# more new planes hitting the market



## jorgoz (30 Jun 2010)

Anyone tried any of these new planes from Dick ? 

http://www.mehr-als-werkzeug.de/categor ... detail.jsf


----------



## Philly (30 Jun 2010)

Looks like another variation of QS to me.
Cheers
Philly


----------



## bugbear (30 Jun 2010)

Philly":1o2ushso said:


> Looks like another variation of QS to me.
> Cheers
> Philly



That'd be the obvious guess.

Is there a "brag page" anywhere? I couldn't find one.

BugBear


----------



## jimi43 (30 Jun 2010)

.....but without the awful "bling" chrome cap!

I know...I know...you don't cut with the cap but for me...that is the only thing that lets the QS down and something I need in tools...is that they look nice too...

QS No.3 (thanks ALF)








DICK (Ok this is a No.4 but you get my point):






They give the impression that they are milling and finishing...maybe they are in Germany or controlling it in China...it doesn't say...

You decide.

Jim


----------



## Trizza (30 Jun 2010)

I really like the presentation on those. Very pretty, IMO.


----------



## rocksteadyeddy (30 Jun 2010)

Not sure about the brown paint, but otherwise look nice.

Edd.


----------



## jorgoz (30 Jun 2010)

Sasdly i can't seem to be able to find a low angle block plane among the qs planes or their clones. Wonder why that is ? I would think a low angle block is a more versatile tool and a basic-kit plane than the standard angle one.


----------



## ali27 (30 Jun 2010)

Nice rosewood or cocobolo handles wood be 
great on these planes. I´d definitely pay more
for that.

The pale colour isn´t really attractive.


----------



## Calpol (30 Jun 2010)

I was hoping there was a whole new range of Veritas Premiums, must be 3 years since they released the blocky...?


----------



## ali27 (30 Jun 2010)

Calpol":3ndt6j24 said:


> I was hoping there was a whole new range of Veritas Premiums, must be 3 years since they released the blocky...?



I don´t know about Veritas premium planes. 

I read about their good performance. I don´t like their look. 
Otherwise I might buy a veritas plane. I find the LN far more
appealing aesthetic wise ,but too expensive.

Ali


----------



## pedder (30 Jun 2010)

ali27":1v2f7s4w said:


> Nice rosewood or cocobolo handles wood be
> great on these planes. I´d definitely pay more
> for that.
> 
> The pale colour isn´t really attractive.



Is that a brown japaning? :lol: 

Dieter Schmid sells the Juuma with bubinga and brass/bronze frog.

http://www.feinewerkzeuge.de/juuma-hobel.html






Cheers
Pedder


----------



## jimi43 (30 Jun 2010)

...and only 109 Euros too!

Nice!

These all seem to be coming out of the same factory...by the looks of it.

Jim


----------



## ali27 (1 Jul 2010)

pedder":3cur9h89 said:


> ali27":3cur9h89 said:
> 
> 
> > Nice rosewood or cocobolo handles wood be
> ...



Jim and Pedder,

I had seen that plane before. It is indeed 109 euros. The
plane from Dick biz is 75 euro if I recall correctly. That is
a 34 euro price difference. 

Is it worth it, the more beautiful handle and brass/bronze
parts? I wish it wouldn´t have JUUMA name on it.

Ali27


----------



## Vann (1 Jul 2010)

ali27":2sm4drsl said:


> I wish it wouldn´t have JUUMA name on it.


Hi Ali,
What's the problem with JUUMA? I've never heard of them before (except when I visited the Dieter Schmid website a few months ago). Do they have a bad name?

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## ali27 (1 Jul 2010)

Vann":1u1ao2zl said:


> ali27":1u1ao2zl said:
> 
> 
> > I wish it wouldn´t have JUUMA name on it.
> ...



Hi Vann,

These planes are probably all Quangsheng planes, the
same Matthew sells. 

I just don´t like the JUUMA name on the plane. I think
it would look better without a brand name on the plane.

take care,

Ali


----------



## jorgoz (1 Jul 2010)

I knew about the juuma, but they only offer a 4 and a standard angle block (which is only 49 euros). Imo the juuma looks really nice though compared to the D-planes.


----------



## pedder (1 Jul 2010)

ali27":19mk83xm said:


> Jim and Pedder,
> 
> I had seen that plane before. It is indeed 109 euros. The
> plane from Dick biz is 75 euro if I recall correctly. That is
> a 34 euro price difference.




Hi Ali, 

because of Dieter's discount system the Juuma is only 106,72 €. 

I think black japanning is nicer than brown and bubinga is nicer than beech. If this difference is worth 31,72€? I cannot answer that for you!

Cheers Pedder


----------



## ali27 (1 Jul 2010)

pedder":2yaiam1w said:


> ali27":2yaiam1w said:
> 
> 
> > Jim and Pedder,
> ...



Hi Pedder,

How does this discount system work?

The 109 euro price is written as advertising price. Does that mean
it can be bought for a lower price?

I think I would buy it immediately if it were 90-95euro. The 30 euro
price difference is a bit too much I think. I could add 20 euro and get the block plane as well.

