# Quangsheng V4 No.6 review



## dh7892 (16 Jan 2011)

I was lucky enough to have some money given to me by She Who Doesn't Have To Be Obeyed But It's Probably A Good Idea To Just In Case. I wanted to get something that I would use for a long time and perhaps something that I wouldn't have bought otherwise. 

I decided on a plane. I wanted something bigger than I've currently got and something new since all my planes are second-hand ones. 

I thought about a No7 from LV or LN but, even though I'd been given the money, £250+ just seems like a huge amount of money to spend. So, after reading a bit and seeing the generally favourable responses, I decided to go for the Quangsheng. Since WH don't have a No7, I went for the No6. 

At this point, I should be clear to all that I don't have any credentials for doing reviews. I've used my small selection of hand planes a reasonable amount and I think I know how to get a blade sharp and how to cut wood, but I've never used a plane bigger than a No4 and never used one of the better planes (LN, LV, Clifton etc) so I don't have anything to compare against. 

That said, I think a beginners' opinion can be valuable so here we go...

First, the obligatory box shot. 







I like the way it's packaged. It looks like someone cares about the product. I have no idea if all new planes come packaged in this way but it looks good to me. 

After removing the coat of protective oil, I decided to give it a try straight away. I didn't expect it to work well straight out of the box but I thought I'd give it a go for the record.

I tried it out on a hunk of Mahogany that I have left over from a guitar body. 






It took shavings but they were a bit rough and there was plenty of tear-out. Not surprising really. 

So, I took a trip to the sharpening station:






The blade's nice and thick, the chip breaker fits very snugly and there is a good finish on all of the ground surfaces. It took no time at all to bring the iron up to a razor sharp finish. 

Then, it was back into the plane and I attacked the Mahogany again. One thing I found slightly annoying is the fact that I can't reach the adjustment with my fingers whilst I'm holding the handle. And I've got pretty large fingers. This might be standard with bigger planes because I imagine that the handle placement needs to be right so that the weight distribution feels good and this means that the blade will be further away from the handle. But it does slow down the work in getting the blade depth just right. 

That being said, my newly sharp iron transformed the plane into a very competent shaving machine. It feels very sturdy and has a pleasant heft to it without being too heavy. The handles are very comfy and I must say that I find it to look very nice too. It seems that earlier QS planes had Grasswood handles which folks didn't seem to like much but these "Chinese Rosewood" (whatever that its) handles look and feel very nice to me.






I moved on to a block of Maple and, whilst I was taking good enough shavings, I started getting some tear out at one end where the grain went a bit awkward. 

At this point, I had something of a revelation. Having decided that this plane ought to be able to handle this wood without tear out, I set about trying to work out how to improve the performance. The most obvious thing to try was the mouth. The frog attaches to the body with two locking screws and an adjustment screw. These are all accessible from the back so can be adjusted without removing the blade. I just loosened the two screws and twisted the centre screw to move the frog forwards until the blade was closer to the front of the mouth. Then I locked the two screws and I was all set. Very quick and easy. 






And what a difference! I could now get full length, transparent shavings with no tear out whatsoever. I'm sure this won't come as a surprise to many of you and I've seen plenty of comment about how a tight mouth improves performance. But this was the first time that I've had the equipment to try it out. What a difference! Hence my revelation. Both in terms of the ease of adjusting the QS and how much it improves the performance. As you can see, I got a bit carried away and produced a nice pile of shavings.






I didn't check the sole and sides for flatness and squareness. I've seen Matthew's video on the web where he demonstrates this and I see no reason to think I'd be unlucky with this plane. Given that the performance of the plane seems very good to me, I conclude that it's either flat or it doesn't need to be!

In summary then this plane is, in many ways, just like the perfect woman:

It won't cost you the earth but it's not too cheap.
It's not carrying too much extra weight but it's got meat where you want it.
You get the feeling that it would happily ride wood for hours without a drop-off in performance.
All of the mating surfaces are smooth and tight-fitting.
It will need the occasional wax to keep smooth.
It's easy to close the mouth if you're getting too much chatter.
I'd recommend it to all my friends. :shock: 

I'd like to try using this plane on a shooting board but, I'm starting to think it's a bit big for that and I can't find my board at the moment. When I track it down, I'll give it a go and see how it gets on.

All in all, I'm very happy with it and would happily buy another QS. I add my humble voice to the calls to Matthew to get a QS shoulder plane and a No7 in the shop.

Dave


----------



## yetloh (16 Jan 2011)

Dave, 

Is the rear tote big enough for your hand? I don't have particularly big hands but found that on the No 4 the handle wasn't big enough, mainly because it is more upright than most Bailey planes, resulting in uncomfortably squashed up fingers.

So far as shooting boards are concerned, it should be fine. I use a No 7 on a shooting board for butt jointing long edges; the ideal tool for the job in my opinion.

Jim


----------



## woodbloke (16 Jan 2011)

Good review. I see that you're using the 3M papers from Workshop Heaven which are excellent, but if you cut each full sized sheet into strips 70mm wide (which is more than adequate for plane and chisel blades) the total sharpening 'footprint' is drastically reduced - Rob


----------



## Fromey (16 Jan 2011)

Thanks for taking the time to write this. I'm pretty certain I'll be buying a QS No. 6 (not 7) sometime this year so it's always good to see ahead of time that it's a good (not god) choice.


----------



## Kalimna (16 Jan 2011)

"it's a god choice."

Fromey - It may be a good piece of kit, but Im not sure it's worthy of supernatural being status 

Adam S

P.S. A nice complete review by the way. If I had a little spare cash after chrimbo then I would prob be up for one of QS, maybe a 6 too.


