# Plane Shoot-Out: Woodriver 5½, Stanley 4½ & 5½, Veritas 4½



## Ed Bray (15 Nov 2014)

I received the Woodriver 5½ from the pass around earlier this week. I had a little play with it on a bit of cut off pine in the front room (don't tell my wife) when I received it, basically I ran the pine across the sole of the plane whilst holding it upside down. But, whilst the shavings from the included IBC blade were excellent, I was not too impressed with the shavings from the standard blade but this could have been because it needed sharpening. I was impressed with the casting and in particular the larger adjustment knob.

Let me first explain, I am no tradesman, all my woodworking knowledge has been gleaned from books, the internet (you tube and forums like this) and trial and error, and whilst I have built many items they have mainly been made with the use of power tools. Until earlier this year my experience with hand tools was very limited. Since then though I have bought a considerable number of hand tools and been learning how to fettle and use them. Just be aware that this shoot out is not by any means scientific but I have tried to make it as 'real world' as possible and the results have given me an experience with different planes and a better understanding of what I should expect from my planes.

I chose 4 of my own planes to pit against the Woodriver 5½, these were a Stanley 4½, a Stanley 5½, a Veritas 4½ and my Quangsheng 62. I also chose 5 types of wood, these were an Oak floorboard (front edge), a bit of reclaimed Iroko (2nd from front), a piece of Pine, (3rd from front), an unknown wood (4th from front) and a bit of Cedar of Lebanon (nearest the planes). These can all be seen in the photo below:





The Stanley planes were sourced from either this forum or ebay and I replaced the blades with 3mm replacement blades and whilst the Stanley 4½ had a new thicker blade and a new thicker chipbreaker the Stanley 5½ uses the original chipbreaker with the New thicker Blade, The Quangsheng and Veritas use the blades and chipbreaker that were supplied with them.

With the exception of both the IBC Blade (states that it can be used straight out of the packaging) and the Quangsheng blade I sharpened all the other blades exactly the same way with a few strokes at 29° with a 1000 grit diamond stone until I felt a burr, then a few strokes at 1200 grit before removing the burr on the back using the ruler trick. Every blade was treated exactly the same way and they were all extremely sharp, the 2 plasters now on my fingers will attest to that.

I mounted each piece of wood in the workmate and then adjusted each plane until I got a shaving, I then backed off the iron as much as possible to see how thin a shaving I could get. These were then measured with my digital calipers and the readings recorded. This really opened my eyes as I was unaware how well my old Stanley Planes would actually perform in competition with the newer, more expensive and luxurious planes I was including. The results are as follows below:

Oak:
Stanley 4½ ThickerBlade/Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Veritas 4½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Stanley 5½ Thicker Blade/Stand Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Woodriver 5½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.04mm
Woodriver 5½ IBC Blade/ Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Quangsheng 62 Standard Blade 0.01mm

Iroko:
Stanley 4½ ThickerBlade/Chipbreaker 0.02mm
Veritas 4½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.03mm
Stanley 5½ Thicker Blade/Stand Chipbreaker 0.05mm
Woodriver 5½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.03mm
Woodriver 5½ IBC Blade/ Chipbreaker 0.02mm
Quangsheng 62 Standard Blade 0.02mm

Pine:
Stanley 4½ ThickerBlade/Chipbreaker 0.05mm
Veritas 4½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.03mm
Stanley 5½ Thicker Blade/Stand Chipbreaker 0.05mm
Woodriver 5½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.05mm
Woodriver 5½ IBC Blade/ Chipbreaker 0.02mm
Quangsheng 62 Standard Blade  0.01mm

Unknown Wood:
Stanley 4½ ThickerBlade/Chipbreaker 0.03mm
Veritas 4½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.02mm
Stanley 5½ Thicker Blade/Stand Chipbreaker 0.03mm
Woodriver 5½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.04mm
Woodriver 5½ IBC Blade/ Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Quangsheng 62 Standard Blade 0.01mm

Cedar of Lebanon:
Stanley 4½ ThickerBlade/Chipbreaker 0.02mm
Veritas 4½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Stanley 5½ Thicker Blade/Stand Chipbreaker 0.04mm
Woodriver 5½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.04mm
Woodriver 5½ IBC Blade/ Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Quangsheng 62 Standard Blade 0.02mm

The planed edge of the Oak is facing the camera, all the other planed surfaces are at the top as you look at them.





