# ( Photos now shown ) IBC Matched Blade & Chipbreaker Set



## Blister (13 Jun 2011)

Hi 

Has anyone tried these in a Record / Stanley plane ?

Just wanted to know how successful it would be ?

Cheers :wink:


----------



## Scouse (14 Jun 2011)

Rob Cosman has a video in which he tries to flog them, interesting to note it has been up for a year or so, but re-edited recently so Veritas and Lie Nielsen's names are blanked out whenever they are mentioned!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLhsrjebG7w


----------



## Blister (14 Jun 2011)

Hi Scouse

I was going to get a blade set that fits The 2 3/8" for No.4 1/2, 5 1/2, 6 or 7 as I have these models 

Cheaper than buying new planes :lol: 

So it looks like I will be the first to have a go :wink:


----------



## markturner (14 Jun 2011)

I imagine that they would be very good, as they are very thick - I was going to buy one at the woodworking show and handled it, its a lovely piece of metal for sure! However, its almost certain that you will have to widen the throat on the planes by filing, ( I am sure you knew that already though) as the iron is so much thicker than the standard one. if you don't mind doing that then I would not hesitate!

let us know how you got on, I have one of my planes, a 605 bedrock that is iron less at the moment and I was thinking of on myself, as I have Hock irons in my other planes and fancied having an IBC just for the sake of completeness.....

Cheers, mark


----------



## Racers (14 Jun 2011)

Hi, Chaps

Just remember to file the BACK of the mouth not the front, then you can put back the standard blade and close the mouth right up.

Pete


----------



## Blister (14 Jun 2011)

I just ordered a set :lol: 

will be in the post ASAP 

:mrgreen:


----------



## Mike Wingate (14 Jun 2011)

I am interested in this set, as well as the DVD of plane fettling. I have watched his videos on various sites as well as details of his competitors products. Some U.S. forums rate his product. I have got my Stanley/Record working nicely with thin blades, but... I shall watch this space .


----------



## David C (14 Jun 2011)

I have fitted these blade and chipbreaker sets to a Stanley no 5 and a Stanley no 5 1/2 ~;-)#

They were on show at the Alexandra Palace show, and the Axminster Talking Tools show. They were available for people to try.

The result is totally satisfactory. There is a feeling of solidity which you don't get with a thin blade.

The accuracy and finish of both parts is outstanding.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## bugbear (15 Jun 2011)

David C":119qmf91 said:


> I have fitted these blade and chipbreaker sets to a Stanley no 5 and a Stanley no 5 1/2 ~;-)#
> 
> They were on show at the Alexandra Palace show, and the Axminster Talking Tools show. They were available for people to try.
> 
> ...



Where would you put them in the present (large) spectrum of after-market blades?

BugBear


----------



## Blister (15 Jun 2011)

OK boys and girls 

here are the photos :mrgreen:


----------



## Mike Wingate (15 Jun 2011)

Now for the results, Where did you purchase it from?


----------



## David C (15 Jun 2011)

The IBC blade and C/B sets are available from Classic Hand Tools.

Well Bugbear, that question is a bit of a minefield as I'm sure you are aware!

IBC blades are very flat, chipbreaker edge also very good, both needing minimum work. Edges are polished which is nice. 

The feature which makes them unique, are the tabs added to the Y lever slot. This makes it possible to fit the 3.6 (approx) blades straight into Stanley, Record, and similar Bailey planes. (maybe some mouth filing). No other aftermarket blade & C/B has this feature. That's why most replacement blades are around 2.4mm thick.

I should declare an interest as I was asked to test and endorse these blades. Some of you may have seen me quoted in a large advert in FW or POP Wood.

David Charlesworth


----------



## David C (14 Jul 2011)

Blister,

Have you fitted your blade yet?

