Wood River #4 for a newbie

[Daniel Rode]

I tuned up my contractor model Stanley #4 as best as I could but it wasn't enough to get consistent, predictable results. It makes learning to use it far more difficult. So I was at woodcraft and handled a wood river #4 and really liked it. I was only there for the cherry that was on sale, so I loaded my boards and got in the truck to leave. I've been somewhat frustrated trying to use my plane and it was on sale for $119. I walked back in a bought one. The other option I had been considering was to get an eBay #4 Stanley Bailey in decent condition. Cheaper, but more work. I want to make furniture, not collect and restore old tools, so this should save me some time over a eBay buy.

It's very similar to my plane and all of Baileys I've seen. The fit and finish, right out of the box, was far superior to mine. I could easily get the blade even side-to-side, adjust the depth by tiny increments and have confidence that a little tweak on the wheel would move the iron a predictable amount in or out. Even with the dull iron from the factory, I was able to get decent thin, even shavings. It should be amazing when I flatten the sole and sharpen the iron.

I really believed that the primary difference between my contractor model and better planes was plastic handles and proper flattening and sharpening. I was wrong. The fit and finish and the easy accurate adjustment made a large and obvious difference for me.

As someone who's actively trying to learn how to maintain and use hand tools, I can tell you it's hard. I have to learn how to get the tool setup. I have to learn how to flatten, sharpen, re-sharpen and after all of that, I have to learn to use the tool correctly. It's 20% knowledge and 80% practice to develop physical skills. I don't believe one needs the most expensive tools to do the best work. However, bench plane skills was being hampered by a tool that was a bit too poorly made. Not so with chisels, for example. I can get a good reliable edge on my chisels and so I get better each time I use them. It's too early to tell but I think the new plane will help.

On the up side, the old plane is not totally useless. I moved the frog back to open the mouth up and I'll use it like a scrub plane for rougher work.

[Don Dorn]

You have to decide for yourself and while I've heard some people praise the Woodriver planes, I've never seen one. So why post? I can tell you that my first #4 sized plane was the Low Angle Smoother from Lee Valley. For any number of reasons, it was a good choice for me, but primarily because the BU design was so easy to adjust well. It's also reasonably priced. Yes, it's a bit more money, but not appreciably and I personally recommend thinking in that type of venue.

Would you be happy with the Woodriver? Very possibly so, I just chose a different direction when I was in your shoes and don't regret it.

[steven c newman]

Does it look like this one?270316270317I seem to be very happy with mine...

[Bryce Adams]

I've got a WoodRiver #4 as well as old Stanley #3, #4, and 4-1/2 planes. Also have a Veritas Small Bevel Up Smooth plane. The WoodRiver works as well as any of them. I never saw any need to try and flatten the sole on mine, and I'd bet you don't need to either. If it takes thin, even shavings, spend your time sharpening the blade and just use it.

[george wilson]

How well does the Wood River plane blade stay sharp? Comparable to an old Stanley? Better? Worse?

[Kees Heiden]

Congratulations with the new plane. And to reinforce Bryce's message: No need to flatten or other wise tune it. Sharpen first and try it out. If you can get fine shavings, then the sole is fine.

[Jim Koepke]

My imagination runs wild at trying to determine what a contractor model Stanley #4 might really be. So often descriptors like; professional grade, industrial grade and heavy duty are meaningless sales hype.

Because of a drop in quality to lower prices my preference for Stanley tools is for those made before the 1930s with only a few exceptions.

Because of the effects on the North American labor market it is my tendency to not buy products made outside of North America when possible.


It should be amazing when I flatten the sole and sharpen the iron.

Sharpening the blade is a good idea for almost any new plane. Flattening the sole is only needed if you can see that it is not flat.

Of my many old Stanley planes only 1 or 2 have actually needed their soles flattened. Most of the time they have been lapped to remove rust.

jtk

[Daniel Rode]

My imagination runs wild at trying to determine what a contractor model Stanley #4 might really be. So often descriptors like; professional grade, industrial grade and heavy duty are meaningless sales hype.