Assorted shavings from the various woods.





So, what have I learned?

1) I did not waste my time fettling the 2 older Stanley Planes (I have 3 others to do yet and they will now all get similar treatment) and the results obtained are more about how the blades are sharpened than what plane they are used in.
2) The difference between results from the planes are negligible in the real world, the best was 0.01mm which is 1/100th of a mm whilst the worst result was 1/20th of a mm, this would still be fine enough for me (and I suspect many others).
3) The thicker replacement blades I bought (14E each from Finetools.com) take a nice edge and work well in the planes (even though I was told on this forum they wouldn't fit).
4) The Quangsheng 62 performed the best of all with its Standard 25° Blade although the Woodriver did match it when fitted with the IBC blade/chipbreaker (but that costs an additional £90). I have never yet had occasion to use the 2 other blades (38° & 50°) that came with it.

All the wood had the most marvellous finish from every plane, even those that took a humungous 0.05mm thick shaving and whilst it cannot be seen in the photographs the planed wood felt as smooth as silk.

So. my conclusions are that if you already have a plane of a specific size then you may well be better of fettling it and perhaps replacing the blade and chipbreaker. If not, you could do a lot worse than purchasing a Woodriver or Quangsheng Plane as it will be pretty good right out of the box and it's performance will probably only be limited by your sharpening and use of the plane than any shortcomings associated with it.

Really appreciate the loan of the plane and I have now changed my Christmas preference and will likely ask for a #7 Woodriver or Quangsheng now rather than the #6.


----------



## G S Haydon (15 Nov 2014)

Nice job Ed. Good to see it contrasted against others, gives it a bit of context. Interesting to hear the T10 in the WR was not so much to you liking. I quite like it and found it worked really well. Good photos


----------



## Ed Bray (15 Nov 2014)

Thanks Graham, there wasn't anything wrong with the Woodriver Blade once it was sharpened just that it wasn't any better than the Juuma Blades (I actually think they are the same) that I replaced the blades in my Stanleys with, and they only cost me 13.90 euros each. I was actually a little disappointed with my Veritas as it did not perform any better really than any of the other planes and the Quangsheng 62 either equalled or bettered it on every wood bar 1.


----------



## G S Haydon (15 Nov 2014)

Thanks for the confirmation Ed. I think you could be right about the Jumma, looks very much like WR or QS stuff. I did try ad get the WR iron into my Record while I had it to hand but the mouth was too tight and I was not fussed about changing it.


----------



## bugbear (15 Nov 2014)

Ed Bray":30f9xrzx said:


> I mounted each piece of wood in the workmate and then adjusted each plane until I got a shaving, I then backed off the iron as much as possible to see how thin a shaving I could get.



What happened _at_ the limit?

By which I mean, as you thinned down from a "successful" shaving, did the shaving start to break up, did the blade start to generate dust, not shavings, did the blade start to noticeably skate (not cut) or did the adjuster(s) simply not allow fine enough adjustment?

I'm intrigued on the "mode of failure".

BugBear


----------



## Ed Bray (15 Nov 2014)

bugbear":35f03rm3 said:


> Ed Bray":35f03rm3 said:
> 
> 
> > I mounted each piece of wood in the workmate and then adjusted each plane until I got a shaving, I then backed off the iron as much as possible to see how thin a shaving I could get.
> ...



Most of them gave a bit of broken shaving or dust before ceasing to cut, they didn't seem to skip or judder just stopped cutting. How fine do you want the adjustment? 1/20th of a millimetre (worst result full shaving) seems good enough to me. Cant see anyone needing higher precision than that under normal circumstances.

