Homeless Squirrel
Established Member
How do likes of Luban and Quenshang? stack up against likes of Stanley etc
Low angle block plane
- Thread starter Homeless Squirrel
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Heavier, harder irons.
I think the old stanley planes had softer blades for site work. I've rehardened a couple and they have the potential to be harder than the A2 irons in the newer planes, so it was deliberate on stanley's part, probably to make sharpening those irons easy.
I've never cared too much personally for the low angle block planes. If there's appreciable end grain to plane, they are really the last plane you'd want to do it with despite demonstrations of that. The extra 8 degrees on something like a 9 1/2 gets you closer to a pitch that won't tear out too much on long grain, you can still bevel and do whatever on a small scale, and the wear bevel literally doesn't appear on the back of the iron whereas it will leave a pretty long wear bevel on a low angle block plane.
It used to be that low angle mania made 9 1/2s cheaper, but it no longer does.
i don't see the virtue of a heavier block plane, but people trying to use them to plane vast amounts of end grain might.
Like all of my other posts, I've had premium versions of these in the past and no longer do. I got suckered into them by watching gurus do things like plane the end of a drawer with them, but they are not made for that and it's just a good way to have sore fingers.
I do like the rehardened stanley irons better (than the originals, and far better than A2 irons), but a buffer on a softer iron also deals with their softness, and even the softest stanley irons will plane bubinga and cocobolo if that's done.
I think the old stanley planes had softer blades for site work. I've rehardened a couple and they have the potential to be harder than the A2 irons in the newer planes, so it was deliberate on stanley's part, probably to make sharpening those irons easy.
I've never cared too much personally for the low angle block planes. If there's appreciable end grain to plane, they are really the last plane you'd want to do it with despite demonstrations of that. The extra 8 degrees on something like a 9 1/2 gets you closer to a pitch that won't tear out too much on long grain, you can still bevel and do whatever on a small scale, and the wear bevel literally doesn't appear on the back of the iron whereas it will leave a pretty long wear bevel on a low angle block plane.
It used to be that low angle mania made 9 1/2s cheaper, but it no longer does.
i don't see the virtue of a heavier block plane, but people trying to use them to plane vast amounts of end grain might.
Like all of my other posts, I've had premium versions of these in the past and no longer do. I got suckered into them by watching gurus do things like plane the end of a drawer with them, but they are not made for that and it's just a good way to have sore fingers.
I do like the rehardened stanley irons better (than the originals, and far better than A2 irons), but a buffer on a softer iron also deals with their softness, and even the softest stanley irons will plane bubinga and cocobolo if that's done.
thetyreman
Established Member
I'd go for the quensheng block plane, heard it's just as good as the lie neilsen 102, but I've owned the 102 and it was a beautifully made plane, the price is astronomical now though, it's not worth more than £100 imo, the older block planes have often been abused and not well looked after and they are nowhere near as well made.
Homeless Squirrel
Established Member
Ive got a Stanley 9 1/2 knuckle plane with SW blade it's good in fact very good can makes Rizla papers from a lump of wood!
Also have a much later stanley low angle one i don't like the cap bit as locking lever has a tin washer jobbie inside that's a bit soft n bendy but did whizz the blade up on stones and strop and guy at Mens shed got it set up a lot better than came! been using on some end/across grain some bits and actually worked well but think blade isn't that good as noticed edge looked a frayed if turn in the light looks uneven.
Quite a lot of my things are smaller jobs so no8's a tad big!.
Was looking at that Luban for sale on here as a replacement?
Have some others like 110.120or 220?.and130 110 is boxed but think will sell them.
Got a boxed Stanley no3 which looks 50's? which quite like for smaller jobs
I lied - and I forgot that I did. eons ago, my son was constantly wanting to play with my only block plane, so I got him a beater steel stanley block plane, which I thought for a while "who would have anything to do with this". not like "I'm too good for it" but "who would have a job that this would be good for".
Then, I changed my doors and the doors that I got are solid core with some kind of odd fiber, and a block plane with a big wide open mouth and a thin sole was just the thing to clean up the bottom of the door after sawing it to length. The fiber was like musk ox hair packed together - weird stuff.
