# Quangsheng vs Wood River (Jointer and Jack Plane):



## Daniel Troy (30 Aug 2018)

I need a jack plane and a jointer plane. I have narrowed it down to the Wood River models and the Quangsheng models. I know they are pretty much the same but there are some differences that I can't seem to find. Can anyone recommend one over the other? The Wood River ones cost about £30 more but they are saying that they are a new version ( V3 ). Not sure what that will mean to me, but you all might have an idea? 

Any input would be really welcome.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (30 Aug 2018)

Hi - I have V3 QS planes and a couple of V3 WRs as well.

Functionally, they are identical.

I think that they are made of the same materials - I'm fairly certain they come from the same factory to a very similar spec.

In terms of fit and finish they are almost exactly the same - the WR lever cap has the WoodRiver logo on it, the QS is plain.

Either would be a purchase you would not regret. If you choose QS, I'd buy from Workshop Heaven (fresher stock, wider product range, and IMHO, much better service) not Rutlands.

Cheers, W2S


----------



## Vann (30 Aug 2018)

Woody2Shoes":10ic5jmx said:


> ...I'm fairly certain they come from the same factory to a very similar spec...


That's my understanding too.

Can I throw in a curved ball here. Why would you spend big money on a brand new jack plane. It's a roughing tool, and a second hand Stanley (or better still a Record) will do the same job with the same accuracy, for a fraction of the cost.

And the saving might allow you to upgrade the jointer to a better spec Lie-Nielsen or Clifton.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## lurker (30 Aug 2018)

Just to clear up some confusion that is developing.

The planes sold by Workshop Heaven and rutlands have similar, but different names. They are not the same thing, quality wise, by a long way.

As I have said here a number of times, there isn't a barge pole long enough that I would touch rutlands with. 

Workshop heaven has a good reputation for value for money and customer service.


----------



## Vann (30 Aug 2018)

lurker":20u62qfh said:


> ...The planes sold by Workshop Heaven and rutlands have similar, but different names. They are not the same thing, quality wise, by a long way...


I don't know what name Rutlands use for their planes, but I assume the "Wood River" the OP refers to are the ones made in China for a US company. I believe "Quangsheng" are made for Workshop Heaven by the same factory in China. 

There is another retail brand with a similar spelling to Quangsheng (Qiangsheng?), which I believe are again made in the same factory in China, but to a much lower spec than "Wood River" and "Quangsheng". 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Bodgers (30 Aug 2018)

lurker":hiww3x66 said:


> Just to clear up some confusion that is developing.
> 
> The planes sold by Workshop Heaven and rutlands have similar, but different names. They are not the same thing, quality wise, by a long way.
> 
> ...


Although I appreciate your beef with Rutlands, with a lot of the QS/Luban stuff, the difference between WS Heaven and Rutlands isn't massive.

Take for example the very nice Luban 43 plough plane - Other than the additional kerfing saw they are identical. The small router plane is also identical. 

There are items that WS Heaven offer that Rutlands don't (the brass spokeshave for example). 

The range of bench planes seem to be the biggest difference - the Rutlands ones seem to have less finishing/polishing and attention to detail. They share the same totes/handles and basic specs though...


----------



## Max Power (30 Aug 2018)

They're all Chinese rip offs of Lie Nielsen products , yes Lie Nielsens were based on earlier Stanleys but at least Lie Nielsen improved them through product development and brought something different to the market.
The Chinese versions have made no attempt to add any input and are blatant rip offs , as with so many other copies of western goods. 
Buy one plane either a Lie Nielsen, Lee Valley or hopefully a Clifton , they all hold their money well and you'll be helping the long term tool development and manufacturing of honest companies


----------



## Bodgers (30 Aug 2018)

Max Power":tge37vpf said:


> They're all Chinese rip offs of Lie Nielsen products , yes Lie Nielsens were based on earlier Stanleys but at least Lie Nielsen improved them through product development and brought something different to the market.
> The Chinese versions have made no attempt to add any input and are blatant rip offs , as with so many other copies of western goods.
> Buy one plane either a Lie Nielsen, Lee Valley or hopefully a Clifton , they all hold their money well and you'll be helping the long term tool development and manufacturing of honest companies



Like you say the Lie Nielsen's are Bedrock pattern based. So QS/Luban are basically doing what Lie Nielsen are doing. The QA is pretty good, so unless you have some beef against China itself, what's not to like? Sure, why not spend more money on a Lie Nielsen, but if you want something that's pretty decent quality at a decent price, you can also choose that. Choices are good.


----------



## G S Haydon (30 Aug 2018)

Hi Daniel 

I was able to test out a WoodRiver and have owned a Quangsheng (via Workshop Heaven). Both were excellent in terms of build quality. I prefer the Quangsheng as the lever cap is plain and has a more traditional look. The offering from Rutlands is ok. The main difference there is their lateral adjustment lever is a pressed item whereas the others are fabricated.

I also liked the fact both WoodRiver and Quangsheng have W1 high carbon steel plane irons rather than the A2 of Lie-Nielsen. W1 is not easy to work with and given up on by Lie-Nielsen as I think they could not find the skills to produce it in consistent quality. So I admire that the Chinese engineers got that right. If I were to purchase the excellent Lie-Nielsen planes, I'd then be faced with having to purchase replacement plane irons in 01 or W1 to suit. There are some size differences of the castings on the Lie-Nielsen planes shown here https://youtu.be/4jWuU-Qbp4w?t=1m35s (I don't find the rest of the review valuable). There are a few other variations too where the Chinese have evolved the offering.

As to the copying issue...I can swap parts from a Stanley to a Record with no issue. If copying or letting others make a version of woodworking tools was banned, let alone anything else without a patent, we would never of seen Record, Woden, I Sorby, Mathieson and a few other variations of Stanley's planes. Lie-Nielsen even copy Record shoulder planes pretty closely. I think Lie-Nielsen, Veritas, Clifton etc are excellent, and I would never say not buy their products, I look forward to having some one day. But this whole copying, anti China thing is pretty old. Buy what suits, most people pushing the more premium stuff seem to be in an odd cult. Do they ever wonder where the CNC equipment, computers etc come from that run these factories :roll: . If I had the money to spend, I would go for a Clifton, their product feels the least sterile and most hands on of all the offerings https://youtu.be/NiW5E8vYaPo


----------



## Peter Sefton (30 Aug 2018)

Knowing where tools are made is a confusing situation for many buyers in the international market we live in, and is very difficult if not impossible to answer, unless you have insider knowledge on the ground, which I don’t believe any of us do have.

For example tools that are made in Sheffield and are sold by a particular company have almost definitely been made by a number of different workshops and trades (the mesters) a very old tradition, and assembly and sold by a branded supplier. 

If you consider this is the situation in little old Sheffield and has always been done this way. What is happening in other countries we can only guess and unless you have been to a particular factory and seen a tool being made on a full production line you will never know. Planes consist of many parts and these will be made in different workshops each working to different specifications and prices depending on their buyers requirements.

As for the brands named above, I have experience of all three brands on my bench and in my school. As many of you know I have sold a couple of these brands and I am the European dealer for Woodriver, here is my (experienced and possibly biased) take on it.

Woodriver has been a Woodcraft brand from America since around 2007, they invested a lot of time, effort and R&D into their suppliers factory and have continued to improve their designs and product line up now on V3. Some designs and prototypes that didn’t make the grade may be on the market in other countries under different brands. Rob Cosman has been very instrumental in their development over the past 5 years or more introducing the unique and I believe best Y lever on the market. 

Quangsheng is sold by Workshop Heaven and Mathew has worked hard to improve and expand his range which have a lot of the Woodriver qualities but not all. The designs are different and the parts are not interchangeable with Woodriver. The Woodriver’s are heavier, I will say no more apart from Matthew is a reputable seller and nice guy to deal with good tools.
.
In my experience the Quangsheng are better quality than Qiangsheng, they are different in my experience.

Qiangsheng is sold by Rutland’s and are basic planes at a reasonable price, but not the same as the others.

This can be a confusing situation but it gives customers a choice of planes, prices and suppliers to choose from.

Cheers

Peter


----------



## D_W (30 Aug 2018)

Bodgers":29n723b2 said:


> Max Power":29n723b2 said:
> 
> 
> > They're all Chinese rip offs of Lie Nielsen products , yes Lie Nielsens were based on earlier Stanleys but at least Lie Nielsen improved them through product development and brought something different to the market.
> ...



