# No. 6 vs No. 7? QS vs Dick?



## J_SAMa (16 Feb 2013)

Hello, and [insert random greetings here],

So Holland's weather seems to be taking it easy recently. It's time I started building my workbench...
I've been using a Record 05 to do all my jointing/face truing work (thanks again Gary, if you're reading this ). It works fine for short workpieces (less than 100 cm) but I reckon I'll need a real jointer for my 240 cm long benchtop.
Anyways, I'm planning on buying a new No. 6 or No. 7. I know No.7's length will definitely make it better for jointing super long workpieces, but wouldn't it be easier to learn jointing/trying on a No. 6 'cause there's less metal swinging around? I've never touched a jointer plane before so I have no idea...

I was going to buying it from QS (or whatever you call it) until I noticed Dick (from Dictum), whose planes are apparently also manufactured by QS and should be of the same quality. The thing is though, Dick's No. 7 is €50 cheaper than QS from WSH :shock: ... That makes me a little worried about Dick's plane's quality. Has anyone had any experience with Dick's plane?
Going vintage is always an option... But I just wanted to get a taste of modern "premium" plane (I know QS not really premium, but at least they say it's almost as good as LN).

Oh, and please try your best no to turn this thread into one where we argue about moral/political issues regarding QS. I'm trying to get some things done here...

Sam


----------



## GazPal (16 Feb 2013)

Hi Sam,

Never a problem :wink: and I know both your #05 and #04 will provide a lifetime of service in all manner of projects. With practise you can shoot edges much longer than 1000 mm using a #05, but if you feel the need to invest in a longer plane I'd recommend your option regarding the QS #7 as a sound choice backed by Matthew's well deserved reputation for customer service. 

The plane size I use varies depending on the dimensions of the project I'm involved with, but personal preference has me reaching for my #05.1/2's far more than my #06's or #07's. One thing I'd consider would be the practicality of owning a #7 once your bench is completed, with the primary influence being the size of work/projects undertaken afterward.


----------



## speeder1987 (16 Feb 2013)

I have no experience with dictum planes, however I do know that not all quangsheng planes are of the same quality!

I believe workshop heaven specify the highest quality quangsheng planes, this could explain the price difference.

You also know that you will get top notch customer service from workshop heaven!

Sorry if that doesn't help you

Cheers
John


----------



## J_SAMa (16 Feb 2013)

GazPal":3f5bkkqm said:


> Hi Sam,
> 
> Never a problem :wink: and I know both your #05 and #04 will provide a lifetime of service in all manner of projects. With practise you can shoot edges much longer than 1000 mm using a #05, but if you feel the need to invest in a longer plane I'd recommend your option regarding the QS #7 as a sound choice backed by Matthew's well deserved reputation for customer service.
> 
> The plane size I use varies depending on the dimensions of the project I'm involved with, but personal preference has me reaching for my #05.1/2's far more than my #06's or #07's. One thing I'd consider would be the practicality of owning a #7 once your bench is completed, with the primary influence being the size of work/projects undertaken afterward.



Hi Gary,

I barely do any large scale work. I might build a tool cabinet and a garden fence but that's about it. I predominantly make medium to small sized cabinets/carcasses. And just so that you know, I'm an amateur and rarely sell my projects.

Just saw a video of Paul Sellers flattening a benchtop using only a No. 4 smoother... Well, in the end skill and expertise ARE the most valuable "tools"... So given I don't do much large sclae work, and that flattening a benchtop with a short plane isn't impossible, should I opt for a No. 6 instead of No. 7?

Sam


----------



## GazPal (16 Feb 2013)

J_SAMa":1wpjs1ov said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> I barely do any large scale work. I might build a tool cabinet and a garden fence but that's about it. I predominantly make medium to small sized cabinets/carcasses. And just so that you know, I'm an amateur and rarely sell my projects.
> 
> ...



Due to the size of work you'll typically carry out, I'd honestly consider either a #05.1/2 or #6 rather than a #07. Paul certainly illustrates the fact that #04's are more than capable of producing most work and precisely the same can be said of #05's. You have both a #04 & #05, so the next step is any of the three larger planes mentioned, or (My suggestion) wait a while before buying more bench planes but instead consider investing in a block plane, combination plane, or shoulder plane. Those three hand planes should add up to no more than the cost of a QS #7 , but would see far more use than a #7 if your focus involves small cabinetry projects.