As I said, it wasn't a scientific test I tried to make everything as equal as I could, but who knows, I might have pushed harder with one plane than another, the different weights of the planes might have made a difference. The Quangsheng 62 performed brilliantly and the Veritas was slightly disappointing.


----------



## Corneel (16 Nov 2014)

You've still got a long way to go! :lol:


----------



## Rhossydd (16 Nov 2014)

An interesting test.
One thing to flag up here is that measuring the thickness of the shavings with cheap digital callipers isn't to be relied on. Once you start getting to limits of resolution like this the results really can't be trusted too much. Cornel's photo of a shaving at 0.003 would never show up as so significantly thinner with the cheap callipers. The published standards are generally only +/- 0.02mm, but hopefully multiple measurements were compared to ensure that the instrument was reliable at least in a comparative sense.

The one thing that does shine through the test is that if fine shaving are your priority a low angle plane will most reliably deliver them.


----------



## CStanford (16 Nov 2014)

*THIS:*

 "The difference between results from the planes are negligible in the real world..."

Simple observation is the most powerful tool in science. You could easily have left the calipers in a drawer and your eyes would have told you all you needed to know. It's not so much about the shavings but the surface left behind.


----------



## Corneel (16 Nov 2014)

Rhossydd":s72y4dav said:


> An interesting test.
> One thing to flag up here is that measuring the thickness of the shavings with cheap digital callipers isn't to be relied on. Once you start getting to limits of resolution like this the results really can't be trusted too much. Cornel's photo of a shaving at 0.003 would never show up as so significantly thinner with the cheap callipers. The published standards are generally only +/- 0.02mm, but hopefully multiple measurements were compared to ensure that the instrument was reliable at least in a comparative sense.



Sure, but you can easilly see in the pictures that the shaving from the Japanese plane are thinner, gauze like as they are. And full width of the iron!

But of course, it doesn't matter in the real world, only in these Japanese planing competitions.


----------



## CStanford (16 Nov 2014)

Corneel":3s829uve said:


> Rhossydd":3s829uve said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting test.
> ...



Oops, I accidentally pressed the 'report' button instead of the quote button.

You're quite right Corneel. They judge what the rest of us sweep up and throw away, not what's left behind. I can see where something like this would be fun in the context of the last 30 minutes of the workday between a bunch of guys in a workshop, beyond that it's like evaluating one's belly-button lint.


----------



## Rhossydd (16 Nov 2014)

Corneel":3v26wm3h said:


> but you can easilly see in the pictures that the shaving from the Japanese plane are thinner


Quite, exactly my point. You need _really_ accurate tools to measure these sort of refinements and coarse measurements risk loosing important information.
Digital callipers are great for some uses, but I think measuring shavings thickness is almost a task too far for them.

From the little I've read of these Japanese planing trials, they use some very specific timbers that allow these gossamer like shaving. Whether they'd perform so well on with less benign wood would be the test.
The other issue is if they hold their settings when actually used in a workshop for making real things.


----------



## David C (16 Nov 2014)

Just one detail to mention. Thin shavings are only possible if the sole is flat, around the throat.

There is a classic problem with Stanley and Record Bailey design, where bumps may be found directly behind the throat. Sometimes these seem to have been caused by overtightening of the frog screws. Another cause is bad fit between frog and body. The rocking frog perversion (one of many) is very common.

A two thou bump will prevent a one thou shaving from being taken.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth


----------



## CStanford (16 Nov 2014)

Maybe the OP, Ed Bray, can comment on the status of the soles if his Stanley planes which appear to have performed more than adequately.

He says in one of his posts that he did not fettle them. Perhaps a previous owner did, or they came from the factory at a tolerance that produced the performance noted.


----------



## Ed Bray (16 Nov 2014)

Corneel":12r2ze45 said:


> Sure, but you can easilly see in the pictures that the shaving from the Japanese plane are thinner, gauze like as they are. And full width of the iron!
> 
> But of course, it doesn't matter in the real world, only in these Japanese planing competitions.