The missing link here is that quangsheng planes were first copies of lie Nielsen planes and not bedrock. I believe a lot of the recent changes have been to make the plane internals look more like an old bedrock and less like a lie Nielsen to avoid trouble. 

I think they were developed to deal with a disagreement that woodcraft and Lee Nielsen were having about guaranteeing supply and one option was to explore overseas production. Only the executives at ln and woodcraft would know who actually provided planes to a Chinese manufacturer and whether both were involved with it at one point and for how long.

After the two parted ways, woodcraft attempted to come up with a domestic supply other than lie Nielsen, but had no success at finding anything economical as far as I know. Not surprising, there's very little low value production casting done in the states now. Maine is sort of a special case. They walk to the beat of their own drummer and still have a fair amount of commercial small craft. They hate any large commercial enterprise there other than logging.


----------



## D_W (30 Aug 2018)

Peter, compared to lie Nielsen, I don't think their effort is particularly large. And robs involvement is probably more of a synergistic marketing nature than anything else.

Just my opinion. 

We don't expect overseas folks to get wound up about it, though. If someone made dead copies of Clifton planes, most people here in the United states wouldn't care much.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (30 Aug 2018)

I own some Lie-Nielsen tools and I love them - not bench planes though (I'm sure I'd love those too, if I owned some of them).

I cannot tell the difference - in use - between an LN, a QS (from Workshop Heaven, or as a lesser choice Rutlands) or a WR. Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice.

For bedrock-style bench planes, I personally cannot justify the extra cost of an LN, and QS/WR hit the "sweet-spot" of price vs. performance/pleasure of ownership. Everyone else's mileage may vary.

The basic bedrock design is common to all - if someone had violated a copyright they would have been sued by now. Criticising QS/whoever for "ripping off" other people's (whose?) designs - when the UK and the US, to name but two, have such a well-developed legal system - is meaningless brollox of an almost Trumpian nature IMHO.

Cheers, W2S


----------



## Bodgers (30 Aug 2018)

D_W":gfcz5wpy said:


> I think they were developed to deal with a disagreement that woodcraft and Lee Nielsen were having about guaranteeing supply and one option was to explore overseas production. Only the executives at ln and woodcraft would know who actually provided planes to a Chinese manufacturer and whether both were involved with it at one point and for how long.
> 
> After the two parted ways, woodcraft attempted to come up with a domestic supply other than lie Nielsen, but had no success at finding anything economical as far as I know. Not surprising, there's very little low value production casting done in the states now. Maine is sort of a special case. They walk to the beat of their own drummer and still have a fair amount of commercial small craft. They hate any large commercial enterprise there other than logging.



Interesting stuff...I wasn't aware of that connection.


----------



## D_W (31 Aug 2018)

Here in the states, woodcraft was the most widespread seller of lie Nielsen planes on the ground. They have tons of franchise locations. The planes sold well and there was a combination of two problems:
* you often went to a local store to find a spokeshave or something else odd and no planes. Lie Nielsen couldn't provide the supply woodcraft wanted 
* lie Nielsen wanted the planes to be displayed in a way that they could be touched and tried out. A lot of the franchisees wanted to keep them behind glass because they were in retail locations that were easy to steal from. That issue probably wasn't going to be resolved.

At the same time lie Nielsenws starting to realise their business was maturing, and they had a choice to invest and grow our gain control of the sale of their planes as well as get more control of how they're presented. 

They chose mostly the latter, took the planes away from woodcraft, and banned sellers from selling below retail and pushed sales traffic more to their website. 

I talked to the president of woodcraft at the time and he said they were miffed that they'd basically helped ln build their brand by giving them wide distribution, and he's right about that. Ln basically made a retrenchment move and brought the sales back to themselves to keep the entire cost in their income statement. That's my interpretation, not the woodcraft presidents. I suspect that ln charged retailers about 65-70 percent of retail based on what does or doesn't seem to get employees of retailers to react since at least at that time, some retailers would let their employees have items at cost and the all turned their noses up 20% discounts that some retailers provided. 

The sentiment here in the states when we saw that the first woodriver planes were just copies of ln planes was for everyone to side with ln, but it's not really that simple.


----------



## D_W (31 Aug 2018)

A little more background on why I don't think quangsheng has had to do a whole lot compared to LN (though making anything consistent in quality in china requires a lot more involvement than ordering from "Uncle Walter" on alibaba. 

The first QS planes were a cheapened version of LN's planes. They had sort of nasty looking handles, but otherwise copied a lot of the elements. Steel was some kind of water or oil hardening steel for the blades (which in my opinion would generally be a benefit, but it probably wasn't as flat as A2 comes out (including after post heat treatment true-up). However, they chose to copy the bronze elements that were on LN planes, and I'm sure woodcraft had to spec that they be changed. 

On the V3 planes, as I understand it, much of the changes were just to change from LN designed items (that LN themselves probably altered due to modern manufacturing machinery). However, LN planes had, at one point, a problem with setting the cap iron. Since LN didn't know what the cap iron was for, a lot of earlier planes had the cap iron made so that it couldn't quite get to the edge of the iron and still be able to advance the iron into the cut. 

The woodriver planes copied this flaw, as some have shown up with it. I find that a little odd, as I saw the same mentioned on another forum regarding a plane a year or two old (not one copied soon after LN and woodcraft parted ways). If WR had done any development with competent users, they'd have found that to be an issue. LN fixed it once it was brought to their attention, but it did go many years because nobody was really using the cap iron to mitigate tearout. Once it was a known issue, people started complaining about it and it was clear that it wasn't uncommon. I don't think Rob Cosman knows what to do with a cap iron, but few seem to.

Nothing I posted above hasn't been said publicly. I'll say on behalf of Jeff (the president at Woodcraft) that WC took a lot of heat during that time here in the states, but he was not allowed to post on any forums to rebut any of it or tell his side without handing a bunch of money to sawmillcreek (there and woodnet was where most of the flaming took place). The owner of the SMC forum will not let non-advertisers post, not even as individuals (Jeff's - I think that was his name - handle was banned when he registered, unless he pays to be an advertiser). Tom Lie-Nielsen doesn't do forums, they were caustic at the time, so the only thing i knew about was that a plane was sent to china (Still don't know if LN or Woodcraft did it. If they were working together to solve a supply issue, it could've been either one). 

LN's elimination of allowing retailers here to discount pretty much solved my buying much from them, but after I cast off all of my planes (due to preference for stanley planes and woodies), i did buy a bronze 4. I have to give them credit, that was about 8 or 10 years ago now that this whole debacle occurred, and their retail prices have stayed about the same. 

At the same time the LN planes were copied, some knock offs of LV tools were made and sold at woodcraft and japan woodworker sold under a "borg" brand. I think I saw them on the QS tool site in china before that site disappeared (perhaps at woodcrafts' request? who knows?). Both WC and Japan woodworker have an appetite for huge margins. WC has to support a franchise system, there's really no way to have cut throat prices and have franchises be able to afford to operate, so I can identify with that. JWW (this is my opinion) just thrived for years as a mail order company catering to an uneducated buyer. When JWW sold, it seemed fitting that they went to Woodcraft, because little needed to change. JWW is filled with garbage narratives, like "mr. matsumura's wife sometimes assists by swinging a hammer". Come on. I'll bet that many of the catalog recipients actually believe that. 

I do hope that woodcraft and LN both stay in business for a long time. They're far different businesses, and probably destined to not get along, but as much hate as woodcraft gets here in the states because the boutique tool clique loves tom lie-nielsen, they do have a case that they were selling LN planes hand over foot, and LN left them without a good option for a domestic plane. 

The two together probably built the domestic stanley style boutique plane market here. Clifton was sold here, but customer support in the states was terrible and the problem rate much higher (which resulted in internet posts regarding expensive planes that clifton and highland passed the buck back and forth on). Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley easily ate their lunch. Service from both here in the states is exemplary, and woodcraft corporate's service is, also. They all go beyond what they really should have to. WC stores are franchises - at least some of them, so experience on the ground varies (hit or miss was miss locally here in western pennsylvania).

The sentiment here would've been different if the origin of the WR planes came out of a random retailer just sending an old bedrock or bailey plane to china to be copied. 

I still prefer stanley's designs to all of the modern "improved", anyway, and would take a vintage stanley or record in any significant amount of work over QS/WR/LN or LV.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (31 Aug 2018)

David, to clarify a few points ...