Allow your planned projects to dictate you choice of tools and you'll build a tool kit which sees regular use without gathering dust or being relegated for long periods in it's box.

You can certainly flatten and finish work bench tops with either a #04 or #05. Simply keep your smoothing plane set to take fine shavings and your work bench project is an excellent learning and skill building opportunity. :wink: The learning curve can be just as steep with the larger bench planes as it is with the smaller #03/#04/#5's.


----------



## J_SAMa (16 Feb 2013)

Hi Gary,

Well, since QS doesn't make the No. 5 1/2 and the Clifton version is way out of my price range, I think I'll be buying a No. 6 then. I might be buying the Juuma version from Dieter Schmidt, simply because it's cheaper (again I'm an amateur so I need to make every single penny count).

Now about the block plane:
What do you think about this guy? http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html

To my understanding, this plane is the combination of a block plane, or and a super wide rabbet/shoulder plane, right? Does that mean that this plane will do anything that a regular LA block plane will do? Are there any significant advantages/disadvantages of this plane when compared to a regular LA block plane?
I'm rather reluctant to spend my money on a shoulder plane though. The cheapest ones I can find (from Veritas) sell for around €170...

EDIT:
Actually, I forgot about the woodie rabbet planes... Do you think these ones do everything a metal shoulder plane does? http://www.fine-tools.com/sims.htm


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 Feb 2013)

J_SAMa":3mk3dwnj said:


> Just saw a video of Paul Sellers flattening a benchtop using only a No. 4 smoother... Well, in the end skill and expertise ARE the most valuable "tools"... So given I don't do much large sclae work, and that flattening a benchtop with a short plane isn't impossible, should I opt for a No. 6 instead of No. 7?



I'd go for the #7. Mine is my most used plane. It seems fashionable to quote the way Paul Sellers does things but I'm not impressed with his methods. I wouldn't use a #4 to flatten a bench top.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## JonnyD (16 Feb 2013)

speeder1987":24ns6qlt said:


> I have no experience with dictum planes, however I do know that not all quangsheng planes are of the same quality!
> 
> I believe workshop heaven specify the highest quality quangsheng planes, this could explain the price difference.
> 
> ...



Is this born out of fact or substantiated with reviews? Has Matthew ever said his planes are a higher grade of manufacturing? 

I have heard this touted about a lot but not seen any hard evidence myself but I haven't looked that hard either.

I have ordered items from workshop heaven myself and have received good service but I find it hard to believe the planes are any better or different. 

Cheers

Jon


----------



## Roughcut (16 Feb 2013)

If you don't want to spend too much money and don't mind second hand why don't you try Ebay?
Always loads of no.6's and the occasional no.7 being sold.
I recently bought a Stanley no.6 for around £30, it's a good useable plane.


----------



## carlb40 (16 Feb 2013)

I have just had a look at his sight and the block planes especially seem more like the ones Rutlands sell. If you google the QS block/ rebate block plane, you get various reviews. Some linked back to here, others comparing to LN planes etc. I have read that the planes from rutlands are not as well finished as the ones from Mathew.

Not sure i like the look of those handles either on Dick's planes :shock:


----------



## Peter Sefton (16 Feb 2013)

Not all QS planes are the same quality, I have 20 or more in use in my workshop the same quality as WS and have seen various qualities sold by other suppliers which have not been as good as ours. Over the years QS have been getting better but some suppliers do stock and sell the older versions rather than the improved ones, so as with most things in life you do tend to get what you pay for.
In my own tool chest I do have a QS no 6 the second I have owned, this one has better quality lateral adjustment than the previous version I owned, but it is not as good as the latest versions we have now that have the handle in the correct position so that you can adjust the plane on the fly.

The low Angle Rebate plane is not a replacement for the Low Angle Block plane but an additional tool for the box; I have one of each in my tool chest the Block plane is great for general bench work with its three blades. The Low Angle Rebate planes is excellent for trimming tenon cheeks but you would be disappointed if you tried to get it to do all the Block plane jobs. One of my students tried this but then purchased a Block plane from us later.
The Dictum Planes do not look the same as the UK versions I have seen, so they may well be something different or the US versions.