"Contractor Grade" in this case is a designation used by Stanley or those selling their planes to indicate rougher, bang-around tool. The idea being that a contractor might have this tool on a jobsite versus a more refined or precise tool that would be in a workshop. It's all marketing nonsense but this is most certainly a less refined tool. It is a Model 12-204 and, at first glance, closely resembles the 12-904 #4 Bailey. It's not made nearly as well, though. Plastic handles, rougher casting and milling, etc. Oddly enough, my 12-920 is a Bailey Block Plane and is sometimes referred to as contractor grade as well. It's not made as well as the LN, Veritas, etc, but unlike the #4 it's a well made tool and works well. I'll probably have it for life.

As for flattening the sole of the new plane. I will be thrilled if it doesn't need lapping :) I'll flatten and sharpen the blade this evening along with some new chisels I got as a gift.

[steven c newman]

Mine did not need even a sharpeing of the iron, when new in the box, maybe a trip on the strop. Sole was flat.

Been using this plane for awhile, now. Finally gave it a hone and strop last week. Seems to stay as sharp as the Millers Falls #9 I also have..

[Chris Griggs]

DO NOT lap the sole. It does not need it and unless you know what your doing have a known flatter surface and PSA sandpaper stuck down very evenly you will only make it less flat. If by some chance it is way out of tolerance, then send it back and get a new one. Sole lapping is a good still, but its best developed on a plane that is old and out of flat.

Flatten the back of the blade if needed, polish it, hone the bevel, and go to work. You may also want to put a 50 or so degree secondary bevel on the outer leading edge of the chipbreaker just to strengthen it and help it work the chips better. The chipbreaker however should mate tightly with the blade when new. If for some reason it doesn't (which happens) you can either choose to tune the mating surface or you can call WC and have them send you a new one.

Again, leave the sole alone.

[glenn bradley]

This is a great example of my 60% rule. If an "OK" item is 60% of a "good one", I get the "good one". This is not something we can all afford to do with every purchase but, when the tool is going to be a "lifer" like a #4 . . . . Let's see . . . $80 difference divided over the next 30 years that I'll be using this is how much a year? :)

[Jim Neeley]

A couple of weeks ago I attended a Rob Cosman's week-long (5 days, 12hrs/day) hand tools workshop, held in the Seattle Woodcraft. For the training I took my gamut of L-N planes and chisels and had a good chance for a brief comparison of the WR3 vs. LV's: 4 vs 4 and a 6 vs my L-N 8. These were WR tools that other classmates purchased from the store at class time, so were taken directly from the box. With the first day being 12 hrs on sharpening and hand planes we did as all geaks would do and try each others tools.

In my experience the WR's, like my L-N's, had flat soles and the sides were 90* to the base. The adjustment on the two was sound and accurate, with the key diference being that the LN's had tighter thread tolerances in the blade justment so had less backlash (i.e. where the L-N's might be a quarter- to half-turn, the WRs were closer to a full turn. Other than that, the L-N's had bronze accents and were in general nicer looking but as for performance, waiving the nuisance for the backlash, were comparable.

At $120 vs $300 for the #4s and $190 vs $375 for the #6's, there's quite a premium charged for the reduced backlash.

WR doesn't yet make a #8 but comparing the prices for #7's, ($305 vs $435), I'd more likely pay the extra for the reduced backlash, although that's just me.

In synopsis, the WRs I saw had a nice fit and finish and met my criteria for functional tools, unlike some of the "tool-lookalike objects" sold out there in the lower-tier markets. Whether or not the $180 (60% off) or $185 (48% off) differences are warranted for the L-N's is a matter of personal opinion opinion but I'd look closer as the price difference ($140) shrinks to 29% on the #7.

That's just my $0.02.. YMMV.

Jim in Alaska