I think the nice bubinga handles are worth 10 euro extra+10
for the bronze brass.75+10+10=95. Make sense?

Ali27


----------



## pedder (1 Jul 2010)

ali27":243wwiv9 said:


> Hi Pedder,
> 
> How does this discount system work?



Hi Ali,

It's a volume discount: If you buy worth more than 100€ you get 2% disount, more than 200 = 3% and more than 400 = 4% The real price incl. shipping can only be seen, if you click un the article number.

Cheers 
Pedder


----------



## ali27 (2 Jul 2010)

pedder":31gsjvgh said:


> ali27":31gsjvgh said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Pedder,
> ...



Thanks for that bit of info.

It´s strange pedder. I want to buy the juuma plane, but I see
the same plane(bit less bling/quality handles) for 31 euro
price difference.

Maybe I should wait untill the Juuma smoothing plane(it they ever will) will have a slight price reduction.

For 90 euro I woud buy it.

The lever cap looks strange. Is it brass? Will that scratch
easily?

Ali27


----------



## ali27 (3 Jul 2010)

It seems the QS plane is sold by:

1)workshopheaven.com





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

2)dick-biz. 





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

3)fine-toolse.de





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

4)toolman.co.uk





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

5)Rutlands.co.uk cheapest 





Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Toolman.co.uk has a very pretty no1 for 102 euro.

-Toolman.co.uk is the most expensive. 
-Rutlands the cheapest.
-Dick biz is the second cheapest. 
-Both the Rutlands and workshopheaven quangsheng are lacquered. Doesn´t look nice at all. 
-The Juuma with the Toolman QS look the nicest IMO

I think the best choice is either the Dickbiz or Juuma QS.

Prices for the No4

Rutlands=72 euro
Dick=75euro
Workshopheaven=108 euro with free shipping 
Juuma=109 euro, 106,xx euro with discount
Toolman=144 euro, looks exactly the same as the Juuma

I would guess the QS no4 is bought at about 30 euro or so
from QStools.


----------



## big soft moose (3 Jul 2010)

jorgoz":132xn3a6 said:


> Sasdly i can't seem to be able to find a low angle block plane among the qs planes or their clones. Wonder why that is ? I would think a low angle block is a more versatile tool and a basic-kit plane than the standard angle one.



on one of the other threads mathew said there was a LA block in the works from QS - bout two weeks away i think


----------



## Trizza (3 Jul 2010)

ali27":2qy7zgsx said:


> -Both the Rutlands and workshopheaven quangsheng are lacquered. Doesn´t look nice at all.



I just received a Rutlands QS #6 yesterd - The handles don't seem to have shiny lacquer on them, they're quite satin in both look and feel. I'm actually very impressed with it! I cleaned it up, set the chipbreaker properly and set it up to take a fine cut and was taking wispy shavings in no time at all.


----------



## ali27 (4 Jul 2010)

Trizza":1fukr75p said:


> ali27":1fukr75p said:
> 
> 
> > -Both the Rutlands and workshopheaven quangsheng are lacquered. Doesn´t look nice at all.
> ...



Thanks for the info Trizza.

I don´t see any grain on the handles. They look quite
plain. 

Could you upload a picture(s) of your plane?

Ali


----------



## tim burr (4 Jul 2010)

I've also got a No.4 and a No.5 from Rutlands and they've arrived with handles similar to the ones fitted to the fine tools plane and a satin/brushed style lever cap like the Dick-biz one.

I'm also very impressed, especially for £110 delivered for the pair


----------



## Trizza (4 Jul 2010)

I can't share any pictures right now, but as Tim said the handles look just like those from Dieter (plenty of grain visible) and the lever cap looks just like the one from Dick (non-bling, satin). I'm very happy with both the looks and the performance of the plane. I got it and a QS block plane - both are very impressive, especially value for money!

Both required some small tuning - the rear handle was very loose on the No.6, the frog was in a silly position, the chipbreaker wasn't even close to the edge, etc. That was no big deal since I disassembled it to clean the packing goo off and set it up correctly on reassembly. Otherwise they are great, and the irons needed only a bit of honing to fully eliminate tracks. They seem to take a very nice edge!


----------



## ali27 (4 Jul 2010)

If you can please upload pictures. The rutlands
QS planes doesn´t look that nice when I check
their site.

I am interested in the look you describe Trizza
Tim Burr.

Ali


----------



## big soft moose (4 Jul 2010)

Trizza":21i50ew5 said:


> ali27":21i50ew5 said:
> 
> 
> > -Both the Rutlands and workshopheaven quangsheng are lacquered. Doesn´t look nice at all.
> ...



yeah ive got a QS 6 from mathew and its not that shiny either - I think the shine in the picture is down to the lighting/camera flash

I'm in the "its a plane, you use it - who cares what the handles look like" school, but that said if I was in mathews shoes i'd look at getting some rosewood handles made and offering them as an after market option for those who do care about such things


----------



## Einari Rystykaemmen (5 Jul 2010)

Philly":3spiqe3j said:


> Looks like another variation of QS to me.
> Cheers
> Philly



Yep, just like Juuma planes. These look almost identical.

