PDA

View Full Version : Tool Review: Wood River #3, Version 3 Hand Plane



Frederick Skelly
11-02-2013, 9:52 PM
About me. I use hand tools to supplement power tools in my shop. I am not “full Neander” and I’m only about 15 months into hand tools. So I may have different needs/expectations than some more experienced users. I have no affiliation with any of the companies mentioned in this review.

Bottom Line: I bought a Woodriver #3 at one of Woodcraft’s 20% off sales, paying just over $100 for it. For my needs, I found this to be a surprisingly well-made tool that performed very well in the few days I’ve had it. Aside from prepping the blade, it really did require only a minimum of tuning. (The back of the blade needed a fair bit of flattening.) I feel confident and satisfied using it and I recommend the Woodriver #3 to anyone who doesn’t feel that their application warrants the additional cost of a high-end brand.

First impressions.


I pulled it out of the box, wiped off the light coating of oil, and looked it over. The plane is nicely machined and it looks like care was taken in doing so. The black paint looks nicely applied without overspray or drips. The plane is heavy and feels rock solid in my hand. The knob and tote are nicely-finished Bubinga. The tote feels a little small for my hand, but I can live with that.
Without honing, I made a few passes on pine. My dial caliper says the shavings are 0.003” thick. Not a bad start.


Detailed examination.


I HATE lapping planes so I started by checking the flatness of the sole, hoping that I wouldn’t have to lap it. I laid a quality straight edge down the center of the sole, lengthwise. I didn’t see any light coming underneath. To be thorough, I checked with a 0.002” feeler gauge – I’d have preferred a 0.001 but this is the thinnest I have. Again, I couldn’t detect a gap anywhere along the centerline. I tried again on either side of the centerline and got the same results. So, any gap that might be there is less than 0.002” (and remember – I could see no light under the straightedge). Then, I turned the straight edge 90 degrees and checked flatness across the width at several places. Again, no light and less than 0.002" gap.
Next I checked the sides for square with the sole using said feeler gauges and a good engineering square. I checked at multiple points all down the length of the tool. Here I found some variance – the sides were as much as 0.003” out of square with the sole. Will this matter? Maybe, if I’m going to use it on a shooting board. But it’s something to be aware of.
Next, I measured the length and width of the mouth. The front and back were square, consistent and parallel all the way across. I used a mill file to gently remove some very slight burrs. While I had the file out, I broke the sharp edges where the sides meet the sole because I noticed a small burr on the front right corner.
The knob was rock solid but I’d noticed that the tote moved slightly when I tried planing that pine right out of the box. Tightening the screws did not solve it. I had to shim it slightly.
The blade and cap iron are thick – 1/8” each. The cap iron met the blade cleanly, but its front edge wasn’t polished. As part of my tuning process, I polished that to 1200 grit and did the underside as well. (The bottom side came underlapped as Hack’s book suggests – which was nice – all it needed was some polishing.)
I took out the frog. I found it hard to access the adjusting screw and frog pin-securing screws. The elevated tote and large brass adjusting knob are definitely in the way. But I got the frog off and confirmed that the mating surfaces were nicely machined and very flat. I’d like to point out two things about this frog that may matter to some of you. First, the mating surfaces are flat; i.e., there are no grooves or tracks like I’ve heard described for Stanley Bedrocks. The two surfaces mate fully flush, but there’s nothing to prevent the frog from twisting. Second, the frog stops about 1/16” from the sole. Neither of these impacted me – it was like a hybrid version of a normal Bailey frog in this sense, but it isn’t a full-up Bedrock frog as I understand those to be.


Sharpening.


The blade has no name on it. I was rather expecting it to say Rob Cosman or Pinnacle.
The blade's backside was not as flat as I’m used to with a Veritas or LN blade. But it was comparable to what I’ve seen on old Stanleys and the like. It took a while, but it polished-up nicely.
The bevel measured 25 degrees. I added a 5 degree secondary bevel and polished to 6000 grit. They advertise the blade as A2 steel. But the edge seemed brittle and very tiny chips kept appearing. I had to sharpen it several times to get rid of those completely. For now, I’ll attribute that to my Journeyman sharpening skills but if it continues I’ll buy a harder steel replacement blade from another manufacturer.


Using it.


