New hand planes?

[profchris]

Sploo, I feel your pain. If it helps, here are my experiences with various planes as a comparatively inexperienced plane user - it might be relevant that it's the same user each time, so gives a realistic comparison.

Veritas low angle apron block plane - a pleasure to use when the iron is sharp but it needs sharpening very frequently. Easy to adjust.

Stanley No 3 (uncertain age, 60s?) - huge slack in both lateral and forward/back adjusters, so finicky, but once set it planes really nicely and keeps an edge pretty well.

Quangsheng no 1 - not only really pretty (my wife wanted to steal it for display) but planes beautifully, holds its edge for ever. I make ukuleles, but others probably wouldn't find much use for one. Adjust laterally with a plastic hammer, really very easy.

Quangsheng low angle jack - planes really nicely when sharp but doesn't hold an edge for long. Harder to adjust than the Veritas, not much difference between no cut and too much.

Wooden coffin smoother - works nicely if adjusted right, but I haven't invested the time to learn how to do that, so it gets less use than it deserves.

Ebay £7 tiny rosewood and brass bevel down plane, about 3 ins long - probably my most reliable plane! Again, not much use for other than tiny things, but is great for bindings etc on ukes.

All these work well if sharp. Some keep an edge better than others. The Stanley is finicky with age, the woodie finicky because I haven't learnt it. All are good enough tools to produce good results.

 

[sploo]

Sploo, I feel your pain. If it helps, here are my experiences with various planes as a comparatively inexperienced plane user - it might be relevant that it's the same user each time, so gives a realistic comparison....

Thanks Chris. I was posting somewhat tongue-in-cheek (though everything I wrote I have read at various times).

My limited experience comes from the following:

• A plastic-handled Stanley No 4 of probably late 1990s vintage (it was a gift). Turns out the sole was a bit twisted (now flattened) but it seems to cut fine
• An eBay purchased Stanley No 4 1/2, probably 1960s, but with the pressed two part fork. Having been cleaned and fettled it cuts really well
• Another eBay Stanley No 5 1/2. Looks to be the same vintage as the No 4 1/2. Only just purchased so not fettled yet, but as it had a sharp blade I gave it a test this evening and it seems good
• A Quangsheng Luban No. 102 Bronze Apron Plane. Nice little item, and great for chamfers

I've got other types (#44, #78, Veritas Router) but I've never used any of the QS/LN/LV/Clifton bench planes.

 

[D_W]

DW, how come you have had so many planes? What are you searching for? This is not a criticism, I am genuinely baffled. I've got two benches, one at the dry dock where I work and one in my shed at home (I have no machines at home, at the dock I do). In each I have a couple of record jacks (5s), a no.4 (stanley at work, marples at home) and a couple a wooden jointers. I also have a 4 1/2 that I take from one place to the other that I use for final smoothing. They all work. They needed some attention when I got them (my local saw doctors flattened them for me £5 a plane). I have some other wooden planes that I've not had time to get properly accustomed to, one day I would like to. I have some other planes (rebate, block, moulding, ploughs etc.), all of them work, some needed a bit of work and getting used to. The most I ever spent on a bench plane was £20 on the 41/2. Most were a tenner or less (my stanley 4 was £1). I did buy a new QS block plane and very nice it is. If I had money to burn I would buy QS or even a Clifton or LN bench planes and they too would work, maybe they would need some work, maybe I would need to get used to them. They may be heavier or lighter than what I have, I would learn to adjust.
My point is they all work, one plane might be heavier than another, but they all work. Why would you keep buying and selling planes? For me if there is a problem it is either that I need to work on the plane or work on my technique. I've noticed you have the same tendency with sharpening stuff, you've had every different type of stone and the watisha is your current favourite. For me, like the planes, they all work, the best one is the one you have. I dunno, do as you like, but I think my time is better spent learning to use what I've got rather than trying a whole bunch of different stuff to find what works for me, I prefer to think that I need to adjust to the tool and not try to but myself out of trouble. From what I am reading in your above post you have had at least 12 long metal planes!! I can't imagine ever needing more than one (well two, one at work, one at home), I have wooden ones as they were cheap and they work. If I had a metal one I would make that work.
Please don't get me wrong, do whatever you wish, but you seem to have got through so much equipment, what are you hoping for? How many edges have you jointed with all the long planes you've had? I can't quite believe that it could be enough in your leisure time to have given 12 long planes, not counting the probably large number of wooden jointers you've had (and made?) to have given them all a fair shot.
You may disagree, but rather than looking for the perfect tool, chopping and changing all the time, glued to ebay and gumtree (do you have gumtree in the US?), I'd rather spend my time trying to get perfect results from the tools I have.
Paddy

I wasn't ever really looking for the perfect tool, it was just play. I tried everything for play because I'm interested in tool design. Same reason I make wooden planes. I wouldn't need to, it's just play.