----------



## J_SAMa (16 Feb 2013)

Paul Chapman":31doo7ts said:


> J_SAMa":31doo7ts said:
> 
> 
> > Just saw a video of Paul Sellers flattening a benchtop using only a No. 4 smoother... Well, in the end skill and expertise ARE the most valuable "tools"... So given I don't do much large sclae work, and that flattening a benchtop with a short plane isn't impossible, should I opt for a No. 6 instead of No. 7?
> ...



Hi, Paul,

I think what Paul Sellers does is teaching amateurs like myself how to build projects using a minimal number of tools. His techniques do come in handy when you don't have a complete arsenal of tools like a professional does.

Sam


----------



## Paul Chapman (16 Feb 2013)

J_SAMa":3hpbrfle said:


> I think what Paul Sellers does is teaching amateurs like myself how to build projects using a minimal number of tools. His techniques do come in handy when you don't have a complete arsenal of tools like a professional does.



I agree that when starting out you have to make the best of what tools you have.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## J_SAMa (16 Feb 2013)

Peter Sefton":2kj6taet said:


> Not all QS planes are the same quality, I have 20 or more in use in my workshop the same quality as WS and have seen various qualities sold by other suppliers which have not been as good as ours. Over the years QS have been getting better but some suppliers do stock and sell the older versions rather than the improved ones, so as with most things in life you do tend to get what you pay for.
> In my own tool chest I do have a QS no 6 the second I have owned, this one has better quality lateral adjustment than the previous version I owned, but it is not as good as the latest versions we have now that have the handle in the correct position so that you can adjust the plane on the fly.
> 
> The low Angle Rebate plane is not a replacement for the Low Angle Block plane but an additional tool for the box; I have one of each in my tool chest the Block plane is great for general bench work with its three blades. The Low Angle Rebate planes is excellent for trimming tenon cheeks but you would be disappointed if you tried to get it to do all the Block plane jobs. One of my students tried this but then purchased a Block plane from us later.
> The Dictum Planes do not look the same as the UK versions I have seen, so they may well be something different or the US versions.



Hi Peter,

One of Matthew's blog posts says that WSH sells V4 QS planes, do you sell the same version on your website?
Have you had a chance to try the Juuma planes? They are from Dieter-Schmidt and as you know, they never sell rubbish (and their products are also cheap, in a good way).
BTW, how much would it cost to deliver from your shop to the Netherlands?

Sam


----------



## J_SAMa (16 Feb 2013)

J_SAMa":2dwaebzk said:


> Peter Sefton":2dwaebzk said:
> 
> 
> > Not all QS planes are the same quality, I have 20 or more in use in my workshop the same quality as WS and have seen various qualities sold by other suppliers which have not been as good as ours. Over the years QS have been getting better but some suppliers do stock and sell the older versions rather than the improved ones, so as with most things in life you do tend to get what you pay for.
> ...



Hi Peter,

One of Matthew's blog posts says that WSH sells V4 QS planes, do you sell the same version on your website?
Have you had a chance to try the Juuma planes? They are from Dieter-Schmidt and as you know, they never sell rubbish (and their products are also cheap, in a good way).
BTW, how much would it cost to deliver about 3 kg of tools from your shop to the Netherlands?

Sam


----------



## speeder1987 (17 Feb 2013)

JonnyD":1z8556fi said:


> speeder1987":1z8556fi said:
> 
> 
> > I have no experience with dictum planes, however I do know that not all quangsheng planes are of the same quality!
> ...



When I was researching buying my QS planes, I saw a lot of these comments, but here is one of the threads on here which seems to confirm this to be true (as well as Peter confirming above):

https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/quangsheng-or-qiangsheng-t58314.html

Having said that, it is something that I find very surprising too. You would expect planes from the same supplier to be the same, with varying degrees quality (i.e. sole flatness). But differing finishes entirely! I wonder if this indicates that they are made in entirely different factories? Or maybe they just sell different qualities for different prices

cheers
John


----------



## GazPal (17 Feb 2013)

Paul Chapman":32r8pxzx said:


> J_SAMa":32r8pxzx said:
> 
> 
> > Just saw a video of Paul Sellers flattening a benchtop using only a No. 4 smoother... Well, in the end skill and expertise ARE the most valuable "tools"... So given I don't do much large sclae work, and that flattening a benchtop with a short plane isn't impossible, should I opt for a No. 6 instead of No. 7?
> ...




