# Quansheng No.4 Review/Impressions: Updated with pictures



## ByronBlack (10 May 2010)

Well, after a bit of waiting, my QS No.4 arrived today. My initial impressions is 'wow'. For the money, the really have gone all out on the presentation.

The hardwood box is a really nice surprise, and is guarenteed to keep the tool save/rust free for quite some time. 

It feels solid, and the overall quality of the castings and finish is very high. There are no real obvious areas that could require fettling or improving (casting).

Backlash seems minimal, I really like the shape of the handles and will not be changing these like a few others have, they seem to fit my hand really well.

The chipbreaker and blade are nice and thick, and flat.

Later on, I'll do some actual testing (I just received some Iroko for my deck chair build) and will post some pictures and more information on how I find the sharpening/fettling/flattening process.

If they perform as well as they look and feel, I think I've got a bargain and can see a small 'family' of QS planes breeding in my workshop in the near future.


----------



## bugbear (10 May 2010)

ByronBlack":1ezoh34q said:


> Later on, I'll do some actual testing (I just received some Iroko for my deck chair build)



Iroko is a good test ;-)

BugBear


----------



## ByronBlack (10 May 2010)

bugbear":w29kt89z said:


> ByronBlack":w29kt89z said:
> 
> 
> > Later on, I'll do some actual testing (I just received some Iroko for my deck chair build)
> ...



That's what I thought. I had a few problems when I made a little Iroko side table using my old Records a while back and resorted to the ROS - it'll be a good comparison to see how this one holds up - I might try a back bevel and compare the results.


----------



## bugbear (10 May 2010)

ByronBlack":q68ppnc4 said:


> bugbear":q68ppnc4 said:
> 
> 
> > ByronBlack":q68ppnc4 said:
> ...



If you're trying to do a QS vs Record test, don't do a high EP versus low EP test.

Apples and Oranges and all that.

BugBear


----------



## ByronBlack (10 May 2010)

BB - I will only be comparing the higher EP vs the low EP of the QS - I won't be comparing the Higher EP QS to the Record, as you rightly point out, it wouldn't be a comparable test.


----------



## woodbloke (10 May 2010)

I had a look at one at YOKB and was impressed...mucho bang for the buck :wink: - Rob


----------



## OPJ (10 May 2010)

I was also impressed with the rebating block plane during the Passaround, earlier this year. I can't compare it to the Lie-Nielsen as I've never even held one but I can't imagine the L-N can be that-much better...  It's a shame they're out of stock at the moment otherwise, I'd buy one right now (they're ideal for cutting raised panels by hand! :wink.


----------



## ByronBlack (10 May 2010)

Ok, so this is a picture heavy post. I've just finished playing about with this for the last 4 or so hours - my conclusion at the end.

Received:






Testing the flatness of the sole - added some marker lines:





A few swipes across 3M 60micron film:





Lines all uniformely gone after just three swipes:





I then went onto to polish the sole - didn't take very long at all (5 or so mins).

Now to test the flatness of the back of the Iron - again, some marker lines added:





Three swipes on white 3m lapping film - all gone!:





I went on to polish the back using the ruler trick so easy and quick, took less than 5 minutes to get a mirror shine:





Time to hone a micro-bevel on the blade - this is my quick set jig:





Again, in absolutely no time at all - a beautiful mirrored bevel (30 degree):





Going straight in with some nasty Iroko:





Pretty Impressive:





All the interlocked grain is now gone leaving a polished silky finish:





Not impressed? How about some poorly bandsawn rock hard macassa ebony?





Here just a few swipes across one of the high-points - polished!





How about the shavings from some hard beech?





And finally - some rosewood (this wasn't in that bad a condition to start with):





Rosewood After:





Conclusion:

This is the singly most impressive hand-tool/plane I have purchased. With less than 20 minutes setting up, I was able to take shavings of the like I never achieved with hours of honing/fettling older stanley/records - including the ones on the bruce luckhurst course I attended.

For this money, I see absolutely no reason for me to spend more for an LN or a LV - IMO this is more impressive than either the LN or LV planes I have owned in terms of performance to cost.

I have not a single complaint about this plane, and I was expecting at least a few 'gotchas' - but there are none. It's super easy to adjust, the chipbreaker is excellent and required no fettling. The blade is thick and holds a great edge - after all the hardwoods I had tried it on, it was still sharp and cutting some nasty old chipboard edges with ease.