David


----------



## Blister (15 Jul 2011)

David C":nv1l5lvr said:


> Blister,
> 
> Have you fitted your blade yet?
> 
> David




No not yet 

The plane I was going to use turned out to be a 1902 model type 9 so decided not to modify that one 

so currently scanning the the net for a project plane


----------



## Richard T (15 Jul 2011)

Makes sense when you think aboot it.


----------



## Mike Wingate (15 Jul 2011)

I have bought a 2" set from Classic. Arrived within 48hrs. Nice bit of kit. Spent some time with the 1200 diamond stone followed by the 8000 ceramic stone to get the back flat. sharpened the 30 degree bevel on the ceramic, quite easy. Tried 3 planes, fitted well with no mouth filing in the Record Marples. Then I found that with 1mm of blade protruding beyond the back iron (my usual setting - what blade projection do you guys normally use?) I could not get a thick shaving, only fine. The central screw holding the blade assembly and lever cap iron was fouling on the small hole in the back iron, not slot as on the standard vanadium blades. Phoned up Classic, they suggested filing the mouth and following the instructions on the packaging. Filing a recess on the back iron sorted that out. I can get all range of thickness shavings out of the plane, but I have run out of forward motion on the blade adjuster. It has jammed up. Next thing to do is to remove 1mm off the 2 supports on the plane casting and off the front 2 angles of the frog. The blade does cut really well, good shavings, The blade is sharp and does retain its edge. It does work better than the vanadium Stanley/record blades and the Japanese laminated steel blades that I use. £75 better? I was intrigued, so I bought one. I may buy a wider one for use in my other planes. Would I have been better buying a Veritas or Lie_Nielson? I already had a range of planes.


----------



## Mike Wingate (15 Jul 2011)

Problem solved. School milling machine in a mess, so I went back to my workshop and with a file, took 40 good controlled swipes at the frog in 2 places. a little bit of filing on the body of the plane on the 2 upstands that take the rear of the frog, and all is well. Thick to thin shavings, with the adjustment wheel now in the centre of travel with no jams. What a nice plane and planing action. Less effort to plane the wood, Rock Maple at the moment, no sanding neccessary. So quite a few (4 or 5) hours to strip and fettle the plane. But for less than £100, my new short Record Marples shortNo.5 is as good as the Veritas and Lie-Nielsons that I have access to from a well off friend.O.K. my labour time is cheap but satisfaction rating is very high. This is all about technology, the ability to solve problems. If it does not work, hit it with a bigger hammer!.


----------



## David C (15 Jul 2011)

Mike,

I think you have done very well. Your posts highlight the variations of size that existed in plane manufacture. Particularly in the length of chipbreakers.

I fitted IBC kits to a USA Stanley No 5 & an English 5 1/2, with no other work but a little mouth filing. The results are superb.

Best wishes,
David


----------



## Mike Wingate (15 Jul 2011)

If the chipbreaker was 3mm longer there would have been fewer problems. My US no 4 plane is 1/2" shorter than my 2 English counterparts. Itis only 1/4" longer than my English no.3. I thought all these planes were built to a standard?. I am still really pleased with the new set-up. It works a treat.It may cost a lot of money. But not as much as my 4 x 8"x 3" Ezelaps and the Polish ceramic 8000 stone. I built my own benches and do make real things, furniture, guitars, archery target stands etc. I teach and use my own tools giving kids skills and giving them a pride and satisfaction of success and pride in their skills.


----------



## condeesteso (15 Jul 2011)

A question I have - These are doubtless very good, and others are too. But if I was looking for the very best after-market blade that did NOT require any mouth adjustment (obv irreversible) which would that be?? I have a Hock in my Stanley No3 and that is great, nicely fairly thin too. So seriously, the best after-market blades that do not require a mouth re-work??


----------



## Mike Wingate (15 Jul 2011)

I have not filed the mouth on this Record/Marples. But did on another Record 5. If you file the back of the mouth you can move the frog to compensate for mouth width. I really thin it is case of suck it and see.