----------



## LuptonM (16 Jan 2011)

One thing I think they can improve it is by having mushroom shaped front handles like in the LA LV Jack - I just find them 
easier to hold

I might be wrong since I don't know why Stanley now uses the balloon shaped ones


----------



## woodbloke (16 Jan 2011)

Fromey":1a62piix said:


> I'm pretty certain I'll be buying a QS No. 7 sometime this year.



That would be quite difficult at the moment unless Matthew extracts the digit :lol: :lol: ...they only go up to a No6 at the present time - Rob


----------



## dh7892 (16 Jan 2011)

yetloh":3vosq4ka said:


> Dave,
> 
> Is the rear tote big enough for your hand? I don't have particularly big hands but found that on the No 4 the handle wasn't big enough, mainly because it is more upright than most Bailey planes, resulting in uncomfortably squashed up fingers.
> 
> ...



I find it OK. I guess that it probably is on the smaller side but I found it to be quite comfy. I'll report back if my opinion changes after any long periods of use as I guess that's the real test.

Thanks for the advice on the shooting boards. I was hoping it would be OK as it's got nice big sides and I thought the extra mass of a larger plane would help with shooting.

Rob, I agree about the footprint being smaller if I chop up the paper into smaller bits. They're already in half in that picture. I bought the glass that size and, although I do have facilities for cutting glass, I'm happy enough with the size as it is. Thanks for the tip though.


----------



## Fromey (16 Jan 2011)

I wrote my post while having a coffee break from digging a french drain. The fatigue was more that I expected! :?


----------



## Alf (16 Jan 2011)

LuptonM":1a3hrr3x said:


> One thing I think they can improve it is by having mushroom shaped front handles like in the LA LV Jack - I just find them
> easier to hold
> 
> I might be wrong since I don't know why Stanley now uses the balloon shaped ones


Economy - less wood needed. Damn those accountants...

Cheers for the review, Dave - I'll draw a discrete veil over the perfect woman analogy... I think the inability to stop making shavings for the sake of it is pretty telling.  Many a person who's opinion I take notice of actively advocate a #6 as a shooting plane, btw. 



dh7892":1a3hrr3x said:


> That said, I think a beginners' opinion can be valuable so here we go...


For the record, so do I. Someone who's been playing with planes a long time can easily get blasé about how much they have to tune a plane and what things might phase a less experienced user.

So how many more votes for a #7 does it need, or are the Chinese elves not equipped to make such a beast? And if they can, is there any chance they'll put the rear tote back in the right place? Questions, questions. Matthew, you out there? Any answers, answers?


----------



## Trizza (16 Jan 2011)

Nice review Dave! I too have a QS No. 6 and I've found it absolutely invaluable. Great plane. 



Alf":2dzqq0qe said:


> So how many more votes for a #7 does it need, or are the Chinese elves not equipped to make such a beast? And if they can, is there any chance they'll put the rear tote back in the right place? Questions, questions. Matthew, you out there? Any answers, answers?



Oh, and while they're at it, a #8 too!  I'll order both


----------



## Kalimna (16 Jan 2011)

+1 for the No.8

Adam S


----------



## bugbear (17 Jan 2011)

Alf":nnsplyts said:


> So how many more votes for a #7 does it need, or are the Chinese elves not equipped to make such a beast?



I have heard, from people in a position to know, that surface grinders (the machine we hope is being used to true the sole) get suddenly much more expensive around the 20" mark.

BugBear


----------



## dh7892 (17 Jan 2011)

Does anyone have any comments about my observation of the adjuster being unreachable from the handle? Is this normal for a plane of this size? 

Also, can anyone who has experience of both quantify how close the QS is in terms of performance and ease of use to one of the "better" makes?


----------



## Jacob (17 Jan 2011)

dh7892":3sn6010l said:


> Does anyone have any comments about my observation of the adjuster being unreachable from the handle? Is this normal for a plane of this size? ....


One of the many strengths of the modern Stanley Bailey design is the convenient positioning and ease of use of the handle and adjusters. 
Easily overlooked and taken for granted, until you have a go with one of the "new" planes and realise what you have lost. Amongst other things - the realisation that norris adjusters are rubbish, although they do look nice.


----------



## Alf (17 Jan 2011)

bugbear":2bxe3si5 said:


> Alf":2bxe3si5 said:
> 
> 
> > So how many more votes for a #7 does it need, or are the Chinese elves not equipped to make such a beast?
> ...


Yes, I did wonder if it was something like that.



dh7892":2bxe3si5 said:


> Does anyone have any comments about my observation of the adjuster being unreachable from the handle? Is this normal for a plane of this size?


No. I hadn't even realised it was until this came up in another thread recently, mentioned by Brian (here). For some inexplicable (to me) reason, having slavishly copied so much, they elected to put the rear tote further back on the #6. 



dh7892":2bxe3si5 said:


> Also, can anyone who has experience of both quantify how close the QS is in terms of performance and ease of use to one of the "better" makes?


I went into the matter a little in my review of the V1(?) #3 here.


----------



## dh7892 (17 Jan 2011)

Thanks Alf, it was actually your review of the No3 that made me think about adjusting the depth without taking my hands off the handle.


----------



## jimi43 (18 Jan 2011)

Great review! I am going to have to get me one of these QS thingies one of these days!

Cheers

Jim


----------



## yetloh (18 Jan 2011)

Jim, 

Make sure you try before you buy. The #4 tote was small for my hand and mine are not big.

Jim


----------



## woodbloke (20 Jan 2011)

yetloh":35zv5e8h said:


> Jim,
> 
> Make sure you try before you buy. The #4 tote was small for my hand and mine are not big.
> 
> Jim


I wonder if the Chinese base the dimensions for the tote on Oriental rather than Western anthropometric data? If they do, it might explain why the tote sizes seem to be a bit small for our use - Rob


----------



## yetloh (20 Jan 2011)

Yes, I wondered that too. If they did, it sounds a bit surprising because I would have thought that the west would be their major market, but I guess they may not even have known there is a difference.