Not a situation where methods are quoted depending upon fashion, but more a case of recommending potential routes to pursue if budget is a problem, tools are limited, or the type of work covered will predominantly involve smaller projects. :wink: My own preference is to use a plane sized to match the work involved, but I'll not hit someone with a shopping list if I think there's very limited use for a tool after a certain project's completion. If presenting a list I'll provide a brief explanation covering relevant reasons behind choices.

------------

Hi Sam,

I think the QS block rebate plane sounds like a very decent candidate for your list and I can't fault your choice. Especially if you wish to avoid the risk of buying a congregation of seldom used tools. For work of the type you've described - in future - I'd consider investing in;

1. Block plane - #09.1/2 or #060.1/2
2. Rebate/fillister plane. - #078, or #778 (The #778 is a better option with improved blade adjustment and double fence guide rods).
3. Shoulder plane - #073 (My preferred shoulder plane because it can handle all sizes of work)
4. # 5.1/2, #06, or #07 bench plane (Lower numbers for predominantly smaller work)
5. Plough plane - #044, or #050
6. Router plane - #071 or #071.1/2

All can be bought for well within a total cost of £250 via evilbay if you shop carefully and patiently. My last #07 cost £27 and #05.1/2 I picked up for £0.99. Neither was flawed, but both were poorly listed. Simply study the flow of auctions and how much items sell for, set a limit on how much you're willing to pay and then wait.

Numbers 2 through to 6 are more likely to see occasional use than a block plane, but a great deal depends upon the work you'll be involved in and you'll be more than able to determine which you need and can justify once your projects list develops.

I hope this helps in some way.


----------



## J_SAMa (17 Feb 2013)

speeder1987":2aewhyiw said:


> JonnyD":2aewhyiw said:
> 
> 
> > speeder1987":2aewhyiw said:
> ...



Hi John,

Hmm... That's an interesting thread...
After reading through it I think Rutland's QS might be the previous versions, whereas WSH sells only the newest... I guess I'll just have to avoid the Rutland version then.

Sam


----------



## Peter Sefton (17 Feb 2013)

J_SAMa":z8cbfn8w said:


> J_SAMa":z8cbfn8w said:
> 
> 
> > Peter Sefton":z8cbfn8w said:
> ...


Hi Sam 
Yes the planes I sell are the same as Matthew’s, the V4 came out in 2010 since then the no 6 has been improved by moving the handle forward, all the standard bench planes 3,4,5,6,7 have the improved lateral adjusters which are solid with a screwed and riveted fitting rather than the early versions that had twisted metal lateral adjusters. The handles are Chinese Rosewood which looks very much like Bubinga to me. The yoke is also better than the early versions and they do all have the T10 steel irons which perform very well.
The block planes are the V3 and are the 12 degree low angle versions with 3 blades as standard - 25, 38 and 50 degrees - and the Low angle rebate plane is of the same quality. All the planes come in their own wooden boxes which are a nice touch and keep them in good condition.
QS do make varying qualities and specifications for different retailers, Matthew and I stock the same I can’t speak for the others but the ones that have been through our workshop in the past have been older versions. I know people find this unusual but why? Car manufacturers make different spec levels with one model with various levels of finish and technical detail and QS do the same, but it is the retailer who decides which price level and quality they would like to sell. 
I have not seen or used the Juuma planes from Dieter-Schmidt but on the website they look very nice indeed, but with plane quality the devil is in the detail.
I will PM you with shipping costs today

Cheers Peter


----------



## Tony Spear (17 Feb 2013)

JonnyD":230503j8 said:


> speeder1987":230503j8 said:
> 
> 
> > I have no experience with dictum planes, however I do know that not all quangsheng planes are of the same quality!
> ...



Nothing to do with Quansheng, but I *do have personal experience* to indicate thet the Chinese will always build to a price.

In 1987/88, I was visiting the Shanghai Pump Works and saw some pumps for a Government funded irrigation project that, given a lathe and mill, together with basic sand-casting facilities, I could have built in my back yard! In the next workshop I was shown some very sophisticated boiler feed pumps for their latest 600MW super-critical power station that were as good as anything my company could have turned out in the U.S. or Italy - draw your own conclusions!


----------



## J_SAMa (17 Feb 2013)

Tony Spear":28mc5es4 said:


> Nothing to do with Quansheng, but I *do have personal experience* to indicate thet the Chinese will always build to a price.
> 
> In 1987/88, I was visiting the Shanghai Pump Works and saw some pumps for a Government funded irrigation project that, given a lathe and mill, together with basic sand-casting facilities, I could have built in my back yard! In the next workshop I was shown some very sophisticated boiler feed pumps for their latest 600MW super-critical power station that were as good as anything my company could have turned out in the U.S. or Italy - draw your own conclusions!



