, if my nephews are feeling like a brisk run pursued by an irate woodworker... Variations on the Alf theme include UKAlf and oldtoolalf. You get the gist.


----------



## pedder (29 Mar 2010)

Alice L. Frampton The last mystery in digital woodworking: the L


----------



## big soft moose (29 Mar 2010)

pedder":2sa69nfa said:


> Alice L. Frampton The last mystery in digital woodworking: the L



Lucretia ???? (*dons K/pot and heads for cover* )


----------



## mr grimsdale (29 Mar 2010)

Hmm dunno.
Lolita, Lucinda, Laura, Lily, Lilian, Lilianne, Latifah, Loofah, Lollypop?


----------



## katellwood (29 Mar 2010)

No wishing to hijack this thread but I notice Workshop Heaven sell Quangsheng irons, are they a worthy replacement for my record 51/2 or should I go for a clifton, Ron Hock etc 

They state they are hardened to rockwell 60 - 63 

Thoughts and opinions please


----------



## mr grimsdale (29 Mar 2010)

Whichever you do can I have your old record iron?
Mine is getting worn out I've been using it for 28 years. I reckon there's only another 40 in it.


----------



## Modernist (29 Mar 2010)

katellwood":2awjzjxr said:


> No wishing to hijack this thread but I notice Workshop Heaven sell Quangsheng irons, are they a worthy replacement for my record 51/2 or should I go for a clifton, Ron Hock etc
> 
> They state they are hardened to rockwell 60 - 63
> 
> Thoughts and opinions please



Well they are good and thick so better in that respect (not sure about the Y lever problem) They take a really good edge but the longevity jury is still out. (Not a criticism just observation)


----------



## Vann (30 Mar 2010)

big soft moose":3gm4hlyo said:


> [help me - i'm starting to agree with mr grim , is there a treatment or am i doomed.... :lol:
> 
> if clifton dropped the fancy twiddly bits and made good honest planes like the QS appears to be they could get their prices down to a point where they'd be a realistic buy british competitor for the QS market


I too hate to admit that I might agree with Mr G, but I don't particularly like the highly polished look of the Cliftons either. 

I wonder just how much cheaper an economy version of the Clifton planes might be. Not much I suspect, but the same quality machining with a lot less polishing, beech handles, economy iron and cap iron, might save a few pounds (although I like the hand forged irons and two-piece cap irons myself). Maybe they could supply their planes with a corrugated plastic blade like Veritas do, and let you select your own after-market iron, seeing as the irons cost nearly as much as the whole plane (I exaggerate - a little). 

But I believe Clico only make Clifton planes 'cause the management are hand tool enthusiasts. So they probably only want to make planes with bling. 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## mr grimsdale (30 Mar 2010)

jimi43":19o8s8i8 said:


> ...I am teetering on the edge so far....


If you are teetering about buying a QS plane I'd say teeter ye not - go for it, they seem to be good value for money.
I had a prob with the Y lever (yoke?) but one is in the post. 
The yoke is also responsible for the slightly badly placed adjuster wheel, so could be redesigned IMHO. And kill 2 birds with one stone; make it from pressed steel instead of cast brass. And a bigger wheel more like the Stanley/Record originals - if you are going to copy, copy the best!


----------



## bugbear (30 Mar 2010)

Since you're buying this plane to be your super smoother, and yet it has the basic 45 degree frog, are you planning to back bevel try to wring some performance out of it?

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (30 Mar 2010)

big soft moose":31r2g9ep said:


> ...this is what uk manufacurers ought to be building , and while okay labour costs more in the uk on the other hand goods made here dont have to be shipped halfway across the world.



Shipping on large vessels, when you send a whole container, has an extraordinarily low per-item cost. It's only when you mess about shipping planes in onesy-twosy amounts that it gets expensive.

So the labour costs are by far the most important component, and low labour cost countries win.

BugBear


----------



## mr grimsdale (30 Mar 2010)

bugbear":1t0590o3 said:


> Since you're buying this plane to be your super smoother, and yet it has the basic 45 degree frog, are you planning to back bevel try to wring some performance out of it?
> 
> BugBear


If necessary. Might even go extravagant and buy a second blade. They are all a compromise whatever you end up with.


----------



## Aled Dafis (30 Mar 2010)

I think that i read/heard somewhere that large scale container shipping only adds 1% to the final product cost, so it makes no econimical sense to manufacture in this country when the same kit can be made in the East for a fraction of the cost. Sad, but true.

Clifton planes are just a small division of Clico tooling, their major market is tooling for the aircraft industry, and this is exactly where UK manufacturing needs to be, clever value added manufacturing. Casting/milling etc. is pretty run of the mill these days and can be undertaken anywhere in the world, given that the necessary QA is in place. 