Not sure which plane/s were made in Japan, perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Some answers to various issues raised above.

This was done between showers yesterday and if I hadn't taken the photographs or swapped the blades in the Woodriver it would have taken about 30 minutes total.

The two Stanleys were fettled using various grades of wet and dry mounted with adhesive spray to a large sheet of 10mm plate glass, I went up through the grits from 120 to 1500. I opened the mouth slightly on the 4½ which is why it was able to take both the thicker Iron and the thicker chipbreaker. I also sanded the frogs a touch to give a better contact with the blades. The other planes I have at home have not yet been fettled at all, but none of those were involved in the test.

The wood was just what I had to hand, all of it offcuts with the exception of the oak floorboard which I buy up cheap when they are available. I wanted to try a variety of woods to try to give a balance opinion, I did have some beech and some teak, but they would have required some work to get them useable (old draining and cutting boards).

The results were quite interesting to me and it showed that my most expensive plane (the Veritas) is probably no better than any of my other planes when used 'by me' and I would have been happy with the results from any of the planes used, I can't envisage a scenario when I would want better than a 1/20th millimetre, when using real wood in the real world I would expect the wood to move much more than that anyway.

The results have made me re-evaluate what I need to get, I wanted a Woodriver #6 even though I have a non-fettled #6 Record or Stanley (can't remember which) so, as it is likely I could fettle it well enough to work for me (something to do over the winter) I will look to buy a #7 instead as I don't have one of those yet. The other thing it made me realise is that whilst a Lie Neilson, Clifton or Veritas would be lovely, for my use, I probably wouldn't get any more from them than a Juuma, Woodriver or Quangsheng other than a weight loss in the wallet department.

Peter asked me to use the plane and take some pictures, this I did and I thank him for the opportunity and experience. 

I will be dropping the Woodriver and Blades up to David C on Friday, and as a real world furniture maker his thoughts on the plane would be much more relevant to the discussion than mine. I just called it as I saw it with me using the planes.


----------



## CStanford (16 Nov 2014)

I'm a little confused by this:

So, what have I learned?

1) *I did not waste my time fettling the 2 older Stanley Planes *(I have 3 others to do yet and they will now all get similar treatment) and the results obtained are more about how the blades are sharpened than what plane they are used in.

Then this:

*The two Stanleys were fettled* using various grades of wet and dry mounted with adhesive spray to a large sheet of 10mm plate glass, I went up through the grits from 120 to 1500. I opened the mouth slightly on the 4½ which is why it was able to take both the thicker Iron and the thicker chipbreaker. I also sanded the frogs a touch to give a better contact with the blades. The other planes I have at home have not yet been fettled at all, but none of those were involved in the test.


----------



## Ed Bray (16 Nov 2014)

Corneel":37ljuwmz said:


> Rhossydd":37ljuwmz said:
> 
> 
> > An interesting test.
> ...



How can you tell that? I did not differentiate in the photographs which shavings came from which plane, in fact for the photo with the close up of the callipers I just picked up some of the shavings from the floor and put them with the shaving in the callipers on my table saw, any of those could have come from any plane, the only one of those shown I could be certain about was the one in the callipers which I know came from the Quangsheng 62.


----------



## Ed Bray (16 Nov 2014)

CStanford":bjzc1n3n said:


> I'm a little confused by this:
> 
> So, what have I learned?
> 
> ...



What I was trying to say was that 'my time hadn't been wasted fettling the Stanleys' (they took me ages to get where I wanted them though not to the extent as the chisel backs I polished to a mirror) had they seriously under performed in the test I would have had wasted my time and been looking to purchase modern replacements. Not that I hadn't spent any time fettling them. This is why I said "I have 3 others to do and they will now all get similar treatment'. Whereas, if they hadn't performed to an acceptable degree I wouldn't have bothered and cut my losses.


