Luban Chinese Block Plane

[Devmeister]

I just researched the Juuma planes. It appears, from multiple internet sources, that the wood river planes, the juuma planes and the Luban planes are all made by the same factory in China.

It’s also confirmed that the juuma planes and Luban planes use C260 to make the caps. That is neither here nor there.

Each local retailer specs out what they want and the Chinese build it with minor changes.

These planes were referred to in multiple net sources as Lie Nielsen clones. Several reviews noted them as such but also noted that they are not up to the standards of LN. However at 1/3 to 1/2 the price, they should be considered.

But they all compare themselves to the LN. Works almost as good as LN. Looks just like a LN. Performs almost as well as a LN. And so on it goes…… Well eventually you realize everyone wants to be LN and maybe you should just get a LN.

LN prices have been constant and reflect the skill and workmanship invested in the tool. If the Chinese planes want to be equal, then they need to execute equal. Unfortunately that means pricing their work accordingly. No one has an issue here. Equal pay for equal work.

If you look at Holtys planes, you enter another realm. The quality of his work exceeds the standards in aerospace! And his prices reflect that. Overkill? Most likely.

 

[D_W]

I am not convinced DW. There are a lot of block planes about that have a very similar shape. Some rather old. Even if Luban is a direct copy, and that is potentially open to question, it is not harming LN's sales, because LN deliberately restricts its output.

I think all the stuff about this that and the other method for making the castings is of no interest at all to 99% of buyers. They just want a plane that works well, is easy to adjust and easy to sharpen.

As it happens I do have some LN planes, and Veritas, and Clifton and old Records and Stanleys. By and large the are much of a muchness, though I think the Veritas shooting board plane is the best on the market by miles, and the Veritas block plane is superb (better than the LN in my hands). However, the LN, Veritas and the small Luban all work very well. I think the tool aficionados and collectors tell themselves that they can discern metallurgy differenced etc, but really we are at the extremes of functionality there for most of us.

Fortunately ,I don't have to convince you. Woodcraft already removed LN-like elements from earlier WR planes to avoid trouble. I don't have to guess that - they told me that. The same as they said there was no way they'd touch bringing in the luban style plane, which was an inconvenience for them because they had to come up with something else (that turned out to be the knuckle block plane). They offered to send me one to try - I declined it.

I've seen a lot of threats about trade dress in the US - fairly uncommon on small things that it makes it to court because it's costly to try. Letters and arguments are usually enough to get people to go another way. I doubt it was cost free for WR to have a different frog design stuffed in the bench planes, but it's better than getting hauled into court.

 

[D_W]

I'm with David above, too. I would not buy products made to imitate the cosmetic look of recognized brands. It's not the manufacturer that came up with the design and surprised the contracting company with a product that looks like a famous brand. The Chinese maker is paid to make what's being asked to make, why would they care what it looks like or have an obligation to ensure that it doesn't look like someone else's product?

Most of us have no clue what's going on in other countries, and we have a lot more information access in general, whether it be means or a generally free internet to browse.

Somewhere around a decade ago, I mentioned getting a couple of mujingfang planes that were made of ebony (they were really nice - with a pretty good HSS iron, they were less expensive than the ebony would've been in the first place).

Someone on either SMC or woodnet loudly declared they'd never buy planes from someone who copied HNT gordon's planes.

Which is comical because the Chinese planes were traditional Chinese design. I couldn't convince the person at the time that Chinese plane makers can make traditional Chinese designs without being accused of copying Australian Planemakers.

 

[Bodgers]

The reason for the mention of the luban block planes being copies of LN isn't because there's something functionally different about LN (maybe the adjusters are slightly better), but more that they copied pretty much every aesthetic on the LN when there'd be no great reason to. I'm guessing someone was given an LN block plane and asked if they'd copy it and copy it they did.

Woodcraft didn't sell the block plane because it was too much of an overt copy of every aesthetic thing on an LN plane and later came out with a knuckle cap plane for the US. I'm not guessing that's why - they told me that.