A brief chat to Matthew showed that these guys will make pretty much anything you ask of them, they're not dedicated plane makers they're just an engineering company that have been asked to produce planes, they'll also manufacture to whatever spec is asked of them, it's the customer that specifies the tolerances, not the engineering company as is commonly believed, I'm sure that they could make tools to Clifton/LN/Veritas standards but that would obviously be shown in the cost/price. In fact Matthew has asked them to have a look at making a few other bits and pieces, but I'll let him tell you about them :wink: 

Cheers

Aled


----------



## bugbear (30 Mar 2010)

mr grimsdale":2zriay2l said:


> bugbear":2zriay2l said:
> 
> 
> > Since you're buying this plane to be your super smoother, and yet it has the basic 45 degree frog, are you planning to back bevel try to wring some performance out of it?
> ...



Blades, EPs or planes?

BugBear


----------



## Modernist (30 Mar 2010)

Shipping costs for a 30 tonne container are only about £3k so that is £1 per 10kg weight carried. 50p per plane!


----------



## bugbear (31 Mar 2010)

Modernist":12454k8y said:


> Shipping costs for a 30 tonne container are only about £3k so that is £1 per 10kg weight carried. 50p per plane!



So unless Clifton can either match Chinese labour costs, automate to hell (and sack labour), or come up with a patentable and desirable innovation, they're screwed.

BugBear


----------



## Modernist (31 Mar 2010)

bugbear":3pt7ms7x said:


> Modernist":3pt7ms7x said:
> 
> 
> > Shipping costs for a 30 tonne container are only about £3k so that is £1 per 10kg weight carried. 50p per plane!
> ...



Or constrained to a small specialist portion of the market


----------



## bugbear (31 Mar 2010)

Modernist":153eud61 said:


> bugbear":153eud61 said:
> 
> 
> > Modernist":153eud61 said:
> ...



Hmm. Maybe that was their intention all along. Works for Holtey!

BugBear


----------



## Vann (31 Mar 2010)

bugbear":3j5jbdh7 said:


> Modernist":3j5jbdh7 said:
> 
> 
> > Shipping costs for a 30 tonne container are only about £3k so that is £1 per 10kg weight carried. 50p per plane!
> ...


No, he forgot to deduct the weight of the shipping container - so shipping is actually considerably higher - around 60p per plane. :evil: 

But seriously, I think you're right. The advent of cheaper, reasonable well-made, imported planes will sooner or later kill off Clifton.

Incidently, I note that Clifton planes are about to increase in price significantly (see the WH website), so some of us who are struggling to get together the readies to buy one, are possibly also screwed.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Modernist (31 Mar 2010)

Quite so. If what I read is correct QS are made by a normal engineering company, rather than a specialist toolmaker. If that is correct it rather knocks the stuffing out of the black art brigade. 

I have examples of all the leading makers (Except Clifton as the looks do not appeal to me) in my toolbox and although the QS is not perfect e.g. slightly coarse grinding leading to the strange self steering phenomenon, and poor Y lever it is by far the best quality per £ and capable of being tuned into a fine tool. Of course it does not have the aesthetic appeal of a LN or Veritas but you have a clear choice.


----------



## bugbear (31 Mar 2010)

Modernist":pm63ipxc said:


> If that is correct it rather knocks the stuffing out of the black art brigade.



Ron Hock sub'd out the making of his non-specialist blades ages ago, to a French company (much to the eventual annoyance of some Americans later on).

I think the company he chose happened to be French, he didn't choose it because it was French.

http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.php? ... 33#message
http://swingleydev.com/archive/get.php?message_id=84115

BugBear


----------



## Vann (31 Mar 2010)

Modernist":3jky8h11 said:


> If that is correct it rather knocks the stuffing out of the black art brigade.


I don't think that's necessarily so. If someone who does understand what's required writes a sufficently comprehensive specification, a good engineering firm should be able to manfacture anything (within it's capability). Where the 'black arts' come into play is where, through experience, the firm and it's workers already know what is required and produce their tools without a comprehensive spec. And if they really know their stuff, their products will be a little better than the in-experienced firm. I think QS and Clico are probably an example of this. QS planes are good, Clifton are a bit better. 

A possible exception to this rule is Stanley... :shock: :roll: but that's another story.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## mr grimsdale (8 Apr 2010)

It's gone again! Mods - there is a gremlin of some sort! Could it be a virus?

Just to recap:

A post deleted! 
Why fer fooks sake? This isn't a kindergarten. We are all grown up (except for some of the mods ￼ ￼ ) 
Watch this space, it won't be here for long!

What I said was that I've come to a sort of conclusion re the QS4 which I've posted over there
Perhaps I forgot to press the submit button. Just had a couple of drinks!
Anyway I'll copy this and post it again if it disappears.


----------



## mr grimsdale (8 Apr 2010)

It's gone again! Mods - there is a gremlin of some sort! Could it be a virus?

Just to recap:

A post deleted!
Why fer fooks sake? This isn't a kindergarten. We are all grown up (except for some of the mods ￼ ￼ )
Watch this space, it won't be here for long!

What I said was that I've come to a sort of conclusion re the QS4 which I've posted over there
Perhaps I forgot to press the submit button. Just had a couple of drinks!
Anyway I'll copy this and post it again if it disappears.


----------



## mr grimsdale (8 Apr 2010)

It's gone again! Mods - there is a gremlin of some sort! Could it be a virus?

