Quangsheng No. 62 Low Angle Jack Plane
- Thread starter AndyT
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
powerhouse
Established Member
AndyT":2cab96d8 said:
Quick answer yes it dose mate :wink:
bugbear
Established Member
AndyT":22kr01kv said:
AFAIK it's a design clone - it's the materials, tolerances and QA that vary.
BugBear
jimi43
Established Member
AndyT":1fbqmmfn said:
Neither could I.... #-o
Jim
I guess I could confirm it when the one that I have now ordered
arrives!
This will be the first new plane I've bought since my Record 044C (yes, one of those with the plastic handles) in about 1988 for £45 according to the price sticker on the box. The only other one bought new was a Stanley no 4 in 1980 which was probably about £20, equivalent to 4 weeks rent or about 70 pints of beer.
I'm hoping this one will be less disappointing!
(Don't worry, I do have quite a few second-hand planes.)
arrives!
This will be the first new plane I've bought since my Record 044C (yes, one of those with the plastic handles) in about 1988 for £45 according to the price sticker on the box. The only other one bought new was a Stanley no 4 in 1980 which was probably about £20, equivalent to 4 weeks rent or about 70 pints of beer.
I'm hoping this one will be less disappointing!
(Don't worry, I do have quite a few second-hand planes.)
woodbloke
Established Member
I don't think you'll be disappointed by the latest QS. With the various blade options that are included it's a snip at around £130. Not the fit and finish and finish of the Veritas or LN LA planes, but nothing that couldn't be sorted with a half hour's mild fettling (edge castings mainly, which are razor sharp) - RobAndyT":c23zsreq said:
Mike Wingate
Established Member
I look foward to some customer reviews of this tool. Having worked with wood for over 50 years, I have never needed such a tool, managing with the usual blade down planes, and scrapers. I don't resort to abrasives and power sanders. I was taught how to use and sharpen a scraper as a kid at school and have used them extensively. However after recently sorting out my planes and having dealt with Workshop Heaven, and being impressed with the Quangsheng chipbreakers. This plane is something that interest me. Using my Stanley block plane on end grain is not always the way forward. I have tried the Veritas and Lie-nielson models and am impressed with the cut and performance, but such a plane at those prices, never.
- Joined
- 6 Jun 2011
- Messages
- 2,992
- Reaction score
- 898
Hi guys sorry if my review was unclear on the moving mouth issue, the QS does have a moving mouth I referred to it in the review but it may have been a bit lost in the text here is a couple of extracts 
(Robs)Veritas Low angle 62½ for the comparison and very nice it was too. As you would expect, this was very well made with some fine design details such as an adjustable mouth stop to minimize the risk of blade damage when fine tuning the moving mouth
David Charlesworth uses a piece of paper under the blade and I like to use a piece of clear acetate, so you can see what’s going on and I use the same sheet to protect the blade when setting the mouth. (On the QS)Unlike our traditional bevel down bench planes we cannot adjust the frog so the 62 plane has to have a moving front mouth at the toe of the plane to close the gap.
:idea: This is in essence a large Block plane so you could regrind spare Block plane blades to the three angles 25,38,50 and see how they perform with end grain and difficult timbers, although you will struggle to get any large areas flat.
I fully agree with Mikes comment above but he has an extra twenty years’ experience than me, as I said I was a bevel up sceptic and had always managed without one this is not replacing my Jack plane :!:
Cheers Peter
(Robs)Veritas Low angle 62½ for the comparison and very nice it was too. As you would expect, this was very well made with some fine design details such as an adjustable mouth stop to minimize the risk of blade damage when fine tuning the moving mouth
David Charlesworth uses a piece of paper under the blade and I like to use a piece of clear acetate, so you can see what’s going on and I use the same sheet to protect the blade when setting the mouth. (On the QS)Unlike our traditional bevel down bench planes we cannot adjust the frog so the 62 plane has to have a moving front mouth at the toe of the plane to close the gap.
:idea: This is in essence a large Block plane so you could regrind spare Block plane blades to the three angles 25,38,50 and see how they perform with end grain and difficult timbers, although you will struggle to get any large areas flat.
I fully agree with Mikes comment above but he has an extra twenty years’ experience than me, as I said I was a bevel up sceptic and had always managed without one this is not replacing my Jack plane :!:
Cheers Peter
Ok very quick first impression:
Nice clean and tidy plane. 3 irons honed easily on 3M abrasive sheets. I've only tried the high angle blade so far, and that was on my unidentified garden wood I might make into a saw handle. This has knots and reversing grain in it and had not surprisingly torn out here and there when I was dimensioning it with a wooden scrub plane followed by an old Stanley 5½.
The QS coped with the grain beautifully and soon removed all evidence of tear-out. It barely seemed to matter what direction I went in - with the grain, against the grain, diagonally - it left a nice shiny smooth surface and fine shavings.
Pics etc later! - but I'm not disappointed.
(Btw I may have forgotten one or two purchases when I said this was only my third new plane. 'Only my second new metal bench plane', that's what I meant to say. Little Mujingfang woodies don't count. But I'm among friends here - you know what I mean!)
Nice clean and tidy plane. 3 irons honed easily on 3M abrasive sheets. I've only tried the high angle blade so far, and that was on my unidentified garden wood I might make into a saw handle. This has knots and reversing grain in it and had not surprisingly torn out here and there when I was dimensioning it with a wooden scrub plane followed by an old Stanley 5½.
The QS coped with the grain beautifully and soon removed all evidence of tear-out. It barely seemed to matter what direction I went in - with the grain, against the grain, diagonally - it left a nice shiny smooth surface and fine shavings.
Pics etc later! - but I'm not disappointed.
(Btw I may have forgotten one or two purchases when I said this was only my third new plane. 'Only my second new metal bench plane', that's what I meant to say. Little Mujingfang woodies don't count. But I'm among friends here - you know what I mean!)
Ed Bray
Established Member
I received my Quansheng 62 this morning and used it to finish the top of my WIP end table, to say I am impressed is an understatement. I have bought about 6 Bench planes lately and I now wish I had not bothered and bought a couple of QS Bench planes instead. The amount of time I have spent fettling and cleaning up old planes and whilst I get a degree of satisfaction from doing this I could have spent the time instead actually woodworking. Price has gone up by £30 over the years but compared to it's counterparts it's still a great deal.
I also received my little Mujingfang 3mm Radius round over plane and that too is great along with the Mujingfang adjustable Chamfer plane and Quangsheng Boggs copy spokeshave (but I haven't opened them yet).
I also received my little Mujingfang 3mm Radius round over plane and that too is great along with the Mujingfang adjustable Chamfer plane and Quangsheng Boggs copy spokeshave (but I haven't opened them yet).
Dangermouse.
Established Member
Personally for the price I feel you cant beat the new Stanley 62, I've had mine for a while now and its a fantastic plane. See my review of it here
stanley-62-sweetheart-la-jack-plane-t67083.html
stanley-62-sweetheart-la-jack-plane-t67083.html
G S Haydon
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,667
- Reaction score
- 223
It would be nice to take the QS for a test drive. I have the Stanley and I think the QS (without the experience of owning one) seems better value with three blades. Also the QS stuff I have tried has so far been better than Stanley for very similar money. In my limited experience Stanley have also proved to be less thank helpful when it came to getting to the bottom of quality issues.
