My First Impression of Woodriver Planes

[Greg Crawford]

I’m no expert on planes, so what I have to say may not be totally accurate for the true aficionados. I also work part time at Woodcraft, so you can make your own decision as to whether there is any prejudice here. I’ve just seen quite a bit of chatter about these planes, so I thought I’d chime in for those of you that haven’t had a chance to see and/or fondle one yet.

We got our first Woodriver planes in yesterday, and my manager and I were like little kids waiting to open Christmas presents. We went with the number 4, and the first thing we noticed was the very nice packaging. They come in their own fitted wooden box, with foam rubber padding. They are also packed in a sealed plastic bag, much like the LN or Veritas, but it’s clear, so I doubt it’s corrosion resistant. They had a light oil on them that had a sweet fragrance. I compared it to the Camellia oil we sell, and it didn’t smell the same. I don’t know what the oil is, but it wipes down nicely with just a soft rag. A HUGE difference from those Groz things!

The first test was for square. Using an Incra square, we couldn’t detect any flaw in the machining for square, and it appeared flat as well. Someone will have to mic them to see what the final verdict is on that part of the machining. The casting and frog appear very similar, if not identical, to the Stanley Bedrock series, except for the lettering. It’s not crisp like other castings, almost like the black coating is more of an epoxy or other thick finish. The finish also isn’t gloss, it’s more of a matt look. The LN bench planes are also patterned after the Bedrocks, so that similarity exists too. We didn’t disassemble the frog, and I wouldn’t know what to look for inside anyway, so I can’t comment on that part. The handles are also pretty much Stanley clones, which I find less comfortable than the handles on the Veritas bench planes. That’s a personal preference issue, but the handles are attractive and seem to be well finished. The screw for the knob is counter bored deeper than most planes I’ve seen, which to my eye detracts from the look, but as to strength or other factors, only time will tell.

One difference that immediately comes to one’s attention is the thickness of the blade and chipbreaker. They’re both thicker than an original Stanley, but not as thick as a Hock, LN, Veritas, etc. The chipbreaker is styled like a Hock instead of the old Stanley style, as well. A light touch of the business end of the blade made it obvious a honing (at minimum) would be needed. We checked the blade for square, and it appeared to be sharpened properly that way, but it was noticeably sharper on one side than the other, which would most likely mean it would have to go to a stone before doing any serious work. I also don’t know the hardness of the blade, so it may have to be sharpened more often than a top end blade.

My boss couldn’t wait to see it against some wood, so he dug out a rough piece of something (I think it was mahogany, but not sure). He clamped it flat and went to work. The plane did a good job, and he even went pretty deep on a couple of passes. The board never got down to the point that he was getting full-width shavings, so again, I can’t testify to that, but the other shavings were pretty clean.

In my opinion, they seem to be a good value. They’re priced at about the point of a user grade Stanley Bedrock, but you get a new plane with all the parts and no rust, with a thicker blade. The nostalgia isn’t there, so if that matters, go with the Stanley. For those that can’t afford a cabinet full of $300-$700 planes, and don’t want to go to the effort of tuning an old plane or a less expensive brand, these are something to look at. They don’t have any specialty planes yet, so it’s still high dollar if you want a good shoulder plane, chisel plane, etc. I don’t know if there are future plans to expand the line into that area or not.

One last note, the block plane looks and feels just “plane” sweet. With the thicker blade, it may be a real winner, but I didn’t mess with it (yet). All I know is that I’m having to come up with a plan for a larger cabinet for storing my planes now.

Hope this helps at least some of you.

Greg

[george wilson]

Where are they made?

[Mike Henderson]

Where are they made?
To the best of my knowledge, they are made in China.

Mike

[Dewey Torres]

Greg,
Your report matches what I have read about them so far. Thanks for taking the time to write it up.

[James Owen]

FULL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: Like Greg, I am also a Woodcraft employee. We received our first examples of the Wood River planes a couple of days ago. As the resident hand plane fanatic and Neanderthal, I received the honors of taking a couple of them (LA block plane, #4, #5) home to "play" with.

The vast majority of my hand planes are Lie-Nielsens or tuned-up pre-WWII Stanleys, with a handful of special-purpose wooden planes thrown in for fun. I consider Lie-Nielsen hand planes to be the "Gold Standard" for non-custom-made Bailey-style hand planes.

I do not own any Wood River hand planes, and probably will not purchase any, for the simple reason that the currently-available sizes (#3, #4, #5, #6, LA Block Plane) duplicate planes that I already own (in some cases, several of).

[My calipers measure in 1/64" increments. My feeler gauge's minimum measurement is .0015". I used a 4" steel engineer square to measure squareness and as a side to side straight edge. I used a 24" Woodcraft brand steel straight edge for the length straight edge.]

Some observations and statistics.:

#60-1/2 Low Angle Block Plane

Casting Thickness:

Sides: 10/64”
Sole: 12/64”

Iron Thickness: 8/64”

Sole Flatness

Side to Side: less than .0015” deviation
Length: less than .0015” deviation

Sole to Sides: square

Iron: square

Lever Cap: maximum of .016” off square

Brass parts all nicely machined

All moving parts functioned smoothly

Overall fit and finish very good

#4 Smoothing Plane

Casting Thickness:

Sides: 13/64”
Sole: 13/64”

Iron Thickness: 8/64”

Sole Flatness

Side to Side: less than .0015” deviation
Length: less than .0015” deviation

Sole to Sides: square

Iron: square

Chip Breaker: maximum of .010” off square

Lever Cap: maximum of .019” off square

Iron flatness: less than .0015” deviation

Casting frog mating surface flatness: less than .0015” deviation

Frog top flatness: less than .0015” deviation

Frog bottom flatness: less than .0015” deviation

Brass/Bronze parts all nicely machined

Yoke: cast bronze

Lateral adjuster: stamped steel

All moving parts functioned smoothly

Overall fit and finish very good

#5 Jack Plane

Casting Thickness:

