Plane Shoot-Out: Woodriver 5½, Stanley 4½ & 5½, Veritas 4½

[Ed Bray]

I received the Woodriver 5½ from the pass around earlier this week. I had a little play with it on a bit of cut off pine in the front room (don't tell my wife) when I received it, basically I ran the pine across the sole of the plane whilst holding it upside down. But, whilst the shavings from the included IBC blade were excellent, I was not too impressed with the shavings from the standard blade but this could have been because it needed sharpening. I was impressed with the casting and in particular the larger adjustment knob.

Let me first explain, I am no tradesman, all my woodworking knowledge has been gleaned from books, the internet (you tube and forums like this) and trial and error, and whilst I have built many items they have mainly been made with the use of power tools. Until earlier this year my experience with hand tools was very limited. Since then though I have bought a considerable number of hand tools and been learning how to fettle and use them. Just be aware that this shoot out is not by any means scientific but I have tried to make it as 'real world' as possible and the results have given me an experience with different planes and a better understanding of what I should expect from my planes.

I chose 4 of my own planes to pit against the Woodriver 5½, these were a Stanley 4½, a Stanley 5½, a Veritas 4½ and my Quangsheng 62. I also chose 5 types of wood, these were an Oak floorboard (front edge), a bit of reclaimed Iroko (2nd from front), a piece of Pine, (3rd from front), an unknown wood (4th from front) and a bit of Cedar of Lebanon (nearest the planes). These can all be seen in the photo below:



The Stanley planes were sourced from either this forum or ebay and I replaced the blades with 3mm replacement blades and whilst the Stanley 4½ had a new thicker blade and a new thicker chipbreaker the Stanley 5½ uses the original chipbreaker with the New thicker Blade, The Quangsheng and Veritas use the blades and chipbreaker that were supplied with them.

With the exception of both the IBC Blade (states that it can be used straight out of the packaging) and the Quangsheng blade I sharpened all the other blades exactly the same way with a few strokes at 29° with a 1000 grit diamond stone until I felt a burr, then a few strokes at 1200 grit before removing the burr on the back using the ruler trick. Every blade was treated exactly the same way and they were all extremely sharp, the 2 plasters now on my fingers will attest to that.

I mounted each piece of wood in the workmate and then adjusted each plane until I got a shaving, I then backed off the iron as much as possible to see how thin a shaving I could get. These were then measured with my digital calipers and the readings recorded. This really opened my eyes as I was unaware how well my old Stanley Planes would actually perform in competition with the newer, more expensive and luxurious planes I was including. The results are as follows below:

Oak:
Stanley 4½ ThickerBlade/Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Veritas 4½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Stanley 5½ Thicker Blade/Stand Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Woodriver 5½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.04mm
Woodriver 5½ IBC Blade/ Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Quangsheng 62 Standard Blade 0.01mm

Iroko:
Stanley 4½ ThickerBlade/Chipbreaker 0.02mm
Veritas 4½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.03mm
Stanley 5½ Thicker Blade/Stand Chipbreaker 0.05mm
Woodriver 5½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.03mm
Woodriver 5½ IBC Blade/ Chipbreaker 0.02mm
Quangsheng 62 Standard Blade 0.02mm

Pine:
Stanley 4½ ThickerBlade/Chipbreaker 0.05mm
Veritas 4½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.03mm
Stanley 5½ Thicker Blade/Stand Chipbreaker 0.05mm
Woodriver 5½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.05mm
Woodriver 5½ IBC Blade/ Chipbreaker 0.02mm
Quangsheng 62 Standard Blade 0.01mm

Unknown Wood:
Stanley 4½ ThickerBlade/Chipbreaker 0.03mm
Veritas 4½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.02mm
Stanley 5½ Thicker Blade/Stand Chipbreaker 0.03mm
Woodriver 5½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.04mm
Woodriver 5½ IBC Blade/ Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Quangsheng 62 Standard Blade 0.01mm

Cedar of Lebanon:
Stanley 4½ ThickerBlade/Chipbreaker 0.02mm
Veritas 4½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Stanley 5½ Thicker Blade/Stand Chipbreaker 0.04mm
Woodriver 5½ Standard Blade/Chipbreaker 0.04mm
Woodriver 5½ IBC Blade/ Chipbreaker 0.01mm
Quangsheng 62 Standard Blade 0.02mm

The planed edge of the Oak is facing the camera, all the other planed surfaces are at the top as you look at them.



Assorted shavings from the various woods.