Jim


----------



## matthewwh (23 Jan 2011)

I'm still trying to persuade them to do a No. 7 next and will pass on all of the comments mentioned here which I am sure will be greatly appreciated and, in the case of suggestions, acted upon where feasible and practicable. 

As soon as a Jointer plane becomes available we will stock it.

Cheers,


Matthew
http://workshopheaven.com
http://workshopheaven.blogspot.com


p.s. Does anyone else get an image of Swiss Toni from the Fast Show passing through their mind while reading Dave's review?


----------



## Tarkin (23 Jan 2011)

matthewwh":1rlmg71r said:


> p.s. Does anyone else get an image of Swiss Toni from the Fast Show passing through their mind while reading Dave's review?



Yes! That is _exactly_ what I was thinking! Excellent review, I've been considering a No6 for a while, you may have just pushed me over the edge.


----------



## Saint Simon (23 Jan 2011)

Just a quiet vote for supporting our UK manufacturers. 
If we can afford Cliftons and the like I feel we should buy British when we can to ensure that we don't loose all our making jobs and expertise over the horizon. 
Just a quiet plea.
Simon


----------



## Kalimna (23 Jan 2011)

Simon - surely a whole can of worms to be opened there. But simple economics on the part of the purchaser come into play here. For two items that aren't *really* that different in performance, £120 for one and £250 for UK made, it's a no-brainer for a lot of folk. I would love to stick to purchasing UK gear, but the options are extremely limited for doing so. Clifton planes have a good name (Ive never used one myself), but when was the last time they expanded their line of bench, shoulder planes and spokeshaves? LV/LN/Quangsheng have quality equalling Clifton (from other discussions on here) yet seem able to continually update their product line. Why couldnt Clifton do that? Particularly at their price point, they can't surely afford to rest on past laurels. The same goes for the Sheffield saw makers.

Adam


----------



## yetloh (23 Jan 2011)

Kalimna":1er6ejj4 said:


> Why couldnt Clifton do that? Particularly at their price point, they can't surely afford to rest on past laurels.



Because planes are only a small sideline and they have other priorities. By the same token, this is probably why their planes show no innovation or new thinking which is why, leaving price aside, I would prefer to have Veritas over Clifton, QS or LN.

Jim


----------



## woodbloke (23 Jan 2011)

yetloh":234z6rnt said:


> Kalimna":234z6rnt said:
> 
> 
> > Why couldnt Clifton do that? Particularly at their price point, they can't surely afford to rest on past laurels.
> ...


...and also that two piece cap iron. I was using a Clifi No5 yesterday (and I had to sharpen the blade)...I still detest it :evil: - Rob


----------



## jimi43 (23 Jan 2011)

If Clifton were going out of business they wouldn't keep selling planes and whilst I am usually at the forefront of support for British industry...the price commanded for the job just does not meet my requirements. For those who want Sheffield quality and engineering, I think they should pay what they feel it's worth. For those that want a tool that does the job equally (?) as well...well they have the option to buy Chinese.

It's a global market and those who succeed will know what the right formula is...those who don't deserve all they get IMHO.

Now that can is well and truly open...apologies for the hijack....

Jim

Oh and FWIW...I like Veritas too!


----------



## matthewwh (25 Jan 2011)

We are incredibly privileged to be the first generation of woodworkers to be able to have a comparative conversation about more than two brands of serviceable planes since before the second world war. The fact that we can have that conversation with so many people is a wonder of technology and yet another thing to be grateful for. So first up, thank you to the awesome people like Alan, Tom, Shengyao and Rob, their families, their directors, and their directors families, who have personally put everything on the line to raise the bar immeasurably and make conversations like this possible.

There seems to be a protectionist tinge around Clico which is very kind but wholly unwarranted as they produce flat out the best bench planes anywhere in the world (to +/- 0.075thou though they would never admit it) . No fanfare, no song-and-dance marketing departments, just a satisfied smile and the knowledge that most people will figure it out eventually. Nobody else can heat treat a beautifully executed, slow cooled, grey iron casting to make it almost match a ductile one for unbreakability whilst kicking it's ass into orbit in terms of ridgidity (yebbut mine didn't break vs yebbut nor did mine and mine's still flat...?). Nobody else forges big fat cylindrical bars of O1 flat to make the best possible blanks for their irons and then grinds out just the best bit right in the centre of the forging. Nobody else sticks with the principle that a hardened plane iron tip, supported on three sides with soft steel or iron and subject to compression will minimise flutter in the hardened portion. Yes, they have had some [email protected] luck with the floods, which has significantly hampered the expansion of the range, but thanks to some best quality pre-emptive Yorkshire prudence they are far from being on the back foot and continue to be the benchmark by which the others quietly measure themselves. 

QS continue to bring extraordinary value to the party, they are investing hard and actively listening to and reacting to customer feedback (believe me nothing posted on here goes unheard). This is the first time I have worked so closely with a Chinese firm and what they lack in experience of competitive capitalist markets they more than make up for in terms of theoretical understanding, willingness to listen and also willingness to invest. If you wondered where the balance weight is for wisdom vs wit - look to the east.

Rob Lee keeps everyone else in a perpetual state of nervous disposition about whether he is about to unveil some awesome piece of intellectual genius that will further secure his place in history and make LV a fortune 500 company overnight. Let's face if if there were prizes for effort and innovation these guys would be long overdue a very, very big, very, very shiny, gong. Furthermore, I doubt they would have too much trouble knocking up a trophy cabinet to put it in. Great guys, hugely devoted to what they do and boy do they like their hockey. If anyone were looking for the 20th/21st century contribution to toolmaking they would start here.