Sides: 12/64”
Sole: 12/64”

Iron Thickness: 8/64”

Sole Flatness

Side to Side: less than .0015” deviation
Length: less than .0015” deviation

Sole to Sides: square

Iron: square

Chip Breaker: square

Lever Cap: maximum of .014” off square

Iron flatness: less than .0015” deviation

Casting frog mating surface flatness: less than .0015” deviation

Frog top flatness: less than .0015” deviation

Frog bottom flatness: less than .0015” deviation

Brass/Bronze parts all nicely machined

Yoke: cast bronze

Lateral adjuster: stamped steel

All moving parts functioned smoothly

Overall fit and finish very good

Observations and Comments:

Earlier today, one of our customers brought in his new Wood River #4 to do some tuning work on it. That consisted mostly of flattening and honing the iron and squaring the chip breaker. After getting the iron flat, honed, and somewhat polished (honed to the approximate equivalent of a 3000 to 4000 grit water stone) and getting the chip breaker close to 90 degrees square, we tested it on some hard maple. The plane was capable of taking about 3/4 width shavings about .003" to .004" in thickness. With additional honing up to the 8000 grit level, it will probably take somewhat thinner shavings. The surface of the board was very smooth to the touch and had a moderate glass shininess when held obliquely to the light.

While the machining is, for the most part, done to an impressively precise tolerance, there are a couple of recurrent problems:

All of the lever caps were visibly off-square; that indicates a quality control problem to me, particularly since I could look at the lever cap and see that it was not square.

The same thing applies to the off-square chip breaker: it was visibly and obviously not square; again a quality control problem.

The irons on all of these planes had only a utility edge put on them. It would produce shavings, but for best performance, additional honing is most definitely required.

The machinging on the casting frog mating surface had small ridges that could be felt with the finger tips, but I was unable to get a .0015" feeler gauge under the straight edge. A bit of polishing here would take care of this problem.

The hardness numbers on the iron are listed as Rc 60 - 64. To me, that is a pretty wide range and suggests that there is/could be some problems with the quality control in the heat treatment and tempering.

I intend to pass these observations to Woodcraft Corporate for their consideration in fixing them.

Overall, with the little bit of time that I've had to play with these planes, my impression is that they are very well-made tools, and are far superior to most of the modern-manufactured Stanleys and to all of the hardware store/Borg house brand planes. The quality and precision of the machining is impressively high. After honing the irons, they take thin shavings and leave a smooth surface on the wood; I haven't had a chance yet to test the edge-holding aspect of the irons. They are well-balanced in the hand, and the (rear) totes on the bench planes are very nicely shaped and sized; very similar to Stanley Type 11 and earlier totes.

In general, I think these are pretty nice planes that give a lot of capability for the money. For most of the well-behaved, more or less straight-grained woods, I think that they will do quite well. Where I suspect that these planes will have problems is with gnarly-grained and interlocking grained woods; if you routinely use those kinds of woods, that's where the extra dollars spent on the LV/LN planes will make you glad you spent the money.

As I gain more experience with these planes, I'll add more information/comments/observations.

I hope that the information in this overly-long posting will be of use or interest to the hand planing community.

[Andrew Homan]

James,
Are you sure about the 0.003"-0.004" shavings? Those are some really chunky shavings! If the blade has been properly prepared, and the sole is within 0.0015" as you indicated, then there shouldn't be any reason why you can't get the shavings down to 0.0015" or 0.002". BTW I would consider 0.001" to be a "medium" shaving -- for smoothing I would require a thinner shaving. 0.003" is OK for a longer plane flattening a board (although I'd take thicker shavings with a #5 with cambered blade).
-Andy

[James Owen]

James,
Are you sure about the 0.003"-0.004" shavings? Those are some really chunky shavings! If the blade has been properly prepared, and the sole is within 0.0015" as you indicated, then there shouldn't be any reason why you can't get the shavings down to 0.0015" or 0.002". BTW I would consider 0.001" to be a "medium" shaving -- for smoothing I would require a thinner shaving. 0.003" is OK for a longer plane flattening a board (although I'd take thicker shavings with a #5 with cambered blade).
-Andy

Yes, although the thickness estimate is just that, compared to a piece of 20 lb paper; it was not measured with calipers. The iron was sharpened and somewhat honed on a Worksharp, to the equivalent of about 3000 to 4000 grit. With honing to 8000 grit, I doubt that the iron and plane will have any problem pulling shavings in the vicinity of .001 or less.

Tonight I'm going to sharpen, flatten, and hone the iron from one of the planes I took home last night, and do some more thorough testing and measuring.

More to come....

[glenn bradley]

I figured this one would start a brisk dialog. Thanks for taking the time to post the info Greg.

[Greg Crawford]

I think James should get the biggest thanks. He really put some time into the research behind the post.

BTW, I'm at work right now, and checked a box. They are made in China.

Greg

[Tri Hoang]

I've looked at a #5 and the LA block. The fit and finish on both are excellent save a few minor issues. The LA block is pretty hefty for its size, more so than my LV LA block. Both seem to be good users.

[Chris Friesen]

BTW I would consider 0.001" to be a "medium" shaving -- for smoothing I would require a thinner shaving. 0.003" is OK for a longer plane flattening a board (although I'd take thicker shavings with a #5 with cambered blade).

1 thou is a "medium" shaving? Different strokes, I guess. Personally, I think it makes sense to take the thickest shaving that doesn't cause tearout. Why would you want to take more passes than necessary?

[Paul Atkins]

I agree with Chris. One of the uses of a hand plane is to remove wood. At .002" it would take 62 passes to remove 1/8". How fun is that? I love to "see" through thin shavings as much as the next guy, but this is a tool also.

[Jim Koepke]

My planes can take fat shavings when needed, as long as the mouth is open enough. It is not often my intention to take a piece down 1/8 inch by plane. That is what a good rip saw is for.