There will be undoubtedly a No.6 in my future. These are the heirloom quality hand-tools that I have always wanted, but were always too expensive to buy, but not anymore. 

If you are undecided about buying one of these, don't hesitate, splash the cash today you won't be disappointed. I am one very happy bunny.


----------



## woodbloke (11 May 2010)

BB - nice review. As I said earlier, they're great bits of kit for the wonga. Handles is something that I'd replace later on but the ones supplied are perfectly adequate - Rob


----------



## ByronBlack (11 May 2010)

Rob - what is it about the handles you don't like? Is it the aesthetics? To use, I find them very comfortable - certainly more comfortable than an old Stanley No.5 I had that gave me terrible blisters during use. Looks-wise they are quite dull with no pattern, but thats fine with me, I guess it keeps the cost down a little.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (11 May 2010)

Thanks BB

Did you have any other planes to compare on the same woods, say a Stanley with a sharp blade? What about including a LN of the same model/configuration. These would be decent references for comparison.

While you went from this ...






... to this ...






.. I still see a great deal of tearout. Hardly "All the interlocked grain is now gone leaving a polished silky finish". What am I missing? 

Not a criticism - this is a decent performance from a common pitch plane on interlocked wood, that is, I doubt you'd do much better without a higher pitch.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## ByronBlack (11 May 2010)

Derek - I'm comparing against a Record using the same sharpening method - I don't have the plane anymore, but I couldn't get the same results.

In the photo of the Iroko, it's not the entire plank that I planed (didn't have time to do everything), and because I only took the photo with an iPhone, it's difficult to see the smooth polish finish.

I'd advise buying one for yourself and testing against your other collection of planes, you would undoubtedly do a much better test than I.

EDIT: When I get in this evening, I'll see if I can take a better shot of the Iroko to try and show the finish that was left - which is better than what can be seen in that photo. My lighting isn't great in the workshop, so some shots aren't as good as I hoped.


----------



## woodbloke (11 May 2010)

ByronBlack":3gjll5dj said:


> Rob - what is it about the handles you don't like? Is it the aesthetics?


I'm not sure if that dark colour is natural or whether it's much lighter underneath?... so one or two dings might show up the true colour. It's not critical, but I'd probably make a couple of handles to suit later on out of something like a bit of decentish mahog - Rob


----------



## ByronBlack (11 May 2010)

I can confirm that it is something lighter underneath - I scratched it a little and the lighter wood shows up.


----------



## ByronBlack (11 May 2010)

Derek: here is another test I did earlier on the Iroko.

First shot untouched:





Now planed:





I tried a seperate piece, and used a cabinet scraper - the results were the same but without the shine/polish which unfortunately doesn't show up too great on the phone camera.

As noted in the second picture, the tear-out is gone, and the board is perfectly smooth.


----------



## neilc (11 May 2010)

Very nice review BB. Veritas is my weakness but this provides plenty of food for thought in these tight times.
Neil


----------



## OPJ (11 May 2010)

That does look very good, from where I'm sitting. 

By the way, if you have fluorescent lights in your workshop, try fitting daylight tubes instead of the bog-standard 'white' ones. They should make quite a difference, even if you don't have many of them. Of course, if you did want to add more lights, you could simply stick a plug on one end and operate them like that (no need to get an electrician involved!). :wink:


----------



## ByronBlack (12 May 2010)

Neil - I don't think you would be disapointed, and you could get two of these for the price of one veritas.

OPJ - I do have this on my tuit list. I've always had issues with the flourescent lights, and will eventually get round to using daylight bulbs.


----------



## Jervisekken (13 May 2010)

A couple of questions, Byron:

I don't quite get your blade flattening and sharpening procedure. Could you explain that in more detail, please? I use the David Charlesworth triple bevel method myself, but it seems you skip a few steps?

That 3M product you use for flattening seems interesting. Do you have any idea of how coarse it is, compared with ordinary sandpaper?

What do you use under that paper when flattening. It looks like MDF, but surely it can't be?


----------



## jimi43 (14 May 2010)

Great review BB!

I take it that there is float glass over that MDF/Chipboard....?

I think I might go find a piece of IROKO...much though I hate it...want to do more tests with my iron tests on the halvers I restored. The only reverse grain stuff that I had was the mahogany and that didn't phase the irons but iroko is a different animal entirely!

I tend not to use the stuff because it irritates me intensely...same effect I get with Rockwool...I itch like hell using it.