When I re-installed the blade, I noticed that the lateral adjusting lever was hard to move. This is my first brand new plane, so I don’t know if that’s normal. (All my other bench planes are used.) This stiffness made it harder to get a shaving that was the same thickness all the way across, so I may try to loosen it somehow. We’ll see.
I took (lots) more pine shavings, constantly adjusting the depth of cut and blade angle. This time, most of the shavings were 0.0015 (about half the thickness of the “right out-of-the box” shavings), with some as low as 0.001”. I suspect that a more experienced hand tool guy can do better.


Observations and opinions


I like the feel of this tool. It seems well made. The sale price ($104) makes it a clear bargain compared to its LN counterpart ($265) for the kind of hobbyist work that I do. (Veritas doesn’t sell a #3.) I speculate/assume that the rest of the V3 planes from Woodriver are equally well-made but have not checked them out.
But most of the rest of the Woodriver family of planes aren’t this cheap, relative to established brands. Here’s a comparison against their Veritas counterparts: WR #4 - $140 (regular) and $112 (on sale), Veritas #4 - $199; WR #4 ½ - $170 (regular), Veritas #4 ½ - $230; WR #6 - $190 (regular) and $152 (sale), Veritas #6 - $265. So, if I could afford the Veritas, I’d probably buy them. Personally, I like the engineering that goes into Veritas products. But if I was tight on funds or was buying something I’d only use occasionally, I think the Woodriver will serve just fine. Heck, I might be acting like a tool snob here – chances are the Woodriver will serve all but the most demanding users just fine. Try one out and see what you think. But definitely try one out. These are nice tools.

Fred

Winton Applegate
11-02-2013, 10:43 PM
Wow !
Nice review. I don't need any more planes, except of the molding variety, but I appreciate how well put together and presented are your findings.

I hope those who benifit by it realize what all you have done for them.
Keep up the good work.
cheers,
Winton

Hilton Ralphs
11-03-2013, 1:11 AM
Great review Fred. I don't think the squareness of the sides to the sole is of any significance. I think a stiffer lateral adjuster is better as it's less likely to be accidentally moved.

Jim Koepke
11-03-2013, 1:08 AM
Thanks for taking the time to share this with us. With the tags people will be able to find it in the future.


Here I found some variance – the sides were as much as 0.003” out of square with the sole. Will this matter? Maybe, if I’m going to use it on a shooting board. But it’s something to be aware of.


For shooting what matters is how it lays on its side. If it is stable, any little bit off can be taken care of with the lateral adjustment. If the side is such that the plane rocks, then that is not so good.


They advertise the blade as A2 steel. But the edge seemed brittle and very tiny chips kept appearing. I had to sharpen it several times to get rid of those completely. For now, I’ll attribute that to my Journeyman sharpening skills but if it continues I’ll buy a harder steel replacement blade from another manufacturer.

Some blades require a few times honing to get past a brittle edge. My A2 blades seem to be a bit more likely to chip than my HC blades. It is nice not having to sharpen as much.



When I re-installed the blade, I noticed that the lateral adjusting lever was hard to move. This is my first brand new plane, so I don’t know if that’s normal. (All my other bench planes are used.) This stiffness made it harder to get a shaving that was the same thickness all the way across, so I may try to loosen it somehow. We’ll see.

If the lateral lever is stiff without the blade installed, try a drop of silicon oil if you have some. If it is only with the blade in the lever cap screw may be a bit tight.


I took (lots) more pine shavings, constantly adjusting the depth of cut and blade angle. This time, most of the shavings were 0.0015 (about half the thickness of the “right out-of-the box” shavings), with some as low as 0.001”. I suspect that a more experienced hand tool guy can do better.

A shaving at 0.001" is pretty darn good. Don't worry about the shavings as much as the surface. Hopefully people will be admiring the surface long after the shavings have returned to nature.

My personal preference is to save money and do a little work restoring old Stanley/Bailey planes. Also prefer the models from before the 1930s.

jtk

Chris Griggs
11-03-2013, 8:23 AM
Nice write-up Frederick. I too have had a good experience with my WR plane.

Don Dorn
11-03-2013, 9:28 AM
I don't need any other planes either, but that is a nice review. It took some effort to compile all of the data points into an easy to read format and I'm sure many will benefit from it.

