Quangsheng No.62 low angle vs No.5 vs No.5 1/2?

[Jacob]

I see some lovely furniture there Derek, but nice furniture doesn't answer the question,
of how thick of a shaving those premium bevel down double iron planes can take,
should someone be trying to decide whether to go to ebay or to buy a new ductile iron plane.
I see Daniel taking some smoothing shavings on a slab, of what looks to my eyes,
denser stuff than iroko, the shaving certainly suggests so.

I was looking to see this but with something bit less dense, perhaps spotted gum or some other stuff which one can dial it up a little and take some thicker shavings, rather than be restricted from the get go with such a dense species.

I believe this question to be of use to someone who cannot choose between,
and wants as little planes to care for as possible.
My last post which seems to have started quite a scuffle, should perhaps shown
a lesser dense example,
though I was trying to get across about the maximum for something dense,
where the no.5 1/2 shines, rather than something where one might say
a woodie would be more suitable for that.


I'd like to be put right on my query, as for a designer on paper....
very possible that the really really hefty double iron should come up trumps in
a test of heavy work compared to a thin Stanley/Record

To my eyes it looks like one can achieve heavier shavings with a double iron woodie, than a Bailey, but I've never seen this translate to the same thing in the premium planes.

Not much importance to me, needing that extra percentage for my reclaimed timbers
but for some who want the least amount of tools,
the question might have some merit.

Cheers
Tom

The whole point of the Stanley/Bailey design is that with a thin blade it emulates the action of the older heavy bladed planes but with the huge advantages of ease of set, remove/replacement, sharpening, etc.
It does this very effectively which is why they are so popular and widely used. They win hands down, except for the disadvantage of greater weight. No contest!
n.b. there tends to be an emphasis at looking at shavings as a measure of performance. This is bonkers - you should get back to reality; look instead at the workpiece and the overall time/effort needed.

 

[D_W]

The whole point of the Stanley/Bailey design is that with a thin blade it emulates the action of the older heavy bladed planes but with the huge advantages of ease of set, remove/replacement, sharpening, etc.
It does this very effectively which is why they are so popular and widely used. They win hands down, except for the disadvantage of greater weight. No contest!
n.b. there tends to be an emphasis at looking at shavings as a measure of performance. This is bonkers - you should get back to reality; look instead at the workpiece and the overall time/effort needed.

Shavings are a measure of performance. Understanding what to look for makes a big difference - they're not just an indicator by themselves but they provide significant information for several reasons - not the least of which is to confirm that when you're finish planing, you've covered the entire surface and there aren't significant areas of torn shavings corresponding with a surface that's not suitable for anything other than french polish.

Weighing the shavings over a period of time comparing the same level of effort is enormously instructive.

Saying the shavings have no information is like telling someone on a two man saw that the shavings from the log don't mean anything.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I see some lovely furniture there Derek, but nice furniture doesn't answer the question,
of how thick of a shaving those premium bevel down double iron planes can take,
should someone be trying to decide whether to go to ebay or to buy a new ductile iron plane.
I see Daniel taking some smoothing shavings on a slab, of what looks to my eyes,
denser stuff than iroko, the shaving certainly suggests so.



Cheers
Tom

Tom, I was looking for shavings, but my collection of photos is more about what to do, or what was done, than showing shavings, per se (these are from furniture builds. I did the shaving thing in tool reviews).

I agree with others that a premium plane offers the same performance as a vintage Stanley ... with the provisor that the Stanley has been tuned up. This is partly what you get when purchasing a premium plane - they should all come with excellent fit and finish. But one still needs to set them up, sharpen the blades, etc ... the same as a Stanley. Whatever shaving thickness you will get with a Stanley you will get with a LN.

I see an irony in the way we prepare/sharpen the thick modern irons compared to the thin, vintage irons. Why irony? Because we have to find a way to turn the thick blades into thin blades. We do this by hollow grinding, or sharpening with a secondary bevel. This becomes especially relevant when the steel used is hard and abrasion-resistant. The thin Stanley blades can be hones on the full, and with relative little fuss.

There is an advantage of the thick, premium blades is that they do offer extra stability and a lower inclination to chatter, and overall they do hold an edge longer. A reasonable argument is that the thin, softer blades hone up faster. Choose your poison.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Ttrees]

Not disagreeing whatsoever, I love my old Bailey's, and was wanting to
see comparison with the likes of a ductile iron version for potential buyers,
thicker double iron, and more sensible totes/handles,
to see whether these planes will take the same thickness shaving, as I haven't seen
someone working these premium planes doing heavier work with them,

This query is for those who have fat wallets/already have equipped workshops, or otherwise needing a plane which will likely be dropped for some bizarre reason,
perhaps a young chisler is about causing chaos, or for some wandering journyman.