Tom Lie-Nielsen is one of the finest human beings I have ever met in my life, I only know two people called Thomas and my son is named after both of them - considering I can't even sell his tools that is quite something! That is how much I respect this guy and the leading role he has taken in bringing the standards of a whole industry back from the brink. He was the first, the aiming point, the ass to beat, he set the bar high and then sat on it and challenged others to try and match him. 

In short, this is a healthy, proactive, competitive industry being fought over by some hugely talented guys in their business prime. I don't want to be negative about the future, but let's be blunt, there hasn't been a better time to invest in a metal bench plane since they were invented - fill yer boots.


----------



## jimi43 (25 Jan 2011)

Matt my friend...that is one of the best summaries and the most eloquent review of the quality hand tool market I have ever had the pleasure to read!

BRAVO!

Jim


----------



## lanemaux (25 Jan 2011)

Here , here jimi . Matt , spoken as a true enthusiast. Well said.


----------



## dh7892 (25 Jan 2011)

Matt's pointed out some very important issues there. In order to survive in a market place, you have to offer something to differentiate your products from your rivals'. All of the companies mentioned offer something. It's up to us as buyers to decide what our priorities are and chose the vendor that best matches our requirements. 

For me, I'm happy with the performance of the QS and the price is certainly easier to justify for my wallet. What is impressing me the most with them is the speed at which they are taking on suggestions and feedback. I'm sure that this must make them exciting to work with Matt as you know that have a mechanism for improving the products you sell and providing your clients with what they're after. 

Dave

P.S. I've never liked the Fast Show so I didn't know about Swiss Tony. Perhaps I'll have to change my style for my next review so I end up sounding like something I like. Perhaps Heidi Klum?


----------



## Racers (25 Jan 2011)

Hi, Dave

Swiss tony on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_E0ZF2uIKs


Pete


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 Jan 2011)

Excellent summary, Matthew =D> A similar situation exists with saws. We are indeed very fortunate.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## wood butcher (25 Jan 2011)

Well said Mathew, 

There will always be a market for high end engineered hand tools and affordable hand tools and inbetween, I myself lie in the latter but but still love beautiful engineering.


----------



## Fromey (26 Jan 2011)

A very interesting read Matthew. Looks like something you could add to your blog and thus get a wider audience (not out of narcissism, but because it's a message that needs to be spread). A QS plane is in my budget but with the current economic figures, I'm seriously considering a Clifton in order to support UK production (even though I'm an Ozzie).


----------



## Trizza (26 Jan 2011)

Well said Matt!



Paul Chapman":1kf7phb5 said:


> A similar situation exists with saws. We are indeed very fortunate.


I'm not sure I agree - there are plenty of awesome joinery saws around, sure, but we're still in the dark ages as far as hand and panel saws go. The only way to get a good big saw seems to be to buy custom made (eg Wenzloff, or Two Lawyers), or to refurbish a second hand one.


----------



## woodbloke (26 Jan 2011)

Trizza":29r9qlru said:


> ... but we're still in the dark ages as far as hand and panel saws go. The only way to get a good big saw seems to be to buy custom made (eg Wenzloff, or Two Lawyers), or to refurbish a second hand one.



...or go Japanese! Plenty of choice around including some excellent saws from Matthew. I very, very rarely use a Western style saw now as I find the oriental saws far superior - Rob


----------



## Trizza (26 Jan 2011)

woodbloke":6k3ws3ak said:


> ...or go Japanese! Plenty of choice around including some excellent saws from Matthew. I very, very rarely use a Western style saw now as I find the oriental saws far superior - Rob



I've got several Japanese saws and they are amazing at the sorts of cuts they are made for, but I find Western style saws far superior for stock prep. I find Western saws a lot less susceptible to binding in the cut (I almost always have to use wedges when ripping with a Japanese saw) and a lot less difficult to keep the cut planar if you're doing a long rip in thick stock. The added length is a huge bonus when doing long rips too - you can use long strokes with your entire arm so you don't have to work as furiously to achieve the same speed of cut.

But you can prise my Dozuki and my Ryoba from my cold, dead hands!


----------



## Jacob (26 Jan 2011)

Trizza":o5ozuxyx said:


> Well said Matt!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are hundreds of good quality second hand saws available for very little outlay. Most need nothing but sharpening. 
The new ones are pretty good too. 
It's difficult to NOT get a good saw. Not surprising really; there's not much to them - a very simple basic tool.
It's all down to the sharpening.


----------



## bugbear (26 Jan 2011)

Jacob":r7fud9wo said:


> It's difficult to NOT get a good saw.



But through care, diligence and stubbornness, you managed it!

:lol: :lol: :lol: =D> 

BugBear


----------



## Trizza (26 Jan 2011)

Jacob":3f9zxw4u said:


> It's difficult to NOT get a good saw.



18 months spent searching for one tells me otherwise! I ended up buying a job lot from an auction in the US. We're not all lucky enough to live in countries where people are practically throwing away good saws. The tradition here was to use frame saws, and most are so badly rusted to be useless these days. Metal bodied planes are a rarity here, too. Wooden bodied planes with nice laminated irons on the other hand, those I could bring back by the sackful from every boot sale I visit..

Besides, we were talking about newly manufactured items, not second hand.


----------



## Jacob (26 Jan 2011)

bugbear":1w4fjcak said:


> Jacob":1w4fjcak said:
> 
> 
> > It's difficult to NOT get a good saw.
> ...


Yebbut it was only £2 or something, as an experiment. Don't buy Wilco's DT saw anybody! Though they might have got their act together - there was no reason for it not to be sharp.
They replaced it eventually with 2 free hardpoint saws which are excellent and still in use.

Plenty of Footprint, Stanley, other good makes, available new and old.


----------



## Jacob (26 Jan 2011)

Trizza":8fbd21q4 said:


> Jacob":8fbd21q4 said:
> 
> 
> > It's difficult to NOT get a good saw.
> ...