Just to recap:

A post deleted!
Why fer fooks sake? This isn't a kindergarten. We are all grown up (except for some of the mods ￼ ￼ )
Watch this space, it won't be here for long!

What I said was that I've come to a sort of conclusion re the QS4 which I've posted over there
Perhaps I forgot to press the submit button. Just had a couple of drinks!
Anyway I'll copy this and post it again if it disappears.


----------



## big soft moose (8 Apr 2010)

how many more times do you think


----------



## mr grimsdale (8 Apr 2010)

Dunno must be a virus. Or some nerdy kids pratting about!


----------



## Vann (8 Apr 2010)

mr grimsdale":w8f97gvi said:


> Just had a couple of drinks!


It shows :roll:   

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## big soft moose (8 Apr 2010)

mr grimsdale":2sriktic said:


> Dunno must be a virus. Or some nerdy kids pratting about!



maybe if i try

what he said was



mr grimsdale":2sriktic said:


> I've been using it for real instead of just tests on scraps.
> There's nothing it will do which you can't also do with a Record 4, in terms of smooth surfaces and fine shavings. Except it's a lot easier and more predictable with the QS - less fine adjusting, it stays adjusted just right for longer.
> I've been doing some thin, tapered table legs. Bandsaw off the taper, get near the line with a Stanley No7, nearer with a Record No 5. If the finish isn't good enough then use the QS4.
> It doesn't get used as much as the others, so stays sharp longer.
> ...



i cant see anything offensive in that :duno:

tho personally i think you should get a QS no. 6 too so that you've got an uber jointer.

I did hear a rumour that QS might be going to start making chisels too...


----------



## bugbear (9 Apr 2010)

mr grimsdale":2du9g9i2 said:


> My idea of having it as the finishing plane of last resort seems to be working.



Most people have a "best" smoother in their arsenal.

Have you tried/needed a higher EP yet, or hasn't your work involved super-tricky woods so far?

Almost any plane will make a good surface on easy woods. IMHO any plane to be consider a "super smoother" would need an EP of 55 or more, in order to handle some extreme grain patterns.

BugBear


----------



## mr grimsdale (9 Apr 2010)

Yes I have. It's an Acorn No4. Had to back bevel as the face of the blade has deep machine marks but there is nothing special about the plane itself. It works better than the QS4 on very tricky grain (some odds and ends of offcuts) but I haven't really needed it for what I do. 
It's somehow less convenient to use - half scrape half plane - and is a bit unpredictable.
Strangely, although it needs sharpening at intervals, it does less well immediately after a sharpening, as though the edge has to be run in a bit.
I've got a theory about why this happens but would need to see it work under a microscope to prove it!

Maybe a QS4 with a back bevel would be even better. Hmm, could be the next step?


----------



## bugbear (9 Apr 2010)

mr grimsdale":2cm848xa said:


> Yes I have. It's an Acorn No4. Had to back bevel as the face of the blade has deep machine marks but there is nothing special about the plane itself. It works better than the QS4 on very tricky grain (some odds and ends of offcuts) but I haven't really needed it for what I do.



I thought you used it a sycamore table?



> It's somehow less convenient to use - half scrape half plane - and is a bit unpredictable.
> Strangely, although it needs sharpening at intervals, it does less well immediately after a sharpening, as though the edge has to be run in a bit.
> I've got a theory about why this happens but would need to see it work under a microscope to prove it!



Always interested in theories - theorise away! You never know, someone else might have knowledge to confirm/deny your theory.



> Maybe a QS4 with a back bevel would be even better. Hmm, could be the next step?



That's what I was asking about!

I suppose I should have said "have you tried a back bevel on the QS", but I thought since the QS was the subject of the thread that is was obvious, especially since you've posted about possibly buying a spare blade for the QS explicitly for back bevelling.

BUgBear


----------



## mr grimsdale (9 Apr 2010)

my theory is that freshly sharpened back bevel steep EP angle starts life as a _cutting_ edge, which will tend to lift the surface in front and hence cause tear out. But it rapidly wears in to become more _rasp_ like which will tend to drag the material from the surface rather than cut and lift it. Under the microscope all sharp edges are rough and jagged (given high enough magnification), it's just a question of how the jaggedy bits are distributed.


----------



## bugbear (9 Apr 2010)

mr grimsdale":grta8hpp said:


> my theory is that freshly sharpened back bevel steep EP angle starts life as a _cutting_ edge, which will tend to lift the surface in front and hence cause tear out. But it rapidly wears in to become more _rasp_ like which will tend to drag the material from the surface rather than cut and lift it. Under the microscope all sharp edges are rough and jagged (given high enough magnification), it's just a question of how the jaggedy bits are distributed.



I can just about visualise a cutting edge becoming more notchy with wear (like a toothed blade). In this case the same wear that causes the notchiness would surely also tend to make the teeth rather blunt.

But I'm struggling to see how wear would make a shape as complex as a rasp.

Do you still get shavings or dust at this later stage?