Personally I have Juuma's version of this blockplane and I have to say I'm impressed (although these planes are pretty much copied from Lie Nielsen's models...). Well finished and dimensioned parts, straight bottom, smoothly operating adjustment knobs, good quality iron etc...

Another question is should we courage and support these Chinese "copiers", who let another companies make expensive R&D work, shamessly copy good models from them and sell it in 1/4 price... :roll:


----------



## Karl (5 Jul 2010)

Einari Rystykaemmen":1cz87f7e said:


> Another question is should we courage and support these Chinese "copiers", who let another companies make expensive R&D work, shamessly copy good models from them and sell it in 1/4 price... :roll:



Where's the problem?

LN models are direct copies of Stanley originals as far as I can see. It's not as though they've innovated the models themselves (ala LV).

Cheers

Karl


----------



## Trizza (5 Jul 2010)

Einari Rystykaemmen":1cd0f3j2 said:


> expensive R&D work



I'm not sure that LN's products really involve that much expensive R&D - they copy the Bedrock planes but use top notch materials and put in a lot of time milling & machining to make everthing fit & work perfectly. Very expensive work, sure, but thats tooling & manufacturing cost not R&D cost.

Now if these were copies of LV planes then it'd be a different matter..


----------



## woodbloke (5 Jul 2010)

Interesting to see the price comparisons on the planes. Whilst Matthew's QS's appear to be the most costly, what you _will_ get is an impeccable, 24k gold plated after sales service. If you bought from any of the others, this may not be the case and you might find yourself neck deep in the sticky stuff without a paddle. No affiliation of course - Rob


----------



## WellsWood (5 Jul 2010)

woodbloke":1tplup3b said:


> .. Whilst Matthew's QS's appear to be the most costly, what you _will_ get is an impeccable, 24k gold plated after sales service...- Rob



Couldn't agree more, Rob. worth it's weight in .... er, .....gold :wink:


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (5 Jul 2010)

Trizza":dwm1vh06 said:


> Einari Rystykaemmen":dwm1vh06 said:
> 
> 
> > ...Now if these were copies of LV planes then it'd be a different matter..



According to FWW magazine, they _are_ copies of LN planes. FWW did a comparison of the parts, per se, looking at thicknesses, design, etc. The Chinese planes were as close to ripping off the LN planes as dammit. Why do you think there was such a controversy on all the forums around the world .. except this one? 

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item...lanes-from-lie-nielsen-wood-river-and-stanley

Why do you think LN pulled out of Woodcraft (who were responsible for bringing the Chinese factory into the plane manufacturing industry)?

Edit: Initially the controversy raged over the debilerate attempt to mimic the "look" of the LN planes. More recently it seems that the planes have undergone some changes to the design to avoid the accusation of mimicing LN. They appear (to my eye) now to have a softer look and sporting different paint. The latest block planes now present like Stanley Knucklehead block planes. Still, there are many of the original LN-copy planes out there. If you are going to buy one of these planes, get the new generation, not the LN copy.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## ali27 (5 Jul 2010)

The bedrock designs is Stanley´s, not LN´s.

If the QS plane looks like a LN, that is because
the LN is 99,9 percent a bedrock design with
some improvements like thicker blade and chipbreaker.

It´s really nonsense to say the QS is a LN copy unless
it has a bronze lever cap with cherry handles. Then it
is just copying the look and I would not buy it.

Again bedrock is Stanley´s design not LN. No need
to bring that up again.

Ok, that´s that. 

Another thing is that I would like to see some improvements
for the bedrock design like a adjustable mouth and maybe
a norris adjuster with very little backlash.

Still interested in seeing the Rutlands QS plane. On their
site, they don´t look particularly nice looking. The green
japanning is like Clifton.

Ali


----------



## Trizza (5 Jul 2010)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Einari Rystykaemmen":oherx8dl said:
> 
> 
> > ...Now if these were copies of LV planes then it'd be a different matter..
> ...



LV, I wrote. There is a lot of original R&D involved in LV's products. Very little R&D in LN's planes - they're just effectively tuning and fettling the old Bedrock designs. Not that thats a bad thing - they make an awesome product and if I had the money I'd have a rack full of LN planes (or Holtey planes if I had even more money). It seems pretty hypocritical to me to criticize the Chinese for making a decent (and affordable, for those of us that aren't that well off) stab at doing the same thing that LN did! If it was an American or British company doing the exact same thing (similar product, not quite as high quality, but significantly lower cost) then everyone would say "Competition keeps everyone honest".



Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Why do you think there was such a controversy on all the forums around the world .. except this one?


The only forums where I've seen massive criticism (mind you, I don't read them all) have been American.



Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> http://www.finewoodworking.com/item...lanes-from-lie-nielsen-wood-river-and-stanley


That shows a bunch of differences between the LN planes and the QS planes, just as there are between the LN planes and the Stanley planes, and says as much in the article. Whats the big deal? If YOU were making a new range of planes that you were basing off the Bedrock, you would be insane not to borrow improvements from the market leader - if they're not patented improvements, that is. They're both refined versions of Stanley originals - the only reason people are complaining is because the Americans did it before the Chinese did.