Assume that is an Eclipse jig you have there...judging by the bottom photo...? It may be my eyesight or the reflection but has it skewed the microbevel a tad?






I have to get one of these...they make a No.3 don't they? I need a No.3 and that might just be the one to get. Everything else up to No.7 I have and I am satisfied with.


I am also getting some lapping film from Matt when I get around to it...

One last note...I absolutely hate that chrome bling cap...shame...if that was brushed it would be so much better and probably cheaper...(I know it makes no difference to the plane but I still don't like it...it cheapens it!)

Oh...and ALF made a superb job of taking the "Marmite" off the handles back to beautiful natural whitewood....I much preferred that look.


Jim


----------



## woodguy7 (14 May 2010)

Nice review. I just fitted my workshop out with daylight tubes yesterday. Wow, cant belive the improvement  

Woodguy


----------



## ByronBlack (14 May 2010)

Geir":c4i0ukd9 said:


> A couple of questions, Byron:
> 
> I don't quite get your blade flattening and sharpening procedure. Could you explain that in more detail, please? I use the David Charlesworth triple bevel method myself, but it seems you skip a few steps?
> 
> ...



Hi Geir,

For flattening, I just rub the back along the various grits until I get a mirror finish. I use a thin ruler which goes underneath the back of the blade which pitches it up a tad, this has the effect of only polishing the tip of the back (which means less work).

As for the sharpening, i don't bother with triple bevels, I don't see the point personally. I establish a 25 degree primary bevel by going through the various grits. Then I do the very same thing, but with the blade set in the jig to establish a 30 degree bevel.

The lapping film I'm using is 40/15/5 micron, you can find the direct comparison and more information from workshopheaven.com

Despite some shock, all I use as a substrate is plain old MDF - it's perfectly flat and accepts the film with spray mount exceptionally well.

Jim: 

No glass - just MDF

It is an eclipse jig, I have no idea what number it is though, its the one with the a single wheel, which makes cambering very easy, the bevel looks wonky due to my rubbish photography and lighting skills, I actually ground a very slight camber onto the blade, but the camera just can't seem to pick up the details very well.

I don't mind the marmite so much, or the chrome cap, but then I'm really not bothered by the looks of the tools (see the hideous finish of the rider block, doesn't bother me one bit if it cuts well).

Hope that helps.


----------



## bugbear (14 May 2010)

jimi43":3sqtizke said:


> Assume that is an Eclipse jig you have there...judging by the bottom photo...? It may be my eyesight or the reflection but has it skewed the microbevel a tad?



An Eclipse didn't skew the micro-bevel; the user did.

An Eclipse's roller is no where near wide enough to have any say in the matter, one way or the other.

I'm always amused when people say they like the Eclipse because it always holds the blade square (being side clamping), despite the fact that due to the narrow roller, it doesn't matter much wether the blade is square in the jig or not!

I like the Eclipse because it does the important thing (controls the bevel), while still allowing operator tweaking of other things.

BugBear


----------



## ByronBlack (14 May 2010)

bugbear":z24hks78 said:


> jimi43":z24hks78 said:
> 
> 
> > Assume that is an Eclipse jig you have there...judging by the bottom photo...? It may be my eyesight or the reflection but has it skewed the microbevel a tad?
> ...



Exactly the reason I like it; cambering is very easy to do on these. And a lot cheaper than the veritas doohickey with the added camber wotsit.


----------



## jimi43 (14 May 2010)

I am aware of the Eclipse and the benefit of the narrow roller and cambers bugbear...I have one too. :wink: It just looked skewed in the light because the other side did not reflect.....

I prefer to get the microbevel straight and then just whip of the extremes by hand. It works for me.

BB...the QS finish and quality certainly looks more controlled than the RIDER from the example you received from Axminster. 

Jim


----------



## ByronBlack (14 May 2010)

jimi43":1eiif10m said:


> I am aware of the Eclipse and the benefit of the narrow roller and cambers bugbear...I have one too. :wink: It just looked skewed in the light because the other side did not reflect.....
> 
> I prefer to get the microbevel straight and then just whip of the extremes by hand. It works for me.
> 
> ...


0

Jim - the finish of the QS is exceptional. You wouldn't feel ripped off if it cost a lot more than it does.


----------



## jimi43 (14 May 2010)

ByronBlack":ng5a9w8x said:


> Jim - the finish of the QS is exceptional. You wouldn't feel ripped off if it cost a lot more than it does.