 

[G S Haydon]

You forgot about the Dicks!

 

[D_W]

You forgot about the Dicks!

I'd like to make clear that I've had a dozen long metal planes, probably made nearly a dozen long wooden planes, bought another dozen long wooden planes.....but to be clear, I have had *zero* dicks. (hammer)

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

Hey DW, Fair enough, enjoy
Paddy

 

[Corneel]

Making a heavy thick casting is much easier then the more delicate thin walled old Stanley ones. And then it is now sold as a "virtue".

The Victorians were masters in making very intricate castings.

 

[Jelly]

Making a heavy thick casting is much easier then the more delicate thin walled old Stanley ones. And then it is now sold as a "virtue".

The Victorians were masters in making very intricate castings.

Indeed, but in Victorian times the labour of skilled man such as a patternmaker or moulder was much less than the cost of a good quality steel or iron, nor was it easy to generate and contain sufficient energy to prepare big secondary melts of metal for casting.

Fast forward to 2015 and we've got very good at concentrating energy and producing uniform metals... But with less and less foundrymen, moulders and patternmakers left, their labour is at a premium if not in cost (times are hard in the foundries and pattern shops of Great Britain, not as bad as other parts of the steel industry, but still a bit tight) certainly in availablity.

 

[Corneel]

Just a quick comparison.

Stanley #604: 3.625lbs
Lie Nielsen #4: 4 lbs
Woodriver #4: 5 lbs

So, the LN certainly isn't too bad. The Chinese woodriver though, ooch!
Weights above are from the sellers websites and from the Stanley blood and gore webpage. I didn't check them myself.

 

[D_W]

Just a quick comparison.

Stanley #604: 3.625lbs
Lie Nielsen #4: 4 lbs
Woodriver #4: 5 lbs

So, the LN certainly isn't too bad. The Chinese woodriver though, ooch!
Weights above are from the sellers websites and from the Stanley blood and gore webpage. I didn't check them myself.

I believe the stanley bailey #4 is right around 3 pounds. I remember weighing a couple. They do vary a little, of course.

5 pounds is about the weight of a 604 1/2 that I have, and I regarded that one as a heavy plane for its width. My steep pitch 4" infill is only 5 1/2 pounds. I've always referred to that as "wood show" weight. If you're at a wood show and you only push a plane three times on a prepared board, the weight makes the plane seem really smooth (but then you use one in the context of work on a half dozen panels and the weight doesn't seem so great).

 

[Mr_P]

But Neanderthal man he say HEAVY is GOOD

Modern man knows how to spin it either way.

At 4lbs 6oz (2kg) the Clifton No 4 is nearly half a pound heavier than its North American rivals. 9-1/2" long with a 2" cryogenic cutting iron it feels sturdy and capable from the moment you first pick it up.

Not much of an issue for the hobbysit and it might be the only exercise they get.

So I'm off to order Woodriver no.3 and an old bedrock 608.

 

[JohnCee]

Are the **** planes from the same source as QS and WR?
They are quite a bit cheaper.
Anyone have any experience with them? (titter ye not)

 

[Jacob]

Making a heavy thick casting is much easier then the more delicate thin walled old Stanley ones. And then it is now sold as a "virtue".

The Victorians were masters in making very intricate castings.

They also promote "ductile" as a virtue but all it means (as far as we are concerned) is "soft" i.e. will scratch easily.
This dawned on me when I used a Clifton 4 and hit a nail; big deep scratch across the sole!
Wouldn't happen with any of my older planes - which also seem to have less frictional resistance - this is somewhat subjective but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a simple fact.

So you get a heavy plane to make work harder, soft steel to take scratches, thick blades to make sharpening more difficult and increase the weight, norris style adjusters which don't work. Nice brass knobs and bubinga handles though!

 

[D_W]

But Neanderthal man he say HEAVY is GOOD

Modern man knows how to spin it either way.

At 4lbs 6oz (2kg) the Clifton No 4 is nearly half a pound heavier than its North American rivals. 9-1/2" long with a 2" cryogenic cutting iron it feels sturdy and capable from the moment you first pick it up.

Not much of an issue for the hobbysit and it might be the only exercise they get.