I just googled "Footprint saws"
Some nice ones here. Plenty more (and other brands) where they came from. They will need sharpening no doubt. It says "hand sharpened" on the handles but I wouldn't take that for granted.


----------



## Trizza (26 Jan 2011)

Jacob - They may be decent, but they're not even a patch on the stuff that was being manufactured in the golden age of saws. Just look at those uncomfortable, clublike handles. Matt commented that we're in the golden age of planes - and its true, the stuff these days that you can buy off the shelf is amazing quality, at least as good as anything thats ever been made - but you just can't say the same for saws. Where's the equivalent of Lie-Nielsen or Veritas making new D8s? There are a few custom builders making fantastic stuff, sure, but no-one seems to be making top notch stuff that you can buy off the shelf.


----------



## bugbear (26 Jan 2011)

Trizza":2hnegac8 said:


> Where's the equivalent of Lie-Nielsen or Veritas making new D8s?



Not going to happen, I suspect.

Most woodworkers are "mixed", doing the heavy work on power tools, and joint making and finishing with hand tools.

Thus there is a market for fancy planes, and back saws.

The number of people doing the heavy work by hand, who might want the larger saws is too small for economical manufacture of products, I think.

In any case, there's a HUGE over hang of saws from the pre-power era still around, little use in most cases...

20-30 quid (in the UK) will get you an excellent hand saw from a specialist s/h tool dealer, let alone cheaper sources.

BugBear


----------



## Alf (26 Jan 2011)

Trizza":2dvj0q0n said:


> Jacob - They may be decent, but they're not even a patch on the stuff that was being manufactured in the golden age of saws. Just look at those uncomfortable, clublike handles. Matt commented that we're in the golden age of planes - and its true, the stuff these days that you can buy off the shelf is amazing quality, at least as good as anything thats ever been made - but you just can't say the same for saws.


Well, um, you could argue that many of the planes still suffer in the handle department too. I do, anyway. :lol: 

Matt, while I appreciate that in some quarters there's some strange feeling of holiness in not proclaiming the virtues of your product, I don't think we'd think any the less of Clifton if they had actually mentioned some of that at some point. There's an area in there between "Nothing" and "Sales Pitch" that they could fill a little to everyone's advantage, I think.


----------



## bugbear (26 Jan 2011)

Jacob":2ajipkml said:


> bugbear":2ajipkml said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":2ajipkml said:
> ...



IIRC it was Draper, and a little more than 2 quid.

You're right, of course. There's no reason for a saw to be blunt, apart from (a) good sharpening costs money than grotty sharpening, and (b) they don't care about their product, as long as it sells

BugBear


----------



## Modernist (26 Jan 2011)

woodbloke":3dk3hdtw said:


> yetloh":3dk3hdtw said:
> 
> 
> > Jim,
> ...



So the average Chinese No 6 user has hands like a 12 year old but 8" long fingers to reach the adjuster - I don't think so 

AH = light bulb moment - maybe it's intended to be used with chopsticks.


----------



## Jacob (26 Jan 2011)

bugbear":3ar5bwb7 said:


> Jacob":3ar5bwb7 said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":3ar5bwb7 said:
> ...


It was one of these bought from Wilco a few years ago. Might have been £3. I was surprised that as a hard-point saw it wasn't sharp. Most saws are OK but there is some rubbish about at the bottom end!


----------



## Paul Chapman (26 Jan 2011)

Trizza":2onjqc1r said:


> There are a few custom builders making fantastic stuff, sure, but no-one seems to be making top notch stuff that you can buy off the shelf.



Mike Wenzloff makes quite a few which are available off the shelf from Lee Valley http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.a ... at=1,42884 or The Best Things http://www.thebestthings.com/newtools/wenzloff_saws.htm

And if they don't suit your needs, he'll make one to your specification http://www.wenzloffandsons.com/

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (26 Jan 2011)

Trizza":1vq6k5ch said:


> [
> I've got several Japanese saws and they are amazing at the sorts of cuts they are made for, but I find Western style saws far superior for stock prep.
> But you can prise my Dozuki and my Ryoba from my cold, dead hands!


...but then if I'm preparing stock I'd use a bandsaw or table saw. I'd very rarely use a handsaw of any denomination to rough cut timber - Rob


----------



## Trizza (26 Jan 2011)

woodbloke":1irsi4xg said:


> I'd very rarely use a handsaw of any denomination to rough cut timber - Rob



Yeah fair enough. I wish I could do rough stock prep with a bandsaw too, although having a good quality big rip saw (I lucked out with a nice one in the job lot I bought) makes it far, far less painful than it was before!


----------



## Fromey (26 Jan 2011)

woodbloke":95ammffj said:


> ...but then if I'm preparing stock I'd use a bandsaw or table saw. I'd very rarely use a handsaw of any denomination to rough cut timber - Rob



Then pity us poor people without access to electrickery devices.


----------



## woodbloke (28 Jan 2011)

It's been very interesting to read David Savage's review of the No6 in the latest issue of BW...it's not liked at all (mainly 'cos of the handle) - Rob


----------



## Modernist (28 Jan 2011)

Nice to know David Savage agrees with my view of a year ago  
Also good to see the mag publishing some informed and realistic reviews


----------



## matthewwh (28 Jan 2011)

woodbloke":2vezqpy7 said:


> It's been very interesting to read David Savage's review of the No6 in the latest issue of BW...it's not liked at all (mainly 'cos of the handle) - Rob



Really! I thought it was a hugely positive review of the Quangsheng considering that David is probably the most outspoken tool critic in the world. The Stanley got the full broadside and came off much worse, vis: "Honey, this is no sweetheart, this is a dog!" compared with the Quangsheng's "The machining is exceptional, as it should be. The sole is flat, as it should be. The blade is made from high carbon T10 steel hardened to RC63 and is very impressive and I don't do 'impressed' very often."