The forum that spent a lot of time discussing the LN-WoodRiver issue was Knots, which was on Fine Woodworking. Off the top of my head, this was around 2007. FWW magazine ran a blog article in which measurements were taken of the WR, LN and a Stanley Bedrock, and this demonstrated that the WR was made from LN castings. It was a hugely controversial topic at the time on a couple of forums. 

It seems that Woodcraft started the ball rolling by contracting the QS factory to produce them under the WoodRiver brand. It was not just LN planes that were ripped off, but spokeshaves as well. They also began to copy Lee Valley/Veritas tools. Copywrite laws do not exist in China, it seems. Back in the USA, LN took Woodcraft to court over trade dress. No one knows the official outcome, but it was not long after this that the QS factory stopped producing the Mark 1 and brought out Mark 2. This version made a number if detail changes to move away from the LN look-a-like they were marketing. Unfortunately, the changes were poorly conceptualised. This is when Rob Cosman came in to redesign the planes. His version became Mark 3, the current format. However, there are a lot of Mk 2 planes still being sold, and I suspect that these are the Luban version available in Australia. I suspect they are sold under other names in the UK. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Trevanion (31 Aug 2018)

I don't really see what the fuss with brand spanking new premium hand planes is. Yeah, sure they're nice to look at and use but they don't perform much better than an old Stanley or Record plane. I have a collection of Record planes, they cut wood just the same as any other at a fraction of the cost of new.


----------



## Bodgers (31 Aug 2018)

Trevanion":y2ej87mw said:


> I don't really see what the fuss with brand spanking new premium hand planes is. Yeah, sure they're nice to look at and use but they don't perform much better than an old Stanley or Record plane. I have a collection of Record planes, they cut wood just the same as any other at a fraction of the cost of new.



Choices again. If you have the money, and don't have the time/skills/confidence to tune up an older one they are there for the buying. 

Also, some specialised models just aren't available in numbers used, or don't make financial sense used E.g. Shooting planes, router planes etc.

Some are objectively better as well. For example the original Stanley No. 62 apparently wasn't a perfect plane and didn't sell that we'll. The modern versions are apparently better.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (31 Aug 2018)

Trevanion":3nb3q3tq said:


> I don't really see what the fuss with brand spanking new premium hand planes is. Yeah, sure they're nice to look at and use but they don't perform much better than an old Stanley or Record plane. I have a collection of Record planes, they cut wood just the same as any other at a fraction of the cost of new.



If there were no demand for new premium hand planes, nobody would make them. As it is, there are the three premium makers - LN, LV and Clifton - and a slew of medium priced offerings including Wood River, Stanley Sweetheart and Quangsheng, plus a fair old range of indifferent of cheaper brands from new Stanley and Irwin Record, Faithfull, Silverline and so on. Presumably they all sell enough to keep going.

There's also debate about whether premium planes are worth it. For the impecunious amateur with enough time to repair and fettle secondhand 'treasures', a working kit can be assembled for not much money, but maybe some time. For someone time-poor with a bit of available cash - or a time-poor professional - something that works well without fettling may be a more attractive proposition. There's also the point that the premium planes tend to be thicker in the castings, and therefore more rigid, which is a plus for planes used for higher precision work like trying and jointing (though not such a factor for rough prep duties), albeit at the cost of higher weight.

So, we have a choice of new premium, new middle range, new low priced, secondhand at bargain basement prices, secondhand better quality at higher prices, and vintage premium planes such as infills. Something for any taste, there!


----------



## Ttrees (31 Aug 2018)

Or just post a piccy of the plane you have your eye on, either publically or PM
Plenty of folks to PM who are really helpful and on here all the time having a brew between jobs.
You can get a fair idea of the quality by Patrick Leitch's blood and gore Stanley plane dating website
HYPERKITTEN.com
It is a rough estimate on the Record planes too, if you look at the iron shapes ...
ie the older having angular edges etc
I am more fussy about the bodys rather than the irons personally 
Thick even castings are my preference.
Haven't had to lap my two 51/2's


----------



## D_W (31 Aug 2018)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> David, to clarify a few points ...
> 
> The forum that spent a lot of time discussing the LN-WoodRiver issue was Knots, which was on Fine Woodworking. Off the top of my head, this was around 2007. FWW magazine ran a blog article in which measurements were taken of the WR, LN and a Stanley Bedrock, and this demonstrated that the WR was made from LN castings. It was a hugely controversial topic at the time on a couple of forums.
> 
> ...



There was also some relatively lively discussion on sawmillcreek (well, as lively as it can be there - the lack of anyone from WC posting kept it tame compared to woodnet), and the discussions on woodnet were toxic and high energy. There may have been magazine-related commentary on knots, but I didn't post there. Several of the other boutique makers were still posting on woodnet, and they were friends of TLN - and highly biased regarding the whole situation. I was striped by several of them, and several times. I didn't like seeing planes that looked like LN planes, but also recognized that WC had a legitimate point in that they had invested in sticking with LN planes, which were quite popular, and shortly thereafter were left with nothing as far as legitimate planes, and given that the discussions of (speculating here) supply demands (Woodcraft wanting a guarantee that LN wouldn't leave them with bare shelves) was probably going on for quite some time before that. Those would've been joint discussions with LN. 

Woodnet is the same site where one of the WC franchise employees suggested that LN may have been well aware of taking planes to China as an option (but franchise employees would've had about zero credibility, so recognizing that anything could've gone any way in the past, it's a possibility, but how likely? Maybe not so much). The part where the planes showed up on QS tool would've been well after this whole thing was developing, and the supply issues were before. Yes on QS tool knocking off more than just the LN planes, there was a whole page of tools that included LN-like items, and combined with them were listings for things like the $4 type (for the set) blister pack chisels. I can't remember if they also had some of the LV items that got knocked off, or if that was someone else. The website disappeared shortly after the public debate started. 

Given how much was at stake for both businesses, I'm not sure I'd trust eithers' account of the situation alone. LN is full of nice folks, but even nice folks tend to tell stories how they like to remember them. 

Jeff had mentioned (publicly) on woodnet, IIRC, that WC was trying to find domestic options for making planes, but as you're probably aware, there isn't much made here of relatively low value, and most US industry would see a relatively precisely made device that wholesales for $250 as being low value. I wasn't surprised to see nothing ever come of that.

At the same time all of this was going on, woodcraft was doing some back door marketing by handing out goods. This is something relatively common, but it was poo pooed because it was woodcraft. The boutique makers who were on woodnet pretty much viewed this as conclusions are often viewed in academia - "we believe this, so it's written. If you don't rubbish on woodcraft, you will be berated". 

it's fair for me to say that I like lie nielsen more than woodcraft, it's just an opinion. But I don't much appreciate being told by biased advocates that I should have black and white thinking that matches theirs.


----------



## Vann (1 Sep 2018)

Trevanion":37o3llj2 said:


> I don't really see what the fuss with brand spanking new premium hand planes is. Yeah, sure they're nice to look at and use but they don't perform much better than an old Stanley or Record plane. I have a collection of Record planes, they cut wood just the same as any other at a fraction of the cost of new.


I don't know what it's like in the UK (or the USA), but over here (NZ), if you want a "bedrock" style plane it's often cheaper to buy a brand spanking new Lie-Nielsen premium model than a beaten up Stanley Bedrock. Personally, I have a mixture of old and new. My "go to" planes are two repaired (brazed) old Records and a Clifton.

But what I don't understand is why people buy hobby tools from disreputable countries like China - turning their backs on struggling industries in their own countries. Instead of getting pleasure, I'd cringe everytime I used the tool. It's different when your using the tool for employment where making a living comes ahead of pleasure. But for the weekend warrior.... ?

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Bodgers (1 Sep 2018)

Vann":19f4k7gp said:


> But what I don't understand is why people buy hobby tools from disreputable countries like China - turning their backs on struggling industries in their own countries. Instead of getting pleasure, I'd cringe everytime I used the tool. It's different when your using the tool for employment where making a living comes ahead of pleasure. But for the weekend warrior.... ?
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



As has been discussed earlier, sometimes it isn't always easy to know where things are made, and some hobbyists might not even care. For example, I have a new 'Premium' Stanley Sweetheart Low Angle Jack. It is a nice thing. The plane body is made in Mexico, the blade and breaker are made in the Uk, and the company is head quartered in the USA, am I supposed to be cringing or not?