It's not my business if someone else buys a copy, though. I wouldn't be surprised if an enterprising individual one in a while doesn't ship a box of 100 of those planes over to amazon and use amazon to sell them through the fulfillment services (just as chosera and atoma stones show up now, and the US distributor of the former doesn't appear to carry them any longer. In my opinion, distribution doesn't add value when it's not needed and the price doubles, anyway).

Interestingly, when you search for Luban planes on google, the F.o.g. forum has a thread comparing the LN and luban version, loudly decrying the price of the LN plane making it a "bad value". While that would normally be humorous, the fact that it's on a festool forum is doubly so.

But how much of the Luban stuff is actually copying Lie Nielson, and how much is simply just the Bedrock pattern design? If they copied the changes LN made to the bedrock pattern then that's riding on the coattails of their efforts, fair cop.

I guess one of the reasons why I feel a bit easier about the Luban stuff is that they seem more copies of well out of patent Stanley/Bedrock designs. If they were copying the Veritas designs then they would be on shaky ground.

 

[raffo]

Someone on either SMC or woodnet loudly declared they'd never buy planes from someone who copied HNT gordon's planes.

Which is comical because the Chinese planes were traditional Chinese design. I couldn't convince the person at the time that Chinese plane makers can make traditional Chinese designs without being accused of copying Australian Planemakers.

How about copying Chinese furniture style? Chippendale’s designs include Chinese motifs. All this talk of about how ethically superior we are in the west is BS. When it suited us we didn't hesitate to trample on other people's freedoms or the environment.

 

[Devmeister]

Decades ago, several shops were involved in making guns for the military. The government made it clear that shops could borrow designs, ideas etc. if it was in the interest of making more guns. This spread machine tool technology around like butter.

Eli Whitney was one of them and credited for inventing the milling machine.

The Chinese planes are made from grey iron as are the Cliftons. LN went straight to using ductile iron which is more durable and stable.

The LN rabbit block plane was based on the old Sargent design but modified. It looks like a LN and it has cross grain spurs. The Leban version resembles LN’s plane including subtle changes LN made to the original Sargent. It also does not have cross grain spurs.

The LN frogs are different from the original bedrock frogs. LN made it clear their frogs are not interchangeable. In addition LN frogs carry changes that allow them to scale up in bed angle. The original Bailey pattern can bind up at angles higher than 45 degrees. So you can get a York pitch for example in a LN bench plane.

The original Stanley 51 had issues with its frog design. Not only was it not a bedrock but it basically a cut down #3 Bailey shoved in at an angle. The LN design is a much better plane and I can adjust the bed angle with alternative frogs if need be.

I own two bedrocks from my grand dad. A 603 and a 604. I prefer my LN 4.5 much more. The first plane I ever bought was a LN #1. I use it as a model plane and it’s great. And it does not have a bed rock frog.

The good news is that WC refused to bring in the Luban patent in deference to LN. If Luban erodes the LN market enough, LN could simply pull out of that market. This would be sad to markets like England with their wonderful woodworking history.

 

[D_W]

I think the wood river planes are steel and not cast iron. The v2 version at least could be dropped and hammered without breaking.

The irons were water hardening steel, which made some people who really just wanted a dead copy of an ln unhappy.

 

[D_W]

I see the ad copy for the v3 planes claim ductile cast. The increases in cost are a matter of weirdness to me, but the business arrangement in the us for woodcraft franchises is expensive in a way that's not useful to buyers.

 

[Rich C]

The Luban block plane claims to be ductile iron but I have not tested it to be sure.

 

[D_W]

The Luban block plane claims to be ductile iron but I have not tested it to be sure.

If we haven't heard of them breaking, it probably is. I thought the earlier steel planes were unsightly, but I think the castings on the current planes look more normal.

They may have needed to move to cast iron to be able to make a jointer plane.