----------



## Rhossydd (16 Nov 2014)

CStanford":3c0k8tdc said:


> Maybe the OP, Ed Bray, can comment on the status of the soles if his Stanley planes which appear to have performed more than adequately.
> He says in one of his posts that he did not fettle them.


No. The OP says in his first post;
"So, what have I learned?
1) I did not waste my time fettling the 2 older Stanley Planes"
ie he's spent some time working on them and seen some gains from that effort.


----------



## Ed Bray (16 Nov 2014)

Rhossydd":7wzy4cdj said:


> CStanford":7wzy4cdj said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe the OP, Ed Bray, can comment on the status of the soles if his Stanley planes which appear to have performed more than adequately.
> ...


Excellent, that's what I was trying to say!


----------



## CStanford (16 Nov 2014)

Thanks...


----------



## Rhossydd (16 Nov 2014)

Ed Bray":3u9i4um8 said:


> Corneel":3u9i4um8 said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, but you can easilly see in the pictures that the shaving from the Japanese plane are thinner, gauze like as they are. And full width of the iron!
> ...


That comment by Corneel was just pointing out that Japanese planing competitions can deliver even thinner shavings than you've managed. No real relevance to your planes at all, or possibly real world woodworking either, but just adds a different data point.


----------



## Ed Bray (16 Nov 2014)

Thanks, I understand now, the image with Bob the Builder in it is a shaving from a Japanese Plane, not that those I tested were of Japanese origin.

What on earth would you need to plane something by 3/1000ths of a mm for? It seems to me that it would take a ridiculous amount of time to remove any significant amount of material. I suppose it would be good for an upper body workout as you would need 333 strokes to remove 1mm of material.


----------



## Rhossydd (16 Nov 2014)

It's only a third of the thickness of your shaving's measurements (possibly... depending on accuracy).
I would assume that the quality of finish of these Japanese planes is their raison d'etre. I doubt they'd use these types for any serious amount of stock removal.

I'd be interested to try one out one day and see just how fine a finish they can deliver on our usual timbers, also to discover how tricky they are to set up and use in practice.


----------



## CStanford (16 Nov 2014)

That sort of light tissue removal is available when necessary via card scrapers or a scraper plane and on woods much more relevant to the Western furnituremaker than the bland cedars and other amenable species used in Japanese planing competitions.

The work, in context:

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


----------



## G S Haydon (16 Nov 2014)

Ed,

Thanks again for taking the time, you did a great job of real world testing. You own a typical selection of planes we are all very familiar with and we are lucky to see the WR tested against them. My thoughts should be along shortly and it's in a similar vein. I don't have a Vertias so I can't contrast as well as you did. I think actual use like you showed is what we need more of and from more people.


----------



## Corneel (16 Nov 2014)

Here is a youtube from one of these plaining competitions. They take this stuff very serious! We can laugh about it, but it is impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Ad6tBdLbM

The planes are Japanese wooden planes. Super sharp of course. bedding is about as perfect as it gets, and the sole is specially prepared. Not flat, but like a wave, only touching at the nose and just in front of the mouth. This puts maximum ressure on the wood, somehow compressing the fibers a bit. 

I just posted the picture to tease a bit. Nothing serious.


----------



## G S Haydon (16 Nov 2014)

9 Microns, pah, that's for rough work where I come from :lol:


----------



## bugbear (16 Nov 2014)

Rhossydd":1tarzt8c said:


> It's only a third of the thickness of your shaving's measurements (possibly... depending on accuracy).
> I would assume that the quality of finish of these Japanese planes is their raison d'etre. I doubt they'd use these types for any serious amount of stock removal.



The "ideal" smoothing plane does not alter the size of the stock at all.

Back to reality.

In the case of some indoor joinery and framingin Japan, the finish from these planes is the *final* finish, and I don't mean before varnishing; the perfect, glassy finish from planes at this level is sufficient to repel day to day dust.