BugBear


----------



## big soft moose (9 Apr 2010)

mr grimsdale":sysifcv4 said:


> Maybe a QS4 with a back bevel would be even better. Hmm, could be the next step?



there you go , in no time you'll have loads of them, then you'll start buy cliftons and LNs , making rosewood cabinets to keep them in, and calling them individually by name as you tuck them in for the night and read them a bedtime story

so much for "its just one, i know what i'm doing"

he thought he could handle it , but buying quality planes can really **** you up


----------



## mr grimsdale (9 Apr 2010)

bugbear":103sgibp said:


> mr grimsdale":103sgibp said:
> 
> 
> > my theory is that freshly sharpened back bevel steep EP angle starts life as a _cutting_ edge, which will tend to lift the surface in front and hence cause tear out. But it rapidly wears in to become more _rasp_ like which will tend to drag the material from the surface rather than cut and lift it. Under the microscope all sharp edges are rough and jagged (given high enough magnification), it's just a question of how the jaggedy bits are distributed.
> ...


All cutting edges are notchy (under a microscope). I'm suggesting that the effective edge gets pushed back with use, so that it lifts less but still shears the material in more of a scrape. Which is how it looks with the shavings come to think - instead of lifting and sliding up the blade they get rolled away in front to some extent.
I've just remembered having this same conversation some time back with respect to machine planes - they tear out more when freshly sharpened and improve after a bit of a run in.


----------



## bugbear (9 Apr 2010)

mr grimsdale":2158ullc said:


> All cutting edges are notchy (under a microscope).



Yes, obviously.



> I'm suggesting that the effective edge gets pushed back with use, so that it lifts less but still shears the material in more of a scrape.



Ah - so you just mean that the edge gets pushed back, steepening the EP? 

Plausible, but I've never heard the phenomon reported - there are lots of high EP planes out there, so this ought to be more common, if you're right.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (9 Apr 2010)

mr grimsdale":1ckasyap said:


> I've just remembered having this same conversation some time back with respect to machine planes - they tear out more when freshly sharpened and improve after a bit of a run in.



That's very odd - unless "freshly sharpened" was ragged as hell with a wire edge, in which case I suppose wear might improve it. Seems an extreme case though.

BugBear


----------



## mr grimsdale (9 Apr 2010)

bugbear":13e8wboi said:


> mr grimsdale":13e8wboi said:
> 
> 
> > I've just remembered having this same conversation some time back with respect to machine planes - they tear out more when freshly sharpened and improve after a bit of a run in.
> ...


No this has been commented on before, by others too. I got my blades properly done in the hopes of reducing tear out some years back and found it was worse. Perhaps, as you say, running in amounts to a higher EP.


----------



## mr grimsdale (9 Apr 2010)

big soft moose":3oavdhi9 said:



> .. calling them individually by name as you tuck them in for the night and read them a bedtime story....


Good idea.
I'm calling my QS4 作者 (quanshae). Same name as this lass: 







My recently acquired american Stanley No 7 I'm calling "Thelma". I'm now looking for a Louise.

Made in england Record No 4 , er, hmm, Margaret?

PS
5 1/2 is Jack, so 5 could be Jill?


----------



## mr grimsdale (21 Apr 2010)

More QS4 fiddling here if anybody is interested.
Put old record blade in for a trial.


----------



## ByronBlack (21 Apr 2010)

mr grimsdale":2t2hb3yg said:


> More QS4 fiddling here if anybody is interested.
> Put old record blade in for a trial.



Out of interest, what woods have you bee using this on? With the thin blade - would that cope as well as the thicker blade on more tricker/harder woods?


----------



## mr grimsdale (21 Apr 2010)

ByronBlack":g8sjwtbr said:


> mr grimsdale":g8sjwtbr said:
> 
> 
> > More QS4 fiddling here if anybody is interested.
> ...


Tricky wood isn't necessarily hard. 
I've been planing some soft sapele and mahogany which tears out very easily where the grain reverses. I've also been doing some sycamore which is very variable but very hard in small knotty areas. And various off cuts lying about in the workshop including oak and ash.


----------



## Vann (21 Apr 2010)

mr grimsdale":1wx3vgd9 said:


> Put old record blade in for a trial.


With Record or Quangsheng cap-iron?

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## mr grimsdale (21 Apr 2010)

Vann":2inc5ff4 said:


> mr grimsdale":2inc5ff4 said:
> 
> 
> > Put old record blade in for a trial.
> ...


Stanley (it wasn't Record I just looked again). 
Either way it'd only fit if I opened the adjuster aperture as the frog has to go surprisingly far forwards (and the blade back), and I didn't want to modify the new QS.
Couldn't do the converse (put QS blade in Record), as you'd have to open the mouth quite a bit and I didn't want to do that either.


----------



## ByronBlack (21 Apr 2010)

So overall then Grim - are you saying that if you had a choice of planes to buy - you would still go for an old stanley/record over the QS as they are a lot cheaper and I gather you don't feel the performance of the QS is that much better (just more predictable?)