----------



## Trizza (5 Jul 2010)

ali27":1ql27u7f said:


> Still interested in seeing the Rutlands QS plane. On their
> site, they don´t look particularly nice looking. The green
> japanning is like Clifton.



I'll put some pictures up as soon as I can. We're in the middle of some renovations at the moment so our camera is buried deep in a box somewhere! The japanning is not green, it is black, and looks much like that on the Juuma range.


----------



## ali27 (5 Jul 2010)

Trizza":3suyvnrd said:


> ali27":3suyvnrd said:
> 
> 
> > Still interested in seeing the Rutlands QS plane. On their
> ...



Cool thanks.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (5 Jul 2010)

> LV, I wrote.



You are right. I misread. It reflects my sensitivity to these products. I struggle to come to terms with the way that so many just accept a blatant infringement of rights. Obviously I am out of step with the forum in this regard.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Paul Chapman (5 Jul 2010)

Trizza":111tfg1z said:


> It seems pretty hypocritical to me to criticize the Chinese for making a decent (and affordable, for those of us that aren't that well off) stab at doing the same thing that LN did!



The Chinese are *NOT* doing what LN did. When LN started making planes, there weren't any decent new planes available. Stanley and Record had given up making decent planes long ago and their products were getting worse and worse every year. LN, Lee Valley and Clifton recognised that there was a market for well made and well designed planes and other hand tools and filled that need.

Without the initiative of LN, Lee Valley and Clifton, I doubt very much that the Chinese would have started making their current range of planes.

Personally, I'll stick with Clifton , LN and LV - they continue to offer the best products and the best customer service.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## ali27 (5 Jul 2010)

> The body and frog have a durable black powder coat finish on all non ground faces.



Oops, I thought it was green,lol.

Ali


----------



## bugbear (5 Jul 2010)

ali27":1vrb0anl said:


> Another thing is that I would like to see some improvements
> for the bedrock design like a adjustable mouth and maybe
> a norris adjuster with very little backlash.



??

The Bedrock design already has an adjustable mouth!

BugBear


----------



## Karl (5 Jul 2010)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > LV, I wrote.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Perhaps this story may shed some light by way of analogy without the depth of feeling which the LN name invokes.

Mecanno is a highly collectable item. A full set of Mecanno (a Set 10) came in a 4 or 5 drawer wooden box. Very simple item - easily replicated by the dedicated woodworker. 

Now original boxes fetch silly money, so it was inevitable that somebody would start to make replica's and flog them on e-bay. They fetched good money too - regularly over £300 just for the box. As soon as the auction ended, this guy listed another immediately, so he had obviously built them in batches and was probably making a tidy profit on it from his small workshop, topping up his pension I suspect.

My dad is a collector of Mecanno, and suggested that I should look into doing the same as this guy. I worked out the costings and decided that it would be a go-er, but didn't bother with it in the end. Why? Because it would have diluted the market for both of us and I wasn't sure that I could still make it an earner at a reduced price. However, if I was able to produce it cheaper I would have done it, knowing that I would still turn a good profit and undercut the other guy.

Would this other guy have had a right to complain had I started doing the same as him? Copy an original Mecanno design.

I know where I would have told him to go.

Cheers

Karl


----------



## ali27 (5 Jul 2010)

bugbear":3e59qstl said:


> ali27":3e59qstl said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing is that I would like to see some improvements
> ...



Hi Bugbear,

I mean without changing the position of the frog.

Ali


----------



## ali27 (5 Jul 2010)

Karl":2s3c2qfr said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > > LV, I wrote.
> ...



Your story makes perfect sense Karl.

Ali


----------



## bugbear (5 Jul 2010)

ali27":2kynwt58 said:


> bugbear":2kynwt58 said:
> 
> 
> > ali27":2kynwt58 said:
> ...



Oh.

OK.

But (out of interest) why would you consider this an improvement? It's just a different way of achieving the same result.

Indeed, it involves additional complexity (part count) to achieve the same result.

BugBear


----------



## ali27 (5 Jul 2010)

bugbear":2xshvwuj said:


> ali27":2xshvwuj said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":2xshvwuj said:
> ...



It´s just easier to do than changing the position of
the frog.

More importantly for me would be a plane with 
very little to no backlash. I hate it.

Ali


----------



## ali27 (5 Jul 2010)

Oh and all parts should be corrosion
resistent.

Ali


----------



## Philly (5 Jul 2010)

Trizza":2zwmsxxp said:


> Now if these were copies of LV planes then it'd be a different matter..


I believe they did - wasn't there an "edge trimming plane" in the original line-up? I heard Lee Valleys lawyers stomped down pretty hard on it.... :twisted: 

Philly


----------



## Trizza (6 Jul 2010)

Philly":1xyv9ng5 said:


> Trizza":1xyv9ng5 said:
> 
> 
> > Now if these were copies of LV planes then it'd be a different matter..
> ...