The Workshop Heaven Luban/QS are a good example of Chinese manufacturing getting it right. If it is your hobby and you couldn't stretch to a Clifton or a Lie Nielson, then It is another option.


----------



## Vann (1 Sep 2018)

Bodgers":2pzwuagv said:


> ...The plane body is made in Mexico, the blade and breaker are made in the Uk, and the company is head quartered in the USA, am I supposed to be cringing or not?...


I'd consider whether any of those 3 countries fitted my definition of disreputable. I guess the USA might be questionable at this point in time... (hammer) :wink: 

If I couldn't afford a nice Lie-Nielsen or Clifton then I'd go for an old Stanley or Record (and have done on many occasions) simply for ethical reasons. My pleasure in my tools is reduced if I've spent my scarce hobby funds on supporting industries in countries with known human rights abuses. Your mileage may differ.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (1 Sep 2018)

> Jeff had mentioned (publicly) on woodnet, IIRC, that WC was trying to find domestic options for making planes, but as you're probably aware, there isn't much made here of relatively low value, and most US industry would see a relatively precisely made device that wholesales for $250 as being low value. I wasn't surprised to see nothing ever come of that.



David, it is clear that Woodcraft was seeking a cheaper option (than LN) to sell. Perhaps even an option with a higher production rate. However, none of that excuses a company deliberately taking someone else's product and copying it as exactly as they could, even down to the trade dress (with the same brass lever cap). And faults and all! It was absolutely obvious that they were attempting to offer the public the same fare but cheaper, and at a cheaper production cost - which did not mean the same quality (the adjuster on Mk 1 was a really wimpy length of steel). This is not about competing with another by developing a product oneself - this was about stealing the R&D of LN and not paying for it. (Yes, the LN planes are based on Stanley models, but they are not cast from Stanley planes. The WR planes were cast directly from LN models. It is about profit margins. Clifton took the same high ground that LN did - they developed their own version of the Stanley Bedrock). Woodcraft sent across actual LN planes to the QS factory to copy. That is theft, and there is no other way to refer to it. The fact that they brought out a Mk 2 which was completely different is evidence for this. 

All this left a bad taste in the mouth of the generation of woodworkers that were around on the forums at that time. There are a whole bunch of others for whom the history is missing and the emotions are absent. They are likely puzzled at the animosity aimed at QS. The Mk 3 QS plane is a really nice, quality tool. It is now closer to a Stanley copy than a LN copy. The trade dress is no longer saying "LN on the cheap. Fool your mates". I would recommend it as a good plane. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Sep 2018)

Thanks for the extra info David. It does not surprise me that the situation is more complex than some would expect.

I still don't understand why copying a plane without a patent is an issue. Record was a blatant copy, aside the paint and name on the lever cap. Many of them were made during the 1930's in jolly old England. And England that at that time had 25% of its population and 30% of its landmass. But I would assume we can gloss over that? Perhaps I should hold off a Vesper tool purchase? Mainly due to my concern than a former colony has not yet fully got to grips with the needs of its indigenous people?

I don't dispute China has some serious issues, however, to assume where QS planes are made is some kind of hell hole is just stupid. In fact, wages have risen and quality of life improved for so many in China to the point where companies, especially textiles, are looking to move to Vietnam or Bangladesh.

It must be odd for someone coming into woodworking. First they must claim the moral high ground for ethical purchasing on everything. Books, clothing, understand global political movements and then try and make something. 

Thankfully we seemed to of "Jumped the Shark" on this. I can now purchase a boutique lump hammer made using a Harbour Freight press, but that's ok because "IMO there is a proper place for HF. Tools like this (almost all materials – not labor – and for a single job)) are that place." What has been described there is a lump hammer I can buy for less than £10.00 :lol:


----------



## Vann (1 Sep 2018)

G S Haydon":1desy36z said:


> ...I don't dispute China has some serious issues, however, to assume where QS planes are made is some kind of hell hole is just stupid...


I have not assumed that. And please be careful bandying around the term "stupid", it could taken with offence.

My problem is not with the QS factory, but with any nation that sponsors human rights abuses. Would you have bought from Nazi Germany (had you been around back then)? They did magnificent engineering, so why not?

I don't think I have a problem with QS copying traditional designs. Lie-Nielsen and Clifton have. As you say, Record did (and I like my Record planes). I do have a problem with them copying Veritas designs. 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Sep 2018)

Vann

Thanks for the reply and sorry if the "stupid" came over as harsh. Conversations on keyboards are at best pretty awful. Comparing China to Nazi Germany is pretty far fetched at this point. It would be fair if Mao was there, but much is changing. It seems the whole world is sourcing from China and sources similar, from I Phones to a press from Harbour Freight.

Would I have purchased from Nazi Germany? Unlikely on a few sides. Number one they were fascist and exterminated humans on an industrial scale. Bits of my family are on a beach on France. Other family members, now passed, never purchased from Japan ever again due to their experiences.

I think you and I are nearly 100% in agreement on copying, and your sign off really seals it. I just had enough of the BS from people who influence new woodworkers. On one hand we've been told to turn our back on people who copy tools, especially tite mark gauges. However those people will happily work for those who seem to make something pretty damn close to a veritas spokeshave https://www.dictum.com/en/dictum-planes ... ade-703337

Like you, I enjoy using old tools and restoring them. Also, I'd like to own a Clifton. I just get bored that whenever some asks "what should I buy" it become a "tut-tut" unless you buy Lie-Nielsen et al.


----------



## Trevanion (1 Sep 2018)

I think the guy only asked which plane was a nicer one for the money, Not about Hand plane politics.


----------



## large red (1 Sep 2018)

I have most of the makes of the planes listed above apart from the Woodriver, Clifton is my favourite but you know what there is very little between any of them, if (and here's my secret) they are sharp!


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Sep 2018)

Trevanion":2gnq1ygf said:


> I think the guy only asked which plane was a nicer one for the money, Not about Hand plane politics.



Could not agree more. The only reason I offer a counter is because, every time the question comes up, people pour scorn on the two products mentioned by the OP. And its all to easy for those with "moral high ground" to stick the boot in when they have their own bias. The OP had already "narrowed down" the choice and wanted thoughts on the two he wanted, not why he was wrong to purchase something from China.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (1 Sep 2018)

Graham, has someone written that the OP should not purchase a plane made in China? Interesting interpretation.

Edit: this should have asked, "Is the general theme here that the OP should not purchase a plane made in China?"

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Sep 2018)

Max Power":q7kif2al said:


> They're all Chinese rip offs of Lie Nielsen products , yes Lie Nielsens were based on earlier Stanleys but at least Lie Nielsen improved them through product development and brought something different to the market.
> The Chinese versions have made no attempt to add any input and are blatant rip offs , as with so many other copies of western goods.
> Buy one plane either a Lie Nielsen, Lee Valley or hopefully a Clifton , they all hold their money well and you'll be helping the long term tool development and manufacturing of honest companies



Close enough, Derek?


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Sep 2018)

Vann":1cy4hahx said:


> Bodgers":1cy4hahx said:
> 
> 
> > ...The plane body is made in Mexico, the blade and breaker are made in the Uk, and the company is head quartered in the USA, am I supposed to be cringing or not?...
> ...



Another?


----------



## large red (1 Sep 2018)

I'm not having that it's ethically wrong to buy a plane from China. There is no way that the likes of Lie Nielsen hold some sort of moral high ground they didn't invent the plane.
I own a Quangshen plane and its beautifully engineered and well finished, I wouldn't care if it came from the moon let alone China, I also own a Lie Nielsen you know what there is very little difference, if any. The major difference is cost and and If Lie Nielsen are worried they can reduce their price, maybe outsource some of their parts from China! 
There is only one winner here the consumer.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (1 Sep 2018)

The OP asked .... "I have narrowed it down to the Wood River models and the Quangsheng models. I know they are pretty much the same but there are some differences that I can't seem to find. Can anyone recommend one over the other? "

There have been several replies that actually attempted to explain the differences and why there was a Mk 1, Mk 2 and Mk 3 QS. 