----------



## mr grimsdale (21 Apr 2010)

ByronBlack":1wakto5q said:


> So overall then Grim - are you saying that if you had a choice of planes to buy - you would still go for an old stanley/record over the QS as they are a lot cheaper and I gather you don't feel the performance of the QS is that much better (just more predictable?)


I do like my collection of cheapo Stanleys/Records. Recently added a No5 which is really handy. 
But I wanted to have more hands-on with a posher plane and QS seems to be as good as LN but at 1/3rd the price, and the No4 seems to be the most useful addition i.e. one good smoother, everything else done with Record/Stanley.

So I've got an excellent Stanley (USA) no 7 from ebay for £31. What on earth would be the point of a LN 7 at £350? Plus it'd weigh a ton I guess.


----------



## ByronBlack (21 Apr 2010)

Well, I think I'm convinced - I might get one. I've decided to get a No.6 for my jointing requirements, but can't decide between a No.4 or a No.3 for a smoother..


----------



## wizer (21 Apr 2010)

Wouldn't you just buy a 5 for smoothing? Much nicer in the hand and can be used on a shooting board if you so wish.


----------



## ByronBlack (21 Apr 2010)

wizer":2k23sk01 said:


> Wouldn't you just buy a 5 for smoothing? Much nicer in the hand and can be used on a shooting board if you so wish.



I thought about the 5, but I intend to use the 6 as the 'go-to' plane and for shooting - I used to use my no.7 for all that and didn't miss the 5 - I think a 5 might be too large for general smoothing and a I prefer the longer sole of the 6 for jointing.


----------



## wizer (21 Apr 2010)

Courses and Horses. I fine any plane smaller than a 5 to be too small to be comfortable. Have you ever owned or used the Veritas LAS?


----------



## ByronBlack (21 Apr 2010)

I've tried out the LAS - it's awesome, but I'm on a tight budget, so I'm looking at the QS range as they seem to have a good performance/cost ratio.


----------



## bugbear (22 Apr 2010)

mr grimsdale":2mep2r7m said:


> Either way it'd only fit if I opened the adjuster aperture as the frog has to go surprisingly far forwards (and the blade back), and I didn't want to modify the new QS.



What's an "adjuster aperture". That's a new one on me.

BugBear


----------



## Doug B (22 Apr 2010)

bugbear":10x0w7tz said:


> mr grimsdale":10x0w7tz said:
> 
> 
> > Either way it'd only fit if I opened the adjuster aperture as the frog has to go surprisingly far forwards (and the blade back), and I didn't want to modify the new QS.
> ...




Don`t think we will ever know now.

http://www.woodworkuk.co.uk/forum/viewt ... =12&t=4488


----------



## bugbear (22 Apr 2010)

Doug B":2c633n5o said:


> bugbear":2c633n5o said:
> 
> 
> > mr grimsdale":2c633n5o said:
> ...



Odd. I got the distinct impression we was doing his best to be pleasant (ish) this time, even if the strain showed a bit.

BugBear


----------



## Doug B (22 Apr 2010)

bugbear":1qjaizsm said:


> Doug B":1qjaizsm said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":1qjaizsm said:
> ...



I`m a little surprised myself, perhaps it`s to stop him doing an "Im leaving thread" :lol: :lol:


----------



## ByronBlack (22 Apr 2010)

How come he's been banned again? I was finding the insight on the QS quite helpful.


----------



## woodbloke (22 Apr 2010)

ByronBlack":2qhxg270 said:


> How come he's been banned again? I was finding the insight on the QS quite helpful.


Is he...or am I not keeping up? 8-[ 
QS's are good btw BB, I had a look at one that Matthew brought up to the YOKB and was impressed...very good value - Rob


----------



## ByronBlack (22 Apr 2010)

woodbloke":svd505vg said:


> ByronBlack":svd505vg said:
> 
> 
> > How come he's been banned again? I was finding the insight on the QS quite helpful.
> ...



Not getting involved with anything that might have gone before, but I didn't see any problem with the info he was providing on his experience of the QS - it hepled me confirm that it was an improvement on an old stanley/record and would make a good purchase.

Glad you also like them too - I've yet to find a bad review of them. As i'm not one with the patience to improve an old plane, the QS seems ideal for me as I don't want to spend out for an LN/LV. Shame they don't do a no.7


----------



## jimi43 (22 Apr 2010)

Jacob...as I am newish (lordy...it is a year and over 1000 posts!! Must make note to myself....not new not new) I would say that I think that a review of a tool in UKW should be posted in UKW and not posted in another forum with a link.

The last link you made was full of abuse and frankly...I have enough stress in my day job to last me a number of lifetimes and see woodworking and UKW as the virtual link with like minded persons, as an outlet....not a source of further stress.

Regarding your review of the QS plane...(linked or otherwise)...I just ended up wondering what I was supposed to be reading.

Clearly LN and Veritas and Clifton are amongst a range of boutique tools that are beautifully made and may or may not try to emulate great design of older classics like Record and Stanley...

They are without doubt better in all aspects and may be considered worth the extra financial outlay. Some...me especially, feel that they cannot yet justify this outlay and prefer to fettle and modify old bootfair items to try to approach those qualities.