When a piece is being fitted, one often only wants to take off a thousandth or two at a time. This is also the case when one wants to "spring" a joint.

The best one of my planes has done , a #3 Stanley/Bailey, is .0006" shaving using a blade honed with a 9µ abrasive sheet. That is the finest grit on my power sharpening unit. At the time, I did not have the water stones that are now in my shop. Using the stones does not make so much for a thinner shaving as much as it makes a smoother shaving. It also defines the edge a little better. Theoretically, it has to wear a bit more before the blade needs to be honed again. Of course, hitting a knot or other debris changes this.

For those not wanting thin shavings, they do still come in useful when setting up a plane to determine the squareness of the frog seating. I had to borrow a friend's micrometer to measure shavings. One of these days, one will come along for my shop. For now, the caliper works OK, but only reads in thousands.

When working difficult grain, less wood removed equals less tear out.

jim

[James Owen]

Method, Actions, and Ancillary Information:

Last night, I spent about 5 hours playing with the Wood River #5.

I polished the machining marks out of the top front bevel edge of the chip breaker (the chip breaker design is somewhat similar to the LN and Hock chip breakers) and did a little polishing on the underside of the bevel area. I also flattened the iron and honed/polished the bevel. The iron flattened somewhat faster than I was expecting, given the published hardness range (Rc 60 - 64). Both the iron and the chip breaker were taken to 8000 grit on water stones.

After re-assembling the plane and adjusting the iron (mouth opening was about 1/8" wide), I tried it out on the edge of a piece of 4/4" poplar. After a couple of passes to get the edge straight, it easily and smoothly peeled off full-length, full-width thick, curly shavings in the .01" - .02" vicinity. The surface was clean, shiny, and smooth to the touch. After retracting the iron and planing in several increments, I ended up with super-thin, spiral, curly, hair-like shavings that would barely stay together: what I call "Angel Hair." These were somewhere around .001", perhaps a bit thinner.

After re-adjusting the iron for a heavier cut, I then went to work on the face of this same piece of poplar. Again, it produced nearly full-length, full-width thick, curly shavings around .01" - .02" thickness. Again, the surface was clean, shiny, and smooth to the touch. (There were some plane tracks from the corners of the iron, which I deliberately did not camber, since I do not own this plane and did not have permission from the store owner to do that to the iron.) I again retracted the iron in stages, with each retraction producing increasingly thinner shavings. I finally ended with shavings similar to those from the edge that would barely stay together. The surface quality was also similarly smooth.

To test edge retention, I used a piece of rough-sawn 6/4" Red Oak approximately 10" x 12". I started with a straight edge to find the big "hills", which were marked and spot-planed to the approximate height of the rest of the board. I then planed from the left side of the board, perpendicular to the grain, over the entire board, and then did the same thing from the right side of the board. Next, I followed the same sequence, but planing diagonally, at about 45 degrees to the grain, instead of directly across the grain. Finally, I planed with the grain across the face of the board, ending with a more or less flat board (I wasn't really aiming to produce a "perfectly" flat board; I was more interested in seeing how the iron would hold up to heavy planing on a tougher wood.) The surface was shiny when held obliquely to the light, but I could see small track-like lines all across the board, parallel to the grain (more on this later), along with fewer heavier lines which were similar to the plane tracks seen in the poplar. The surface was reasonably smooth to the touch, but would obviously need the attentions of a smoothing plane to make it finish-ready; the small track-like lines could be felt on the surface.

The final planing test was on the face of a piece of 4/4" hard maple, approximately 8" X 14". I adjusted the iron to a very, very light cut and then closed the mouth opening to about 1/64". I then re-adjusted the iron so that it just barely was showing above the sole. Peeling about 3/4 width "Angel Hair" shavings even thinner than the poplar shavings was no problem. After several passes across the width of the board, I pulled it off of the bench and held it obliquely to the light. The surface was very glass-like shiny, but again there were numerous small track-like lines parallel to the grain all across the face of the board, as well as the heavier tracks from the corners of the iron. The board was very smooth to the touch, almost like polished marble, but again, the track-like lines were just barely discernable to the touch.

After finishing planing, I the pulled the iron off the plane and re-adjusted the mouth opening back to approximately 1/8".

Observations and comments:

In attempt to somewhat reduce the length of this post and to moderate repetition, I'll try to keep the repetition of previously-posted information to an absolute minimum.

Good stuff:

The mass of the plane allows it to develop significant momentum and take heavy cuts easily. With a heavily cambered iron and an open mouth, this plane could perform scrub plane duties all day long.

All adjustments are smooth and positive. There is a bit of backlash in the depth adjuster mechanism (about a turn to a turn and a half or so). Frog adjustment is very easy and positive, both forward and backward. If you need to remove the frog from the casting, the frog retaining pins are notched on the top showing where the screw holes are, making alignment with the tightening screws very easy. Lateral adjustment of the iron is easy and positive, but it is somewhat sensitive to the tightness of the lever cap; if the lever cap is loose, the lateral adjuster tends to let the iron shift slightly from side to side in use. Slightly tightening the lever cap screw (about 1/4 turn or so) solves this minor problem.

The iron cut well, and after flattening and honing, was able to produce very thin, fluffy shavings typical of a good quality hand plane. The surface was generally polished marble smooth and of very nice quality. (However, see below in the Not So Good Stuff: section for some caveats to the preceding statement.)

The chip breaker has a very interesting design. The upper portion is quite similar to the Hock and Lie-Nielsen type chip breakers, in that it is flat with a fairly wide bevel at the front end. On the bottom side, however, is the interesting part. It appears to be something of a hybrid of the LN and the old Stanley types: there is a machined lip at the front end, but it is not flat like the LN, instead it is somewhat curved, almost like a tongue. The intent of this design appears to be to combine the mass of the LN lip with the flexibility of the old Stanley curved type chip breaker, and take advantage of the virtues of each. In the limited amount of time I've spent using and testing this plane, it appears to be a success: while using the plane, the chip breaker did not allow any shavings to come between the chip breaker and the iron.