And good on em, if they were infringing on LV patents!


----------



## Alf (7 Jul 2010)

Philly":30j3vr8s said:


> Trizza":30j3vr8s said:
> 
> 
> > Now if these were copies of LV planes then it'd be a different matter..
> ...



Yeah, I recall one amongst the initial line-up of the "Grant" branded ones Tilgear first offered back at the end of '08.

Must admit I'm still in many minds on this issue. I have real problems with giving the Chinese stuff Western brand names, dressing them up to look as L-N/LV as possible, and obviously the infringing of current patents. It's duplicitous, dishonest, and the latter is, um, theft. But "ripping off" the Bedrock design or a low angle block? Everyone and their Aunt Lillian has done it over the years, and will continue to do it. Yeah, LN _et al_ created the market, but would Record planes have ever existed had Stanley not created that market? Heck, would Clifton's plane line exist without LN? The thing that seems to be getting everyone's undergarments in a twist is that gentlemen on the Pacific rim are getting so damn good at it. Well that's the way the world goes; there's not even the comfort of saying that quality will be the winner, because history shows us it often isn't. Everyone just has to make their own call now, and the future will show us the result I suppose.

Honestly, old tools are a lot easier - the moral decisions were all made 50+ years ago...


----------



## jimi43 (7 Jul 2010)

> Honestly, old tools are a lot easier - the moral decisions were all made 50+ years ago...



I might even use that as my sig! Brilliant....

You are a true woodie poet Alf....

We missed ya!

Jim


----------



## Paul Chapman (7 Jul 2010)

Where I think LN, LV and Clifton differ from the Chinese manufacturers is that they took the considerable financial risk in investing in the hand-tool market when other manufacturers had given up on it. They are also run by people who are pasionate about hand tools and really understand the needs of woodworkers.

In contrast, I think the Chinese are now just jumping on the bandwagon after LN, LV and Clifton have done all the work and taken all the risk. Nothing wrong with that, it happens all the time. But if I were running LN, LV or Clifton, I'd be feeling a bit p*ss*d off........

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## jimi43 (7 Jul 2010)

> But if I were running LN, LV or Clifton, I'd be feeling a bit p*ss*d off........



If I were one of them I wouldn't waste time with laurels or grapes (sour or not)...I would be doing what the UK and others do great....move on and develop the next range...following the market demand...

In any business....staying still is fatal...evolution and diversification is paramount.

Jim


----------



## ali27 (7 Jul 2010)

jimi43":2fuz1und said:


> > But if I were running LN, LV or Clifton, I'd be feeling a bit p*ss*d off........
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Amen.


----------



## Eric The Viking (7 Jul 2010)

Paul Chapman":54k9b5ws said:


> Where I think LN, LV and Clifton differ from the Chinese manufacturers is that they took the considerable financial risk in investing in the hand-tool market



My guess is that it was quite a risk for the Chinese factory too. 

On the other hand, there are probably far more hand planes in use in China than in the whole of the Western world. I realise that most will be of Chinese design, but don't underestimate their internal market. 

Chinese woodies may be taking to Bailey-pattern planes even as I type, but no Chinese craftsman could afford LV Clifton or LN, so in that market they are irrelevant.



> They are also run by people who are passionate about hand tools and really understand the needs of woodworkers.



I don't know about the people running Quangshen, but they seem to understand the market pretty well. Some factories in the Far East are producing utter rubbish (and supplying big-name former tool manufacturers in the West!), but QS are producing a quality product, albeit down to a price. 



> In contrast, I think the Chinese are now just jumping on the bandwagon after LN, LV and Clifton have done all the work and taken all the risk.



First off, LN and Clifton haven't taken all the risk, insofar as they haven't designed from the ground up. Secondly, the QS planes aren't LN knock-offs, they're low cost versions of classic designs. As stated elsewhere, if they were infringing patents or design copyright, they'd have to explain themselves in court (or have their products impounded on entry to the EU or the USA). 

In marketing terms there's little or no intellectual property in Bailey/Stanley-derived planes (I'm NOT knocking those who make them, just making an observation). The argument against QS amounts to, 'The others were here first, and shouldn't have their turf trodden on!' (NB: I know you weren't exactly saying that, Paul). But the entry barriers to that market really relate to having a good foundry and machine shop, and establishing a sales channel. Quangshen already had the former, and have worked hard to create the latter. 

In any case, given the availability and quality of Far Eastern metal bashing, if not them then someone else. We've seen it happen in many other sectors, and for woodies it's happened to almost every machine/power tool manufacturer, and we've been happy to buy lower priced products as a consequence. 

In other industries there is a well understood expectation of price collapse over time and a value-to-volume transition. My first CD-writer cost me £400 (less than 15 years ago), now you can't even buy one easily, and straight DVD writers are around £20 (1/20 of the introductory price, for more features!). It's a tough old world out there, because of market forces!