So, what have I learned?

1) I did not waste my time fettling the 2 older Stanley Planes (I have 3 others to do yet and they will now all get similar treatment) and the results obtained are more about how the blades are sharpened than what plane they are used in.
2) The difference between results from the planes are negligible in the real world, the best was 0.01mm which is 1/100th of a mm whilst the worst result was 1/20th of a mm, this would still be fine enough for me (and I suspect many others).
3) The thicker replacement blades I bought (14E each from Finetools.com) take a nice edge and work well in the planes (even though I was told on this forum they wouldn't fit).
4) The Quangsheng 62 performed the best of all with its Standard 25° Blade although the Woodriver did match it when fitted with the IBC blade/chipbreaker (but that costs an additional £90). I have never yet had occasion to use the 2 other blades (38° & 50°) that came with it.

All the wood had the most marvellous finish from every plane, even those that took a humungous 0.05mm thick shaving and whilst it cannot be seen in the photographs the planed wood felt as smooth as silk.

So. my conclusions are that if you already have a plane of a specific size then you may well be better of fettling it and perhaps replacing the blade and chipbreaker. If not, you could do a lot worse than purchasing a Woodriver or Quangsheng Plane as it will be pretty good right out of the box and it's performance will probably only be limited by your sharpening and use of the plane than any shortcomings associated with it.

Really appreciate the loan of the plane and I have now changed my Christmas preference and will likely ask for a #7 Woodriver or Quangsheng now rather than the #6.

 

[G S Haydon]

Nice job Ed. Good to see it contrasted against others, gives it a bit of context. Interesting to hear the T10 in the WR was not so much to you liking. I quite like it and found it worked really well. Good photos

 

[Ed Bray]

Thanks Graham, there wasn't anything wrong with the Woodriver Blade once it was sharpened just that it wasn't any better than the Juuma Blades (I actually think they are the same) that I replaced the blades in my Stanleys with, and they only cost me 13.90 euros each. I was actually a little disappointed with my Veritas as it did not perform any better really than any of the other planes and the Quangsheng 62 either equalled or bettered it on every wood bar 1.

 

[G S Haydon]

Thanks for the confirmation Ed. I think you could be right about the Jumma, looks very much like WR or QS stuff. I did try ad get the WR iron into my Record while I had it to hand but the mouth was too tight and I was not fussed about changing it.

 

[bugbear]

I mounted each piece of wood in the workmate and then adjusted each plane until I got a shaving, I then backed off the iron as much as possible to see how thin a shaving I could get.

What happened at the limit?

By which I mean, as you thinned down from a "successful" shaving, did the shaving start to break up, did the blade start to generate dust, not shavings, did the blade start to noticeably skate (not cut) or did the adjuster(s) simply not allow fine enough adjustment?

I'm intrigued on the "mode of failure".

BugBear

 

[Ed Bray]

I mounted each piece of wood in the workmate and then adjusted each plane until I got a shaving, I then backed off the iron as much as possible to see how thin a shaving I could get.

What happened at the limit?

By which I mean, as you thinned down from a "successful" shaving, did the shaving start to break up, did the blade start to generate dust, not shavings, did the blade start to noticeably skate (not cut) or did the adjuster(s) simply not allow fine enough adjustment?

I'm intrigued on the "mode of failure".

BugBear

Most of them gave a bit of broken shaving or dust before ceasing to cut, they didn't seem to skip or judder just stopped cutting. How fine do you want the adjustment? 1/20th of a millimetre (worst result full shaving) seems good enough to me. Cant see anyone needing higher precision than that under normal circumstances.

As I said, it wasn't a scientific test I tried to make everything as equal as I could, but who knows, I might have pushed harder with one plane than another, the different weights of the planes might have made a difference. The Quangsheng 62 performed brilliantly and the Veritas was slightly disappointing.

 

[Corneel]

You've still got a long way to go! :lol:

 

[Rhossydd]

An interesting test.
One thing to flag up here is that measuring the thickness of the shavings with cheap digital callipers isn't to be relied on. Once you start getting to limits of resolution like this the results really can't be trusted too much. Cornel's photo of a shaving at 0.003 would never show up as so significantly thinner with the cheap callipers. The published standards are generally only +/- 0.02mm, but hopefully multiple measurements were compared to ensure that the instrument was reliable at least in a comparative sense.

The one thing that does shine through the test is that if fine shaving are your priority a low angle plane will most reliably deliver them.