The handles were the only aspect he found wanting, and putting a handle designed by a metalworker into the hands of one of the most gifted wood/human interface specialists on the planet, I kind of expected some constructive criticism there. As he says though, it's not a hard thing to put right. The position of the handle relative to the frog on the No. 6 is a known issue and another one that we hope to get sorted out, thankfully it doesn't affect the other sizes in the range.

I agree with Brian's point about informed and realistic reviews - well done Nick Gibbs!


----------



## Modernist (28 Jan 2011)

Well given that the handle problem is now a "known" issue and has been confirmed by a wide range of experienced users and re-documented in the latest BWW I suggest it would be appropriate for Matthew to demonstrate his much noted excellence as a high end supplier by recalling all No 6 dispatched to date and replacing them with an amended alternative or full refund. Having pointed out this fault shortly after receipt and not found it's annoyance diminished over the intervening year I am not a happy customer.


----------



## mtr1 (28 Jan 2011)

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Can't see it myself  . Anyone know where there's a badly designed plane for sale?


----------



## LuptonM (28 Jan 2011)

One good idea Veritas came up with is having 2 threads through the handle, maybe that could be incorporated into the new generation of planes if its not too costly. I am not sure if ppl have trouble with their handles moving occasionally though


----------



## matthewwh (28 Jan 2011)

It's always difficult to determine the line between a 'fault' and an 'opportunity for improvement'. 

Take Volkswagen Golf's for example - the same model produced for many years with many revisions. Does the fact that VW have found ways to make the car faster, safer, more economical etc amount to an admission that the original Mk1 Golf was fault ridden? Has everyone who bought a Golf been issued with a free replacement car at their dealership's expense every time VW found a way of improving them? There have been recalls of cars for life and death safety issues, like the recent problem with Toyotas leaking fuel, but I have never heard of a full recall for ergonomic reasons.

Having said that I do like a happy customer, so if you give me a call on Monday Brian I'm sure we can sort something out. On a wider scale, if we can come up with an alternative handle that can be swapped out by the user I don't see a problem with popping one in the post to our existing No.6 owners.


----------



## LuptonM (28 Jan 2011)

Is the handle the same as those found on the stanley plane (ie size and location of holes)? If so it would be easy for the user to make his own using the plans on the LV site and shaping it to his/her requirements. 

The shape of the handle is a pretty small issue and is a personal choice. e.g Its well documented Alf hates LV rear handles but they seem pretty comfortable to me.

It would obvious be ridiculous to recall planes based on the handles, but I think Brian was joking anyway

As long as the car has a good engine, I don't mind reupholstering the seats


----------



## JohnCee (28 Jan 2011)

Modernist":1bmcp8eh said:


> Well given that the handle problem is now a "known" issue and has been confirmed by a wide range of experienced users and re-documented in the latest BWW I suggest it would be appropriate for Matthew to demonstrate his much noted excellence as a high end supplier by recalling all No 6 dispatched to date and replacing them with an amended alternative or full refund. Having pointed out this fault shortly after receipt and not found it's annoyance diminished over the intervening year I am not a happy customer.


----------



## Modernist (29 Jan 2011)

matthewwh":3ot7lvd3 said:


> It's always difficult to determine the line between a 'fault' and an 'opportunity for improvement'.
> 
> Take Volkswagen Golf's for example - the same model produced for many years with many revisions. Does the fact that VW have found ways to make the car faster, safer, more economical etc amount to an admission that the original Mk1 Golf was fault ridden? Has everyone who bought a Golf been issued with a free replacement car at their dealership's expense every time VW found a way of improving them? There have been recalls of cars for life and death safety issues, like the recent problem with Toyotas leaking fuel, but I have never heard of a full recall for ergonomic reasons.
> 
> Having said that I do like a happy customer, so if you give me a call on Monday Brian I'm sure we can sort something out. On a wider scale, if we can come up with an alternative handle that can be swapped out by the user I don't see a problem with popping one in the post to our existing No.6 owners.



Well thanks for coming back quickly Matthew. I take your point but a development is something like the finer thread on the adjuster of block planes (which I also pointed out a long time ago in my review) whereas a design fault is what we have with the No 6 as it directly affects and seriously limits it's usability. As for your second point if top end hand planes are not about ergonomics then I don't know what is. 

Incidentally later Golfs were in fact slower than the originals - as demonstrated by Top Gear  

I'll call you Monday


----------



## woodbloke (29 Jan 2011)

matthewwh":1xabtaa1 said:


> woodbloke":1xabtaa1 said:
> 
> 
> > It's been very interesting to read David Savage's review of the No6 in the latest issue of BW...it's not liked at all (mainly 'cos of the handle) - Rob
> ...


Yes!...really Matthew. He starts by saying his '_first impression_' (important that :wink: ) is that it's '_an impressive piece of work_' and then goes on to say all the nice things about it. He then finishes by saying that he '_found this plane about as useful as a cast steel and brass paperweight, and this was the unanimous view of the four people who used it extensively in my workshop_' The conclusion is Matt, that this is a wartsn'all review and it would have been good if you'd mentioned his concluding scentence as well. As you said, the issue is a known one and QS will probably sort it fairly smartly - Rob


----------



## Alf (29 Jan 2011)

That's quite amusing, given that a cast steel and brass paperweight would be really very useful indeed... :lol:

So how did he went from all the nice stuff to "paperweight" based solely on the handle? Hmm, interesting.


----------



## Modernist (29 Jan 2011)

Alf":pj9m9w63 said:


> That's quite amusing, given that a cast steel and brass paperweight would be really very useful indeed... :lol:
> 
> So how did he went from all the nice stuff to "paperweight" based solely on the handle? Hmm, interesting.



