Stanley 62 Low Angle Sweetheart, anyone bought one recently

[Rhossydd]

I'm considering buying a low angle plane and wonder what the current manufacturing quality of the Stanley 62 is ?
When it was first re-released several years ago the first reviews were sometimes critical over build quality, but there are a few mentions that all the initial issues have been resolved and the ones shipping now are pretty good.
Anyone actually bought one in the last year or two and have any experience of them ?

 

[G S Haydon]

Hi Rhossydd,

I bought mine a year or so ago but I don't know when it was made. It had a serious flaw and when I tried to get help from Stanley on both sided of the atlantic there was no help at all. However some have had a good experience. The fact that getting a good one is for me an unknown I would pass and look at other options.

 

[lurcher]

look elseware i had 1 for 6months and sold it on as the front knob would work loose also the blade adjustment was a pain in the you no ware
pete

 

[Woody2Shoes]

I bought one just before Xmas and returned it shortly afterwards. It had two faults:

1) The main casting had lots of tiny voids/bubbles in it - these were not visible initially, I think they'd been filled with wax or similar, which came out with a bit of cleaning/oiling/fettling.

2) The cap screw had been put in cross-threaded and could not be adjusted - it was also made of very soft brass.

The first fault I might possibly have lived with, the second was why I returned it.

I bought a Quangsheng instead and have been delighted with it (can't afford LN/Veritas most of the time).

Cheers W2S

PS I will be looking closely at the new Axminster Rider range of planes as they are starting to become available - probably try at a shop before taking the plunge.

 

[Ed Bray]

I bought the Quangsheng 62 with three blades from Workshop Heaven and have been pleased with it but have not used the 2 other blades as yet, if I was buying again I would probably go for the same plane but from Rutlands who are doing it with the single blade for £135.

 

[RogerP]

Perhaps it's not directly relevant but his article is worth a read ...

https://paulsellers.com/2014/04/que...w-angle-high-angled-planes-are-equal-to-task/

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Perhaps it's not directly relevant but his article is worth a read ...

https://paulsellers.com/2014/04/que...w-angle-high-angled-planes-are-equal-to-task/

I found Sellers' comments run contradictory to every report from a multitude of users for many years. Certainly contradictory to my experience.

He writes, "if a bevel-up plane is going to go wrong in the grain it often goes very wrong big time. More so than the bevel-down planes for reasons of physics. When a bevel-up plane begins to tear out the grain it can and indeed does rip the grain out at the very root mercilessly and not rarely but commonly. "

Where does he get this stuff? It makes no sense at all.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

Perhaps it's not directly relevant but his article is worth a read ...

https://paulsellers.com/2014/04/que...w-angle-high-angled-planes-are-equal-to-task/

I found Sellers' comments run contradictory to every report from a multitude of users for many years. Certainly contradictory to my experience.

He writes, "if a bevel-up plane is going to go wrong in the grain it often goes very wrong big time. More so than the bevel-down planes for reasons of physics. When a bevel-up plane begins to tear out the grain it can and indeed does rip the grain out at the very root mercilessly and not rarely but commonly. "

Where does he get this stuff? It makes no sense at all.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I think he gets his info from making (and seeing made) a lot of stuff, rather than selected samples of bits n bobs on a bench (see youtube planing demos :roll: )
My experience is that BU planes can seem to work brilliantly on just the right piece of wood, but aren't so good when you want to do a real job such as smoothing a whole table top.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Jacob, I do not claim to have 50 years experience (Sellers makes a point in reminding us in this article), but I have done a decent amount of planing furniture parts with a wide range of BU ad BD planes over the course of a couple of decades. In that time I have never experienced what he describes with a BU plane. I wonder what parameters he uses in setting up his planes to claim what he does? After all, that is what sets apart a BU plane from a BD plane.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Rhossydd]

Can the usual combatants not turn this thread into an argument about bevels please!

It's a specific question, about a specific tool.

Thanks to those that have given their own hands on experience of it. It's looking like it's still likely to be a duffer.

 

[Noel]

Can the usual combatants not turn this thread into an argument about bevels please!

It's a specific question, about a specific tool.

Thanks to those that have given their own hands on experience of it. It's looking like it's still likely to be a duffer.

That's RogerP for you, can't take him anywhere...

But seriously, it's a discussion on a forum. You've had some replies, you may get more but you can't tell other members what to and what not to specifically discuss. You can ask but I suspect, like all threads (well, mostly) , it'll meander all over the place but yet still be informative and possibly enlightening to some, as it has been so far.

 

[shed9]

I bought the Quangsheng 62 with three blades from Workshop Heaven and have been pleased with it but have not used the 2 other blades as yet, if I was buying again I would probably go for the same plane but from Rutlands who are doing it with the single blade for £135.