I found the tote and knob very comfortable in use. If you like the completely rounded somewhat oval profile (the ones with no flat areas on the sides) of the totes that Stanley used on Type 11 and earlier bench planes, you'll probably like these -- a lot: they are a well-executed, near-exact copy of that style tote. To my hand, they felt "just right". If, on the other hand, you're a fan of the more upright and angular Veritas style tote, you may not like these quite as much....

The machined surfaces on the top and the bottom of the frog both appear to have been ground. There are very subtle machining marks (like the ones on the sole and sides of the casting), but they are quite smooth to the touch and the surfaces are very flat.

The machining and polishing on all of the brass/bronze parts (except the yoke which is left largely in a rough casting state) is quite nice and precisely executed. The machining around the circumference of the depth adjuster knob is particularly nicely done.

The balance in the hand, the heft, and the overall "feel" of the plane ranks right up there with the best that Stanley produced prior to WW II, and with the better modern plane makers' products. Overall fit and finish are impressively good.

Not So Good Stuff:

The rivet that connects the lateral adjuster to the frog appears to have loosened up with just a small amount of use. There is about 1/8" to 1/4" of vertical play on the lateral adjuster lever. As noted before, the lateral adjuster lever is folded/twisted, stamped steel. On a personal note, I strongly dislike this style of lateral adjuster because it feels rather flimsy in my hand; my preference is for the old Stanley version (what they used before they replaced it with the stamped metal version currently in use) and the LN version (an improvement of the old Stanley type).

After completion of the planing and removal of the iron, I examined the iron under 10X magnification. What I saw explained the tracks on the surface of the oak and the maple. What I saw was also extremely disappointing: across about 3/4 of width of the iron, the edge had crumbled. Instead of a plane iron, I had a serrated steak knife. :( The serrations were sub-millimeter in size, but very distinct. Despite the fact that they were present in the first place, one good thing is that they were pretty even in size; that suggests that the crystaline structure of the steel is reasonably uniform -- a very good thing. The crumbling might be a residual effect from the heat treatment (where one must hone/grind back a bit to remove the slag-like damaged surface metal that often results from heat treating), or it might be an indicator that the heat treating was improperly done, or that (the as much as) Rc 64 hardness in an iron of this thickness, composition, and bevel angle (25 degrees) might be too hard to retain an edge in anything other than the softest woods. My metallurgical knowledge is far too limited to be able to make anything other than a semi-SWAG.....so I won't. Regardless of the actual causes of the metal crumbling, there are a couple of obvious potential solutions that suggest themselves: (1) hone/grind back a couple of hundredths of an inch to remove all of the residual slag components; (2) re-heat treat; (3) increase the bevel angle to 30 degrees (since this is a bevel down plane, the effective cutting angle will remain 45 degrees; it won't make any effective difference in the cutting capability or effort, but will increase the durability of the cutting edge). FWIW, it took about 5 minutes with a coarse diamond stone and 800/1200/4000/8000 water stones to restore the cutting edge. It worked fine and a gave clean surface cut for the couple of passes that I did, but I did not do any further testing to check the durability, etc. (it was nearly 0130.....).

Conclusions and (additional) Editorial Comments:

Overall, I find these to be very well-designed, well-executed, and well-manufactured hand planes, especially when the price is taken into account. As noted in previous postings, there are a couple of details that better quality control could easily corrrect.

The main problem I found is with the iron. Since I have not done further testing after re-honing, I do not know whether the edge will have the same problems that I encountered in the above tests or whether the re-honing has solved the problem. (More on this later after more testing....)

The edge retention problem with the iron and the other relatively minor problems with squareness (mentioned previously) aside, these appear to me -- based on the limited time that I have had to "play" with them -- to be high-quality planes that will provide good service and will give the user very good performance (probably something in the vicinity of 90% - 95% of the performance of a premium plane -- i.e., LN or LV -- at about 1/3 of the price: very similar to what can be extracted from a well-tuned pre-WW II Stanley). If Woodcraft corrects the couple of quality-control problems previously mentioned, and fixes the edge retention problem with the irons, I think they will have a real winner here: one that gives plane users a very high performance level at a very reasonable cost. FWIW, that is intended to be high praise from someone who thinks that Lie-Nielsen is the cats' meow when it comes to production Bailey style planes.....

Finally...please keep in mind that all of the previous comments and observations are based on a statistically insignificant sample population: 2 X LA Block planes, 2 X #4 Smoothing planes, 1 X #5 Jack plane, and 1 X #6 Try/Fore plane. YMMV!!!!!

It is my hope that the above/previously-posted information/commentary will be of some use to anyone who is considering the acquisition of any of these planes.

[Jacob Mac]

James,

Thanks for the thorough review. I am really interested in starting into handplanes, and these seem like they might be a good option. I need to go to the KC Woodcraft store and see if I can play with a couple of planes.

[Andrew Homan]

I agree with Chris. One of the uses of a hand plane is to remove wood. At .002" it would take 62 passes to remove 1/8". How fun is that? I love to "see" through thin shavings as much as the next guy, but this is a tool also.

Actually, I don't give a flying fig about "seeing through thin shavings," as you imply!
Sometimes I wonder whether people here are using planes as I do, to work lumber down from rough boards to fine finish.
0.001" shavings are, for fine smoothing, far too chunky, especially if you consider that the mic is probably compressing the shaving. I also wouldn't be taking 0.001" shavings to remove 1/8" of stock -- I would go for far woodier shavings than that. (Achieved with a cambered blade.) For me, 0.001" shavings might be the desirable thickness for correcting an out-of-square edge. (Any thinner = too many passes, any thicker = losing too much stock and risking missing the target width of a board).