BugBear


----------



## Peter Sefton (16 Nov 2014)

Hi Ed

Thanks for taking your time to try out the WoodRiver V3 Jack. 

Sorry I have been a bit slow getting back to you, we have been busy nursing our four year old she managed to break her arm in two places at school on Friday and it's been a fraught weekend. 

I am pleased you liked the quality of the casting and improvements made to the adjusting wheel, the Woodcraft guys have been working hard on the planes (with Rob) since their inception in 2007 and they have come a long way.

I like how you tried the plane against others you are familiar with, it's interesting to see how people bench test and the different criteria they use. 

Some interesting outcomes on the blades performances. I am surprised (or maybe not) that you found differences in the Juuma, QS and WR blades, as they are most likely the same steel. I say "maybe not", as I know from experience that blades from the same batch of chisels or planes can be different from all manufacturers. 

The Low angle 62 did seem to preform well, I wonder if any difference would have accrued using the 38 degrees blade as this would have been a closer effective pitch to the others under test. I also wonder how the WoodRiver 62 would have preformed as it is similar to the QS but not the same.

I wouldn't think you have any issues with the flatness of sole as they do tend to be very flat indeed, ground within +/-1.5 thou. If this had been the case it would have shown up with the IBC blade in place. If it was out side of tolerance or a customer was unhappy we would of swap it out for a new one without question.

If people are interested I will put the WoodRiver 62 out for pass around as this shows some of the design differences between it and the others of the same Chinese origin.

I look forward to the other feedback from David, Matt and any others who wish to take part.

Cheers Peter


----------



## matt_southward (16 Nov 2014)

It's certainly interesting how people pick different criteria to compare tools with - I for one would never have thought to compare shaving thickness but it's interesting to see the results. I'm not sure what Graham and David's emphasis will be, but no doubt it'll different to mine! 

I'm interested in taking a closer look at the improvements that were done under Rob's guidance and I'm looking to compare the plane against my Clifton 5 (which Peter knows I have a few 'issues' with) along with a couple of old Bailey pattern planes. I'm also interested in comparing the various blade configurations to see how they stack up - and I for one would be interested in a try of the 62 too if there's enough interest. Thanks again to Peter for the opportunity.


----------



## Rhossydd (16 Nov 2014)

matt_southward":39t0rrp7 said:


> I for one would never have thought to compare shaving thickness


What sort of criteria will you choose to judge it by ?
Not trying to make waves, but shaving thickness seems a reasonable criteria to me. Given the right test equipment, at least it gives some sort of objective results.

It's an interesting question in how you assess such 'mature' hand tools as this;
Accuracy of casting ? hardness of blades ? all difficult to measure without specialist hardware.
Quality of finish ? probably easy enough to evaluate and report on, in terms of rough edges, loose parts, poor paint work etc.
Then there's that important, but impossible to define, quality of feel, handling and balance.

I think Ed has made as good and useful a report as he can here.


----------



## Rhossydd (16 Nov 2014)

Peter Sefton":35jhf3st said:


> I also wonder how the WoodRiver 62 would have preformed as it is similar to the QS but not the same.
> If people are interested I will put the WoodRiver 62 out for pass around as this shows some of the design differences between it and the others of the same Chinese origin.


Sorry to move this a little off topic, but what differences are there between the WR and QS versions of the 62 ?
As someone planning to buy a LA smoother soon, I'm quite interested in this.


----------



## CStanford (17 Nov 2014)

matt_southward":33sqspsi said:


> I for one would never have thought to compare shaving thickness



You and the countless woodworkers before you as well. When a smoothing plane was easily kept flat, when they were all made of wood, the ability to take an end-to-end thin shaving was more a commentary on the effectiveness of the planing job before the smoother was applied than it was on the plane itself. That the iron bedded down and the sole was pretty flat was essentially a given in that there was nothing about these little tidying up jobs a woodworker couldn't handle in short order. Gaping wide mouths or patched mouths, one almost always sees either one or the other on used smoothing planes, is proof that this maintenance was regularly performed over the years.