----------



## David C (15 Jul 2011)

Douglas,

Hock, L-N and Veritas all make excellent blades at about 2.4mm thick. These are designed to fit Stanley etc. without adjusting mouth width ( although this is a simple enough filing job).

Veritas have started offering lapped blades, which will save some work.

Many are available in A2 or 01 steel.

David Charlesworth


----------



## robcosman (15 Jul 2011)

Not sure, why are some folks so concerned about filing the mouth of their plane? The idea is to improve the performance of the "tool" by adding a better and thicker blade than what came as original equipment. Comments please.
Rob Cosman


----------



## condeesteso (15 Jul 2011)

Hi Robcosman - 2 reasons: I tend to keep and use the original (which is often a really good blade, witness the various laminated blades on old Stanleys and Records) so widening the mouth hinders the performance of the original blade a lot. Second is pure fear! - to change a 100 yr old plane in a way I cannot reverse hurts a bit.
So, David - it will be another Hock for me for no technical reason, but the one I have is great, and I like his 'Good news, bad news' sharpening instructions that came with my first. But all 3 are very good I accept. I am not ready to get the files out. Each to our own of course.


----------



## Vann (17 Jul 2011)

If you want to improve the performance of an old plane without fitting a thick iron, consider fitting a thick cap-iron. A good thick cap-iron will dampen vibration (chatter) and should not require any alteration to your plane.

I don't know if Rob offers cap-irons without the cutting iron (although his tabs would be un-necessary in this case), but thick cap-irons are available from Lie-Nielsen or Clifton. Hock and Lee-Valley also have replacement cap-irons available, but I'm not sure of thickness. Quangsheng cap-irons are also thicker, but like Rob's IBC, I'm not sure if they're available separately.

As for old plane mouths, my motley collection of old Record planes have mouths between 4.40mm and 4.75mm - far too small to fit a thick iron without modification of the mouth. On the other hand my Record-Marples SP4 (circa 1995) has a 6.25mm mouth (I've only kept it out of interest, and in case I want to fit a thick iron without filing the mouth of a plane).

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Richard T (17 Jul 2011)

robcosman wrote: "Not sure, why are some folks so concerned about filing the mouth of their plane?"

Hi Rob, I guess Stanley and Record types simply don't have enough mouth to take such a thick iron even with the frog as far back as poss. They were, after all, designed for a piddlin' littlun. Hence the need to open up a bit. 

Fab looking kit BTW 8)


----------



## David C (17 Jul 2011)

Memory says I only had to file about 0.75 mm from the throats of the planes. The frog was moved as far back as possible.

My feeling is that reluctance to file afflicts collectors rather than users?

Users want performance and that is what you get.

best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## Alf (17 Jul 2011)

Dunno; I think the reluctance afflicts more than just collectors. Oddly, for a hobby that's all about being hands-on and can-do, there's a surprising amount of reluctance to take the same attitude to the very tools used for the job. Also, if you can get the results you want with an after market iron that _doesn't_ require you to file your plane, it's possible that some of us (yes, I'm one) don't really feel the difference is worth taking a swing at a plane that might have survived 100 years+ without some enthusiast taking a file to it. Not fear or collecting, just respect for the elderly.


----------



## jimi43 (17 Jul 2011)

I might be wrong but isn't the whole idea of this set i.e. the differential marketing benefit....that is doesn't need alteration to either the yolk pin or the mouth...?

If that's not the case and if you have to file the mouth for "some" planes...why stop at that thickness...why not go the whole hog and get a really fat one?

The marketing aims directly at retrofitting an antique plane which by implication suggests not hurting it.....or did I read that wrong as well?

The tabs are a really clever solution though...and I assume that with a matched set...the slot lines the iron up beautifully with the chipbreaker...?