As far as I am concerned, all other factors being equal, the thinnest possible shaving that a plane can get is a reflection of the flatness of the sole. If someone can't manage to get shavings thinner than 0.002" or 0.003", I would seriously recommend examining the sole. If the mouth is in a concave hollow that is 0.002" deep you are never going to get finer shavings than 0.002". Even if the plane is intended for rougher work, to me, that degree of out-of-flatness is unacceptable. (And I don't believe that I am fanatically in pursuit of elusive flatness -- but come on folks, you need to get within 0.001" over 12 inches.
I fully understand that super-fine shavings are not practical for any purpose other than smoothing (especially difficult wood). However, I have never had a vintage Stanley in my hands that wasn't capable of a sub-0.001" shaving (unless the blade was cambered). So a new plane that can't handle that kind of shaving needs some effort to be put into flattening the sole.
I believe that David Charlesworth also indicates 0.001" shavings as being considered to be "medium" in his workshop.
-Andy

[george wilson]

If the plane iron is made of any common grade of carbon steel,like water (W1),or oil hardening (O1),the absolute hardness level should be 60 R.C.. Even then,58 would be better. I found over many years that the plane iron that could BARELY be filed a bit with a new Nicholson SMOOTH file,would hold an edge the best.

It is also possible that the iron is made of a lower grade of carbon steel that will fully harden.But it cannot have the wear resistance of a higher carbon content steel,plus was left too hard(if the hardness they advertise is correct).

It has been my experience that any specifications you get with a Chinese metal lathe,or milling machine as to accuracy,spindle runout,parallel cutting,etc. are BOGUS. This could also apply to the stated hardness of the blade. Crumbling that you actually describe is indeed very severe. I'd like to have a blade to test myself.

The steel,if water hardening,should have .95% carbon. If oil,should have a bit over 1%.The steels used in those cheap Chinese wood chisels can be .50%,or even .45% It will harden,but isn't good steel as I have described.

If the rest of the plane is decent,a better blade might be o.k.,considering the low cost of the plane. Hopefully,old Stanley irons,or new blades will fit the plane.

If I had the iron,I'd heat it slowly to a medium brown color,which would draw some of the hardness,but add toughness,and then see if the edge held up better. The down side is,if the blade is of cheap steel,it might come out too soft. Then,you are stuck unless you have the know how to re harden. If the blade has a bevel already(which it does), that causes the iron to warp across its width because there is different amounts of surface area on each side of the blade. Best to grind the bevel off before re hardening. But,this is getting too technical.

[Paul Atkins]

Andrew, Sorry to put you off a bit - I was just reading along -probably too fast- and had an image in my head of a friend of mine who tunes up his tools to the nth degree and then puts them up on the shelf. It wasn't aimed at you personally. I've spent plenty of time flattening, sharpening and tuning up my planes to know finer is better and the way to check the results. I do appreciate precision and quality workmanship and efficiency is one part too. I've never measured my shavings , so maybe I'll have to check my thickness intuition just for the heck of it. I have a piece of Port Orford cedar 10' long I make ribbons for presents with - now I'll check my planes again with it. Also sorry this got off the original topic.

[Sue Wise]

Back on the topic of the thread. I just bought the Jack plane on Monday. I will probably be able to get to setting it up this weekend. I will also give my report but because I am not as experienced, it will not be as detailed. However, I do plan on hollow grinding the blade first, then flattening the back and then honing.

-Sue

[Chris Friesen]

Sometimes I wonder whether people here are using planes as I do, to work lumber down from rough boards to fine finish.
0.001" shavings are, for fine smoothing, far too chunky, especially if you consider that the mic is probably compressing the shaving.....I believe that David Charlesworth also indicates 0.001" shavings as being considered to be "medium" in his workshop.

You indicated a "medium" shaving, without limiting it to smoothing. If you're limiting it to smoothing, then I'm not going to disagree too much.

In general though, if you get to quote someone, then so do I. :)

In his workbenches book, Chris Schwarz suggests starting with a shaving of 0.006" for a jointer plane. He also suggests aiming for a 1/32" shaving for crossgrain work with a fore plane, As for smoothing, here's a quote:

"You want to be able to take the thickest shaving you can without tear-out, chatter or requiring you to bulk up like Thundarr the Barbarian. A thick shaving will get you done with fewer passes of the smoothing plane over your workpiece. Not only does this get the job done faster, but it also helps increase your accuracy. Huh? Think about it. If you make 20 passes over a board with a smoothing plane, you are much more likely to plane that sucker out of true than if you used only four passes."

[James Owen]

Results of follow-up planing, as promised:

After re-honing the iron to 8000 grit on water stones last night, I ran the plane back over the same pieces of red oak and maple used before. After a total of about 3 dozen passes on each, I examined the edge under 10X magnification. There were a handful (about 5 or 6) of much smaller deformations -- not sure that I would really call them "chips", almost more like tiny indentations -- randomly scattered along the edge. It (the iron) looked much better than on the previous night. The surface of the wood was also much cleaner looking and feeling.

My speculation -- and that's all this is -- is that the chipping was caused, at least in part, by the "spongy" layer of steel often left on the surface after heat treating. Once that is removed, you get to the "good stuff" and can put a good, resilient edge on the iron. [Those of you who have more extensive metallurgical knowledge/experience than my admitedly very limited bits and pieces, please feel free to correct anything I've gotten wrong here.] Regardless of whether I've gotten that part right, based on this very, very small sample, these appear to be reasonably good quality irons -- certainly no worse than currently-offered Stanley, etc., -- once they have been "broken-in."

To get the best-possible performance from this plane, one might consider replacing the iron (and perhaps the chip breaker) with an LN or a Hock, although I'm not sure that it would really be necessary for the jack plane, since it is normally used for rough or medium work. The cost of a replacement iron (and chip breaker) will certainly reduce the cost advantage over a premium plane, but would, IMO, still be a really good value, especially given the high quality of the machining on the casting and frog.