 

[Trafalgar]

THIS:

"The difference between results from the planes are negligible in the real world..."

Simple observation is the most powerful tool in science. You could easily have left the calipers in a drawer and your eyes would have told you all you needed to know. It's not so much about the shavings but the surface left behind.

 

[Corneel]

An interesting test.
One thing to flag up here is that measuring the thickness of the shavings with cheap digital callipers isn't to be relied on. Once you start getting to limits of resolution like this the results really can't be trusted too much. Cornel's photo of a shaving at 0.003 would never show up as so significantly thinner with the cheap callipers. The published standards are generally only +/- 0.02mm, but hopefully multiple measurements were compared to ensure that the instrument was reliable at least in a comparative sense.

Sure, but you can easilly see in the pictures that the shaving from the Japanese plane are thinner, gauze like as they are. And full width of the iron!

But of course, it doesn't matter in the real world, only in these Japanese planing competitions.

 

[Trafalgar]

An interesting test.
One thing to flag up here is that measuring the thickness of the shavings with cheap digital callipers isn't to be relied on. Once you start getting to limits of resolution like this the results really can't be trusted too much. Cornel's photo of a shaving at 0.003 would never show up as so significantly thinner with the cheap callipers. The published standards are generally only +/- 0.02mm, but hopefully multiple measurements were compared to ensure that the instrument was reliable at least in a comparative sense.

Sure, but you can easilly see in the pictures that the shaving from the Japanese plane are thinner, gauze like as they are. And full width of the iron!

But of course, it doesn't matter in the real world, only in these Japanese planing competitions.

Oops, I accidentally pressed the 'report' button instead of the quote button.

You're quite right Corneel. They judge what the rest of us sweep up and throw away, not what's left behind. I can see where something like this would be fun in the context of the last 30 minutes of the workday between a bunch of guys in a workshop, beyond that it's like evaluating one's belly-button lint.

 

[Rhossydd]

but you can easilly see in the pictures that the shaving from the Japanese plane are thinner

Quite, exactly my point. You need really accurate tools to measure these sort of refinements and coarse measurements risk loosing important information.
Digital callipers are great for some uses, but I think measuring shavings thickness is almost a task too far for them.

From the little I've read of these Japanese planing trials, they use some very specific timbers that allow these gossamer like shaving. Whether they'd perform so well on with less benign wood would be the test.
The other issue is if they hold their settings when actually used in a workshop for making real things.

 

[David C]

Just one detail to mention. Thin shavings are only possible if the sole is flat, around the throat.

There is a classic problem with Stanley and Record Bailey design, where bumps may be found directly behind the throat. Sometimes these seem to have been caused by overtightening of the frog screws. Another cause is bad fit between frog and body. The rocking frog perversion (one of many) is very common.

A two thou bump will prevent a one thou shaving from being taken.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

 

[Trafalgar]

Maybe the OP, Ed Bray, can comment on the status of the soles if his Stanley planes which appear to have performed more than adequately.

He says in one of his posts that he did not fettle them. Perhaps a previous owner did, or they came from the factory at a tolerance that produced the performance noted.

 

[Ed Bray]

Sure, but you can easilly see in the pictures that the shaving from the Japanese plane are thinner, gauze like as they are. And full width of the iron!

But of course, it doesn't matter in the real world, only in these Japanese planing competitions.

Not sure which plane/s were made in Japan, perhaps someone can enlighten me?

Some answers to various issues raised above.

This was done between showers yesterday and if I hadn't taken the photographs or swapped the blades in the Woodriver it would have taken about 30 minutes total.

The two Stanleys were fettled using various grades of wet and dry mounted with adhesive spray to a large sheet of 10mm plate glass, I went up through the grits from 120 to 1500. I opened the mouth slightly on the 4½ which is why it was able to take both the thicker Iron and the thicker chipbreaker. I also sanded the frogs a touch to give a better contact with the blades. The other planes I have at home have not yet been fettled at all, but none of those were involved in the test.

The wood was just what I had to hand, all of it offcuts with the exception of the oak floorboard which I buy up cheap when they are available. I wanted to try a variety of woods to try to give a balance opinion, I did have some beech and some teak, but they would have required some work to get them useable (old draining and cutting boards).

The results were quite interesting to me and it showed that my most expensive plane (the Veritas) is probably no better than any of my other planes when used 'by me' and I would have been happy with the results from any of the planes used, I can't envisage a scenario when I would want better than a 1/20th millimetre, when using real wood in the real world I would expect the wood to move much more than that anyway.