Speaking for myself, I'd love to have Clifton, LV, LN, Philly or Holtey (heck, I can dream!), but realistically I cannot afford any of them. I can just about run to QS, and am considering their #6. Crucially, Quangshen have not taken my business away from the others, because they wouldn't have it anyway (I simply can't afford them). I'm in a different segment to the typical Clifton, LV or Holtey owner. Viewed from this corner of the world, I think there's room for all of them. 

Another key factor is how many others come to enjoy our interest because _good_ tools are available at lower cost than before. Thanks to this forum and other places, I've only recently learned to fettle planes etc. For years, my actually-not-too-bad Stanley was torture to set up and use, as I hadn't been inducted into the Black Arts! So if I was just trying out woodworking, based on some of the tools recently sold in the DIY sheds I'd be quickly discouraged. In that context, if Quangshen can up the volumes and keep the quality (harder than it sounds), they'll be encouraging a whole new generation of woodworkers, something I hope we all want to see. 

Obviously I'm exaggerating a bit but the principle is sound. What's more, if I get a better #6 than what used to be on offer pre-Quangshen, then I'm a very happy bunny. :lol: 

Sorry, that turned into a bit of a rant! I'll go back to priming my window frame (I really, REALLY hate painting!). ](*,)


----------



## Trizza (29 Jul 2010)

A little follow-up mini-review on my Rutlands QS planes now that I've had some time to play.

The fit and finish is excellent. They look great and feel great in the hands, nice heft. The irons are nice and thick, take a very nice edge and so far seem to last a long time - they're even relatively sharp out of the box. The little block plane is a real gem, I've been using it to fit kitchen filler pieces (veneered particle board) and its been doing a stellar job. Amazing value for money!

So the bad.. The depth adjustment yoke of the No. 6 snapped when I was taking my first real swipes with it. Very disappointing - it wasn't even a violent snap, it just softly gave way as if there was a serious defect in the casting (eg a bubble) causing it to bend. I've been waiting two weeks so far and Rutlands still haven't followed through with any sort of replacement plane/parts or any other form of compensation. If anyone knows where I can find a replacement yoke (I hear Clifton make one for Bedrocks to allow thicker irons to be fitted to older planes? Would that work?) I'd be very keen to find out!

Anyway, summary: They seem to be fantastic planes for the money, assuming I just got unlucky with the yoke. If you don't have the money for an LN or LV, buy one now. But don't make my mistake - order from Matt at Workshop Heaven instead of trying to save even more by ordering from Rutlands.... :evil:


----------



## Trizza (29 Jul 2010)

Oh, and the promised photo (sorry for the quality, its taken with my phone)


----------



## warrenr (30 Jul 2010)

It seems to me that this is the market doing what it does best: improving products, increasing choice and making it more affordable to consumers. To stay in business companies have to adapt and change.

250million Chinese have come out of poverty in the last ten years because it has an enlightened Government that has embraced free enterprise. For those that have not been the improvements over vast areas in the past decade have been mind blowing. In some areas such as IT they are becoming major inovators. (You use a Chinese credit card and immediately you get an SMS notifying you of your of the transaction).

The Western World has benefitted by cheaper goods and greater choice; plus inflation has been kept very low as the price of consumer goods has fallen. China has forced may Asian countries to go up market and drive forward new industries.

In the west some countries such as Germany and the USA have done well because they have innovative businesses and clear thinking. Like individuals, Goverments (particularly UK) have borrowed more than they can afford and have increased Government services. They have also made it harder and harder for industries to compete through wasteful regulation. 

Britain has some such great companies but increasingly fewer survive.
The politicians are threatening to harm and drive out of the country the only sector where we are a real world leader (finance/banking). They blame only the Banking industry and none of the blame falls on the regulators and politicans who encouraged the Banks to lend in the past or the people who borrowed money they could not afford to pay back. 

Enough; tired after returning from China last night!

Richard


----------



## bugbear (30 Jul 2010)

Trizza":3lz382in said:


> ey!
> 
> So the bad.. The depth adjustment yoke of the No. 6 snapped when I was taking my first real swipes with it. Very disappointing - it wasn't even a violent snap, it just softly gave way as if there was a serious defect in the casting (eg a bubble) causing it to bend.



IIRC someone else reported a rubbish yoke.

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (30 Jul 2010)

rubbish depth adjustment yolks and other parts failures seem to be a fact of modern life and aren't exclusive to Far Eastern sourced tools. If customer care is up to snuff they'll provide fresh replacements, as well as demand improvements.

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

Keep the cost of good tools within reasonable reach of potential craftsmen/women and enthusiasm for the crafts can only grow and improve through increased involvement.

Place the cost of good tools beyond reasonable reach of the everyday man, woman or young enthusiast and their use will become elitist and drive folk away from involvement in the crafts. I genuinely feel this is the area in which the likes of Lie Nielsen, LV, Veritas, et al risk falling, because all too many enthusiasts can only ever dream of owning and using such tools while making do with lower quality equipment, or thinking they can't improve upon their current tool performance by learning a few basics before trying to move onto more advanced builds where accuracy and background knowledge lessen mistakes.