Summary: The Mk 1 is no longer. The Mk 2 is around but a poor design. Be careful that you do not buy one thinking it is the same as the Mk 3, simply because it comes out of the QS factory. The Mk 3 (which is the current WoodRiver) is an excellent plane. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (1 Sep 2018)

large red":zc5pcfbe said:


> I'm not having that it's ethically wrong to buy a plane from China. There is no way that the likes of Lie Nielsen hold some sort of moral high ground they didn't invent the plane.
> I own a Quangshen plane and its beautifully engineered and well finished, I wouldn't care if it came from the moon let alone China, I also own a Lie Nielsen you know what there is very little difference, if any. The major difference is cost and and If Lie Nielsen are worried they can reduce their price, maybe outsource some of their parts from China!
> *There is only one winner here the consumer.*



That is terribly simplistic, and it ends with local manufacturers no longer being local manufacturers, but manufacturing in other countries. Not only does one lose local expertise, and keeping revenue within a country, along with the jobs it creates locally, but the incentive to compete goes as well.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Sep 2018)

Derek

I found the same in 2014. My review is not as well written or presented as one of yours, but the point is, the Woodriver is excellent https://www.gshaydon.co.uk/blog/woodriver-plane-review . We are now nearly in 2019. I can't imagine that any retailer has early versions being sold new at this point.

On your thoughts shared with large red, he does pretty much have it. Lie-Nielsen are doing very well, thanks to their excellent attitude and quality of product. So are WoodRiver. There is a good(ish) balance. To my knowledge there is no risk of LN going bust any time soon. Having good trade relations with other countries is also something that can be a very good thing. 

How much do you own and use that was made in AUS? It's highly likely that the steel used in many tools you own, or those that are made in China, are made from ore mined in many of the various massive Iron ore mines in AUS. So AUS has a big export in ore. China does not have this ore so it must trade. Trade happens and is something far beyond a few boutique tools made in small factories.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (1 Sep 2018)

Graham, I am not referring to having trading partners. I am referring to outsourcing manufacture to drop costs when goods could be manufactured locally. The path leads inevitably to the loss of local jobs. That is what has happened to Australian manufacturing. There is nothing of substance any longer. 

LN does well because they have a good reputation, and there are those willing to pay their price. WR does well because there are those that are not willing to pay the price. LN will survive because there is sufficient demand to keep them going. That does not alter the sentiment in the paragraph above.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Trevanion (1 Sep 2018)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> That is terribly simplistic, and it ends with local manufacturers no longer being local manufacturers



There are no local manufacturers left.

I would say more than 95% of what's offered on the hand plane market is made in China or likewise. 

In the UK, you have Clifton. In the US you have Lie Nielsen, That's it. besides a couple of independent workshops such as Holtey, Sauer & Steiner, Lazarus Planes Etc.

Nobody wants them anymore except for the purist, hobbyist, enthusiast and specialist woodworkers, how many of you have seen someone using a hand plane on a building site in the last 10 years? even in the last 20 years? You see the occasional block plane but that's about it. They've all been replaced by Power planers and belt sanders because nobody's got half a day to hand plane a door to fit an opening. All the joinery workshops I've been in had hand planes sitting on a shelf gathering rust and dust because nobody uses them anymore and belt sanders have largely replaced them for smoothing everything out. People look at you like you're some kind of neanderthal if you pull out a hand plane.


----------



## G S Haydon (1 Sep 2018)

Derek

It does roll easy off the tongue about manufacturing. However, AUS and all modern Western countries do well enough without it. If it did become more viable to manufacture in Western economies you would see even more widespread use of robots and even more division of labour to keep costs down. Hardly a romantic vision of skills etc. You guys trade ore and the skills it takes to mine it, and you buy back products made from that ore.
The industrial revolution has been fast paced and recent. People didn't have a crowdfunding session when our wheelwrights business became unviable thanks to cars. You have to do your best, and keep trying. There are no easy wins. I have no idea where it'll all end up in the next 20yrs, but the people with money in their pockets will still indulge in boutique items, those who don't will need an option.


----------



## StraightOffTheArk (1 Sep 2018)

Apologies for the irrelevance to the OP, but as far as ethics goes, I imagine this conversation would be pretty unlikely if we could only use computers, routers etc with ethically sourced parts and materials - ie not from China or from firms with very dubious labour practises. As far as copying goes it's all been said before - at great length - but I don't get why it's seemingly OK for Record et al to directly copy Stanley, but not a Chinese company that is not infringing copyright, to copy LN. Capitalism and global market economics - C'est la vie.

Tara a bit,

SOTA


----------



## large red (1 Sep 2018)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> large red":do3qpxbk said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not having that it's ethically wrong to buy a plane from China. There is no way that the likes of Lie Nielsen hold some sort of moral high ground they didn't invent the plane.
> ...



My only option in the UK is Clifton everything else is an import be it U.S.A, Canada, or China why should we exclude China from the party? Especially if the quality is high?
These are all good quality, there is a lot of snobbery involved with tools a lot of tools are sold on reputation. 
I completely understand your concerns with local manufacturing but that horse has bolted and won't be coming back, it's too difficult for us to compete any more, wages too high, crippling legislation, H&S etc. If we didn't have Chinese imports the likes of Lie Nielsen would be charging much more.


----------



## D_W (1 Sep 2018)

large red":39o3iqof said:


> I'm not having that it's ethically wrong to buy a plane from China. There is no way that the likes of Lie Nielsen hold some sort of moral high ground they didn't invent the plane.
> I own a Quangshen plane and its beautifully engineered and well finished, I wouldn't care if it came from the moon let alone China, I also own a Lie Nielsen you know what there is very little difference, if any. The major difference is cost and and If Lie Nielsen are worried they can reduce their price, maybe outsource some of their parts from China!
> There is only one winner here the consumer.



I see you've never traveled to maine, which is fine. 

Maine is one of the last "settlements" of artisans in the US, they'd not outsource. My speculation earlier is that they might. 

The real issue at the time wasn't that Lie Nielsen invented the plane (they didn't) or that they'd markedly improved it (perhaps for rank beginners they did), it was that they were pulling back from retailers and someone attempted a dead on copy of their planes, including their color scheme. The only difference were the handles (the shungee rosewood type wood is cheaper in china than cherry is in the US). 

That was considered kind of a filthy move (and it was - there really wasn't any great reason that QS couldn't copy a bedrock plane. It's not like they're rare. 

Beyond that, i don't begrudge anyone their chance to buy goods made in china. Put yourself in LN's shoes in this one, though. There are a million stanley style planes out there, but suppose you just had a dispute with a supplier and they don't just choose any plane, they choose to copy your use of bronze and all of the changes you've made to the plane itself, and then sell it in your territory. Trade dress law in the united states addresses that. 

I recall all of this at the time, and there were plenty of folks who said the same thing "didn't lie nielsen just copy a stanley?". Yes, they did. I don't know if stanley was protecting anything at the time, but it's very easy to spot their planes vs. a stanley plane. Bronze fixtures, cherry handles, etc. 

This topic itself was more familiar to me because Gibson guitar company had just successfully scared the rubbish out of banjo makers and they had lawsuits on trade dress against paul reed smith and others for single cutaway guitars. I think they'd have won the banjo cases if there had been any (the makers of those other banjos just gave up on the items that they were threatened on), but the guitar cases were ridiculous and thankfully they lost them (that case hinged on guitars with a single cutaway being a gibson characteristic that could confuse other customers). 

It's not that Gibson invented the banjo, either. Someone else did, but they had legal standing because the current makers were copying things that made the gibson mastertone banjo look like it did (bell shaped truss rod cover and hearts and flowers inlay, as well as some dead copying peghead shape). 

Here's the deal with trade dress. If Lie Nielsen just stands around and does nothing, and WR copies their planes plus all of the aspects that make them look like Lie Nielsen, and a court reasonably determines that those were items that would make consumers think "lie nielsen" and not just "another stanley copy", Lie Nielsen will lose the ability to enforce their trade dress against anyone else copying their planes in the future. 

In my opinion, woodcraft copied lie nielsen's planes instead of an old stanley for one of two reasons:
* they just didn't do much research
* they realized that a plane would look more valuable to a consumer if it looked more like a lie nielsen than a vintage stanley

I still patronize both companies. I think that it was a little dirty of LN to pull back from their retailers after the retailers had made their planes known in a lot of markets, and I think it was dirty of woodcraft to try to sell a plane that was copied from lie nielsen. 

But I also have no real stake in this, certainly not one where I'd tell someone to buy one plane over another other than to say:
* I'd consider a vintage stanley over both, and if I thought there was any functional difference between the two, I'd be well advised to learn to use the stanley better, because skill eliminates any capability difference, and the weight difference will make an experienced user who uses planes heavily much prefer a stanley
* if you like to be reasonably well informed, it may matter to you just how the WR plane came about. Even though I'm not English, I probably wouldn't buy a chinese copy of an English product. And I've never bought a WR plane, but I have bought tools from woodcraft since.