Given that exceptional review...perhaps the Rider is not so hot as is first thought:







Perhaps this little baby would be another winner....and only £15 more...

I am saving up for theNo.3 bedrock ...you have sold QS to me and I can get over the initial chrome dislike I had at the YOKB... :wink: 

Jim


----------



## ByronBlack (14 May 2010)

Jim,

I would have gone for the QS block in a hearbeat if it were available. But I was also intrigued to see how the axminster performed. I may even get the QS block and do a side by side test.

I think you'll be very happy with the No.3 if it's as good as my No.4


----------



## jimi43 (14 May 2010)

ByronBlack":2o232onv said:


> Jim,
> 
> I would have gone for the QS block in a hearbeat if it were available. But I was also intrigued to see how the axminster performed. I may even get the QS block and do a side by side test.
> 
> I think you'll be very happy with the No.3 if it's as good as my No.4



I was thinking it would be brilliant to see a side by side test!

Jim


----------



## ali27 (14 May 2010)

Well done sir. Good review.

I bought a no 6 QS a while ago and was really impressed by it.

You could buy an extra blade and give it a backbevel of 10-15 degrees
and then plane those hardwoods even better. The common pitch
of 45 degrees is not suited for harder woods, especially with
difficult grain.

I took my no6QS plane to a woodworking friend with a lot of experience.
He uses LN planes. He was really impressed by the QS plane. The 
performance was the same. He still preffered his LN's because
they look nicer(I agree). 

Then I told him that the QS is almost 3 times less expensive. He
was shocked.

The Veritas planes seems to perform really well as well, but I just
don't like their look.

Regards,

Ali


----------



## woodbloke (14 May 2010)

ByronBlack":326eolif said:


> It is an eclipse jig, I have no idea what number it is though, its the one with the a single wheel, which makes cambering very easy, the bevel looks wonky due to my rubbish photography and lighting skills, I actually ground a very slight camber onto the blade, but the camera just can't seem to pick up the details very well.


Without getting into the issue of different honing guides, I agree that the honed bevel _looks_ skewed, even though it's not. As Bugbear says, the Eclipse allows you to control the bevel, but it's very easy to gradually produce a cambered bevel which _is_ skewed unintentionally, caused solely by the narrow roller and unequal finger pressure on each side of the blade. 
This is one of the reasons that I changed to the KIII because it's almost impossible to produce out 'out of square' micro-bevel. 
Equally, it's quite a faff (but doable) to deliberately produce a cambered bevel...so I don't bother and just knock off the corners of the plane iron - Rob


----------



## matthewwh (14 May 2010)

jimi43":25vqsoe9 said:


> Perhaps this little baby would be another winner....and only £15 more...



The next batch might be a tenner dearer I'm afraid, I've been tinkering at the whim of various specialists in the field and had some modifications included.


----------



## jimi43 (15 May 2010)

matthewwh":2mlkdmex said:


> jimi43":2mlkdmex said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps this little baby would be another winner....and only £15 more...
> ...




Ah! Ok...well I will look forward to that with interest but still keeping my old Stanley 60 1/2...the one I have is old and tuned so why change. BUT...how about the No.3?

Is that staying?

Jim


----------



## matthewwh (15 May 2010)

Yep, no changes to the bench planes.


----------



## ByronBlack (15 May 2010)

What mods have you had included Matt?


----------



## matthewwh (19 May 2010)

The design of the blade advance has been altered, the new one has a finer pitch to give better control over the depth of cut. I've also had a chat with Tom Lie Nielsen and we have had one of the casting details changed for him.


----------



## Einari Rystykaemmen (19 May 2010)

> Given that exceptional review...perhaps the Rider is not so hot as is first thought:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe little bit off topic, but...

This block plane looks almost identical with Juuma block plane, which can be found here http://www.fine-tools.com/einhand.htm.

I have ordered one and it arrived this morning. I can write a little review when I have tested it.


----------



## jorgoz (26 May 2010)

Einari Rystykaemmen":17uridhw said:


> > Given that exceptional review...perhaps the Rider is not so hot as is first thought:
> >
> >
> >
> ...



I'm looking forward to your little review of the juuma 20° block. 

When i asked them if they would be offering a low angle version of the juuma block they said they would but not when though. Euro currency is more interesting and their shipping costs are quite low too.


----------