I think that most of us have done this in our educational journies towards the inevitable and some...me included....have found the newly upgraded _*vintage*_ Records (especially) and Stanleys perfectly adequate for most hand tool work.

I may have read your reviews wrongly...but from my interpretation you appear to want to start a row....rather than suggest clever modifications and improvements. I was not about to follow like a sheep other views of your posts but I find it hard not to agree with the sentiment of exasperation exhibited by other, more experienced members here.

FWIW....I didn't think the QS that much better than a fully tuned Record...so since I have these anyway....I won't be investing in the midway stage.

Jim


----------



## ByronBlack (22 Apr 2010)

Jim - I personally don't have a problem with him linking to a review on another forum, members post links to all kinds of information whether it be on other forums, magazine sites, shopping sites etc..

Secondly, I certainly cannot be accused of being a Jacob fan, but I don't see a problem with his overall 'review' of the plane - he has tested it and compared it against his other planes and spoke about his findings and feelings on its perfomance.

As for abuse and wanting a row - I just don't see that, please excuse me if I have come into the discussion late and have missed something, but I've read both threads on here and there, and don't really see much evidence of him wanting a row.

But anyway's, I take it you used the QS plane yourself? Is it as good as fully tuned record out-of-the-box? Or does it itself require an equivalent amount of fettling as a record?


----------



## jimi43 (23 Apr 2010)

Hi BB

I used the QS at the Kentish Bashe...did think that for a Chinese plane it was admirable...bit blingy but that is a taste thing...what I didn't see was what the point would be of trying to change it. It fits a niche...right there between the new Records and Stanleys which should be used as doorstops and the top of the range list (LN, Veritas, Clifton) for people who don't want to spend the money on those "new classics".

I see it on par with a tuned Record. BUT...why...why not tune up an old Record for next to nothing. I don't see the point in mixing the two at all.

RE the other comments...well that is my reading of the review...I could easily be wrong and often am...just my view mate. 

Jim


----------



## ByronBlack (23 Apr 2010)

jimi43":tn9945ls said:


> Hi BB
> 
> I used the QS at the Kentish Bashe...did think that for a Chinese plane it was admirable...bit blingy but that is a taste thing...what I didn't see was what the point would be of trying to change it. It fits a niche...right there between the new Records and Stanleys which should be used as doorstops and the top of the range list (LN, Veritas, Clifton) for people who don't want to spend the money on those "new classics".
> 
> ...



Hi Jim,

Thanks for the extra information, most appreciated. You ask 'why' not tune one up for next to nothing? Personally, for my self I really don't enjoy the whole tuning/fettling phase, even though I did a course on it, and thoroughly enjoyed learning it, over the years I've become to inpatient with fettling (one of the main reasons I've ditched machinery) that I just want something that works decently out of the box, but without the bank busting price of the big three. 

I was hoping that Stanley would get their act together with their premium planes, but of the reviews I've found, they don't sound too promising, so the QS seems to fit the bill perfectly - a hundred notes for a plane that just needs a quick hone is perfect for me, and I can see a couple in my very near future


----------



## matthewwh (23 Apr 2010)

jimi43":1ate0k03 said:


> Hi BB
> 
> I see it on par with a tuned Record. BUT...why...why not tune up an old Record for next to nothing.



Point taken, there is definitely a cheaper route in terms of £ notes to a properly functioning plane, if you include car boot sales and don't factor in fettling time as a cost. 

They seem to appeal to folk whose shed time is at a premium and don't want to spend it working on tools, or those who have just started out and have enough on their plate already learning to use a plane correctly.

There's also quite a few folk who can't afford the big three but still want a well made example of a solid design that hasn't been made by the accounts department and functions correctly out of the box. We have also had a surprising number of customers who can afford premuim planes but when faced with the two on a bench decide to go for a QS and have something else as well.

Switching over the cap irons would make logical sense as the QS one will fit without adjustment and keep a thin blade flat and allow it to bed properly (possibly for the first time ever when you look at the rub marks) on the frog. Similarly the QS iron is beefy enough to resist the bending forces imparted by a cheap pressed steel cap iron. 

Other than that I agree that there's little to be gained from swapping components between the two.


----------



## jimi43 (23 Apr 2010)

I think you guys are spot on there with your comments.

It IS better than most vintage Records that have seen better days and certainly most Stanleys and Baileys...(I don't like the Baileys sadly).

It is streets away from the new Stanleys...chalk and cheese....

It certainly appeals on the iron front...which is the key element of a good plane after all....and the other key parts such as the sole and frog and adjustment seem in harmony to that quality.

If I hadn't already got some fettled oldies and I were just starting out...the QS would be on my "must have" list. In fact...a No.3....mmmm

 

But I would say Matthew...that putting a Stanley blade on it would be like fitting a set of Lada hubcaps to a Jag.

:wink: 

Now a HOCK.....







8) 8) 

Jim


----------



## jimi43 (23 Apr 2010)

A thought has just struck me....from your post Matt.

The words..."shed time"....

That is an interesting concept all on its own. 