I'm not a fan of the general quality of Stanley/Record, etc. current lineup's, but - harkening back to the 70's - their tools used to take some beating and still do if the performance of my own tools is anything to go by. If they'd return to basics and begin getting things right once again i.e. tune-up planes during QC before releasing them for retail there'd be no real need for, or such increased enthusiasm for boutique tools who's designs are heavily rooted in/copied from originals. Such high prices are often gauged upon whatever such a niche market can bear. Since my apprentice years I'd been out of the carpentry tool buying market (I used to invest in at least one tool each week during my apprenticeship) for quite a few years apart from buying new plane blades, the odd sharpening stone, etc., but my youngest son having recently begun his apprenticeship brought to light how low general tool quality (Sloppy castings, pre-sales set-up's, longevity, etc.) has slipped over the past 30+ years.

Plastics knobs and handles on planes for heaven sake!??????

If Far Eastern makers can reproduce and improve upon the overall quality for less than western makers I'm all for investing in their products, but sincerely wish the likes of Stanley, Record and co. would pull their socks up. 

One aside is the fact that once Far Eastern economies begin approaching those of the west, their production costs will increase and drive up prices.


----------



## Vann (30 Jul 2010)

GazPal":13eh6o70 said:


> I'm not a fan of the general quality of Stanley/Record, etc. current lineup's, but - harkening back to the 70's - their tools used to take some beating and still do if the performance of my own tools is anything to go by.


I think you need to hark back yet another decade. My 1973 Stanley No.4 (the only plane I owned for nearly thirty years) is rubbish, so their quality control had already slipped by then, although I accept that a percentage of good ones were still coming through at that time.


GazPal":13eh6o70 said:


> One aside is the fact that once Far Eastern economies begin approaching those of the west, their production costs will increase and drive up prices.


I agree. unfortunately it's the damage they will do to our own industries, to the environment, and to the supply of the earths resources, getting there, is what worries me. I also have issues trading with countries with poor human rights - but that's just me.


GazPal":13eh6o70 said:


> rubbish depth adjustment yolks and other parts failures seem to be a fact of modern life and aren't exclusive to Far Eastern sourced tools.


Yes I believe Clifton yokes are made of dodgy material too. I've not heard of any failing in use, but a few people who have tried to silver-solder onto them have found the yokes have a low melting temperature.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## GazPal (31 Jul 2010)

Vann":1kcynmod said:


> Yes I believe Clifton yokes are made of dodgy material too. I've not heard of any failing in use, but a few people who have tried to silver-solder onto them have found the yokes have a low melting temperature.
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



Low melt temps could indicate the use of cheaply cast pot metal parts and it's a shame many makers don't use far better materials for such important elements. Although if they still need to onsider wear and tear between mating parts and it's cheaper to replace a softer alloy yolk than a machined brass adjuster.

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

In terms of harking back another decade or so for better build qualities, I agree, but was speaking of my own experience with the Record planes I'd so often found to be better made than those by Stanley. Perhaps some of my planes were residual stock from the 60's, but they took little - no setting up and are still going strong and holding true with minimal maintenance.


----------



## studders (31 Jul 2010)

Vann":x341a2p6 said:


> unfortunately it's the damage they will do to our own industries, to the environment, and to the supply of the earths resources, getting there, is what worries me. I also have issues trading with countries with poor human rights - but that's just me.
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



Tried to resist but, it was futile. :lol: 

You're not actually serious about the above are you Vann?
If you are then, all I can say is the West has little moral ground left to stand on when it comes to _any_ of the above, or for that matter the exploitation of anothers ideas/hard work/investment.


----------



## Vann (31 Jul 2010)

studders":3nlllm5e said:


> Tried to resist but, it was futile. :lol:


Resistance is futile - you know that :lol: 


studders":3nlllm5e said:


> You're not actually serious about the above are you Vann?
> If you are then, all I can say is the West has little moral ground left to stand on when it comes to _any_ of the above, or for that matter the exploitation of anothers ideas/hard work/investment.


 Unfortunately I am. 

I know this is off-topic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning the right of the Far East (or 'near west' if you live in NZ) to have the same living standards as us. I'm more questioning the use of the earths resources to make cheap and shoddy goods - often in enviromentally unfriendly factories (i.e. more evironmentally friendly than ours) in ever increasing quantities. The natural resoures required to make a quality product (say a TV - or plane) that lasts years would be only a bare fraction higher than that required to make a rubbish product that has to be thrown away in a year or two. And we in the "West" are encouraging this wasteful production, in order to save a buck or two. So yes, West has little moral ground left. That doesn't mean I have to willingly go along with it. 
Resistance* *IS* futile - but trying makes me feel a little better.  :roll: 

Cheers, Vann.

*resistance to the tidal wave of cheap (and often rubbish) eastern products.


----------



## matthewwh (31 Jul 2010)

Vann":2gs8auka said:


> Yes I believe Clifton yokes are made of dodgy material too. I've not heard of any failing in use, but a few people who have tried to silver-solder onto them have found the yokes have a low melting temperature.



Hi Vann,

Clifton intentionally use yokes that will fail before anything more expensive and difficult to replace fails. In normal use they should last a lifetime but if a customer does manage to over-tension the lever cap and break one they supply a free replacement and explain how to avoid it happening again.