Maybe he tried to plane some wood


----------



## yetloh (29 Jan 2011)

matthewwh":30ts27tt said:


> On a wider scale, if we can come up with an alternative handle that can be swapped out by the user I don't see a problem with popping one in the post to our existing No.6 owners.



It also appies to the No 4 that I reviewed for F&C this month - the plane is beautifully made, the blade is brilliant but the handle is very uncomfortable to the point where, if it was in my workshop, I simply wouldn't use it. The real problem is that the tote is far too upright which, on the no 4 at least, means that it must be too short if it is not to collide with the lateral adjuster. My review contains a photo of the QS No 4 in front of my old and very comfortable Record No 5 and the difference in angle is quite striking.

I fear the solution may not be quite as simple as replacing the handle. On the No 6 a new handle would help because it could be taller, but it would still be too upright to be ideal. On the No 4, the angle would have to be changed because of the height restriction. That would require a corresponding change in the angle of the long fixing screw and its threaded hole in the plane casting which is not a user fixable problem for existing planes. This is why I suggested earlier in this thread that anyone contemplating buying a No 4 should try before they buy.

Jim


----------



## matthewwh (29 Jan 2011)

The primary function of a bench plane is to alter the shape and texture of wood. It needs to have handles so that you can push it along. 

The primary function of a car is to provide transport - it needs seats and controls so that you can drive it. 

In both cases it is nice if the user finds the product comfortable, personally I find Jaguars more comfortable than Fiestas, but that still doesn't constitute a fault in the Fiesta and plenty of folk continue to buy them. If someone turned up at a Ford dealership demanding a free hand-stitched calf leather interior to replace the 'faulty' one in their old Fiesta, most people would regard them as being somewhat 'eccentric'.

We also offer Clifton planes, the handles of which are undoubtedly more comfortable and ergonomically designed than Quangsheng handles, you pays your money and takes your choice. 

I think what this process has really shown up has less to do with planes and more to do with just how good a 'real' product review can be. If anything I am more astonished at how conditioned people have become to overwhelmingly positive reviews and how they react to something with a bit more bite to it. I have yet to see Jim's review in F&C but from what he has mentioned on here I suspect it will draw similar conclusions.

Most magazines shy away from heavyweight reviewers like David because they are worried about him upsetting their advertisers, far from being upset I was delighted with it. Just because David found a couple of negative points doesn't make it a negative review, if anything it adds extra credence and weight to all the other aspects that he did like. I can now give customers a more detailed answer to the question "what benefit is there in paying twice as much for a Clifton?" Customers can decide if the three figure amount they save by choosing a Quangsheng is enough to warrant putting up with a less comfortable handle or making a new one. QS get some valuable and carefully considered input and Nick sells lots more magazines - everybody wins.


----------



## woodbloke (29 Jan 2011)

matthewwh":3i6u048u said:


> Just because David found a couple of negative points doesn't make it a negative review, if anything it adds extra credence and weight to all the other aspects that he did like.


 
Matthew, I can see you're point of view and there's absolutely nothing wrong with you defending your product, but when a heavy hitter like David Savage publishes a review to the effect that he (and others) finds the plane as useful as a cast iron and brass paperweight, you have to take that comment on board, doncha?..in the *overall* context, it *was* a negative review! As you said elsewhere, QS no doubt read all that's been said and will rapidly take steps to rectify this particular issue with the No6 tote and positioning thereof, so I would expect in the not too distant future to see a revised version appearing on the WH site. 

Interestingly though, he said at the beginning of the article that if he _were_ to buy another plane, it would be a LV BU smoother with an O1 blade...guess what my next acquisition from Axminster will be? :lol: - Rob


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2011)

Being of a suspicious mind I'd be inclined to wonder about any reviews from the media people as you don't know if they are being sponsored by the opposition.
Best to listen to the forums IMHO, slagging everything off without prejudice!


----------



## Trizza (29 Jan 2011)

I find my QS No 6 incredibly useful, and haven't had any problems with the handle position. Sure its tricky to adjust in-cut, but thats no big deal for me. It was still incredible value for money. So to me this David guy sounds like he just wishes he was the Jeremy Clarkson of the woodworking world, but without the talent or wit to achieve it.


----------



## woodbloke (29 Jan 2011)

Trizza":nt4xdfnb said:


> So to me this David guy sounds like he just wishes he was the Jeremy Clarkson of the woodworking world, but without the talent or wit to achieve it.


Trouble is Trizza, he's got more talent in his little finger that JC will ever have in his entire bloated body...some of the stuff that he does is incredible. It's a matter of taste whether you like it or not though... - Rob


----------



## Trizza (29 Jan 2011)

woodbloke":6ciirhlg said:


> Trizza":6ciirhlg said:
> 
> 
> > So to me this David guy sounds like he just wishes he was the Jeremy Clarkson of the woodworking world, but without the talent or wit to achieve it.
> ...



In terms of writing or in terms of woodworking? I'm solely referring to writing here.


----------



## yetloh (29 Jan 2011)

Trizza":1vnjajbs said:


> woodbloke":1vnjajbs said:
> 
> 
> > Trizza":1vnjajbs said:
> ...



I don't like some of his furniture, but I must say that he writes very intelligently and thoughtfully about furniture design although, again, I may not always agree with him. Give me opinionated rather than bland writing any day of the week.

Jim


----------



## woodbloke (29 Jan 2011)

yetloh":2e9m7cgr said:


> Give me opinionated rather than bland writing any day of the week.
> 
> Jim


Agree with that Jim...I don't especially like the stuff he makes (spidery chairs etc :-& ) but he's always interesting to read - Rob


----------



## bugbear (31 Jan 2011)

Modernist":34udb1e3 said:


> Alf":34udb1e3 said:
> 
> 
> > That's quite amusing, given that a cast steel and brass paperweight would be really very useful indeed... :lol:
> ...