As I am one of these neanderthals who prefers 01 steel over A2 steel...I don't think I would get one but it is interesting to see how these perform from others here! We need shavings!!! :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## robcosman (17 Jul 2011)

Guess i have a different take on the matter. I respect the "old" tools but my purpose is to work the wood. if filing the mouth is going to improve the performance whether to accommodate a better blade or to simply offer more support of the wood fiber as close to the cutting edge as possible, so be it! Do we "not" sharpen the saw because doing so will eventually wear it away? I think this can be carried to the point of ridiculous, the tools are just that, tools! I take lots of heat for using composite handles on my saws, it is easier to work than wood, it is heavier than wood, no finish to deal with or have wear off, bottom line, so what? Use the tool to do the work. Last time i checked none of the great designer/craftsman I am aware of displayed their tools with the furniture at the gallery opening! I wonder if the power tool crowd get as attached to their bandsaw, change the tires, heaven forbid!! thoughts?
Rob Cosman


----------



## jimi43 (17 Jul 2011)

This world would be a dull place if we were all the same .....as the saying goes.

I personally would rather see the tools at an exhibition than the furniture...always assuming they don't have plastic handles that is! :mrgreen: 

Without getting into the "collector/user" debate again ](*,) - there are people in the world...like me...who admire tools from the past (and great ones from the present) and use each and every one of them with great pleasure. A saw with a gorgeous handle...like the ones from Two Lawyers or this little beauty from esteemed member Stewie...







...don't cut any better but they sure make me smile! They are heirloom creations.

I fully understand those who use tools as utilitarian items...I just see some as one step beyond that.

Jim


----------



## Mike Wingate (17 Jul 2011)

To improve you often have to adjust, adapt and change tools, parts and tactics. Tools are tools. My racing bike is a tool/machine to get me from A to B safely and as quick as possible if I am racing. I change the parts, either as they wear, or to improve or lighten the machine in the hope of improvements. The same with the tools. I respect tools, but an old tool is just that. It is not a precious museum piece, of deserving to be in a display cabinet, but one I have bought to use. I am not afraid to file, grind or upgrade, as I have the skills and tools, these things either in my genes or learned over many years of reading, watching and doing. I have a very nice and heavy, short Record/Marples No.5 with Bubinga woodwork and a Cosman blade and chipbreaker that works very well. A good tool to use.


----------



## jimi43 (17 Jul 2011)

Well at least you have Bubinga handles on it Mike! =D> 

I agree with your right to an opinion even if I disagree with that opinion....this is the issue.

I think that some tools are as, if not more beautiful than most works of art...indeed some are works of art.

There are some who think this way and thankfully...through their work and research...the history of our great hobby/profession will be preserved for our kids and grandkids...

Anyway...that's my view...we are off track here...

Jim


----------



## ali27 (18 Jul 2011)

I can say that even with my limited experience tuning
a plane and woodworking in general, I filed the mouth
of my stanley to fit a thicker blade. 

It's quite easy, just determine how much you need to
open the mouth and then with a square draw the line
and start filing.

Much improved performance! AND the plane looks exactly
the same. 

Better performance and the tool looks the same(actually better
with the new thicker blade and chipbreaker).

Ali


----------



## Mike Wingate (19 Jul 2011)

I have found my Japanese Laminated steel blade. Sharpened it (another story for another time) and honed it on abrasive papers and 8000 grit ceramic. It is a 2" blade and fits my 4 and 5 planes without any adjustments. It planes Maple and Oak really well, Iroko really well and Ebony. Is it better than the Rob Cosman? It is good! A new one costs £40 plus, uses a standard back iron and fits a plane with no filing. It has a 2mm thick blade. I will get a 2 3/8" for my other planes. What do I do about a back iron. Clifton 2 piece or whatever Record/Stanley I have?


----------



## beech1948 (19 Jul 2011)

So lets see.
I might have to file back the mouth of my plane even though CBT says not.
I have to pay £75 for the steel.