I looked at the Quansheng / Qiangsheng planes recently and concluded they are not the same planes, same source probably, but slightly different aspects to them. I suspect you have the better deal from Workshop Heaven for what it's worth.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Rhossydd

You are interested in the LA Jack. You've asked specifically about the new Stanley #62. This is based, as you are aware, on the original Stanley #62 (which I own) and back on the market owing to the resurgence of interest in this style plane, largely due to the success of the LN#62 and the LV LA Jack (which is a #62 1/2). I also have the the LV.

What has been reported is the new Stanley is a poor copy of the old Stanley, and does not compare with the competition. Both the LN and LV are vasty superior planes (different to one another). I've also used the WoodRiver, and it is a decent plane.

My experience with BU planes is that they are excellent, with a short learning curve, and superior performance. They have limitations, as do all planes, but the LA Jack is one of those classic planes that may be used in so many ways. A great many use this plane and would disagree with the comment by Paul Sellers, which was unqualified. He carries a great deal of influence, and there would be many who might just accept what he stated as gospel. If there had not been a link to his post, I would not have rebutted.

Ignore the Stanley version, but not the style of plane.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Rhossydd]

but you can't tell other members what to and what not to specifically discuss.

I might not be able to tell people what to discuss (although the ability to lock a thread like this would often be useful), but I can also appeal to people to stay on subject.

There have been plenty of other threads here on the merits of which side is 'up' on a plane blade and a long discussion on this might be welcome on a more general enquiry on the subject. However, I was just asking a VERY specific question about one individual tool which has had varying reports on it's build quality.
It will be of more use to anyone else in future if the thread remains concise and on topic, rather than drifting off in a different direction and making it harder to find out any relevant information when it's diluted in too many pages of off topic ramblings.

 

[JohnPW]

but you can't tell other members what to and what not to specifically discuss.

I might not be able to tell people what to discuss (although the ability to lock a thread like this would often be useful), but I can also appeal to people to stay on subject.

There have been plenty of other threads here on the merits of which side is 'up' on a plane blade and a long discussion on this might be welcome on a more general enquiry on the subject. However, I was just asking a VERY specific question about one individual tool which has had varying reports on it's build quality.
It will be of more use to anyone else in future if the thread remains concise and on topic, rather than drifting off in a different direction and making it harder to find out any relevant information when it's diluted in too many pages of off topic ramblings.

I agree. Forums are not just for idle chit chat, they're also a good source of information, that's why people should start a new thread or post on an existing one if they're not going to stay on topic. Another annoyance is crap thread titles like "What's this?".

 

[Jacob]

but you can't tell other members what to and what not to specifically discuss.

I might not be able to tell people what to discuss (although the ability to lock a thread like this would often be useful), but I can also appeal to people to stay on subject.

There have been plenty of other threads here on the merits of which side is 'up' on a plane blade and a long discussion on this might be welcome on a more general enquiry on the subject. However, I was just asking a VERY specific question about one individual tool which has had varying reports on it's build quality.
It will be of more use to anyone else in future if the thread remains concise and on topic, rather than drifting off in a different direction and making it harder to find out any relevant information when it's diluted in too many pages of off topic ramblings.

I agree. Forums are not just for idle chit chat, they're also a good source of information, that's why people should start a new thread or post on an existing one if they're not going to stay on topic. Another annoyance is rubbish thread titles like "What's this?".

Why not start another thread then - complaining about posts you don't approve of? You are seriously diluting this deeply fascinating thread!
Sticking exactly to the OP's question the answer almost certainly will be "yes" ("anyone actually bought one in the last year or two and have any experience of them ?").
I haven't myself but I suspect they are not too good. Hope that helps.

 

[ali27]

I don't know about the Stanley personally, but reviews seem to be mixed.
I don't recommend the QS plane because the handle is too small. The veritas
I would not buy because veritas planes just don't look nice aesthetically and some
people seem to not like the very upright handle. The LN
would be my choice, but it is quite a bit more expensive than the QS and Stanley
plane.

Ali

 

[whiskywill]

Forums are not just for idle chit chat,. Another annoyance is rubbish thread titles like "What's this?".

So what has this got to do with the original question asked about a plane?

 

[matthewwh]

Nimbly dodging between the volleys and broadsides.

Ed - the reason for the steeper blades is to avoid the issues described by Paul Sellers (via Derek) which are caused by using a low effective pitch on tearout prone wood. The adverse effects are minimised if your blade is kept really really sharp, which is probably how you have got on OK with just the 25, but by using the appropriate blade and having it really sharp, there's another whole level of performance available to you.

 

[G S Haydon]

Thank you Matthew! It's all about getting the best out of what you use. BU can work brilliantly, just got to set them right.