 

[Devmeister]

I found references on a few sites stating grey iron. they may have gained recent access to ductile iron. While cast steel exists it is much more expensive and difficult to pour. More metalurgy control and higher temperatures. It could have been a semi steel like Oliver once used but I am not sure.

I think I saw references to grey iron on the dieter Schmidt site. I know Clifton is still using grey iron according to their site.

If they are using ductile iron, then that is an improvement. I am not saying grey iron is evil. The steam engine I am currently working on is grey iron as many older machines were as well.

Ductile iron was invented some time around the 1940s when they discovered the iniculents to convert iron into ductile iron. A special recipe of herbs and spices . They then created the Meehanite Society to control this new alloy. All of the original ductile alloys were listed as meehanite alloys and the foundries even had to get licensed to use it. They were meehanite certified. They even controlled how patterns were to be made to control non linear cooling effects.

Today we have many non meehanite certified ductile irons but one thing remains. The inoculents are complex. These need to added just before the pour. Often a sample is taken to the lab from each major pour.

Grey iron is easy. I just tods in a bit of ferro-silicone and off we go. When you melt iron, it often out gases the inoculents or they float to the top as dross. That is why you add just before the pour and pour as quickly as possible to allow the inoculents to do their job.

If you don’t know, drill a tiny hole in the iron. If the chips are dust like, it’s grey iron. If they are more stringy like steel, it’s ductile.

Planes have thin bodies meaning they can break easy and warp easy. Ductile really helps here.

 

[raffo]

From reading the applications where ductile iron is used, their use on bench planes seems overkill. Granted, if you drop your plane on a concrete floor it will probably break, but warping is not an issue I've heard of regarding vintage planes.

Stanley produced steel bench planes, models like S4 and S5 can be found in the market. Drop forged plane bodies were available at some point, look up Vaughan & Bushnell planes.

 

[Devmeister]

Warpage in vintage planes has been an issue. The worst area often around the throat. Iron sewerage pipe is ductile iron. Do you need ductile iron to channel terds down a pipe? None of the forged planes and steel planes ever won a following. The carbon in both grey and ductile give the plane less friction in use.

 

[Devmeister]

From reading the applications where ductile iron is used, their use on bench planes seems overkill. Granted, if you drop your plane on a concrete floor it will probably break, but warping is not an issue I've heard of regarding vintage planes.

Stanley produced steel bench planes, models like S4 and S5 can be found in the market. Drop forged plane bodies were available at some point, look up Vaughan & Bushnell planes.

Wouldn’t the use of V11 also be overkill. The Luban/Juuma planes are using T1. According to the knife guys it’s not very good. Low toughness leads to chip out.

 

[Bodgers]

I found references on a few sites stating grey iron. they may have gained recent access to ductile iron. While cast steel exists it is much more expensive and difficult to pour. More metalurgy control and higher temperatures. It could have been a semi steel like Oliver once used but I am not sure.

I think I saw references to grey iron on the dieter Schmidt site. I know Clifton is still using grey iron according to their site.

If they are using ductile iron, then that is an improvement. I am not saying grey iron is evil. The steam engine I am currently working on is grey iron as many older machines were as well.

Ductile iron was invented some time around the 1940s when they discovered the iniculents to convert iron into ductile iron. A special recipe of herbs and spices . They then created the Meehanite Society to control this new alloy. All of the original ductile alloys were listed as meehanite alloys and the foundries even had to get licensed to use it. They were meehanite certified. They even controlled how patterns were to be made to control non linear cooling effects.

Today we have many non meehanite certified ductile irons but one thing remains. The inoculents are complex. These need to added just before the pour. Often a sample is taken to the lab from each major pour.

Grey iron is easy. I just tods in a bit of ferro-silicone and off we go. When you melt iron, it often out gases the inoculents or they float to the top as dross. That is why you add just before the pour and pour as quickly as possible to allow the inoculents to do their job.

If you don’t know, drill a tiny hole in the iron. If the chips are dust like, it’s grey iron. If they are more stringy like steel, it’s ductile.