To me that's the rub. £75 is too much for a plane blade. I think that Rob Cosman's name adds nothing and this use of his name only detracts from his talent and skills. There is no way that blades should cost so much with so little, so very little added value. Great marketing but essentially you pay for the privilege of buying a blade with a well known personality name attached not for the product or functionality.

Now you wont all agree of course. So I'm going to find some O1 and if possible some A2 steel and turn out my own blades, should give my mill a work out. I'll let you know how it goes and if I burn the workshop down when heat treating.
Alan


----------



## Blister (19 Jul 2011)

> essentially you pay for the privilege of buying a blade with a well known personality name attached



Isn't that the same if you buy a plane ? LN Veritas Clifton + the top end hand made market , They all plane wood but at different prices


----------



## condeesteso (19 Jul 2011)

Mike - tell us more - exactly which blade, where from etc. I know that filing the mouth is no big deal, but it does feel a bit like butchery to me on an old plane. So any other option is of real interest to me, and I do like laminated blades.


----------



## Vann (20 Jul 2011)

Mike Wingate":14nwajye said:


> What do I do about a back iron. Clifton 2 piece or whatever Record/Stanley I have?


If you can put up with the disadvatage of a 2-piece (i.e. the deflector falling off if you forget to put your finger on it), then enjoy the advantages (extra thickness, best clamping effect).

If you can't handle the 2-piece, then get a thick 1-piece cap-iron from someone else (L-N, LV, etc.) and put the original cap-iron aside in case you ever sell the plane. If you do ever on-sell it, it'll be worth more with the original cap-iron, and with the mouth un-filed.

My tuppence worth...

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## jimi43 (20 Jul 2011)

There are some seriously interesting cap irons on Workshop Heaven from Quangsheng (click picture to go to site).





If their quality of cap irons is the same as the irons then they are a bargain!

Jim

*P.S. I have no commercial connection with either Quangsheng or Workshop Heaven. I'm just suitably impressed.*


----------



## Mike Wingate (20 Jul 2011)

Japanese Blade Details. Mine is an FTI, Fine Tool Imports. I think from a chap called Roger Busey? Many years ago. I bought rubber oilstones and similar products from him in the 70/80's The Axminster models may be a similar product. The Quangsheng back iron looks a good one. Has anyone got one, does it fit, o I need to file it? If you get a similar Japanese blade to mine you will have fun sharpening it!


----------



## Andrea (20 Jul 2011)

beech1948":26pog248 said:


> So lets see.
> I might have to file back the mouth of my plane even though CBT says not.
> I have to pay £75 for the steel.
> 
> To me that's the rub. £75 is too much for a plane blade. I think that Rob Cosman's name adds nothing and this use of his name only detracts from his talent and skills. There is no way that blades should cost so much with so little, so very little added value. Great marketing but essentially you pay for the privilege of buying a blade with a well known personality name attached not for the product or functionality.



I think, more or less, in the same way.

Is there anyone here who has tried Blades and Cap Irons for Stanley/Record made by Veritas?
http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.a ... 82&p=66868
I think that with them you should not need to file the mouth, but as far as I know, no one sell them here in Europe.

And the same question for Workshop Heaven Y-levers, properly extended, in order to mount Quangsheng blades on Stanley/Record planes, anyone as tried them?
http://workshopheaven.com/cgi-bin/cp-ap ... heng+Irons


----------



## David C (21 Jul 2011)

I have the Veritas blade and chipbreaker here. The c/b is very nice but the outstanding feature, is that the back of the blade is lapped to a very fine finish indeed.
Preparation time is thus massively reduced.

Interesting that QS, IBC & Veritas have all "adopted" the L-N chipbreaker design.

For the Y levers someone needs to check whether the pin hole matches the Stanley pin.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Vann (21 Jul 2011)

David C":2qqhsjnt said:


> For the Y levers someone needs to check whether the pin hole matches the Stanley pin.


When I ordered one, Matthew asked whether it was for a Clifton or Record/Stanley, as they make them with different size pin holes.