At any rate, I think a 9 1/2 is just the ticket, and I always wanted one but never looked hard enough to find one cheap. Right around when I decided I'd like one, someone wrote an article about how all fly rood makers need a 9 1/2 and they went higher than 60 1/2s.
The only good one I have is an 18 - it's not overweight, it works properly, but the knuckle cap would be a pain in heavier work. I don't do heavy work with it, it's the wrong tool as mentioned above, so it isn't an issue.
When I figured out "the unicorn" trick to alter just a few thousandths at the edge of a tool, I figured that would be just the thing for bevel up planes where rounding the tip doesn't matter - there's no clearance issue. I also figured that the irons that I had that were really soft would probably plane anything once modified. That turned out to be the case. I rehardened one less to make them usable and more to find out if stanley was using a lower carbon steel or if they intentionally tempered them soft. The latter is the case.
There wasn't anything wrong with LN's 60 1/2 other than the iron was A2 - which is sort of a pointless steel other than for the manufacturer, but when you have an LN or veritas tool sitting around not being used, it'll either rust and you'll sell it later, or you can sell it first, which is really easy to do (even pre covid). That's definitely the one nice thing with the premium planes - you could always find one used and then sell it for about the same you paid.
Then, I changed my doors and the doors that I got are solid core with some kind of odd fiber, and a block plane with a big wide open mouth and a thin sole was just the thing to clean up the bottom of the door after sawing it to length. The fiber was like musk ox hair packed together - weird stuff.
At any rate, I think a 9 1/2 is just the ticket, and I always wanted one but never looked hard enough to find one cheap. Right around when I decided I'd like one, someone wrote an article about how all fly rood makers need a 9 1/2 and they went higher than 60 1/2s.
The only good one I have is an 18 - it's not overweight, it works properly, but the knuckle cap would be a pain in heavier work. I don't do heavy work with it, it's the wrong tool as mentioned above, so it isn't an issue.
When I figured out "the unicorn" trick to alter just a few thousandths at the edge of a tool, I figured that would be just the thing for bevel up planes where rounding the tip doesn't matter - there's no clearance issue. I also figured that the irons that I had that were really soft would probably plane anything once modified. That turned out to be the case. I rehardened one less to make them usable and more to find out if stanley was using a lower carbon steel or if they intentionally tempered them soft. The latter is the case.
There wasn't anything wrong with LN's 60 1/2 other than the iron was A2 - which is sort of a pointless steel other than for the manufacturer, but when you have an LN or veritas tool sitting around not being used, it'll either rust and you'll sell it later, or you can sell it first, which is really easy to do (even pre covid). That's definitely the one nice thing with the premium planes - you could always find one used and then sell it for about the same you paid.
Ttrees
Iroko loco!
Just brought back my LN 60 1/2 from me folks.
Nearly tore a hole in me pocket with the weight of it.
Quite heavy if wanting to use it with one hand, I wouldn't be able to for long I don't think.
I have not sold it, as it might be handy for shooting tiny stuff.
Suppose it's a nice thing to have even if I never used it, supporting makers and that.
I bought this because it was recommended by a good few guitar builders,
unquestionably lovely, although I can't say I'm a fan of the lever cap tensioning wheel.
Having only sprung for the LN because the old Stanley 60 1/2 and also the newish
Record-Irwin had issues with both the sole being out,
noticeable if the shoe is moved, one can feel a thumbnail catch if the sole ain't flat.
I made this problem much worse by not lapping correctly i.e I ruined the perimeter (reference) by removing it, instead of targeting high spots only i.e leaving the ink still on the perimeter which can be eliminated with a single stroke on the lap thereafter.
easy peasy.
With that said the second issue some of these can have, is the azimuth error.
Both planes had this, which I've not seen anyone fix properly which I can recall but heard it mentioned rather than messing about grinding a skew into the mouth,
or other dastardly deeds.
Surely easy to fix with some adhered abrasive on the iron, whtever colour marker you like,
and a bit of scraping with the end of a wee needle file (that insult sounding, flat one works nicely for this)
from a cheap set, surely everybody's got these.