All in all, I like the plane and -- aside from the relatively minor problems previously mentioned -- am very impressed with its quality, fit & finish, and performance. As it stands, I would recommend it to customers, along with the caveats mentioned in previous postings. If Woodcraft fixes the problems previously mentioned, I would have no problem recommending the planes without reservation.

[I won't be doing any more testing on this plane, as I had to return it this afternoon. However, I will be happy to try to answer any questions anyone has about the results I got from the testing.]

[Andrew Homan]

You indicated a "medium" shaving, without limiting it to smoothing. If you're limiting it to smoothing, then I'm not going to disagree too much.


Even in the rest of your post, I don't think that anything contradicts what I wrote, it just speaks of different uses. I think that anyone who needs 20 passes with a smoother set at 0.001" or below is either not paying attention to what he is doing, or he is doing something else wrong. Anyone who suggests that 0.002" is adequate for fine smoothing work either has very low standards for finish or hasn't yet worked with more difficult varieties of wood.
I didn't state the full range of shavings that I consider useful for medium work -- I don't think that it's relevant here. The relevant point is that 0.002" is a pretty chunky minimum shaving for a new plane that is posing with finicky features like a Bedrock frog. My other point, perhaps less explicit but relevant to the review posted above, is that the indications about sole flatness are out-of-synch with the measurement of thinnest possible shavings.
I don't think that this is off-topic at all: whenever a review is being discussed, the standards of the review should be open to discussion.
-Andy

[John Dykes]

but come on folks, you need to get within 0.001" over 12 inches.

I'm not sure that a few of the well-known premium plane makers would agree with you.

[James Owen]

.....My other point, perhaps less explicit but relevant to the review posted above, is that the indications about sole flatness are out-of-synch with the measurement of thinnest possible shavings.

I don't think that this is off-topic at all: whenever a review is being discussed, the standards of the review should be open to discussion.
-Andy

Andy,

It would appear that you perhaps misinterpreted my statement about the customer's plane: with sharpening to approx 3000 to 4000 grit equivalent, we got the stated thickness shavings (about .003" - .004"); I never said that those were the thinnest possible with that plane/iron.

If you look a couple of posts under that one, you'll see that the #5 -- with an iron honed to the 8000 grit level --- was not only able to make shavings in the .001" +/- range -- which is entirely consistent with the measured flatness of the sole -- but was also able to peel off shavings thin enough that they would barely hold together.

I suppose that we could debate shaving thicknesses, etc., but I'm not sure that there is a point to that: except in planing competitions, the thickness of the shaving is pretty much irrelevent to the work being done. From my view point, what is important is the quality of the surface the plane creates.....

Besides, the thickness of the shaving is merely one indicator of a combination of the sharpness of the iron, the flatness of the sole, the tightness of the mouth, several other settings on the plane, the general quality/condition of the plane, etc. Once you have used that indicator, along with others, to help determine the quality -- or lack thereof -- of the plane, shaving thickness, IMO, is largely unimportant, even though it is useful as a shorthand method of describing plane quality/condition.

YMMV!

On another note, I completely agree that the standards (and methodology) of a review should be open to discussion and, if lacking, subject to constructive criticism. I welcome constructive criticism; it's one of the more effective ways to learn and improve....

Cheers! and Happy Planing!

[george wilson]

Well,now that you say the indentations in the iron look more like little dents than chips,that changes everything. Good descriptions would help. It sounds like the iron is too soft,rather that being too hard. I can tell you that steel at 60 to 64 RC is not going to make little dents in the edge. It would degrade by chipping. It would help if you took a smooth file in really good condition-without any shiny teeth,and tried to file the edge,and report back. A smooth file will cut harder steel than a coarser file,so it is important to use one.

[Matty O'Brien]

Hi all, I am a long time lurker here and I just registered to throw in my 2¢ on these planes. First: thanks to all who have posted stuff to this entire forum, when I have a question about something, I can almost always find the answer here by searching. amazing resource!

Granted, my comments are from a newbie to the forum, so take them for what they are worth... I am new to woodworking (about 2 yrs.), currently studying furniture/woodworking at a school here in MI.

The first plane I bought was a Gros #4 two years ago. Let's just say it doesn't make it out of the box much. The second was a Stanley junior jack #5 1/4 I got off eBay, which I use considerably more, even though it is pretty beat up (the pictures looked so nice on eBay!). The third was a LN low angle block, which I practically sleep with under my pillow.

My teacher suggested a #5 with two cutters, one set up for scrub, one for small area jointing and overall smoothing, so I've been on the lookout. He has a tuned old Stanley which he lets me use, so it is my reference to how a good #5 should preform. My dilemma: LN is out of price range, I don't want another Gros and eBay is a risk. Enter Woodriver...

Based on the reviews here (thanks you guys!), I went to Woodcraft and picked up a Woodriver #5.
First impressions: the heft (wow it's... hefty! ), the really nice casting (not LN but hey it's pretty nice), the tote and knob are actually beautiful in appearence and very well formed, all of the machined parts actually fit and function smoothly, nice fat cutter. It also comes in a wooden box, which isn't really a selling point for me but it's a nice touch.

At the shop: I wanted to see how it would preform out of the box with just a quick hone on water stones to 8000 grit and some paste wax. Actually, pretty decent. The Gros is now officially a doorstop. It was clear though that I would have to spend some time tuning it before I could compare it to my teacher's #5. Hollow ground the bevel to about 27 or 28 due to the comments here about edge crumble. flattened/honed again to 8000, carefully this time. Lapped the sole (it was pretty close out of the box, but concave). The tuning took a good 1.5 hours. A bit of wax and then I almost passed out when I started taking beautiful blade width shavings out of a 2' ash board! I have never planed a board that well before even with Teach's Stanley. I then started to mess around with the frog a bit, opend the mouth for a scrub cut and nice thick curlies! Closed it and tissue fluff! All this and a minimum of tearout with no edge issues after about an hour of working some pretty tough wood.