Without checking the WH site I don't know which ones he's got in stock, but you can get either.


Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Benchwayze (23 Jul 2011)

Now we are going to have some discussion on whether it is the back of the mouth or the front that needs attention. 
Filing is not my forte'! 

The back of the mouth would need accurate work to make sure the frog rests in line with the mouth. .
The front of the mouth would mean there is a lot of overhang with a standard blade.

But then, as I wouldn't be bothering to put back a standard blade, I think I would attack the front of the mouth myself. 
It's as well I have a number of old Baileys I can experiment with! :mrgreen: 

John


----------



## David C (23 Jul 2011)

John,

I have always done front of throat, but I know there are other opinions. 

Yes I don't think you will be reverting to a thin blade  

David


----------



## Benchwayze (23 Jul 2011)

Thanks David. 

I have an old No4, but first I am going to try a Clifton blade, which I also have in the cupboard. 
It would be a good exercise to compare with the IBC set-up.

Edit:

Come to think of it, I have a Record 5-1/2 badly in need of rescuing. This might be a chance to get a nice Jack for a decent price. I might even sell my Clifton! 


Regards 
John


----------



## jimi43 (23 Jul 2011)

Benchwayze":35k6o9xi said:


> Now we are going to have some discussion on whether it is the back of the mouth or the front that needs attention.
> Filing is not my forte'!
> 
> The back of the mouth would need accurate work to make sure the frog rests in line with the mouth. .
> ...



For most of these modifications we are simply talking about 1mm or less...for instance...the QS iron would need a couple of thou on my 5 1/2 to fit...even though it is staying put in Alex! 8) 

In actual fact...if you are going to file out the mouth at all...the back is easier. Take the frog out and carefully put one layer of masking tape over it taking care not to overlap or tape a sheet of thin plastic to it and move it back so that a fraction of the mouth is proud.

Using a fairly course flat mid size file (a good make and sharp!)...work from the sole in using the frog as your guide. This keeps the bevel angle correct too. Once you are level with the frog test the iron/cap assembly and repeat if necessary.

Once you get clearance carry on until you get the mouth gap you want and then finish by draw filing across the mouth (hold both ends of the file and work across the mouth from side to side.

Whatever the iron thickness...the optimum position for the frog is in-line with the bevel of the rear of the sole mouth making one continuous metal support for the iron right up to the end so one option is to set this and then file the front of the mouth as David says. However, the mouth will now be optimised for that thickness of iron and no other.

Good luck...like you say..practice on a basketcase and get your confidence before you play with a rare one (if ever!) :wink: 

Jim


----------



## Paul Chapman (23 Jul 2011)

I always file the front of the mouth. As others have said, when you experience the benefits of a thick blade, you won't want to put the thin one back.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Benchwayze (23 Jul 2011)

Jim, 

I don't have any rare planes. :mrgreen: 

The rarest I ever owned was a Spiers infill Coffin smoother. It was too small for my right hand, so I sold it on. (It cost me a tenner at an antique fair in the 80s and it was a nice user. But as I said, even with my pointy-forefinger grip, the handle felt cramped. 

So no worries about ruining a rare plane Jim! 

Paul, 

I look at it this way... If all Baileys had an adjustable mouth, it would of course be the front of the mouth I would adjust. So I'll try that first to get my hand in! 

John


----------



## Alf (24 Jul 2011)

I have a hazy recollection of someone observing that filing the front of the mouth gave the added advantage of filing away the likely wear to be found there on an older plane. Am I imagining that? BB?


----------



## Racers (25 Jul 2011)

Hi,

The back of the mouth is a non critical part on the plane so you could hack it away with an axe. the back edge doesn't support the blade it only jams it if the mouth isn't wide enough for a thick blade.
I would always file the back may be a quick tickle up ot the front the give a little clearance.

Ware on the front edge could be a problem but I haven't experienced it, maybe lapping the sole has cured any of my planes that had that problem.