----------



## D_W (1 Sep 2018)

large red":1iqrmqdg said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > large red":1iqrmqdg said:
> ...



No, Lie Nielsen wouldn't. They could if they wanted to (you guys are a bit of an exception, as the price of their tools is jacked up by importers in other countries. They're still quite reasonable here. 

Let's look back about ten years - LN could not keep up with demand. Most businesses choose between two things or a combination at that point. They look to grow and increase supply or they increase prices. Lie Nielsen did neither at the time, though they have increased supply somewhat - but that didn't happen right away. They drove the traffic back to their site and eliminated gray market sellers instead, to make sure that their planes were displayed the way that they thought they should be. And they just sat there with short stock and didn't increase prices. 11 years later, their prices are still the same. 

I seriously doubt planes can be made cheaper in the US than LN is doing it, at least at the quality level. Their position at the time this came up was that they knew they needed to expand, but despite their success, they needed to borrow to do it. 

Over here, Clifton planes at the time were about the same cost. Their quality control wasn't nearly as good, though, and the irons that they called hand forged didn't perform as well as a lot of other O1 irons, and they were horribly overpriced ($90 or so in some cases just for an iron). They were decent, but Lie Nielsen was making the best A2 irons in terms of edge fineness and durability (I tested them). LN had far better customer service and ate their lunch over here. Same can be said for australia and anyone else willing to pay the bloated price increase that an importer charges. 

It's not an issue of snobbery for everyone, it's an issue of ethics. I am the type of person who would buy the chinese plane if it was an issue of snobbery instead of ethics. 

I did sell off most of my lie nielsen planes once I became more skilled, though. The stanley just leaves me able to get more work done in a given shop session. The premium planes are both heavy (and woodcraft appears to have intentionally made their planes even heavier than LN, which is foolish - perhaps to win a specifications war or feel notionally more solid at a wood show), and their perfectly milled bottoms make a LOT of friction unless you really stay on top of the waxing. 

(the tools that I've bought from WC range from pfeil to non-copy chinese tools - i'd buy more from them, but their prices are really terrible).


----------



## D_W (1 Sep 2018)

Trevanion":223vxjyw said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > That is terribly simplistic, and it ends with local manufacturers no longer being local manufacturers
> ...



Lee Valley? Stanley (they make planes in mexico with some US parts, though they're kind of "heiffery" looking things). 

I can't think of any good chinese planes other than what originated as an LN copy and the items that woodwell (mujingfang) makes. Woodwell's tools are generally traditional copies of chinese, and they don't sell well over here, and probably not there.


----------



## D_W (1 Sep 2018)

G S Haydon":1qxspruu said:


> Derek
> 
> It does roll easy off the tongue about manufacturing. However, AUS and all modern Western countries do well enough without it.



Manufacturing in the united states accounts for $2 Trillion per quarter. We hardly do without it. There are even still shoe manufacturers and such in the US, some high dollar and some sort of pedestrian (plain black work shoes, etc, for about $100 a pair). 

Just as sweden and other highly engineering-related economies, do, though, our manufacturing tends to be more specialized and more high value.


----------



## D_W (1 Sep 2018)

G S Haydon":3j1o70kk said:


> Thanks for the extra info David. It does not surprise me that the situation is more complex than some would expect.
> 
> I still don't understand why copying a plane without a patent is an issue. Record was a blatant copy, aside the paint and name on the lever cap. Many of them were made during the 1930's in jolly old England. And England that at that time had 25% of its population and 30% of its landmass. But I would assume we can gloss over that? Perhaps I should hold off a Vesper tool purchase? Mainly due to my concern than a former colony has not yet fully got to grips with the needs of its indigenous people?
> 
> ...


----------



## D_W (1 Sep 2018)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > Jeff had mentioned (publicly) on woodnet, IIRC, that WC was trying to find domestic options for making planes, but as you're probably aware, there isn't much made here of relatively low value, and most US industry would see a relatively precisely made device that wholesales for $250 as being low value. I wasn't surprised to see nothing ever come of that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't disagree that they were probably trying to stretch their share vs. LN, but you may not recall that on the ground here, there was constant complaining that people would travel a couple of hours to woodcraft and there would be no LN planes to try. I only live 25 minutes from the woodcraft that was here (I think it's gone and another one has popped up, that's the nature of franchises). 

I bought a 140 copy at the woodcraft here - what a useless plane, but that's beside the point except that it was the only plane that was there. It's an illustration of what the problem was. Woodcraft obviously has a stock slot for those items (the planes) and when a consumer wants one, they want to sell them. I believe that was probably the original issue, not the price. Woodcraft charged retail. They may have hoped to charge more (and probably would have if they'd have been allowed), but they just didn't have planes in the stores. 

I'm sure that also causes problems with franchisees, who have paid to open a store and then on top of that, they have high regular costs because they're in retail locations here. You go to a store looking for LN planes, you find a specialty item or something similar left and perhaps a saw (that's what I'd usually find at mine here), but I never saw a bench plane locally, so I bought elsewhere. 

At the time, Tom didn't have the money to expand, and probably didn't want to take the risk, and Jeff and WC were looking to get to the front of the line to secure supply and even the small retailers would tell me (like fine tool journal) "I don't know when we'll have a number 7, they kind of do what they feel like doing down there and get us things on their own schedule". 

Jeff also mentioned to me, and publicly, that they were looking to develop a plane that could be made in the US (I'm sure it would've been expensive), and they were doing the WC thing at the same time. They have staff at corporate that do some research, but I could only conclude (my opinion) that they don't know much about hand tools, because it sure wouldn't have been hard for you, me or anyone else to have fixed the issues with the initial QS tools. I don't think Rob Cosman knows as much about plane design as I do, and the idea that he really did something groundbreaking to fix their issues is sort of hocum to me. I could've done it in two hours. But they get to use his name, and he gets territory to attract students at each store in the US. Synergistic, I guess. 

I told jeff at the time that I didn't like that the planes looked like LN planes, and I don't remember much of a reaction. He mentioned the US made planes and then mentioned that they were working on getting a stanley knuckle block type plane to the market (which they eventually did). AT the time the QS tool website was up, there was a dead copy of a LN 60 1/2, which is much different than stanley's plane, of course. That never made it to the market here that I recall, or perhaps it did - I was sort of done paying attention by then. 

I see their supply problem, though, I saw it on the ground here. In my opinion, Tom operates at a higher ethical standard, but the people in LN don't take advice that well. They don't have to - their job is to make tools and service them. I brought to their attention early on that the stanley 8 wouldn't take their cap iron, and sent them one to look at. It ended up on Tom's desk and I was out of a plane to use for quite some time before it was sent back. In contrast to that, I once had an iron that I thought might be a little soft - it sharpened easily, but it held up fine. The easy sharpening left me confused, so I sent it to them and they tested it. It tested 61.5 hardness (this was one of the earlier A2 blade, not a W1 iron). I told them I was embarrassed to have wasted their time, and you know what they said? "we can send you another newer iron along with it, even though it tested in spec". I refused that - to offer a customer with a needless complaint additional goods was surprising and made me feel even more ashamed, but that's how they operate.

A few years later after I was done buying LN planes, I still had a bunch that I'd bought used, and I needed boxes. I called asking to buy boxes. They refused any money, and refused to even let me pay to have new boxes shipped to me. I told them that I'd bought the planes used, and it wasn't their responsibility, but they still refused any payment of any type. 

I'd sooner have seen the original issue resolved by more LN planes being shipped to woodcraft, but whining consumers probably would've meant that a chinese plane would show up there regardless of whether or not LN planes were there. We have a whole society of entitlement now that believes if they think something is not good enough for the price or is good enough but too expensive, that someone else owes them something. I think the bronze smoother that I got from LN for something like $350 is pretty inexpensive. One only needs to try to make one as good as LN's and think about how they could make a living doing it to correct their attitude if they think otherwise. 

An adherent of "cheapest it can be made anywhere" might say that QS could copy it for $200 (i'm sure they'd still manage to make some part of it substandard one way or another), but I'd have to say that if price is really an issue, a bronze number 4 is no better than 2/3rds of the old stanley planes I've gotten. Why buy a chinese plane for $150-$200 when you can have an american plane for $40, and you'll be able to do more work with it?