Ok, so it does have its cheapo side, namely the lateral adjustor. The soft mushroom rivet that attaches it to the frog is incredibly low grade and deformed almost immediately causing the adjustor to clack around loosly while I worked. So I drilled it out and replaced it with a brass machine screw/nut and put a rubber washer sandwiched between it and the frog. Now it stays where I set it.

To sum up:
Would I buy this plane again? Absolutely.
Will I own a LN #4, #5 and a #7 (and maybe a #1 just for grins) someday? You bet.
Will I keep the Woodriver after getting the LNs? Yep. If I ever have a student, do you think I'd let him/her monkey with my LN?

Woodcraft hit the mark with this line of planes. Woodworker on a budget who is just building their skills and can't yet justify an LN splurge, yet also can't afford to drag a home fix-it quality tool accross expensive stock. That's me.

Thanks to all who posted to make this topic an interesting coversation especially Greg and James for the in depth analysis!

-Matt

[jerry nazard]

James and Greg,

Thank you. I am following this thread with great interest!

-Jerry

[John Meikrantz]

I was looking at the planes in my local Woodcraft store, and first impressions were positive. However, the block plane appears to be a standard angle, and not a low angle 60 1/2 equivalent. Can you check and see what the actual plane angles are at your location? I know the manufacturer makes a standard angle size as well, just wondering if there was a shipping/labeling mixup.

[Matty O'Brien]

However, the block plane appears to be a standard angle, and not a low angle 60 1/2 equivalent.

I noticed the exact same thing. Made very obvious because it was sitting in the case right next to an LN 60 1/2. The blade was clearly at a steeper angle. Mike at the Woodcraft here just kept saying "nope, it's a low angle". I'm glad someone else noticed... I thought I was seeing things.

On another note, I am liking my Woodriver #5 very much. Anyone else??? I would like to read more reviews based on actual experience at the bench. Even a bad one.

On yet another note, I won a #7 type 11 on eBay yesterday. My first jointer. I hope it's a good one.

-Matt

[James White]

I picked up the Wood River low angle block plane yesterday. To my surprise it is not a low angle plane. It is a bevel up. But the angle of the bed is 19.5 not the claimed 12.5 on the box.

James or anyone who has one,

Could you please measure the angle and report back to us. I am hoping that it is a new model that just ended up in the wrong box.

James

[george wilson]

I was at Woodcraft in Richmond today,and they had Wood River planes,saying that the blade problem had been fixed. I looked only at the block plane,though I didn't want to cut the clear plastic envelope the oily plane was in. I thought some customer might think the plane not "new". The plane looked a lot like a LN,though not quite as carefully finished.For the price,it seemed quite nice. It had the same blade adjustment as the LN. For some reason,the plating was reversed: The LN has a bronze blade cap,and plated knurled nut for blade adjustment. The Wood River was reversed.plated cap.brass blade nut.

I wonder if the Chinese felt that reversing the plating was sufficient "difference" from the LN?

I wasn't able to test the sole for flatness,and of course,the blade cannot be sharpened,tried with a smooth file,etc. to see of it is good steel.

I thought it,from what I could see,to be a pretty good looking plane. Possibly a LN blade would fit it,if the blade proved bad. Then,I guess you'd have about 1/2 the price of the LN in it. I wish they'd remove some of the planes from the wrapper so the planes could be taken apart for inspection of the machining under the blades.

I also could not do things like tighten down the throat adjustment to see if the sliding sole in front of the blade caved in when tightened from above. I did have that happen once,not with a LN,but sent the plane back for replacement. In the event that the bottom piece did cave in,wich would expose more of the blade,you could carefully file down a washer and put it on top of the movable sole,where it would be around the screw,and pinch against the upper casting to keep it from doing that.

I wished the cap wasn't plated,because I felt that the cap could benefit from a little smoothing up around the edges on the end nearest the bevel of the blade. But,it was made to a much lower price.

[Tri Hoang]

I was keenly interested in the Woodriver #5 before it is available. Upon further reviews by fellow creekers and my own handling of the plane at the local WC, I decided to spring for a lightly used LN LA jack ($200 at the bay). For me, it comes down to fit & finish, expected performance, and resale value.

In any case, I think I am slipping down the slope pretty quickly, amassing 5-6 planes in a few months, sold my power jointer, and learning to dimension lumber with hand tools and my DW734 planer. I love the extra space saved by not having the jointer in my small shop.

[John Keeton]

Having followed this thread, while I was at Woodcraft yesterday I took an opportunity to examine the couple of planes they had out of the plastic wrap. They do appear to be fairly well made, but I quickly noticed that one of the planes (the one most accessible and I assume the one that had been handled the most) had developed a tremendous amount of "slop" in the lateral blade adjustment lever. I believe others have pointed this out, but as they say, "the devil is in the details" and I would be afraid that the fine points of quality manufacturing could be missing here.

A bit off topic, but the other thing that concerns me with Chinese manufacturing (although I own several Griz machines) is that one never knows what really is in the cast iron. Do they just throw in whatever industrial waste they have on hand. Would be a good place to get rid of it!

[george wilson]

Unknown cast iron is a good point,John,and especially critical in things like vises,as they can break from being screwed down too tight,or struck with hammers. However,if the planes are malleable,I don't think the planes would be bad. Certainly not so easily broken as old American planes like Stanleys. I don't know if any of the old American planes were malleable.

[Greg Crawford]

John,

I also have concerns with any Chinese product. I've seen pictures of metal objects in BORG Chinese plywood, and I've seen pictures (on snopes.com) of male contaceptives (hope that's not too family un-friendly), yes you read that right, in pony tail bands. As for their cast iron, if anyone has a geiger counter, they could check for radio active waste.

There is one interesting, yet heart-wrenching, video. I think the link was posted here a few days ago, http://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/smashing_planes_video

I hated to see the planes treated like that, but they're not mine.

