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

[Trafalgar]

Thanks...

 

[Rhossydd]

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?

That comment by Corneel was just pointing out that Japanese planing competitions can deliver even thinner shavings than you've managed. No real relevance to your planes at all, or possibly real world woodworking either, but just adds a different data point.

 

[Ed Bray]

Thanks, I understand now, the image with Bob the Builder in it is a shaving from a Japanese Plane, not that those I tested were of Japanese origin.

What on earth would you need to plane something by 3/1000ths of a mm for? It seems to me that it would take a ridiculous amount of time to remove any significant amount of material. I suppose it would be good for an upper body workout as you would need 333 strokes to remove 1mm of material.

 

[Rhossydd]

It's only a third of the thickness of your shaving's measurements (possibly... depending on accuracy).
I would assume that the quality of finish of these Japanese planes is their raison d'etre. I doubt they'd use these types for any serious amount of stock removal.

I'd be interested to try one out one day and see just how fine a finish they can deliver on our usual timbers, also to discover how tricky they are to set up and use in practice.

 

[Trafalgar]

That sort of light tissue removal is available when necessary via card scrapers or a scraper plane and on woods much more relevant to the Western furnituremaker than the bland cedars and other amenable species used in Japanese planing competitions.

The work, in context:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lATiFKNquuE

 

[G S Haydon]

Ed,

Thanks again for taking the time, you did a great job of real world testing. You own a typical selection of planes we are all very familiar with and we are lucky to see the WR tested against them. My thoughts should be along shortly and it's in a similar vein. I don't have a Vertias so I can't contrast as well as you did. I think actual use like you showed is what we need more of and from more people.

 

[Corneel]

Here is a youtube from one of these plaining competitions. They take this stuff very serious! We can laugh about it, but it is impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3Ad6tBdLbM

The planes are Japanese wooden planes. Super sharp of course. bedding is about as perfect as it gets, and the sole is specially prepared. Not flat, but like a wave, only touching at the nose and just in front of the mouth. This puts maximum ressure on the wood, somehow compressing the fibers a bit.

I just posted the picture to tease a bit. Nothing serious.

 

[G S Haydon]

9 Microns, pah, that's for rough work where I come from :lol:

 

[bugbear]

It's only a third of the thickness of your shaving's measurements (possibly... depending on accuracy).
I would assume that the quality of finish of these Japanese planes is their raison d'etre. I doubt they'd use these types for any serious amount of stock removal.

The "ideal" smoothing plane does not alter the size of the stock at all.

Back to reality.

In the case of some indoor joinery and framingin Japan, the finish from these planes is the final finish, and I don't mean before varnishing; the perfect, glassy finish from planes at this level is sufficient to repel day to day dust.

BugBear

 

[Peter Sefton]

Hi Ed

Thanks for taking your time to try out the WoodRiver V3 Jack.

Sorry I have been a bit slow getting back to you, we have been busy nursing our four year old she managed to break her arm in two places at school on Friday and it's been a fraught weekend.

I am pleased you liked the quality of the casting and improvements made to the adjusting wheel, the Woodcraft guys have been working hard on the planes (with Rob) since their inception in 2007 and they have come a long way.

I like how you tried the plane against others you are familiar with, it's interesting to see how people bench test and the different criteria they use.

Some interesting outcomes on the blades performances. I am surprised (or maybe not) that you found differences in the Juuma, QS and WR blades, as they are most likely the same steel. I say "maybe not", as I know from experience that blades from the same batch of chisels or planes can be different from all manufacturers.

The Low angle 62 did seem to preform well, I wonder if any difference would have accrued using the 38 degrees blade as this would have been a closer effective pitch to the others under test. I also wonder how the WoodRiver 62 would have preformed as it is similar to the QS but not the same.

I wouldn't think you have any issues with the flatness of sole as they do tend to be very flat indeed, ground within +/-1.5 thou. If this had been the case it would have shown up with the IBC blade in place. If it was out side of tolerance or a customer was unhappy we would of swap it out for a new one without question.

If people are interested I will put the WoodRiver 62 out for pass around as this shows some of the design differences between it and the others of the same Chinese origin.

I look forward to the other feedback from David, Matt and any others who wish to take part.

Cheers Peter

 

[matt_southward]

It's certainly interesting how people pick different criteria to compare tools with - I for one would never have thought to compare shaving thickness but it's interesting to see the results. I'm not sure what Graham and David's emphasis will be, but no doubt it'll different to mine!