At the risk of over extending the car analogy, a car missing one wheel is clearly useless, but a thoughtful reviewer might still find the car excellent (or not). A missing wheel makes a car useless, and yet is so easily fixed, it's still worth while reviewing the other features.

BugBear


----------



## Modernist (31 Jan 2011)

The irony is that I did exactly that (a favourable review) on receiving the plane, pointing out it's several excellent features. It wasn't until I used the plane for real work that I became aware of it's shortcomings. It is a real pity that a simple design error should spoil what is an outstanding attempt to produce a competitive product in terms of quality, capability and price.


----------



## dunbarhamlin (31 Jan 2011)

The Clifton tote is the only thing I don't like about Cliffies - they're designed so nastily upright with ergonomics in mind, I'm told - presumably for use on power-oriented high work benches - guess the same is the case with Veritas. I have seven of the damn things destined for the bin as soon as I make their replacements (the metal bits work beautifully, but my wrist tells me to do this everytime I've spent a long day prepping stock - and then I forget.)


----------



## dh7892 (1 Feb 2011)

I must say that I'm a bit surprised by the strength of feeling about the handles. I found mine perfectly fine. I'll be interested to see if my feeling changes after some heavy usage sessions. 

Perhaps Mathew could include some hand moisturiser with every purchase for those of you with more delicate hands? :lol:


----------



## Modernist (1 Feb 2011)

Problem resolved.

I spoke to Matthew today and he kindly agreed to credit me for the No 6, thus living up to his reputation, which is good to see. 
I hope that the points and comments made will be taken into account for future products and allow the Quangsheng phenomenon to continue.

Next problem is what to spend my credit note on  that shouldn't take long

thanks Matthew


----------



## JohnCee (1 Feb 2011)

Good lord, so you were serious?
I honestly thought you were joking about expecting a refund on a relatively inexpensive item that you've been using for a year.
Matthew must qualify for sainthood........


----------



## Supernova9 (1 Feb 2011)

I'm in agreement with John - my mouth actually hit the floor reading your post. Not sure if it's great customer service or just the world gone mad....


----------



## Modernist (1 Feb 2011)

If you read the earlier posts and the comment elsewhere, along with the particular circumstances you would see it was not quite as simple as that. As I said the matter is resolved satisfactorily and closed.


----------



## Jacob (1 Feb 2011)

The sooner and louder people point out the weaknesses - the sooner they are remedied. But it sometimes takes a while to work put what it is that is pi&&ing one off. Is it me , is it the plane?
Quite a few of the new planes have inherent weaknesses. Norris adjusters for instance - they just don't work as well as the Stanley design. You'll find they never did, if you google about the topic. But the toolie enthusiasts think they are marvelous and the plane makers don't feel the need to make improvements.


----------



## LuptonM (1 Feb 2011)

I might have to agree with Jacob on his one :shock: as I believe he is referring to the LV LA jack. Its much harder and fiddly to centre the blade then the Stanley counterpart due to that Norris adjuster that thinks it can be both a depth adjuster and a lateral adjustment, which doesn't really work so well as the lateral adjustment 'lever' is not long enough to aid ease of use

If think the stanley adjusters could be improved by simply beefing them up a bit, as its not uncommon to see old ones with them bent


----------



## matthewwh (1 Feb 2011)

Oh dear, if anyone finds something not to like about LN's we'll all have to stump up for a set of custom infills :shock:


----------



## LuptonM (1 Feb 2011)

matthewwh":39d730mb said:


> Oh dear, if anyone finds something not to like about LN's we'll all have to stump up for a set of custom infills :shock:


I know, we're a fussy lot :wink: , but nothing would get done properly if no one complained, so my mum tells me


----------



## Modernist (1 Feb 2011)

matthewwh":ygd35zas said:


> Oh dear, if anyone finds something not to like about LN's we'll all have to stump up for a set of custom infills :shock:



Well there's always the price :shock:


----------



## Jacob (1 Feb 2011)

matthewwh":1t63eq1h said:


> Oh dear, if anyone finds something not to like about LN's we'll all have to stump up for a set of custom infills :shock:


I don't like them particularly so I don't buy them. Their A1 chisels are cr&p too by all accounts (crumbly edges).
I sold on a LV jack but with hindsight I should have returned it as the adjuster didn't work!
It doesn't work on my LV smoother either - but I've got used to lateral adjustment with a pin hammer.
It's always a pleasure to pick up one or other of my oldish Stanleys or Records!


----------



## bugbear (2 Feb 2011)

LuptonM":21r72ir9 said:


> I might have to agree with Jacob on his one :shock: as I believe he is referring to the LV LA jack. Its much harder and fiddly to centre the blade then the Stanley counterpart



You've handled a Stanley #62 ?!

http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan9.htm#num62

As far as I can see, the Stanley doesn't even HAVE a lateral adjuster.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (2 Feb 2011)

Jacob":1rj7nf00 said:


> .
> It's always a pleasure to pick up one or other of my oldish Stanleys or Records!



They're certainly better than Record and Stanley's current production.

BugBear


----------



## LuptonM (2 Feb 2011)

bugbear":25u5sz26 said:


> LuptonM":25u5sz26 said:
> 
> 
> > I might have to agree with Jacob on his one :shock: as I believe he is referring to the LV LA jack. Its much harder and fiddly to centre the blade then the Stanley counterpart
> ...


 I mean the normal stanley lateral adjustment mechanism


----------



## yetloh (2 Feb 2011)

I sold my LN 60 1/2 and skew block planes. Their Veritas replacements are far superior.

Jim


----------



## Modernist (2 Feb 2011)

yetloh":2ocfgh55 said:


> I sold my LN 60 1/2 and skew block planes. Their Veritas replacements are far superior.
> 
> Jim



Interestingly I did exactly the same thing with both of them and I agree.


----------

