Cheap brand plane experiences

[Jacob]

I can hear the armchairs creaking! :lol:

 

[Corneel]

Conclusion: The Stanley is quite a bit harder.

To give this experiment more substance, everybody should now rush out to their shop and do similar on their old planes, LV's, LN's, QS's, Faithfulls, whatever, and report back. I can't compare with other new planes because I am now pretty sure I don't have any more.

Only one conclusion? I could also conclude the Quengsheng you have maybe softer than another one. Just an armchair theory, though... :wink:

Of course. So what are you waiting for? We need more data!

 

[Jacob]

Conclusion: The Stanley is quite a bit harder.

To give this experiment more substance, everybody should now rush out to their shop and do similar on their old planes, LV's, LN's, QS's, Faithfulls, whatever, and report back. I can't compare with other new planes because I am now pretty sure I don't have any more.

Only one conclusion? I could also conclude the Quengsheng you have maybe softer than another one. .....

No you could not.
You could idly speculate but you couldn't infer, deduce or conclude this - it might even be harder than another one.
When you can conclude is A is harder than B, by the standards of this test. This indicates the possibility that all As are harder than all Bs, which a larger sample would go some way to proving.
It begs a question about the adequacy of the test itself - personally I'd go for the "planing of an unseen nail" test!

More data! Get out of the armchair and start scratching!

 

[iNewbie]

On no I can conclude: arrive at a judgment or opinion by reasoning

 

[Jacob]

On no I can conclude: arrive at a judgment or opinion by reasoning

But it would contradict the only bit of evidence so it would not be "by reasoning" as reasoning would tell you the opposite. You could hold the opinion but in the absence of evidence this would be just stupid.

 

[iNewbie]

Is that so.

 

[Corneel]

I am trying to flatten another chisel, in light of another thread on this forum, but I gave up. Too cumbersome, even with wet and dry paper. To kill the time until I have to start preparing dinner (home made pizza's!), I did another punch and hammer test. I wasn't very happy with the distance meassurement of the hammer. Shoulderheight is quite arbitrary. So I rigged a bar about 0.5 m above the bench and did the same test with another Stanley. Holding the hammer just under the bar and then letting it drop on the punch with as little input from my arm as possible.

Same result. Stanley was harder then the Quengsheng, about 50%.

And of course, a real hardness tester would be much more precise then this little test. It was kind of fun though.

 

[Jacob]

Is that so.

Yes it is.

 

[iNewbie]

Is that so.

 

[woodbrains]

Hello,

The QS block plane is made from cast steel, so has little to do with the cast iron that has been discussed; not hardened steel and obviously less carbon content than iron.

Scratch testing on hidden nails..... By the logic that plane bodies hardens varies from plane to plane, could the same thing be said about nail harness? Therefore this test would be even less valid and even more ludicrous than it sounds. For pity's sake, all plane bodies are more than hard enough to do the job they are required to do. Even bronze ones are harder than required. Conclusion: this debate is insane.

Mike

 

[Jacob]

Hello,

The QS block plane is made from cast steel, so has little to do with the cast iron that has been discussed; not hardened steel and obviously less carbon content than iron.

Scratch testing on hidden nails..... By the logic that plane bodies hardens varies from plane to plane, could the same thing be said about nail harness? Therefore this test would be even less valid and even more ludicrous than it sounds. For pity's sake, all plane bodies are more than hard enough to do the job they are required to do. Even bronze ones are harder than required. Conclusion: this debate is insane.

Mike

A voice from the armchair!
What if it's the same nail? And anyway why are you bothering to argue about some observations made by other people? Do you suggest we are making it up?
Nobody is saying they are not hard enough but I am suggesting that the distinct hardness of some older planes is an advantage - they are scratch resistant. With use this leaves them with a nice shiny sole which I believe might also reduces friction. Just a passing thought, but has sent the armchair lot off into a tizzy! :lol:

 

[Corneel]

Of course it makes a difference! For example when you are working in an environment like Jacob's. It's a tiny little detail, and for most of us not very important. Just something to keep in the back of your head.

It's also one of these examples that Jacob's musings are not entirely full of crap. Occasionaly there's a bit of wisdom. :lol:

And having a bit of fun with them who spend their last money on shiny new tools, isn't bad either. Yes, put your 300 pound plane in a velvet sock, so it won't get scratched! :twisted:

 

[Vann]

Conclusion: this debate is insane.

Never a truer word...

Cheers, Vann.
Typed from a computer chair, as I can't reach the keyboard from my armchair :!:

 

[Jacob]

Of course it makes a difference! For example when you are working in an environment like Jacob's. It's a tiny little detail, and for most of us not very important. Just something to keep in the back of your head. .....

It's not only the environment (lot of building going on around me here) - you find bits of metal in virgin new wood, usually (but not always) harmless lead shot. Also if you do repair and restoration, or recycle old wood, the scratch possibilities go up and up.
But the main point for me was being disappointed to find a big scratch on the sole of my shiny newish Clifton, knowing that if I'd used an older plane it wouldn't have happened. I just have to remind myself that I'm not too bothered about tool shine!

PS the LV la smoother I had, was also scratch prone - I thought the Clifton would be better.

 

[Corneel]

Here's a tip. When you buy a nice, expensive, shiny new plane, also get an old one at the same time. Then, always plane the wood straight and smooth with the old one first. Only then you take the new plane out of its sock and make some nice whispy shavings without any risc to scratch it.

 

[Jacob]

I think that's it. If your plane is safe in a sock - just leave it there and use another one instead.

 

[iNewbie]

Put a sock in it lads. :mrgreen:

 

[Jacob]

Faithful 10 has arrived. Looks OK for the money.
Will it work outa the box? No chance. Some problem with getting blade assembly lined up. Metal work required.
No doubt it can be pressed into use but may have permanent inaccuracies which will make all future adjustments a PITA. Not sure if it's worth the bother I might send it back. I'll have a closer look first.

 

[Sawyer]

Perhaps the way forward with this argument is to collect empirical evidence - as much as possible, then compare?
So, my personal experience of two smoothing planes. 1, a Footprint no. 4 (let us not forget that someone was asking about cheaper planes, 11 pages ago). 2, a Clifton 4.1/2.
The Footprint is 28 years old and has seen lots of action, yet still retains many of its original machining marks.
The Clifton is a couple of years old, but the sole, having done only a fraction of the work, already looks more worn than the Footprint.
Thus my conclusion from practical observation that Clifton soles seem to be softer. More rust-prone too, I suspect.
Jacob's practical observation/comparisons, we already have - how about some other people's too?

 

[Sawyer]

Returning to the OP by the way, the inexpensive Footprint and its no. 5 stable mate bought the same year, have both given 28 years' excellent service and despite sharing cupboard space with a number of posher planes, still get used almost every day.