Now, we endlessly critique the competency of each manufacturer's machinists and adequacy of investment in plant and equipment. I wonder if we're better off.


----------



## iNewbie (17 Nov 2014)

Ed Bray":11lzfhxt said:


> The results have made me re-evaluate what I need to get, I wanted a Woodriver #6 even though I have a non-fettled #6 Record or Stanley (can't remember which) so, as it is likely I could fettle it well enough to work for me (something to do over the winter) I will look to buy a #7 instead as I don't have one of those yet. *The other thing it made me realise is that whilst a Lie Neilson, Clifton or Veritas would be lovely, for my use, I probably wouldn't get any more from them than a Juuma, Woodriver or Quangsheng other than a weight loss in the wallet department.*



If you feel that way -that its about money- buy a wooden one. Plenty of High Quality work out there has been made from a woodie. Me: I'd pay the extra for a LN/Veritas/Clifton because they're small companies making AT HOME quality products which are a dying breed and the service/support is excellent. It'll last a lifetime - and more. I'd rather throw a Chinese plane in the river with a sack of kittens... Thats a joke btw - about the kittens being in it.


----------



## MIGNAL (17 Nov 2014)

You do know that LN are made in the USA and Veritas are made in Canada? Both foreign, no different to something being made in China.


----------



## iNewbie (17 Nov 2014)

MIGNAL":15665681 said:


> You do know that LN are made in the USA and Veritas are made in Canada? Both foreign, no different to something being made in China.



Lets not get into that one, eh?


----------



## MIGNAL (17 Nov 2014)

iNewbie":tfb5w203 said:


> Ed Bray":tfb5w203 said:
> 
> 
> > If you feel that way -that its about money- buy a wooden one. Plenty of High Quality work out there has been made from a woodie. Me: I'd pay the extra for a LN/Veritas/Clifton because they're small companies making AT HOME quality products which are a dying breed and the service/support is excellent. It'll last a lifetime - and more. I'd rather throw a Chinese plane in the river with a sack of kittens... Thats a joke btw - about the kittens being in it.



Rich, especially coming from someone who just wrote the above. You do know that Quangsheng are AT HOME products too, especially if you happen to be Chinese. LN are AT HOME products too. . . . if you happen to be from the US.


----------



## iNewbie (17 Nov 2014)

MIGNAL":cfflf9gk said:


> iNewbie":cfflf9gk said:
> 
> 
> > Ed Bray":cfflf9gk said:
> ...



Ah I can see you want me to bite. I think you know exactly what I mean so you can spin-your-wheels as much as you care to.


----------



## MIGNAL (17 Nov 2014)

May I post a kindly reminder: you dug the hole.


----------



## iNewbie (17 Nov 2014)

No hole my side.


----------



## Rhossydd (17 Nov 2014)

iNewbie":2alc6dcg said:


> If you feel that way -that its about money- buy a wooden one.


That's not what Ed's said. He's tested and found there to be little difference in his tests between the different planes. Given that, it makes little sense to spend more on the 'premium' brands if they don't deliver anything more for him.
Wooden planes are different issue and not relevant to this test.


----------



## iNewbie (17 Nov 2014)

Rhossydd":1jqh6s92 said:


> iNewbie":1jqh6s92 said:
> 
> 
> > If you feel that way -that its about money- buy a wooden one.
> ...



I got what he was saying, honest - which is why I said in a round-a-bout way: if yer considering theres not much difference and savin' funds is a thought then get a woodie. /No children were harmed in my post.


----------



## Rhossydd (17 Nov 2014)

iNewbie":1m8mi7k9 said:


> if yer considering theres not much difference and savin' funds is a thought then get a woodie.


Not really relevant. The only wooden planes(ECE) with similar convenience of screw adjusters for depth of cut and blade attitude are no cheaper than the equally well performing Chinese models.


----------



## iNewbie (17 Nov 2014)

Think I'd get the one with the Wedge me'self and save some wedge...