Hi Tony,
Well, what you saw was from 25 years ago, so I assume it's not going to apply now :wink: .
Sam


----------



## MIGNAL (17 Feb 2013)

Well if you are in the market for a Block plane I think I would advise an old Stanley/Record rather than the QS version. I have both and the whilst the QS is better made it's also a lot more uncomfortable to hold! I've have just been using both and the QS went back on the shelf and I used my 1980's :shock: Stanley. Worked just as well and it feels a lot nicer in the hand.
Now I'll dive for cover.


----------



## Klaus Kretschmar (17 Feb 2013)

I'm unable to judge the quality differences of Quiangsheng planes from different retailers. But it's obvious that QS produces different visual qualities depending on the retailers specifications. If that will make a difference in the performance as well is something that I don't know.

But coming back to your basic question concerning a #6 or a #7 while looking for a jointer, I'd always go with a #7. My question rather would be #7 or #8. The #6 isn't a dedicated jointer since it's too short. It's not as versatile as a jack plane (#5) since it's a little bit too long. In my opinion you don't need a #6 at all if you have a #5 and a #7 or #8. 

Klaus


----------



## matthewwh (18 Feb 2013)

MIGNAL":3tp8jop4 said:


> Well if you are in the market for a Block plane I think I would advise an old Stanley/Record rather than the QS version. I have both and the whilst the QS is better made it's also a lot more uncomfortable to hold! I've have just been using both and the QS went back on the shelf and I used my 1980's :shock: Stanley. Worked just as well and it feels a lot nicer in the hand.
> Now I'll dive for cover.



Do you have one of the ones with a stainless cap that rests on the heel of the hand rather than the centre of the palm? If so then you'll understand why we opted to stick with the earlier brass caps, if you drop me a PM I'll see what I can do.


----------



## marcus (18 Feb 2013)

> I'd go for the #7. Mine is my most used plane. It seems fashionable to quote the way Paul Sellers does things but I'm not impressed with his methods. I wouldn't use a #4 to flatten a bench top.



Agree with much of this. Love my no 7. I never owned a 6 and can't quite work out what their function in life is! I use 4 for small scale work and smoothing, 5 for general purpose use — it's the plane I pick up most often; and the 7 for bigger stuff. If you can afford a 7 and see yourself doing larger scale projects in the future then I'd say treat yourself. It makes life easier and quicker. If you can't then, yes, you can do most things with a 4. Glad I no longer have to!


----------



## Mike Wingate (18 Feb 2013)

I have a few Record/Stanley planes that I have had over the last 43 years. Quangsheng blades and chipbreakers have transformed them (along with some fettling) into super planes. If I was to start again with planes, I would just buy QS ones. I have a 62, a low angle block and a large chisel plane. I set up a friends QS no.5 and it is a great plane.


----------



## Fromey (18 Feb 2013)

The only reason I bought a Lie Neilsen low angle block plane was because it was second hand (but in very good condition) and cheaper than a new QS. Otherwise I'd also go QS all the way except for things they don't do (when will they produce a Stanley 66 clone?)


----------



## MIGNAL (19 Feb 2013)

matthewwh":3i6wi43p said:


> MIGNAL":3i6wi43p said:
> 
> 
> > Well if you are in the market for a Block plane I think I would advise an old Stanley/Record rather than the QS version. I have both and the whilst the QS is better made it's also a lot more uncomfortable to hold! I've have just been using both and the QS went back on the shelf and I used my 1980's :shock: Stanley. Worked just as well and it feels a lot nicer in the hand.
> ...



Hello Matthew. Thanks for the reply. It's not really the cap that is the problem but the blade and front shoe adjusters. If you look at a Stanley the adjusters have rather rounded edges, much more comfortable than the rather hard edged adjusters on the QS - or at least my QS. Perhaps a minor quibble to some but my Stanley is much more comfortable to use, even if it isn't as well engineered as the QS.


----------



## matthewwh (19 Feb 2013)

Some of the really old Stanleys had fully convex edges, lovely, especially as they get a bit worn. 

The components on your QS should all be eased with a nice chamfer (as shown above) again these will soften further with time but they certainly shouldn't be uncomfortable.