I'm interested in taking a closer look at the improvements that were done under Rob's guidance and I'm looking to compare the plane against my Clifton 5 (which Peter knows I have a few 'issues' with) along with a couple of old Bailey pattern planes. I'm also interested in comparing the various blade configurations to see how they stack up - and I for one would be interested in a try of the 62 too if there's enough interest. Thanks again to Peter for the opportunity.

 

[Rhossydd]

I for one would never have thought to compare shaving thickness

What sort of criteria will you choose to judge it by ?
Not trying to make waves, but shaving thickness seems a reasonable criteria to me. Given the right test equipment, at least it gives some sort of objective results.

It's an interesting question in how you assess such 'mature' hand tools as this;
Accuracy of casting ? hardness of blades ? all difficult to measure without specialist hardware.
Quality of finish ? probably easy enough to evaluate and report on, in terms of rough edges, loose parts, poor paint work etc.
Then there's that important, but impossible to define, quality of feel, handling and balance.

I think Ed has made as good and useful a report as he can here.

 

[Rhossydd]

I also wonder how the WoodRiver 62 would have preformed as it is similar to the QS but not the same.
If people are interested I will put the WoodRiver 62 out for pass around as this shows some of the design differences between it and the others of the same Chinese origin.

Sorry to move this a little off topic, but what differences are there between the WR and QS versions of the 62 ?
As someone planning to buy a LA smoother soon, I'm quite interested in this.

 

[Trafalgar]

I for one would never have thought to compare shaving thickness

You and the countless woodworkers before you as well. When a smoothing plane was easily kept flat, when they were all made of wood, the ability to take an end-to-end thin shaving was more a commentary on the effectiveness of the planing job before the smoother was applied than it was on the plane itself. That the iron bedded down and the sole was pretty flat was essentially a given in that there was nothing about these little tidying up jobs a woodworker couldn't handle in short order. Gaping wide mouths or patched mouths, one almost always sees either one or the other on used smoothing planes, is proof that this maintenance was regularly performed over the years.

Now, we endlessly critique the competency of each manufacturer's machinists and adequacy of investment in plant and equipment. I wonder if we're better off.

 

[iNewbie]

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.

If you feel that way -that its about money- buy a wooden one. Plenty of High Quality work out there has been made from a woodie. Me: I'd pay the extra for a LN/Veritas/Clifton because they're small companies making AT HOME quality products which are a dying breed and the service/support is excellent. It'll last a lifetime - and more. I'd rather throw a Chinese plane in the river with a sack of kittens... Thats a joke btw - about the kittens being in it.

 

[MIGNAL]

You do know that LN are made in the USA and Veritas are made in Canada? Both foreign, no different to something being made in China.

 

[iNewbie]

You do know that LN are made in the USA and Veritas are made in Canada? Both foreign, no different to something being made in China.

Lets not get into that one, eh?

 

[MIGNAL]

If you feel that way -that its about money- buy a wooden one. Plenty of High Quality work out there has been made from a woodie. Me: I'd pay the extra for a LN/Veritas/Clifton because they're small companies making AT HOME quality products which are a dying breed and the service/support is excellent. It'll last a lifetime - and more. I'd rather throw a Chinese plane in the river with a sack of kittens... Thats a joke btw - about the kittens being in it.

Rich, especially coming from someone who just wrote the above. You do know that Quangsheng are AT HOME products too, especially if you happen to be Chinese. LN are AT HOME products too. . . . if you happen to be from the US.

 

[iNewbie]

If you feel that way -that its about money- buy a wooden one. Plenty of High Quality work out there has been made from a woodie. Me: I'd pay the extra for a LN/Veritas/Clifton because they're small companies making AT HOME quality products which are a dying breed and the service/support is excellent. It'll last a lifetime - and more. I'd rather throw a Chinese plane in the river with a sack of kittens... Thats a joke btw - about the kittens being in it.

Rich, especially coming from someone who just wrote the above. You do know that Quangsheng are AT HOME products too, especially if you happen to be Chinese. LN are AT HOME products too. . . . if you happen to be from the US.

Ah I can see you want me to bite. I think you know exactly what I mean so you can spin-your-wheels as much as you care to.

 

[MIGNAL]

May I post a kindly reminder: you dug the hole.