Also remembering that the business end of the planes cutter must be pressing down on the frog surface hard/
making sure the other end is tall enough to tip the blade like so,
and not remove any material from the blade depth adjustment tab, should it look problematic, it may actually be too low rather than high should that be problematic,
Just trying to make folks aware of that gap which could appear between blade and frog
should someone be in the woods regarding the importance of the back of the mouth, see gap under iron, and wedge glued to the bed or frog to fix.
I woulda rathered the Stanley compared to the Record-Irwin as it's slimmer like
the LN.
The Record seems about the same width as a no.3, which might actually fit the bill better than anything else.
Have I seen someone build up the bedding of a vintage plane before, was it one of these I wonder, could it perhaps have been a fix like mine above.
Nearly tore a hole in me pocket with the weight of it.
Quite heavy if wanting to use it with one hand, I wouldn't be able to for long I don't think.
I have not sold it, as it might be handy for shooting tiny stuff.
Suppose it's a nice thing to have even if I never used it, supporting makers and that.
I bought this because it was recommended by a good few guitar builders,
unquestionably lovely, although I can't say I'm a fan of the lever cap tensioning wheel.
Having only sprung for the LN because the old Stanley 60 1/2 and also the newish
Record-Irwin had issues with both the sole being out,
noticeable if the shoe is moved, one can feel a thumbnail catch if the sole ain't flat.
I made this problem much worse by not lapping correctly i.e I ruined the perimeter (reference) by removing it, instead of targeting high spots only i.e leaving the ink still on the perimeter which can be eliminated with a single stroke on the lap thereafter.
easy peasy.
With that said the second issue some of these can have, is the azimuth error.
Both planes had this, which I've not seen anyone fix properly which I can recall but heard it mentioned rather than messing about grinding a skew into the mouth,
or other dastardly deeds.
Surely easy to fix with some adhered abrasive on the iron, whtever colour marker you like,
and a bit of scraping with the end of a wee needle file (that insult sounding, flat one works nicely for this)
from a cheap set, surely everybody's got these.
Also remembering that the business end of the planes cutter must be pressing down on the frog surface hard/
making sure the other end is tall enough to tip the blade like so,
and not remove any material from the blade depth adjustment tab, should it look problematic, it may actually be too low rather than high should that be problematic,
Just trying to make folks aware of that gap which could appear between blade and frog
should someone be in the woods regarding the importance of the back of the mouth, see gap under iron, and wedge glued to the bed or frog to fix.
I woulda rathered the Stanley compared to the Record-Irwin as it's slimmer like
the LN.
The Record seems about the same width as a no.3, which might actually fit the bill better than anything else.
Have I seen someone build up the bedding of a vintage plane before, was it one of these I wonder, could it perhaps have been a fix like mine above.
Last edited:
Most of the older block planes I've gotten suffered some kind of fitting with the moveable mouth. I've cleaned each of them that I've had and then lapped them and they are a treat. They are probably the easiest thing anyone could find to lap, but I also think once the shoe is locked in place and lapped, moving it around much is asking for issues. So I have not ever allowed one to move
Homeless Squirrel
Established Member
Ive got a 9 1/2 for site stuff and a rather nice old 60 1/2 in the worshop ( both stanley ) i like them because they are small and easy to knock the arris off an edge. I only have the block plane and a makita 18v llaner for site use. Ive got a few hand planes in the workshop but rarely use them 
I ( like @Ttrees ) have an irwin record block plane. I bought it on ebay new for about 15 quid. It wasnt worth it.
The mouth was poorly machined, the blade didnt sit parallel to the sole and worst of all, the blade was ground out of square and the central location holes werent central
i spent about an hour making it usable. You get what you pay for i guess 
I ( like @Ttrees ) have an irwin record block plane. I bought it on ebay new for about 15 quid. It wasnt worth it.
The mouth was poorly machined, the blade didnt sit parallel to the sole and worst of all, the blade was ground out of square and the central location holes werent central
i spent about an hour making it usable. You get what you pay for i guess 