So I'm off to order Woodriver no.3 and an old bedrock 608.

Professional man in the day of competitive professionals is probably always the best place to find ideal.

Certainly, there are plenty of people who will order their wood river and other planes of similar name (quansheng, ****, whatever the steel chinese planes are sold under) and not push them around enough to worry about the weight.

When I thought premium planes were the way to go, i bought about half new and half used. I don't think any of lie nielsen's I bought used had the primary grind removed. They had been honed a couple of times, but not enough to remove the primary. Two were unused but several years old.

 

[Mr_P]

Sorry D_W I was only jesting when I said I off to order them, I realised long ago that I had too many planes allready but find it hard to resist bargains on ebay. I'd pay good money to see a wealthy amateur with his his Holtey go up against Graham with his £12 Silverline. I know who I'd bet on.

JohnCee,

Peter Sefton said,

The **** plane is not the same as a WoodRiver and a Quangsheng is different again. I have the latter two in my kit and you can see the **** is a different design from those seen in the UK.

buying-a-****-woodworking-plane-from-dictum-t89598.html

Blimey they are cheap 114 Euros delivered = £84, they would have to be mmm brown

https://www.dictum.com/en/tools/woodwor ... plane-no-4

 

[D_W]

It's strange that the wood river and quansheng are described to be different. It must be a spec difference, because early on when the wood river planes were just started, they showed up on a site called "quansheng tool". After they got established at woodcraft, that site disappeared.

Woodcraft had problems with their second version because some of the elements were the same as LN instead of the same as bedrock, and I get the sense that they changed those back to bedrock in the third version to avoid problems with lie nielsen.

Maybe the quansheng planes didn't have to make those changes because they're not sold under the brand in the US, but I'm pretty sure they came from the same place originally.

The chinese quansheng site also showed some knockoffs of Veritas tools that japan woodworkers and others sold without any shame.

 

[D_W]

Sorry D_W I was only jesting when I said I off to order them...

Ahh...I don't always recognize the piss taking yet as I haven't got a good idea of what everyone likes here.

At any rate, the quangsheng 5 pound #4 could probably make a good doorstop. Or perhaps something to throw at an intruder. Since you guys can't keep pistols in your nightstand there, maybe you could put a QS #4 on them - or a couple.

 

[Jelly]

Making a heavy thick casting is much easier then the more delicate thin walled old Stanley ones. And then it is now sold as a "virtue".

The Victorians were masters in making very intricate castings.

They also promote "ductile" as a virtue but all it means (as far as we are concerned) is "soft" i.e. will scratch easily.
This dawned on me when I used a Clifton 4 and hit a nail; big deep scratch across the sole!
Wouldn't happen with any of my older planes - which also seem to have less frictional resistance - this is somewhat subjective but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a simple fact.

So you get a heavy plane to make work harder, soft steel to take scratches, thick blades to make sharpening more difficult and increase the weight, norris style adjusters which don't work. Nice brass knobs and bubinga handles though!

Ductile does mean the plane is tougher...but toughness and hardness tend to be inversely proportional.

I can't help wondering if moving from cast iron to cast steel would be an actual advance... Traditionally steel is rather harder to cast and machine, so iron was preferred if at all possible... But as we've got rather better at casting in the past 150 years...

A cast steel plane could be case hardened or nitrided to give resistance to gouging, whilst remaining less susceptible to cracking due to impact than iron die to grain structure, you can also get better strength and rigidity for a given wall section with steel, so the plane can also get lighter...

IIRC from reading blood and gore, Stanley briefly did this and the planes were regarded as being no better or worse than the iron ones, just less likely to break when subject to abuse, however they never quite took off due to price...

 

[Mr_P]

Didn't Patrick also say Bedrocks are over rated and British infills are better.

Never tried a proper Bedrock new or old so I can't comment.

Edit he said over-hyped Bed Rock series and

save your lunch money for a few months more, and buy a real killer smoothing plane, an English infill. You'll never regret it as they far out-perform any Bed Rock plane

http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan15.htm

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Didn't Patrick also say Bedrocks are over rated and British infills are better.

Never tried a proper Bedrock new or old so I can't comment.

Edit he said over-hyped Bed Rock series and

save your lunch money for a few months more, and buy a real killer smoothing plane, an English infill. You'll never regret it as they far out-perform any Bed Rock plane

http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan15.htm

But....but......but.....infills are HEAVY! :shock:

I know. I'll start making infill planes from aluminium and balsa. I'll make a fortune!