( Photos now shown ) IBC Matched Blade & Chipbreaker Set

[Mike Wingate]

Japanese Blade Details. Mine is an FTI, Fine Tool Imports. I think from a chap called Roger Busey? Many years ago. I bought rubber oilstones and similar products from him in the 70/80's The Axminster models may be a similar product. The Quangsheng back iron looks a good one. Has anyone got one, does it fit, o I need to file it? If you get a similar Japanese blade to mine you will have fun sharpening it!

 

[Andrea]

So lets see.
I might have to file back the mouth of my plane even though CBT says not.
I have to pay £75 for the steel.

To me that's the rub. £75 is too much for a plane blade. I think that Rob Cosman's name adds nothing and this use of his name only detracts from his talent and skills. There is no way that blades should cost so much with so little, so very little added value. Great marketing but essentially you pay for the privilege of buying a blade with a well known personality name attached not for the product or functionality.

I think, more or less, in the same way.

Is there anyone here who has tried Blades and Cap Irons for Stanley/Record made by Veritas?
http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.a ... 82&p=66868
I think that with them you should not need to file the mouth, but as far as I know, no one sell them here in Europe.

And the same question for Workshop Heaven Y-levers, properly extended, in order to mount Quangsheng blades on Stanley/Record planes, anyone as tried them?
http://workshopheaven.com/cgi-bin/cp-ap ... heng+Irons

 

[David C]

I have the Veritas blade and chipbreaker here. The c/b is very nice but the outstanding feature, is that the back of the blade is lapped to a very fine finish indeed.
Preparation time is thus massively reduced.

Interesting that QS, IBC & Veritas have all "adopted" the L-N chipbreaker design.

For the Y levers someone needs to check whether the pin hole matches the Stanley pin.

David Charlesworth

 

[Vann]

For the Y levers someone needs to check whether the pin hole matches the Stanley pin.

When I ordered one, Matthew asked whether it was for a Clifton or Record/Stanley, as they make them with different size pin holes.

Without checking the WH site I don't know which ones he's got in stock, but you can get either.


Cheers, Vann.

 

[Benchwayze]

Now we are going to have some discussion on whether it is the back of the mouth or the front that needs attention.
Filing is not my forte'!

The back of the mouth would need accurate work to make sure the frog rests in line with the mouth. .
The front of the mouth would mean there is a lot of overhang with a standard blade.

But then, as I wouldn't be bothering to put back a standard blade, I think I would attack the front of the mouth myself.
It's as well I have a number of old Baileys I can experiment with! :mrgreen:

John

 

[David C]

John,

I have always done front of throat, but I know there are other opinions.

Yes I don't think you will be reverting to a thin blade

David

 

[Benchwayze]

Thanks David.

I have an old No4, but first I am going to try a Clifton blade, which I also have in the cupboard.
It would be a good exercise to compare with the IBC set-up.

Edit:

Come to think of it, I have a Record 5-1/2 badly in need of rescuing. This might be a chance to get a nice Jack for a decent price. I might even sell my Clifton!


Regards
John

 

[jimi43]

Now we are going to have some discussion on whether it is the back of the mouth or the front that needs attention.
Filing is not my forte'!

The back of the mouth would need accurate work to make sure the frog rests in line with the mouth. .
The front of the mouth would mean there is a lot of overhang with a standard blade.

But then, as I wouldn't be bothering to put back a standard blade, I think I would attack the front of the mouth myself.
It's as well I have a number of old Baileys I can experiment with! :mrgreen:

John

For most of these modifications we are simply talking about 1mm or less...for instance...the QS iron would need a couple of thou on my 5 1/2 to fit...even though it is staying put in Alex! 8)

In actual fact...if you are going to file out the mouth at all...the back is easier. Take the frog out and carefully put one layer of masking tape over it taking care not to overlap or tape a sheet of thin plastic to it and move it back so that a fraction of the mouth is proud.

Using a fairly course flat mid size file (a good make and sharp!)...work from the sole in using the frog as your guide. This keeps the bevel angle correct too. Once you are level with the frog test the iron/cap assembly and repeat if necessary.

Once you get clearance carry on until you get the mouth gap you want and then finish by draw filing across the mouth (hold both ends of the file and work across the mouth from side to side.

Whatever the iron thickness...the optimum position for the frog is in-line with the bevel of the rear of the sole mouth making one continuous metal support for the iron right up to the end so one option is to set this and then file the front of the mouth as David says. However, the mouth will now be optimised for that thickness of iron and no other.