Professionals...by that I mean it in the literal sense...require tools of the trade to "do the job" and do it efficiently and effectively. For them, I see the benefit of an LN or a Clifton...and they can justify it. Others are quite happy to use an old Record that they have lovingly fettled and use as an extension of their arm.

Part timers....of all sorts spend time in the "shed" because they love it...love the creational aspect of it....love the tools themselves for their technology and beauty....all SORTS of reasons.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with not even having a distinct reason or "end product"....it is the journey that is pleasing.

For me...making, understanding the history, the technology of tools is the most satisfying aspect. The learning and the solving of the problem rather than making of the fruit supporters, the ars+e supporters and the book supporters that are the inevitable by-product! :wink: 

My by-product happens to be the twang supporters...only because I was required to follow this route to support my son's appetite for expensive guitars and without the means to get them.

The other day I seriously thought of slowing down the guitars and starting another journey on tool concept and design...I found quite by accident, that I enjoy that more.

Jim


----------



## ByronBlack (23 Apr 2010)

jimi43":2r6qqxr2 said:


> A thought has just struck me....from your post Matt.
> 
> The words..."shed time"....
> 
> ...



Aye, shed-time greatly varies between professional and amateur. Like you I make guitars, but also like furniture, I've gone through so many workshop setups, that now I don't want to fuss with tools, I've lost my tool lust, I just want to create things, and not spend a fortune doing it 

Btw - If you continue to make guitars, I have a number of maple neck blanks and ebony and rosewood fretboard that I'm looking to offload.


----------



## jimi43 (23 Apr 2010)

> Btw - If you continue to make guitars, I have a number of maple neck blanks and ebony and rosewood fretboard that I'm looking to offload


Drop me a PM with some pics mate..I certainly am interested

Jim


----------



## ByronBlack (23 Apr 2010)

Ok Jim - I'll get that sent over to you this evening. I also have a couple of large Brazilian Mahogany body blanks - i'll send a pic of those too if you like.


----------



## bugbear (23 Apr 2010)

jimi43":19ymdi7h said:


> I think you guys are spot on there with your comments.
> 
> It IS better than most vintage Records that have seen better days and certainly most Stanleys and Baileys...(I don't like the Baileys sadly).



What do you mean by a "Bailey", since both (most)Stanleys and (all)Records are incarnations of the Bailey design?

BugBear


----------



## matthewwh (23 Apr 2010)

jimi43":3asxh41a said:


> But I would say Matthew...that putting a Stanley blade on it would be like fitting a set of Lada hubcaps to a Jag.
> 
> Jim



Agreed, but the cap iron is a different matter. The QS has a belt and braces setup of a thick cutting iron AND a thick, flat, machined cap iron. 

You could swap the cap irons over with a Record/Stanley and see a vast improvement in the thin bladed plane and not much difference to the QS.

I believe the QS cutting irons are fractionally harder than Ron's and although thete's little to choose between water hardening and oil hardening steels I understand that water hardened steels do give a better edge. Just because they're half the price doesn't stop them from being of equal, possibly even slightly better quality.


----------



## ByronBlack (23 Apr 2010)

Matt - do you know if there is a possibility that QS will do a No.7 ?


----------



## jimi43 (24 Apr 2010)

bugbear":1v3npsw4 said:


> jimi43":1v3npsw4 said:
> 
> 
> > I think you guys are spot on there with your comments.
> ...



They are and the Record IMHO was an improvement on the design concept. The one Bailey No.5 I have is not that good...it's a case of "No.5 is not alive!"  

Jim


----------



## jimi43 (24 Apr 2010)

> I believe the QS cutting irons are fractionally harder than Ron's and although thete's little to choose between water hardening and oil hardening steels I understand that water hardened steels do give a better edge. Just because they're half the price doesn't stop them from being of equal, possibly even slightly better quality.



Ain't that the case!

Actually what I think is happening, particularly in China...is what happened in Japan and to some extent, Hong Kong in the early days.

The reputation those countries had for their products was "shoddy" to say the least...and this, coupled with a hate of all things Japanese after the war...made for a bad reputation.

Now we see Japanese products to be of extremely high quality...particularly their steel. They evolved as I believe China is now doing...and we are moving away rapidly from the CHINA=BAD QUALITY CHEAP as they are waking up to the quality demands of the West.

I hope this trend continues...if anything...we should wake up a bit in this country...we can compete...as Clifton et al show...but we have been too service orientated for many years now.

Jim


----------



## sdbranam (25 Apr 2010)

On shed time... I'm pretty limited on the time I get to play with woodworking, but for me it's all enjoyable. I like to see the by-products in use, but as a geek I get caught up in the tools as much as the wood.

I used to be very focused on trying to get something built, but for my own sanity had to back off from that. I just couldn't get the blocks of time, so it was frustrating. Now I don't care how long it takes (an attitude that a professional can't afford), but I get orders of magnitude more enjoyment out of it. And if distractions arise, like spending time to fettle my latest flea market treasure, I'm perfectly happy to set my current build project aside for a bit. I'm still puttering in the shop and getting the satisfaction of seeing the results of my labor.