----------



## Ed Bray (17 Nov 2014)

Wow, I go to work and look what happens. Good job I didn't go on about sharpening lord knows where we could have ended up. :roll:


----------



## Newbie_Neil (17 Nov 2014)

Hi Ed,



Ed Bray":x54ei08p said:


> Wow, I go to work and look what happens. Good job I didn't go on about sharpening lord knows where we could have ended up. :roll:



I think that you should have produced a video of how you sharpened each of the blades. Then it could have been examined in minute detail. :wink: 

Neil


----------



## matt_southward (17 Nov 2014)

Rhossydd":2vptsigb said:


> matt_southward":2vptsigb said:
> 
> 
> > I for one would never have thought to compare shaving thickness
> ...



Did I say something controversial? I hardly thought so. Merely that I wouldn't have thought to make the comparison that way - I in no way inferred that Ed's test wasn't worth doing that way, instead I expressed my interest in the results. Now Ed himself said he thought that the differences made little difference in the real world - and besides, what are we as woodworkers really interested in, the shavings or the wood that is left behind?

I agree that it's difficult to make objective comparisons of such mature technology - reviews are rarely that objective anyway (so fair play to Ed there). I thought that I had already said that my interest is not in the shaving thickness so much as my own subjective view on how well the tool performs its function particularly in comparison to my Clifton, which I'm not 100% happy with (for the money I paid).


----------



## G S Haydon (17 Nov 2014)

Corneel":8zegnpqq said:


> You've still got a long way to go! :lol:



In the spirit of Charles larking about at the end of the day I got this from my 99p wooden jack. Not to corneel's standard but not bad. Timber is beech. Thinking of offering a bespoke net curtain service


----------



## Rhossydd (17 Nov 2014)

matt_southward":3mj8cyea said:


> what are we as woodworkers really interested in, the shavings or the wood that is left behind?


Absolutely, but surely the two are inextricably linked ?
Thin smooth shavings = fine finish


> how well the tool performs its function particularly in comparison to my Clifton


I'll be interested to read your findings.


----------



## Corneel (17 Nov 2014)

G S Haydon":23eppjse said:


> In the spirit of Charles larking about at the end of the day I got this from my 99p wooden jack. Not to corneel's standard but not bad. Timber is beech. Thinking of offering a bespoke net curtain service



Nice! But did you measure it? :lol:


----------



## matt_southward (17 Nov 2014)

Rhossydd":7gqmk9xs said:


> matt_southward":7gqmk9xs said:
> 
> 
> > what are we as woodworkers really interested in, the shavings or the wood that is left behind?
> ...



True enough. I guess it comes down to the degree of fineness that we _need_ for any given task - which obviously varies. I've still a way to go to get shavings as fine as Graham and Corneel, but can still manage a glass-smooth finish. Though not always!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Nov 2014)

Corneel":gn5kfo7a said:


> G S Haydon":gn5kfo7a said:
> 
> 
> > In the spirit of Charles larking about at the end of the day I got this from my 99p wooden jack. Not to corneel's standard but not bad. Timber is beech. Thinking of offering a bespoke net curtain service
> ...


Brings to mind the old farmers saying - you don't fatten pigs by weighing them.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2014)

matt_southward":3lqy8nvl said:


> Rhossydd":3lqy8nvl said:
> 
> 
> > matt_southward":3lqy8nvl said:
> ...


Personally I want thick heavy shavings _and_ a smooth finish. It's quicker that way and a better test of a plane.


----------



## bugbear (19 Nov 2014)

G S Haydon":2jz9751w said:


> In the spirit of Charles larking about at the end of the day I got this from my 99p wooden jack. Not to corneel's standard but not bad. Timber is beech. Thinking of offering a bespoke net curtain service



Imagine how good a £2 wooden jack would be!  

BugBear


----------



## G S Haydon (19 Nov 2014)

£2.00! That's just silly :lol:


----------