The results have made me re-evaluate what I need to get, I wanted a Woodriver #6 even though I have a non-fettled #6 Record or Stanley (can't remember which) so, as it is likely I could fettle it well enough to work for me (something to do over the winter) I will look to buy a #7 instead as I don't have one of those yet. The other thing it made me realise is that whilst a Lie Neilson, Clifton or Veritas would be lovely, for my use, I probably wouldn't get any more from them than a Juuma, Woodriver or Quangsheng other than a weight loss in the wallet department.

Peter asked me to use the plane and take some pictures, this I did and I thank him for the opportunity and experience.

I will be dropping the Woodriver and Blades up to David C on Friday, and as a real world furniture maker his thoughts on the plane would be much more relevant to the discussion than mine. I just called it as I saw it with me using the planes.

 

[Trafalgar]

I'm a little confused by this:

So, what have I learned?

1) I did not waste my time fettling the 2 older Stanley Planes (I have 3 others to do yet and they will now all get similar treatment) and the results obtained are more about how the blades are sharpened than what plane they are used in.

Then this:

The two Stanleys were fettled using various grades of wet and dry mounted with adhesive spray to a large sheet of 10mm plate glass, I went up through the grits from 120 to 1500. I opened the mouth slightly on the 4½ which is why it was able to take both the thicker Iron and the thicker chipbreaker. I also sanded the frogs a touch to give a better contact with the blades. The other planes I have at home have not yet been fettled at all, but none of those were involved in the test.

 

[Ed Bray]

An interesting test.
One thing to flag up here is that measuring the thickness of the shavings with cheap digital callipers isn't to be relied on. Once you start getting to limits of resolution like this the results really can't be trusted too much. Cornel's photo of a shaving at 0.003 would never show up as so significantly thinner with the cheap callipers. The published standards are generally only +/- 0.02mm, but hopefully multiple measurements were compared to ensure that the instrument was reliable at least in a comparative sense.

Sure, but you can easilly see in the pictures that the shaving from the Japanese plane are thinner, gauze like as they are. And full width of the iron!

But of course, it doesn't matter in the real world, only in these Japanese planing competitions.

How can you tell that? I did not differentiate in the photographs which shavings came from which plane, in fact for the photo with the close up of the callipers I just picked up some of the shavings from the floor and put them with the shaving in the callipers on my table saw, any of those could have come from any plane, the only one of those shown I could be certain about was the one in the callipers which I know came from the Quangsheng 62.

 

[Ed Bray]

I'm a little confused by this:

So, what have I learned?

1) I did not waste my time fettling the 2 older Stanley Planes (I have 3 others to do yet and they will now all get similar treatment) and the results obtained are more about how the blades are sharpened than what plane they are used in.

Then this:

The two Stanleys were fettled using various grades of wet and dry mounted with adhesive spray to a large sheet of 10mm plate glass, I went up through the grits from 120 to 1500. I opened the mouth slightly on the 4½ which is why it was able to take both the thicker Iron and the thicker chipbreaker. I also sanded the frogs a touch to give a better contact with the blades. The other planes I have at home have not yet been fettled at all, but none of those were involved in the test.

What I was trying to say was that 'my time hadn't been wasted fettling the Stanleys' (they took me ages to get where I wanted them though not to the extent as the chisel backs I polished to a mirror) had they seriously under performed in the test I would have had wasted my time and been looking to purchase modern replacements. Not that I hadn't spent any time fettling them. This is why I said "I have 3 others to do and they will now all get similar treatment'. Whereas, if they hadn't performed to an acceptable degree I wouldn't have bothered and cut my losses.

 

[Rhossydd]

Maybe the OP, Ed Bray, can comment on the status of the soles if his Stanley planes which appear to have performed more than adequately.
He says in one of his posts that he did not fettle them.

No. The OP says in his first post;
"So, what have I learned?
1) I did not waste my time fettling the 2 older Stanley Planes"
ie he's spent some time working on them and seen some gains from that effort.

 

[Ed Bray]

Maybe the OP, Ed Bray, can comment on the status of the soles if his Stanley planes which appear to have performed more than adequately.
He says in one of his posts that he did not fettle them.

No. The OP says in his first post;
"So, what have I learned?
1) I did not waste my time fettling the 2 older Stanley Planes"
ie he's spent some time working on them and seen some gains from that effort.

Excellent, that's what I was trying to say!