----------



## Vann (1 Aug 2010)

matthewwh":2b0ml5rg said:


> Clifton intentionally use yokes that will fail before anything more expensive and difficult to replace fails. In normal use they should last a lifetime but if a customer does manage to over-tension the lever cap and break one they supply a free replacement and explain how to avoid it happening again.


Thanks Matthew. That makes sense.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## studders (1 Aug 2010)

Vann":1jzq9r02 said:


> Resistance is futile - you know that :lol:
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



Well, one likes to make the Token effort. :lol: 

I think I've got where you were coming from now and, I agree.
As Nations we cannot condemn them, given our own past and, in some cases our present 'Practices' , as individuals we can.


----------



## warrenr (1 Aug 2010)

Vann

We have exported our dirty industries to the Far East and China in particular. We have cleaner environments as a result and they now have much worse environental conditions. This is like putting your garbage in your neighbour's garden and criticising your neighbour for the state of his garden. 

I have spent the past four years as an environmental water engineer working to help improve the environmental compliance in China in the steel sector. China is building huge new highly efficient and potentially very clean steel mills. At the same time they are abandoning old mills in city centres often built by the Americans and Europeans. 

Increasing the biggest plants are located near the coast and use desalinated seawater. Some plants produce some of the most advanced steels in the world and use less water per ton of steel produced than anywhere else. If you want to criticise anyone look across the Atlantic and you can see why they haven't signed any protocols.

Not all is good or healthy in China but their progress, commitment and leadership is truly remarkable. The West especially the BBC love to knock it but one of the World's great step forward is potentially taking place with people being taken out of extreme poverty by the 100's of millions not because of oil or other natural resources; but their own very hard work and ingenuity.

Everyone I meet in my travels in this part of the World is in awe of the progress and what has been happening; by contrast in the West :twisted: The hypocrisy of the West and particular its media is really sad.

Richard


----------



## jimi43 (1 Aug 2010)

We can't blame the Far East at all...we created the industry, the market and are now the prime consumers.

Jim


----------



## studders (1 Aug 2010)

jimi43":20sov09o said:


> We can't blame the Far East at all....
> 
> Jim



Well, we sorta can really, as individuals. 
Even though they are just doing the same thing the West has/had been doing for a very long time, only cheaper else we'd be doing it, they are still exploiting a Market for profit, even if 'we' created/are the Market.
Vanns point, as I understand it, is that they are using vast resources and creating a lot of pollution in order to mass produce tat.
I'm aware it takes two to Tango, I'm also of the opinion that having a demand doesn't make satisfying that demand right.
It's about time we all took some responsibility for what we are doing to the Planet, including them across the Atlantic who 'appear' only to be bothered by what effects them.


----------



## warrenr (1 Aug 2010)

IMHO the only way to conserve is to tax. 

The Danes tax water, electricity and gas like petrol so that tax is around 60% of the price. It makes it very worthwhile to reduce energy and conserve resources. Importantly it encourages companies to innovate to help conserve or use alternative renewable sources. 

Back to the orginal point, we as the market buy what we want be it tat or high quality; the manufacturers produce what we want. Japan started by copying badly and cheaply and now produces some of the finest engineering kit.

China uses around 30% of the energy and resources per head that UK or the USA and yet it produces 30% of the goods that the West consumes. Get this right the polluter is you and me not the Chinese people. 

Richard


----------



## jimi43 (1 Aug 2010)

> Well, we sorta can really, as individuals.
> Even though they are just doing the same thing the West has/had been doing for a very long time, only cheaper else we'd be doing it, they are still exploiting a Market for profit, even if 'we' created/are the Market.



Poppies are beautiful red flowers that grow all over the Far East and would be just flowers were it not for the drugs market. It is the market that drives the demand that drives the supply that drives the greed that drives the pollution.

To put a little perspective on this overly negative view...a lot of cities in China are producing goods for export in an environmentally managed way. I saw a programme where the factories are so advanced they produce virtually no pollution. And...as Matt has proven...and the Japanese and Koreans proved before....they are starting to engineer quality...which matches most domestic markets.

China is a huge force that we either work with or oppose at our peril and taxing them out is not going to be the answer because of this. We must work in a mutually beneficial way with emerging nations...only then can the spaceship we ride upon survive into the future.

Jim


----------



## Trizza (6 Aug 2010)

Another followup: I was able to source a replacement yoke via Matthew - what a champ. Always a pleasure to deal with  I also ordered a second iron so I can have two with different cambers, and a 2" wide iron and breaker for a bargain basement plane I've been attempting to fettle into nice condition.

After replacing the yoke the QS No 6 performs brilliantly. I squared up some maple with it as a test and it was great 

I studied the old yoke closely after I had it out of the plane, and there is quite clealy a small void in the casting, roughly 1mm in diameter:


----------



## Tim Nott (7 Aug 2010)

For those of you whose German is a little rusty (unlike the planes) here's the English link
http://www.fine-tools.com/eputz4.htm


----------