Planes have thin bodies meaning they can break easy and warp easy. Ductile really helps here.

What's the actual difference in performance?

I have both Veritas and Luban planes and I'm not detecting anything...

 

[Devmeister]

What's the actual difference in performance?

I have both Veritas and Luban planes and I'm not detecting anything...

]
Short Term: Drop them and see what happens.

long Term: blue up bottom with cobalt blue marker and check against a reference plate.

 

[raffo]

Wouldn’t the use of V11 also be overkill. The Luban/Juuma planes are using T1. According to the knife guys it’s not very good. Low toughness leads to chip out.

I've paid as low as $20 for a type 11 Stanley plane with plenty of steel left in the iron. Would I fork out $80 for a PM-V11 to supposedly take it to the next level? No. I do have a couple of those irons, but I'm not blown away to the point that I'm going to replace the irons of all my planes. With the help of DW I've made a few replacement irons out of O1, they work pretty well, I'm more willing to spend money and time doing that.

 

[D_W]

Wouldn’t the use of V11 also be overkill. The Luban/Juuma planes are using T1. According to the knife guys it’s not very good. Low toughness leads to chip out.

It's hard to figure out what they're using, but I think it's water hardening steel. If i had one in hand, i could tell you based on how it feels on stones and on a grinder immediately (even O1 has a substantially different feel than 1095 or a basic alloy that's got some extra stuff for carbide quality/toughness).

The trouble with their designation - I recall seeing the iron designation as T10 - is that it's the same name as the tungsten series of HSS. Tungsten is expensive - it's not going to be that, or we'd also hear about how slow they are to sharpen and how the grain is coarse.

What I see of T10 is 1 part it's 1095 equivalent and 9 parts "It's steel with silicon and a lot of tungsten".

1095 is chippy. I'll update a chart that I got from testing my stuff and you'll see why (though I think charpy notch or unnotched toughness doesn't always do a great job to explain what will work well in a plane iron).

 

[Bodgers]

I found references on a few sites stating grey iron. they may have gained recent access to ductile iron. While cast steel exists it is much more expensive and difficult to pour. More metalurgy control and higher temperatures. It could have been a semi steel like Oliver once used but I am not sure.

I think I saw references to grey iron on the dieter Schmidt site. I know Clifton is still using grey iron according to their site.

If they are using ductile iron, then that is an improvement. I am not saying grey iron is evil. The steam engine I am currently working on is grey iron as many older machines were as well.

Ductile iron was invented some time around the 1940s when they discovered the iniculents to convert iron into ductile iron. A special recipe of herbs and spices . They then created the Meehanite Society to control this new alloy. All of the original ductile alloys were listed as meehanite alloys and the foundries even had to get licensed to use it. They were meehanite certified. They even controlled how patterns were to be made to control non linear cooling effects.

Today we have many non meehanite certified ductile irons but one thing remains. The inoculents are complex. These need to added just before the pour. Often a sample is taken to the lab from each major pour.

Grey iron is easy. I just tods in a bit of ferro-silicone and off we go. When you melt iron, it often out gases the inoculents or they float to the top as dross. That is why you add just before the pour and pour as quickly as possible to allow the inoculents to do their job.

If you don’t know, drill a tiny hole in the iron. If the chips are dust like, it’s grey iron. If they are more stringy like steel, it’s ductile.

Planes have thin bodies meaning they can break easy and warp easy. Ductile really helps here.

]
Short Term: Drop them and see what happens.

long Term: blue up bottom with cobalt blue marker and check against a reference plate.

I have never dropped a plane yet (just chisels) and I don't plan on doing that.

Soles are flat so far. My No.6 is 5 years old ..

 

[Devmeister]

I broke a Stanley block plane as kid by dropping it. You can question those on the know for a long time, it does not change things. Sometimes we have to work with grey iron. This is what grey iron can do. I can fix this but I won’t discuss how. To complex for this forum.

I