Pete


----------



## Mike Wingate (4 Aug 2011)

I have just recieved a pair of Quangsheng chipbreakers from Workshop Heaven's Ebay store. The whole ordering and delivery went really smoothly. I ordered and they arrived 2 days later. Well packaged, each chipbreaker in it's own plastic wallet, complete with screw. I have spent 20 secs fitting the 2" chipbreaker to my old Japanese Laminated steel blade, dropping it straight into a Stanley No.4 plane and playing with it for nearly an hour. Perfect fit, no filing nor fettling required at all, unlike my initail panic and then thought through solutions for getting my Rob Cosman combo to work. It probably matches the performance of the Rob Cosman setup, but the joy of being able to slip it into a no.4 or 5 plane is great. I am waiting for an Axminster sourced 2 3/8" Laminated blade to go with the other Quangsheng that I purchased. This will then be able to fit into my 4 1/2, 5 1/2, 6 and 7 planes with no problems. So much better than my Record/Stanley blades even though they have a keen edge. I am tempted to buy a Quangsheng blade and chipbreaker for my No.3 plane.Well done Workshop Heaven.


----------



## jimi43 (4 Aug 2011)

Hi Mike

Just a word of warning...you might like to check with Matthew at WSH that the set fits...the one I bought for my infill panel plane didn't fit my No.51/2.....but only just too big. If you do need to file it won't be much. The No.3 may very well fit straight off.

Jimi


----------



## Recky33 (4 Aug 2011)

Mike

I have a Qs blade on my Record No 3, you can try out if you want.

Allan


----------



## Mike Wingate (8 Aug 2011)

New Japanese Laminated 2 2/8" blade from Axminster is the same brand as my old one. It has taken a keen edge and is now mated to a Quangsheng chipbreaker. I must start fettling up the no.7 plane.


----------



## Mike Wingate (17 Aug 2011)

Reeived my Quangsheng chipbreaker (my 3rd as I am quite impressed with them) and the 1 3/4" QS blade, both for my Stanley no.3. Dont fit, too thick. Back in Rob Cosman territory. Filed the base of the frog in 3 places, taken off 1mm, lapped the front of the frog. Test fit, blade fouled mouth. 1mm off front of the mouth which was not parallel and worn. Even the Y-lever works. What a plane and blade como, all for £43 plus a couple of hours work. Very impressed with the QS blade, but will stick to the Axminster SmoothCut laminated blades and QS chipbreakers next time, they just drop in with no problems.


----------



## Vann (18 Aug 2011)

Mike Wingate":2kepk0o4 said:


> Reeived my Quangsheng chipbreaker (my 3rd as I am quite impressed with them) and the 1 3/4" QS blade, both for my Stanley no.3...
> ...but will stick to the Axminster SmoothCut laminated blades and QS chipbreakers next time, they just drop in with no problems.


I see the Samurai laminated irons only come in 2" and 2 3/8" so I guess that wasn't an option for your Stanley No.3 anyway. 
Of course you could have bought a British Clifton iron instead of that QS ! (hammer) 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Mike Wingate (18 Aug 2011)

But the Quangsheng was so cheap, and I was so pleased with the 2 other chipbreakers. My No.3 works really well, there is plenty of adjustment and the frog is at the front of it's travel lined up with the angle of the rar of the mouth. The blade (and a bit more fettling) have so improved the plane. Similar quality of cut to My Rob Cosman set. The Japanese blades are sharper. I have been planing leather glued to ply, for some more strops. The Laminated steel blades slice and leave a cleaner edge, they all cut, but it is about the finish. The low angle blade in my QS62 leaves a really smooth surface, that is burnished by the sole of the plane. With a wipe of wax, it just glides over the wood. I will grind the blade on the Tormk and see if the concave edge has any more benefits to the performance. No more rubbing wood with abrasive, if I can get a plane to it.


----------