[george wilson]

I did read if an incident of a home shop machinist finding out his junkyard steel was radioactive. I actually got a geiger counter and checked mine out. No telling where Asian metal has been.

[James White]

I picked up the Wood River low angle block plane yesterday. To my surprise it is not a low angle plane. It is a bevel up. But the angle of the bed is 19.5 not the claimed 12.5 on the box.

James or anyone who has one,

Could you please measure the angle and report back to us. I am hoping that it is a new model that just ended up in the wrong box.

James

I called woodcraft product support today. I was advised that the boxes were a mislabeled and there is no low angle block plane in this line. Looks like I am out of luck on getting an affordable low angle block plane. I also tried the Stanley contractor that is currently being offered. Made in Mexico and pure junk. The cap lever does not hold the blade properly. It losses its position from your hand being on the cap as you use it. Also the cast iron is very soft. Oak end grain is enough to scratch it. Perhaps next year I will be able to get a LN or LV. Not it the cards this year.

James

[David Keller NC]

"Perhaps next year I will be able to get a LN or LV. Not it the cards this year."

James - While I generally recommend the L-N 60 series block planes over the antique Stanelys (this is one case where the L-N is a vast improvement), you could still pick up one of them on the cheap to get you by. They're not great, but they're also not junk either if they were made prior to WWII. Good thing about one of these is that unless you drop it and break it, they won't depreciate, so you can sell it and get one of the LN or LVs when you can afford it.

[Mike Henderson]

Unknown cast iron is a good point,John,and especially critical in things like vises,as they can break from being screwed down too tight,or struck with hammers. However,if the planes are malleable,I don't think the planes would be bad. Certainly not so easily broken as old American planes like Stanleys. I don't know if any of the old American planes were malleable.
Ductile iron wasn't invented until 1943 but Vaughan & Bushnell made a series of planes with drop forged bodies (fairly low carbon steel I'd guess).

Also, remember that ferrous scrap generally goes into the making of steel and not cast iron. The Chinese can make iron and steel equal to any. While there may be things to worry about in the Wood River planes, I doubt if the metal in the body is one of them.

Mike

[Ben Rafael]

John,

I also have concerns with any Chinese product. I've seen pictures of metal objects in BORG Chinese plywood, and I've seen pictures (on snopes.com) of male contaceptives (hope that's not too family un-friendly), yes you read that right, in pony tail bands. As for their cast iron, if anyone has a geiger counter, they could check for radio active waste.

There is one interesting, yet heart-wrenching, video. I think the link was posted here a few days ago, http://www.popularwoodworking.com/article/smashing_planes_video

I hated to see the planes treated like that, but they're not mine.

Ceramics, finishes, and plastics can also be radioactive; not just metals. Technically everything emits radiation.
If you are concerned you can buy a geiger counter for around $200.

[george wilson]

The Chinese CAN do it,question is DO they do it? I have seen a few broken Chinese machinist vises,and they had terribly coarse grain.. Not that I really can blame them,we want extremely cheap stuff.

I heard about a 2 man shop in Taiwan,about the size of a 1 car garage,where a father and son poured castings for Bridgeport size milling machines!!! That took some doing!! They must have been poured down in the ground,like cannon used to be cast hundreds of years ago.

Williamsburg tried to pour a bronze mortar several months ago. It was about the size of a smallish fire hydrant. It cast,but had millions of little bubbles under the crust. I had a terrible time trying to saw the "Dead Head" off. Used up 2 HSS $40.00 each metal cutting bandsaw blades trying to get half was across,due to sand and other inclusions. The Dead Head is the top part of a cannon casting which is on the top of the casting,where all the sand and crud rise to the top. I was cutting right down at the muzzle,where it should have been cleaner.

This was a first attempt at pouring as large a casting as that,and underground,too. The furnace plug was knocked out,and the bronze ran down a clay gulley into the mould.

I wonder if the Taiwan casters could have helped?

[James White]

"Perhaps next year I will be able to get a LN or LV. Not it the cards this year."

James - While I generally recommend the L-N 60 series block planes over the antique Stanelys (this is one case where the L-N is a vast improvement), you could still pick up one of them on the cheap to get you by. They're not great, but they're also not junk either if they were made prior to WWII. Good thing about one of these is that unless you drop it and break it, they won't depreciate, so you can sell it and get one of the LN or LVs when you can afford it.

David,

I would not mind going that route. However, how do you know if what is being sold is pre WWII? With the block planes or the bench.

James

[David Keller NC]

"I would not mind going that route. However, how do you know if what is being sold is pre WWII? With the block planes or the bench."

James - There are a lot of resources on the web that you can use to date a Stanely, Millers Falls, Chapin-Union, Sargent, or other common bench and block planes. Jim Koepke just posted a index of these sites: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=104945.

Something to look for at one of the tool dealer sites, flea markets, garage sales, etc... is a Sargent VBM plane (VBM = Very Best Made). This line of planes was the equal of Stanely in the 1900 - 1940 era in every way, but they don't have the name recognition nor collector's value of Stanley, so it's a good alternative for a user. One note about this, though - don't buy one with missing parts unless you can easily make, and care to make, a replacement. Stanely parts are findable, but the other brands are tough to come by.

BTW - Brass City Records/Tools had a decent block plane up this morning for $15. Not great, but definitely, absolutely better than nothing and anything made past 1965 by Stanley.

[James White]

Thank you David. I lucked out. My neighbor sold me three planes yesterday for $35. One of them was a Stanley low angle contractor that was made before production moved to Mexico. So made in England. Although it may not be ideal. I found it is more usable than the new Mexican one.

The other two are a Stanley 5 1/4 (see my other thread started last night) and a Miller Falls 900 #4. The MF has had the chip breaker ground down because the user was trying to using it bevel up. So it is unusable at this point. I don't know if it is worth getting a new breaker for this. Any opinions on that?

James