----------



## Bodgers (1 Sep 2018)

Well, apparently 'Lu Ban' invented it all 

http://www.qstools.com/aboutbr.asp


----------



## Mark Begbie (1 Sep 2018)

I've a Quangsheng low angle block plane and very happy with the quality.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Sep 2018)

Bodgers":27bqe7k3 said:


> Well, apparently 'Lu Ban' invented it all
> http://www.qstools.com/aboutbr.asp



Wow. I often wondered who invented the chisel.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (2 Sep 2018)

It's interesting that Axminster (I suppose the UK's closest approximation to WoodCraft) chose to go to India (Soba https://www.shobha-india.com/wood-working-tools.html ) rather than go to China to produce it's "own brand" ('Rider') tools.

I think that the motivations for a large retailer in going overseas are:

- As has been mentioned, getting control (key word) over specification, quality, delivery and cost (giving flexibility over selling price) - especially when other suppliers' business model can't or won't support yours (try buying Ashley Iles chisels - they're very nice but they're always out of stock - a lot of lost sales there I imagine, e.g. to Narex).

- Getting the value of the "brand" for themselves, not an outside brand owner (think of Lidl/Aldi producing their own brands and maximising their own profits.) - their ads explicitly mention this cutting out of the middle man "like brands, only cheaper".

Of course there are differences between a cheap and nasty no-name plane and an LN equivalent. But the cost of those differences is actually pretty small in real terms - IF the manufacturer is correctly organised for a specific production run/process. A large part of the price difference is in the LN "brand" - buyers know exactly what they're getting (exemplary, arguably excessively high, quality and olde-worlde customer service), but also because their mom'n'pop business model won't accommodate any alternative.

I've always thought of the US as the home of rough-and-tumble Capitalism and assumed that Free Trade - which I see as a key enabler of Capitalism and of economic efficiency in allocating resources to the best place - would be popular there too. It turns out that the US has a long history of protectionism - initiated by its "uncomfortable" relationship with Britain! (what irony!).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectio ... ted_States

It's many years since I heard anyone say "buy British". I guess protectionism only makes sense if you think you've got something worth protecting from a more powerful manufacturer!

Cheers, W2S


----------



## D_W (3 Sep 2018)

The iles chisels are an oddball thing. They're in demand over here, too, and rarely completely in stock. 

When someone says they want a set of chisels and they provide price ranges, I always tell them to get the iles chisels because they're the closest thing in proportion and sharpening to a better older chisel. 

When we buy them directly from Britain ex vat, they're cheaper than they are at retail here, too.

I haven't seen the qs tool page for quite a while. I'll bet lu ban invented the internet, too. "it is said". 

For as innovative as they claim to be, they sure do look like they're just copying. Strange combination on the shave - LV colors, LN style.


----------



## David C (3 Sep 2018)

The current yoke from Quangsheng at Workshop Heaven, is a clear design improvement!

Have a look when you get the chance.

David C


----------



## Peter Sefton (3 Sep 2018)

David C":f82qnt0m said:


> The current yoke from Quangsheng at Workshop Heaven, is a clear design improvement!
> 
> Have a look when you get the chance.
> 
> David C



As I understand it this was a Rob Cosman design developed with Woodriver for their V3 but I could be mistaken....

A clear improvement and the best Y lever I have used with very little backlash and continuous contact with the chip breaker slot.

Cheers

Peter


----------



## D_W (4 Sep 2018)

David C":2qa7mss5 said:


> The current yoke from Quangsheng at Workshop Heaven, is a clear design improvement!
> 
> Have a look when you get the chance.
> 
> David C



I'm curious, David, what the real need is for zero backlash or near zero. I have a preference for stanley's planes over lie nielsen. They, of course, have more backslash, but it all comes out in a single flip of the wheel in a well-used plane. 

The Primus planes "solved" this problem, too (and created a dozen others). i think this kind of thing will bother beginners because they're all thumbs and no skill, but it quickly goes away.


----------



## David C (4 Sep 2018)

David,

I find no backlash quite disturbing. It would be difficult to know which way the knob was last turned.

So some backlash is good, say 1/4 to half a turn.

Three turns just seem tedious. 

David C


----------



## D_W (4 Sep 2018)

David, I agree with that statement. We learned to know which way it's set by tension, which means there needs to be a setting without tension. A little is ideal, a whole bunch isn't. I use mostly stock irons in my stanley planes, so I may have less than the average user. The planes with replacement irons now have thin replacements due to my laziness. 

When i tried the primus plane, I found the adjustments too abrupt. That was a plane whose advertising over here pointed out some large list of stanley shortcomings, but I find them to have a chippy iron and a mechanism that is a pain in the rear end, and tinny feeling. 

Lie Nielsen has done such a wonderful job on planes that I think if Woodcraft manages to come up with a gimmick, it'll be something that's difficult to find practical improvement from. I would never buy a plane made by luban/woodcraft based on the commentary as stated above, but don't begrudge other people the opportunity to. However, I was very disappointed to see that they have made their planes excessively heavy compared to the old standards (which would've been settled on based on the demands of a competent market, whereas the market now is beginners. That's not implying that all users are beginners, but the market of buyers is beginners). Weight was one of the things that prevented me from ever buying a clifton plane. 

I also noticed when I was learning to use the cap iron that a lie nielsen plane would feel much smoother through minor tearout than the stanley plane would. Some would find that preferable, but I want to be able to feel it.

More important than backlash (in terms of importance to me, at least) is the ability for the adjuster to move easily in both directions so that it can be spun quickly. Not sure what my worst plane is, but none have registered on the nuisance scale unless the adjuster wheel is hard to reach or doesn't turn easily.


----------



## Daniel Troy (5 Sep 2018)

I can't believe how much this blew up. Thanks you all for more information than I could possibly absorb, haha. Specific thanks should go to the 2% of respondents who tried to tell me why I should pick the Quangsheng over Wood River.


----------



## D_W (5 Sep 2018)

>>2% of respondents who tried to tell me why I should pick the Quangsheng over Wood River. <<

that's a little high, don't you think? Any actual question answering was probably accidental.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (5 Sep 2018)

So go on then... tell us what you chose in the end...the suspense is unbearable!


----------



## Bodgers (5 Sep 2018)

Just to add further to the noise-to-signal ratio, there is another option in the QS/Woodriver Luban group of planes that you might want to consider:

Juuma

I think they are a German brand as Dieter Schmid (Fine Tools) offer them. They don't sell junk. Postal rates to the UK are reasonable and they are very reliable (I have ordered several times from them).

They appear to be made by QS/Luban. Main spec difference seems to be a Bronze lever cap to further enhance the whiff of Lie Nielson.

I'll be able to report on my worthless opinion on them soon as I have just ordered a used No. 7.



Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dangermouse 2nd (9 Oct 2018)

Well just to throw in my pennies worth, I have several QS planes from Workshop Heaven and several LN planes, in my opinion both are of comparable quality and very much different cost. As to buying from a disreputable country, I'd think twice about saying that, if I came from the USA, shall we think back to genicide of the indiginous people, slavery in its worst practices, bigotry and prejudice against black people into the 1960's and beyond, still having a sizeable neo-nazi grouping on the far right and looking at LGBT people as less than human for decades.
People in glass houses.......


----------



## CStanford (10 Oct 2018)

All that didn't seem to matter much in the 1940s. I guess you talk your help where you can get it and ask questions later.


----------



## StraightOffTheArk (10 Oct 2018)

While I theoretically agree with the criticism of USA, we seem to have conveniently forgotten the British role in slavery, genocide, repression and war around the world when we were building and maintaining an empire - not that I think we should be beating ourselves up about it either, or that other races/countries aren't just as eager to exploit similar 'opportunities'.

Why does the sun never set on the British empire? Because God doesn't trust the British!

Long live perfidious Albion! - and cheap planes from countries with dodgy human rights records now that we can't outsource to remote parts of the empire where they won't ask inconvenient questions.


Tara a bit,

SOTA


----------



## Woody2Shoes (10 Oct 2018)

I think that if you criticize the USA over slavery, you simultaneously criticize the British empire for enabling/supporting and subsequently benefiting from it. Liverpool and Manchester, for example, are two cities which would have seen greatly less wealth flow through them if it weren't for all those cotton pickers - then there's the Tate Museums (as in Tate and Lyle sugar) etc etc.! There's an argument that says we're all as bad as each other - for example, the Germans and the Japanese did horrendous things to large numbers of people in WW2 and we buy our German cars and Japanese tools/gadgets.