----------



## Sawyer (20 Feb 2013)

marcus":14m38t16 said:


> > I'd go for the #7. Mine is my most used plane. It seems fashionable to quote the way Paul Sellers does things but I'm not impressed with his methods. I wouldn't use a #4 to flatten a bench top.
> 
> 
> 
> Agree with much of this. Love my no 7. I never owned a 6 and can't quite work out what their function in life is! I use 4 for small scale work and smoothing, 5 for general purpose use — it's the plane I pick up most often; and the 7 for bigger stuff. If you can afford a 7 and see yourself doing larger scale projects in the future then I'd say treat yourself. It makes life easier and quicker. If you can't then, yes, you can do most things with a 4. Glad I no longer have to!



My collection includes a 5, a 6 and a 7; and I use the 6 a lot. Remember, it's not just the size of the plane, but the way it is set up. 
In my case:
5 coarsely set for rapid stock removal.
6 Finer, but not as fine as a smoother - refines the work of the no. 5. Does a good job of making things flat and straight.
7 Fairly fine setting, used mostly for edge jointing, at which it excels.

I like the no. 6 for its weight and accuracy, whereas the no. 7 I find a bit unwieldy and too cumbersome for most things. Especially if you are using hand planes for hours on end, which I often am.

No. 5 is still fairly nimble and very versatile. It's the one which comes out on jobs with me, whilst the others rarely leave the workshop.

One day, perhaps I'll add a 5.1/2 too, set a little finer than the 5....


----------



## Kalimna (20 Feb 2013)

To add a not-particularly useful note, I have a 5 1/2 (LN), 6 (Cliffie), 7 (Stanley w/Hock blade) and 7 (QS). They all get used, probably the Cliffie most, but it frequently happens that whichever has the sharpest blade at the time gets picked up. I also have 5 1/2 set up with a non-cambered blade which I sometimes find more useful for squaring up edges, bizarrely.
Having said that, I have biggish hands, and prefer the heft and size of the larger planes. I also have a Stanley 4 which never gets used, a couple of 4 1/2's which I find a little cramped in my hand but do work nicely.
A contentious point, but for rapid stock removal, I use a scrub plane by Veritas (and not a converted old jack).

Cheers,
Adam


----------



## J_SAMa (20 Feb 2013)

Despite the popularity of the No. 7, *I've decided to buy a No. 6*... I will barely do any large-scale work after I finish my bench. Using a No. 7 just seems cumbersome for cabinetry (imagine planing workpieces smaller than the plane...). I know a lot of woodworkers out there who say the No. 6 is a piece of junk, but hey, I like to go against the grain (um... not literally though). 

Sam

Yeah, F**k what Patrick Leach says


----------



## Racers (20 Feb 2013)

Hi, Sam

Some times you have to carve your own path.


I am a No8 guy, 24" of cast iron.

I also have 2 No7s and a No6.

Pete


----------



## Peter Sefton (20 Feb 2013)

Took the guys out to see some workshops today, caught up with a mate I shared a workshop with some years ago making commissioned furniture his plane of choice was always his no 3 mine was my no 7.
Plane of choice being the operative word we all know the reasons for longer or shorter planes but in a busy workshop it often comes down to the sharpest tool on the bench at any given time or the one that just feels right to the maker.
Sam be interested to see which no 6 you went for.
Cheers Peter


----------



## Kalimna (20 Feb 2013)

Pete - How do you find the 8 over a 7? I know it's a bit longer and heftier, but is the blade not a little bit wider also? Given that the 1/2 sizes, 6&7 all seem to have (I think) the same blade width, do you feel that the 8 benefits from this?

Adam


----------



## Racers (21 Feb 2013)

Hi, Adam

The extra mass of the No8 just seems to make it easer to control, I think it harder to have a negative influence on it.
Once you get it moving it just seems to carry on regardless.

I camber the blade and use it for edge jointing and surface plaining, I was plaining down a very thin piece of rosewood (bandsaw kerf thick) it was springing up over the bench stop, so I got out the No8 and the toe was long enough to completely cover it and hold it flat.

Pete


----------



## GazPal (23 Feb 2013)

Racers":3kxem5no said:


> Hi, Adam
> 
> The extra mass of the No8 just seems to make it easer to control, I think it harder to have a negative influence on it.
> Once you get it moving it just seems to carry on regardless.
> ...




Very well explained Pete


----------