Perhaps I'm off the mark, and someone can clarify if some find the mouth a bit small on the premium planes,
or infact perhaps have the opposite opinion, like what my perception that a "strange to me", woodie plane will take a heavier shaving, omitting the friction.

I made a big honking useless stainless steel rebate plane before which seemed similar, in that way.
(Take some old fillister planes for example.)

Thanks
Tom

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Tom, back when custom plane makers were focussed on single irons, rather than using double irons, the push was for small mouths.

Even the HNT Gordon woodies I have, which have 60 degree beds/cutting angles, have tiny mouths. The mouth size is irrelevant for this plane - as it is for a double iron plane with a closed chipbreaker - since the size of the mouth does not affect high cutting angles and closed chipbreakers. The exception here is that a small mouth may be blocked by the chipbreaker and prevent shavings escaping. One always opens a mouth when using a double iron.

The point is, once you have a plane that uses a double iron, and has an adjustable mouth, then you can set it up to take whatever shaving thickness you like. Premium planes as well.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

Not disagreeing whatsoever, I love my old Bailey's, and was wanting to
see comparison with the likes of a ductile iron version for potential buyers,
thicker double iron, and more sensible totes/handles,
to see whether these planes will take the same thickness shaving, as I haven't seen
someone working these premium planes doing heavier work with them,

This query is for those who have fat wallets/already have equipped workshops, or otherwise needing a plane which will likely be dropped for some bizarre reason,
perhaps a young chisler is about causing chaos, or for some wandering journyman.

Perhaps I'm off the mark, and someone can clarify if some find the mouth a bit small on the premium planes,
or infact perhaps have the opposite opinion, like what my perception that a "strange to me", woodie plane will take a heavier shaving, omitting the friction.

I made a big honking useless stainless steel rebate plane before which seemed similar, in that way.
(Take some old fillister planes for example.)

Thanks
Tom

I had several LV planes (5, 6?) and 10 LNs. I never noticed one that had a mouth too tight, but I would never use a friction monster as a jack, so my experience is limited to jointer and smoother in trying to get more through post-cap iron.

LV's planes generally have moving sole plates - can't remember on the custom, but I had no trouble trying to ram beech through the 5 1/2.

I have two thoughts on dropping planes as someone who has done it, but all but once with planes I've made for myself.

1) you can drop a lot of stanley planes, but you probably won't because you know you can't - they don't always break, but if they do, you can buy a lot of them for the price of one premium plane
2) you can drop a premium plane, if you drop one on concrete or cobble or whatever you might have on the floor of your shop, it may only lead to a big ding that you can mostly file out, but fair chance you'll break a handle and bend the handle rod.

I'd like to say #2 isn't from experience.

The nice thing about premium planes of any kind is they are really easy to unload if you don't like the one you have, but after you drop one, that may not be true.

I had to buy a new handle, and I can't remember if I also got rods, because I didn't want to make a replacement handle and then try to sell the trial plane that I had with a mismatch handle. To sell something like that to most of the premium plane market is ...I don't know, I expect it would be more limiting than an ideal handle on a type 20 stanley.

Other than breaking the handle (concrete fall off of bench, like accidentally bumped and just teetered off, not flung off) and bending the rod, and just a little filing and sanding to blend, though, the LV plane suffered no distortion at all in flatness. So it delivered on that.

 

[Jacob]

Not disagreeing whatsoever, I love my old Bailey's, and was wanting to
see comparison with the likes of a ductile iron version for potential buyers,
thicker double iron, and more sensible totes/handles,
to see whether these planes will take the same thickness shaving, as I haven't seen
someone working these premium planes doing heavier work with them,

Probably because for heavy work any old plane will do. Heaviest work of all with a narrow single iron, a very deep camber and a wide mouth.
i.e. you wouldn't buy a "premium" scrub plane (unless you were a tool fanatic!)

 

[D_W]

Tom, back when custom plane makers were focussed on single irons, rather than using double irons, the push was for small mouths.

Even the HNT Gordon woodies I have, which have 60 degree beds/cutting angles, have tiny mouths. The mouth size is irrelevant for this plane - as it is for a double iron plane with a closed chipbreaker - since the size of the mouth does not affect high cutting angles and closed chipbreakers. The exception here is that a small mouth may be blocked by the chipbreaker and prevent shavings escaping. One always opens a mouth when using a double iron.

The point is, once you have a plane that uses a double iron, and has an adjustable mouth, then you can set it up to take whatever shaving thickness you like. Premium planes as well.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I will give you credit where it's due. by the time they sent me one, it was double iron. If you hadn't convinced them of that, I don't really know if it would make much difference in sales in the long term, but for serious users, they would've been DOA.

I've long wished they would give in and make a $300 bailey pattern copy just dead nuts ($400-$500 on the long ones, no big deal). They can paint the casting and use bubinga or maple or whatever they want on that front, but just copy the proportions, weight and adjuster style exactly.