Personally, as a believer in (regulated) capitalism, I usually prefer to buy what I perceive as best value for my money - unless a specific country is currently doing something particularly loathesome - that said, I still buy Saudi-originated fuel for my car, I still buy stuff from US/China whose low envinmental standards are appalling etc. etc.!

We are all interconnected - for good or ill.

Back on topic....

One slightly irritating feature of the Wood River planes is that at the top front of the casting there is a small embossed WR logo - I find this rubs against the side of my LH pinkie as I hold the front knob. I've flooded this with epoxy to make it smooth again!

Cheers, W2S


----------



## D_W (10 Oct 2018)

Dangermouse 2nd":2iksn4op said:


> Well just to throw in my pennies worth, I have several QS planes from Workshop Heaven and several LN planes, in my opinion both are of comparable quality and very much different cost. As to buying from a disreputable country, I'd think twice about saying that, if I came from the USA, shall we think back to genicide of the indiginous people, slavery in its worst practices, bigotry and prejudice against black people into the 1960's and beyond, still having a sizeable neo-nazi grouping on the far right and looking at LGBT people as less than human for decades.
> People in glass houses.......



I guess we didn't have India or China to slap around, so we had to take our frustrations out on our own people. 

You might want to think a little more if you're going to draw us up as having a history as bad or worse than China, though... at least as far as human rights go.

If you're going to bring up antisemitism here, you'd better look closer to home. It's half as prevalent here as it is in the uk and Europe, and we like to keep it confined to fringe groups, whereas it seems to be perfectly fine to be more mainstream there.


----------



## D_W (10 Oct 2018)

Woody2Shoes":2hu271s8 said:


> We are all interconnected - for good...
> ...



Well said. The USA has never been perfect. Anyone willing to look at their own country will find that neither has theirs been. 

China still has its lumps and bumps, but those will go away in time. Their wages have risen 3 1/2 times in ten years, so by the time they're fully civilized, the off brand planes will have to come from somewhere else.


----------



## StraightOffTheArk (10 Oct 2018)

D_W":3tovlr3a said:


> Woody2Shoes":3tovlr3a said:
> 
> 
> > We are all interconnected - for good...
> ...



Looking at a warts'n'all history of your own country/ethnic group is a necessary though often painful thing to do - 'but, I thought _we_ were the good guys!' and all that - e.g. my Grandma genuinely thought that India invited us to rule them because they couldn't do it for themselves, until I described the Mughal empire to her.
I've worked with people from all over the world and although culturally people might express themselves differently, essentially, we are all equal, usually equally bad unfortunately, but with occasional flashes of wonderfulness.

Tara a bit,

SOTA


----------



## Dangermouse 2nd (10 Oct 2018)

Ewww well stirred it there a bit didnt I.... If my post was read as meant, I wasn't compareing the USA to any other country, I was merely saying the USA isn't a paragon of virtue many would have us believe, " the american Dream " rollocks and all that etc.


----------



## Bodgers (10 Oct 2018)

Dangermouse 2nd":3az1auaz said:


> Ewww well stirred it there a bit didnt I.... If my post was read as meant, I wasn't compareing the USA to any other country, I was merely saying the USA isn't a paragon of virtue many would have us believe, " the american Dream " rollocks and all that etc.


I don't think that makes it any better.

Probably best to stay on topic rather than delve into armchair politics.

Sent from my Redmi Note 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vann (15 Oct 2018)

Dangermouse 2nd":rz0qvyzn said:


> ... As to buying from a disreputable country, I'd think twice about saying that, if I came from the USA, shall we think back to genicide of the indiginous people, slavery in its worst practices, bigotry and prejudice against black people into the 1960's and beyond, still having a sizeable neo-nazi grouping on the far right and looking at LGBT people as less than human for decades.
> People in glass houses.......


Hmm. I thought I was the one who raised the disreputable country issue. Somehow I'm in the wrong glasshouse (hammer) (unless they've recently moved New Zealand to your side of the equator, and across a bit :wink: ).

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (15 Oct 2018)

In the States, individuals need to listen less to politicians and media, and see what goes on around them.the talking heads tend to gin up discourse, while most just want to get on.

I own a manufacturing plant and export 65% of my goods (mostly parts for new cars), which are in turn assembled and many times come back into the states. Machinery is bought from all over the globe, and in the industrial market, suppliers are equal to the level you buy from. Workers? I know of no manufacturer that sees race, creed or color! We see parts produced and sales, mainly because we need that to stay in business.

Now, to the thread topic: out of curiousity, earlier this year, I bought a Woodriver model of the Stanley 18 block plane. I have any original to compare it against, and the Woodriver is excellent for anyone considering that sort of need.


----------



## JohnPW (16 Oct 2018)

I understand Quangsheng planes are completely devoid of any maker's name or branding, and they are completely anonymous, why is that?

If I was choosing, I would go for Woodriver, at least their planes has "Woodriver" on them. And also I quite like the knuckle joint design and no one else offers it.


----------



## Vann (17 Oct 2018)

JohnPW":2f5k8a76 said:


> I understand Quangsheng planes are completely devoid of any maker's name or branding, and they are completely anonymous...


Early Stanley planes were fairly anonymous. The only Stanley branding was the small print on the iron, lateral lever, and/or adjuster wheel. It wasn't until 1925 that the name "Stanley" was cast anywhere on the plane (on the lever cap).

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (18 Oct 2018)

JohnPW":2fp92zag said:


> I understand Quangsheng planes are completely devoid of any maker's name or branding, and they are completely anonymous, why is that?
> 
> If I was choosing, I would go for Woodriver, at least their planes has "Woodriver" on them. And also I quite like the knuckle joint design and no one else offers it.



The QS planes are pretty much devoid of branding - I assume this is to keep down manufacturing cost. I note that the branding on LN planes is pretty minimal too. I really don't see why brand marking makes any difference to the usefulness of the tool (in fact, as I mentioned previously, the WR logo on the main casting is a pain in the... finger!).

What do you mean by "knuckle joint design"?

Cheers, W2S


----------



## Bodgers (18 Oct 2018)

Some of their stuff has the 'Luban' brand mark.

If you look at their China site that's their brand.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (18 Oct 2018)

Bodgers":swbp8l84 said:


> Some of their stuff has the 'Luban' brand mark.
> 
> If you look at their China site that's their brand.



http://www.qstools.com/about.asp

I think Luban is their "own brand" - I believe you can buy Luban branded stuff in Germany and Australia, but not here in the UK as far as I know (Workshop Heaven and Rutlands would perhaps object). Looking at the pictures of nearly all the tools on their website, there is no branding e.g. http://www.qstools.com/Productsd.asp?ID=381


----------



## Bodgers (18 Oct 2018)

The infil plane and the 043 plough have the Luban mark on them. I think some of the others do as well.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Oct 2018)

Well. As the plane was apparently invented by Mr. Luban it's only right his name's on some of them.


----------



## Tony Zaffuto (18 Oct 2018)

Woody2Shoes":3tpu2eue said:


> JohnPW":3tpu2eue said:
> 
> 
> > I understand Quangsheng planes are completely devoid of any maker's name or branding, and they are completely anonymous, why is that?
> ...



I believe the poster is referring to the block plane knuckle cap, similar to the Stanley 15 and 18.


----------



## Vann (19 Oct 2018)

phil.p":35xpdt51 said:


> Well. As the plane was apparently invented by Mr. Luban it's only right his name's on some of them.


Are you sure they were invented by Mr Luban? I thought they were invented my Mr Woo - or at least he was the driving force behind them. Hence the name Woo driver...

I'll get my coat.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Oct 2018)

Vann":zcytnc5c said:


> phil.p":zcytnc5c said:
> 
> 
> > Well. As the plane was apparently invented by Mr. Luban it's only right his name's on some of them.
> ...



Dear oh dear!

You'll be telling us next that Mr Woo had a next-door neighbour called Mr Scroo ....

( ***Dives under bench to avoid flying offcuts*** )


----------



## Peter Sefton (19 Oct 2018)

Cheshirechappie":ktxnkap7 said:


> Vann":ktxnkap7 said:
> 
> 
> > phil.p":ktxnkap7 said:
> ...



and his brother Bus....


----------