And I _am_ making progress on builds. So it's more like I have multiple threads of execution in progress concurrently. Eventually they all come to completion in their own time.


----------



## big soft moose (25 Apr 2010)

ByronBlack":1yflmlww said:


> Matt - do you know if there is a possibility that QS will do a No.7 ?



i wish - ive got a groz no.7 and now that ive replaced the iron its tolerably okay, unlike my groz 4 which rocked when placed on a flast surface :shock: , but i'd replace it with a QS in a heartbeat

I did hear a rumour that QS might be going to go into chisels too - so it'd be goodto know if theres any truth in that one.


----------



## jimi43 (25 Apr 2010)

sdbranam":1x64qaiu said:


> On shed time... I'm pretty limited on the time I get to play with woodworking, but for me it's all enjoyable. I like to see the by-products in use, but as a geek I get caught up in the tools as much as the wood.
> 
> I used to be very focused on trying to get something built, but for my own sanity had to back off from that. I just couldn't get the blocks of time, so it was frustrating. Now I don't care how long it takes (an attitude that a professional can't afford), but I get orders of magnitude more enjoyment out of it. And if distractions arise, like spending time to fettle my latest flea market treasure, I'm perfectly happy to set my current build project aside for a bit. I'm still puttering in the shop and getting the satisfaction of seeing the results of my labor.
> 
> And I _am_ making progress on builds. So it's more like I have multiple threads of execution in progress concurrently. Eventually they all come to completion in their own time.



This describes me exactly!!!

I did one commission for a guitar for a guy in the Pacfic Northwestern USA...and even though he didn't pressure me at all, I felt obliged to work to deadlines. I have enough of that in my day job...so I make them at my pace now and if they sell they sell if they don't...I try to play them!  

The trouble with my mind is that I think it has the DNA from a bumble bee...it flits from favourite idea to favourite idea picking up the "nectar" of information as it goes.

And I like to did really deeply into a subject...I am not satisfied with just knowing a little bit. But since these things are contradictory...I tend to take a lifetime learning things...

But what fun!

Jim


----------



## MickCheese (25 Apr 2010)

I have fitted a 2" QS blade and cap into my No5 and it make a real difference. It actually cut reasonably well straight from the plastic wallet without even honing it.

It will not fit my No4 without hitting the front of the mouth.

The yoke is only just long enough on the No5 and there is a good deal of backlash. I need to sort out the yoke to make it work better but it cuts really nicely.

Mick


----------



## xy mosian (25 Apr 2010)

jimi43":ixdgge4t said:


> sdbranam":ixdgge4t said:
> 
> 
> > On shed time... I'm pretty limited on the time I get to play with woodworking, but for me it's all enjoyable. I like to see the by-products in use, but as a geek I get caught up in the tools as much as the wood.
> ...



Add another one to that list. Friend of mine keeps telling me that I remind her of Toad of Toad Hall. He had a problem sticking with one thing. 

xy


----------



## matthewwh (26 Apr 2010)

ByronBlack":1xm5qh9k said:


> Matt - do you know if there is a possibility that QS will do a No.7 ?



I know they have a bunch of products in development at the moment, I'll pop them an email and ask.


----------



## Eric The Viking (26 Apr 2010)

matthewwh":170efbzj said:


> ByronBlack":170efbzj said:
> 
> 
> > Matt - do you know if there is a possibility that QS will do a No.7 ?
> ...



And if they do, can I join the queue?


----------



## bugbear (26 Apr 2010)

jimi43":3238nhff said:


> bugbear":3238nhff said:
> 
> 
> > jimi43":3238nhff said:
> ...



Nope. I'm not getting you. What do think is different between "a Record" and "a Bailey", and (actually) what are you calling a "Bailey"?

To expand:

Bailey was a "real" maker, but a VERY long time ago, and only in the USA.

His design was later used by very many makers, leading to Bailey becoming more of a design than a maker.

About the most divergent (common) design is the Stanley Bedrock.

So incarnations of the Bailey design by Stanley have the word Bailey cast into them.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (26 Apr 2010)

ByronBlack":1ficuif7 said:


> Matt - do you know if there is a possibility that QS will do a No.7 ?



Hmm. That'll be a good test of the casting's stability, and their grinding quality.

BugBear


----------



## Racers (26 Apr 2010)

Hi,

How about an No8, or may be they could make an No8 1/2 with a 3" blade, that would be a fun plane.

Pete


----------



## jimi43 (26 Apr 2010)

bugbear":33im0vib said:


> jimi43":33im0vib said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":33im0vib said:
> ...



OOOPS! For all the above for "Bailey" insert "Rapier"!!!!

I was thinking...what is he on about when I spotted the deliberate mistake! Sorry mate...it's been a long week!  

 

Jim


----------



## bugbear (27 Apr 2010)

jimi43":3knyi2f3 said:


> OOOPS! For all the above for "Bailey" insert "Rapier"!!!!
> 
> I was thinking...what is he on about when I spotted the deliberate mistake! Sorry mate...it's been a long week!
> 
> ...



Glad that's resolved.

BugBear (nit picker)


----------