 

[Jameshow]

Like this?!!!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/17540993...tixoXeJTeO&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

 

[Jacob]

Like this?!!!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/17540993...tixoXeJTeO&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

What as a scrub plane? No prob!
You'd need to file almost a semi circle camber. This means the cap iron wouldn't match but that's OK you just put it in the same place on the blade where it would have been, but back a few mm and just have the middle 1" width or so of the blade showing through the slot 2 or 3 mm. Sounds complicated but it makes sense once you've done it. Easier than modifying it to work without the cap iron and the blade is too thin anyway.

 

[tibi]

Like this?!!!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/17540993...tixoXeJTeO&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

Bezos is so rich because he got it with reproduction of Bailey pattern just right, unlike LV

 

[D_W]

Like this?!!!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/17540993...tixoXeJTeO&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

The last time amazon suggested that plane to me, which it does often, it was $58.

$58!!

The story of how amazon allows small retailers on their site and then requires them to provide supplier information and then the sellers magically find themselves being undersold snuck into my head with these planes. I get it on bluetooth headphones or a drink cup, but you have to be depraved (and maybe cognitively deprived) to dive into trying to take the junk plane market.

 

[Ttrees]

Bezos is so rich because he got it with reproduction of Bailey pattern just right, unlike LV

I will give you credit where it's due. by the time they sent me one, it was double iron. If you hadn't convinced them of that, I don't really know if it would make much difference in sales in the long term, but for serious users, they would've been DOA.

I've long wished they would give in and make a $300 bailey pattern copy just dead nuts ($400-$500 on the long ones, no big deal). They can paint the casting and use bubinga or adjuster style exactly.

Like this?!!!

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/17540993...JTeO&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY[/URL

You mean a real BBP, Careful what you wish for?

 

[Tony Zaffuto]

I believe Nick Engler/U Tube/Workshop Companion, tried to fettle that Amazon plane to work. He did get it to work, but had to resort to a surface grinder, at a machine shop for some corrective work. He does not recommend its purchase and fettled more out of curiousity.

Engler has been around a very long time, pre-dating the internet sensations of the past two decades.

I believe Rex Kruger (another U Tuber) also tried the Amazon and his conclusion was similar.

 

[D_W]

I believe Nick Engler/U Tube/Workshop Companion, tried to fettle that Amazon plane to work. He did get it to work, but had to resort to a surface grinder, at a machine shop for some corrective work. He does not recommend its purchase and fettled more out of curiousity.

Engler has been around a very long time, pre-dating the internet sensations of the past two decades.

I believe Rex Kruger (another U Tuber) also tried the Amazon and his conclusion was similar.

I bought one of the cheap buck planes for $22 at one point to see if it could be used. Most people would've sent it to a machine shop - I filed it and then lapped it.

But what I failed to notice was that the lever cap and adjuster were aluminum. And then when it arrived, it was clear that the cap iron couldn't reach the iron based on where the slot in the cap iron was.

The aluminum lever cap was literally too flexible to allow it to stay in the cut. The adjuster was soft and weak and miserable, and I used a different cap iron or redid the slot and used a stanley lever cap and then it planed fine - still adjusted terrible.

I don't think anyone would do the draw filing that I did, and it wouldn't be immediately apparent that the lever cap was incapable of working in anything but the lightest woods.

The hump in the cap iron was almost triangle shaped.

the last stanley that I got was $40 (a second type 20 smoother). Can't remember the motivation with the other plane - it might've been less than the $22 I remembered at the time. I threw all of it away. I vaguely recall thinking that you shouldn't just throw whole things like that away, but also thinking of how much more trouble it would be to figure out what to do with it to not throw it away.

The youtubers love those tools because they can put up a reference link token and anything that people buy will kick back a share of money to them.

 

[Joe1975]

I won’t be buying some rubbish off Amazon.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

I will give you credit where it's due. by the time they sent me one, it was double iron. If you hadn't convinced them of that, I don't really know if it would make much difference in sales in the long term, but for serious users, they would've been DOA.

I've long wished they would give in and make a $300 bailey pattern copy just dead nuts ($400-$500 on the long ones, no big deal). They can paint the casting and use bubinga or maple or whatever they want on that front, but just copy the proportions, weight and adjuster style exactly.

David, as you may recall, I visited the Lee Valley factory and HQ in Ottawa in late December 2012/January 2013 (Brrrrr) and spent a few weeks with Rob Lee and the design team. The Custom Planes were still in development/design. The original design called for a single iron with a range of frogs with different angles. It is to the credit of Rob Lee that the design was altered to incorporate a chipbreaker. Rob was keenly involved with the fori and the discussions on the chipbreaker and its set up. He is very astute as a designer and engineer.