Good luck...like you say..practice on a basketcase and get your confidence before you play with a rare one (if ever!) :wink:

Jim

 

[Paul Chapman]

I always file the front of the mouth. As others have said, when you experience the benefits of a thick blade, you won't want to put the thin one back.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Benchwayze]

Jim,

I don't have any rare planes. :mrgreen:

The rarest I ever owned was a Spiers infill Coffin smoother. It was too small for my right hand, so I sold it on. (It cost me a tenner at an antique fair in the 80s and it was a nice user. But as I said, even with my pointy-forefinger grip, the handle felt cramped.

So no worries about ruining a rare plane Jim!

Paul,

I look at it this way... If all Baileys had an adjustable mouth, it would of course be the front of the mouth I would adjust. So I'll try that first to get my hand in!

John

 

[Alf]

I have a hazy recollection of someone observing that filing the front of the mouth gave the added advantage of filing away the likely wear to be found there on an older plane. Am I imagining that? BB?

 

[Racers]

Hi,

The back of the mouth is a non critical part on the plane so you could hack it away with an axe. the back edge doesn't support the blade it only jams it if the mouth isn't wide enough for a thick blade.
I would always file the back may be a quick tickle up ot the front the give a little clearance.

Ware on the front edge could be a problem but I haven't experienced it, maybe lapping the sole has cured any of my planes that had that problem.


Pete

 

[Mike Wingate]

I have just recieved a pair of Quangsheng chipbreakers from Workshop Heaven's Ebay store. The whole ordering and delivery went really smoothly. I ordered and they arrived 2 days later. Well packaged, each chipbreaker in it's own plastic wallet, complete with screw. I have spent 20 secs fitting the 2" chipbreaker to my old Japanese Laminated steel blade, dropping it straight into a Stanley No.4 plane and playing with it for nearly an hour. Perfect fit, no filing nor fettling required at all, unlike my initail panic and then thought through solutions for getting my Rob Cosman combo to work. It probably matches the performance of the Rob Cosman setup, but the joy of being able to slip it into a no.4 or 5 plane is great. I am waiting for an Axminster sourced 2 3/8" Laminated blade to go with the other Quangsheng that I purchased. This will then be able to fit into my 4 1/2, 5 1/2, 6 and 7 planes with no problems. So much better than my Record/Stanley blades even though they have a keen edge. I am tempted to buy a Quangsheng blade and chipbreaker for my No.3 plane.Well done Workshop Heaven.

 

[jimi43]

Hi Mike

Just a word of warning...you might like to check with Matthew at WSH that the set fits...the one I bought for my infill panel plane didn't fit my No.51/2.....but only just too big. If you do need to file it won't be much. The No.3 may very well fit straight off.

Jimi

 

[Recky33]

Mike

I have a Qs blade on my Record No 3, you can try out if you want.

Allan

 

[Mike Wingate]

New Japanese Laminated 2 2/8" blade from Axminster is the same brand as my old one. It has taken a keen edge and is now mated to a Quangsheng chipbreaker. I must start fettling up the no.7 plane.

 

[Mike Wingate]

Reeived my Quangsheng chipbreaker (my 3rd as I am quite impressed with them) and the 1 3/4" QS blade, both for my Stanley no.3. Dont fit, too thick. Back in Rob Cosman territory. Filed the base of the frog in 3 places, taken off 1mm, lapped the front of the frog. Test fit, blade fouled mouth. 1mm off front of the mouth which was not parallel and worn. Even the Y-lever works. What a plane and blade como, all for £43 plus a couple of hours work. Very impressed with the QS blade, but will stick to the Axminster SmoothCut laminated blades and QS chipbreakers next time, they just drop in with no problems.

 

[Vann]

Reeived my Quangsheng chipbreaker (my 3rd as I am quite impressed with them) and the 1 3/4" QS blade, both for my Stanley no.3...
...but will stick to the Axminster SmoothCut laminated blades and QS chipbreakers next time, they just drop in with no problems.

I see the Samurai laminated irons only come in 2" and 2 3/8" so I guess that wasn't an option for your Stanley No.3 anyway.
Of course you could have bought a British Clifton iron instead of that QS ! (hammer)

Cheers, Vann.

 

[Mike Wingate]

But the Quangsheng was so cheap, and I was so pleased with the 2 other chipbreakers. My No.3 works really well, there is plenty of adjustment and the frog is at the front of it's travel lined up with the angle of the rar of the mouth. The blade (and a bit more fettling) have so improved the plane. Similar quality of cut to My Rob Cosman set. The Japanese blades are sharper. I have been planing leather glued to ply, for some more strops. The Laminated steel blades slice and leave a cleaner edge, they all cut, but it is about the finish. The low angle blade in my QS62 leaves a really smooth surface, that is burnished by the sole of the plane. With a wipe of wax, it just glides over the wood. I will grind the blade on the Tormk and see if the concave edge has any more benefits to the performance. No more rubbing wood with abrasive, if I can get a plane to it.