At the time he was also rather inspired, it seems, with the Stay Set chipbreaker of Record, and the incorporation of the chipbreaker was a modern version (loosely). It is not my preferred design - I would rather have seen a less finicky connector. Having said this, the system works well, and it really more a case of being different from Stanley, where there is comforting familiarity.

The Custom Planes remain a line of planes where one can customise the parts to meet personal preferences. One can be a Stanley. One can be better than a Stanley.

I have a #4, which I purchased, and a #7, which was a gift from Rob. I was also working with Rick Blaiklock, who was Director of Research and Development for Veritas Tools at the time. Rick sent me two frogs for the #7, a 50 degree (my choice) and a 40 degree (his - inspired - choice). I purchased a 50 degree frog for the #4 as well as a 42 degree frog (influence by Warren, who had modified his #3 to 42 degrees).

The upshot was that the 40 degree lives in the #7 and the 42 degree lives in the #4. These are only viable - bearing in mind the interlocked timbers of Western Australia - because of a closed chipbreaker. This is also evidence, I guess, that the chipbreakers from Veritas work as intended (leading edges modified to 50 degrees).

The chipbreaker screw aside, I like these planes. They are balanced and have advanced features (which are used).

For those unfamiliar with my opus review: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReviews/VeritasCustomPlanes1.html

I've long wished they would give in and make a $300 bailey pattern copy just dead nuts

David, Veritas would not do this on principle. For one thing, LN did do this, and Veritas would not go head-to-head with the same design out of respect for LN. Secondly, they want to introduce designs of their own with a mark of their own individuality. Not all have been successful but many have become classics. We have LN - maker of traditional designs - and Veritas - maker of contemporary designs.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

David, Veritas would not do this on principle. For one thing, LN did do this, and Veritas would not go head-to-head with the same design out of respect for LN. Secondly, they want to introduce designs of their own with a mark of their own individuality. Not all have been successful but many have become classics. We have LN - maker of traditional designs - and Veritas - maker of contemporary designs.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I guess it could be construed to be the same thing, and I know LN and LV generally won't overlap each other. But what I meant was a plane pattern identical to bailey with the stanley style cap iron (this would require a press, which is probably something LV wouldn't do?) at a weight lower than the LN planes and an adjuster like stanley's planes vs. the slow speed type.

I clung to my LN planes for a while until it became undeniable that it wasn't faster to use them and it was more tiring - not a huge difference, but a few little things about stanley planes equate to less work - especially as removal rate gets heavier/faster.

I haven't cut (filed) back a frog yet to make a plane at a shallower angle as warren has, but the next time he's in town, I'll see if he will bring his.

Most of the cherry here isn't good enough to work without a cap iron, either - at least not practically. Walnut might be a different story but it was marginally affordable 15 years ago and now it's unaffordable. Walnut is more in a class of workability with good mahogany - and the same price now ($20 a board foot for well sawn 8/4 wood, and $10+ for stuff that's absolute junk). I'm guessing 250 years ago when single iron planes were more common, the sawyer would've been sawing all old growth trees and expected to saw the wood so that it would be amenable to planing.

While I don't love all of the LV results of experimentation, I think highly of Rob, and at least they're trying. Unlike the shills copying their tools and LN tools.

 

[D_W]

What was the reason for the lower angle? I can't remember what warren was searching for, but of course, I tried a bunch of different planes at various angles in 2011/12, inculding japanese planes with cap iron profiles.

I wouldn't be surprised if warren was looking for surface brightness. I mostly forgot about it and then the buffer creates an almost artificially bright surface if the bevel side is conditioned a little bit. I don't think getting it right is that easy for someone on a first or fifth try, so I haven't said much about it. The brightness of a surface is at least equal to a 8/10 bu japanese plane without the headaches that come with pushing the limits on clearance and angles.

This is just a typical edge surface off of a routine sharpening with 5 micron compound. It's almost gaudy, but if you can keep any defects from showing in surfaces, there's no grain raising and finish starts to build immediately.

In the trying planes, I thought about adjusting the orientation slightly to accommodate 42 degrees, but so far, having an ideal cap iron design makes a much bigger difference in planing effort. My own planes are generally cut back from the mark a degree or two as I always end up ahead of the initial 45 degree marks on the mouth and going just over at the top of the bed. But One of my planes done like that was soundly outworked by an English plane bedded at 47 degrees until I swapped cap irons. that is beyond the scope of what most people would want to discuss dimensioning, too - the cap iron setup is a little different than smoothing and the goal is a little different.

 

[Ttrees]

Be interesting to see if you can get enough clearance with the lower frog,
using the buffer method in a sort of practical way.

I'd guess the reason is simply down to effort, especially for one who hones a rounded bevel of 80 degrees on the cap.

I hope Warren visits soon, have you showed him that old cap iron to compare?