Curt Putnam
11-03-2013, 12:47 PM
Just a note: LV does sell a #3 sized plane - but it is a bevel up. (I have one and it sweet. I also have a Stanley and it, too, is sweet)

After the dust up with LN - there are those who believe that Woodcraft behaved poorly and will, therefore, not buy their planes.

Ray Bohn
11-03-2013, 2:42 PM
We need to thank all the woodworkers who refused to live with the WR quality of V1 and V2.

Frederick Skelly
11-03-2013, 7:32 PM
Thanks for all the kind words and additional insights guys!
Fred

Daniel Rode
11-04-2013, 9:54 AM
Great review Fred. I don't think the squareness of the sides to the sole is of any significance. I think a stiffer lateral adjuster is better as it's less likely to be accidentally moved.
I use my (WR) #4 on a shooting board. If the sides are not square to the sole, it's tough to get a square edge. The #4 is small for shooting, the #3 even more so it may not matter in a practical sense.

Daniel Rode
11-04-2013, 10:05 AM
After the dust up with LN - there are those who believe that Woodcraft behaved poorly and will, therefore, not buy their planes.
I couldn't care less about how one company treated another in a business deal. It has no direct bearing on my too buying decisions. I'll gladly buy from either or both. What it does do is prevent me from going down to the local Woodcraft and examining and comparing a LN product first hand and that does have an effect.

Whatever went on between LN and Woodcraft, the result is that it's now harder for me to test-drive and buy LN products. I bough a WR #4 in large part because I could pick it up and examine it in person (and it was on sale :) )

Hilton Ralphs
11-04-2013, 10:18 AM
The #4 is small for shooting, the #3 even more so it may not matter in a practical sense.

I agree. My point was specifically directed at the No.3 he has.

Jim Koepke
11-04-2013, 12:23 PM
I couldn't care less about how one company treated another in a business deal. It has no direct bearing on my too buying decisions. I'll gladly buy from either or both. What it does do is prevent me from going down to the local Woodcraft and examining and comparing a LN product first hand and that does have an effect.

Whatever went on between LN and Woodcraft, the result is that it's now harder for me to test-drive and buy LN products. I bough a WR #4 in large part because I could pick it up and examine it in person (and it was on sale :) )

Some care because of the result you experienced.

Some care because part of what happened is one large retailer decided to "offshore" production of the tools they sell.

To each their own choices.

jtk

Mike Henderson
11-04-2013, 1:44 PM
I couldn't care less about how one company treated another in a business deal. It has no direct bearing on my too buying decisions. I'll gladly buy from either or both. What it does do is prevent me from going down to the local Woodcraft and examining and comparing a LN product first hand and that does have an effect.

Whatever went on between LN and Woodcraft, the result is that it's now harder for me to test-drive and buy LN products. I bough a WR #4 in large part because I could pick it up and examine it in person (and it was on sale :) )
I teach at my local Woodcraft and remember the time when LN and Woodcraft parted ways. It had nothing to do the the Wood River planes. LN wanted each Woodcraft store to have a demonstration area for the LN planes, where people could come in and try the planes. But Woodcraft stores are franchised and most couldn't afford the space for a dedicated demo area, nor the cost of having a person there to monitor the tools.

It turns out that the Woodcraft where I teach still sells LN planes and they don't have a demo area (all planes are in a locked glass front cabinet, but a customer can handle them with the help of a store employee). Apparently, the owner had a good relationship with LN and he was allowed to keep selling the planes. I think there are a few other local Woodcraft stores that have a similar arrangement.

Mike

Gary Price
12-13-2014, 7:29 PM
Thanks for the info, but I'm not impressed as much as you were with wood river v3!

ken hatch
12-13-2014, 9:12 PM
Thanks for the info, but I'm not impressed as much as you were with wood river v3!

Don't leave us hanging....why not?

ken

P.S. Full disclosure, I have full to near full sets of all 4, LV, LN, V3, and type 13 or earlier Stanley's, with a couple or three early Bedrocks. All in working order and used often.

Frederick Skelly
12-13-2014, 11:08 PM
Thanks for the info, but I'm not impressed as much as you were with wood river v3!

Im sorry to hear it. Ive been using the tool I reviewed for a year now and Im (still) quite happy with it.

Id be interested to learn more about why youre "not impressed".
Fred

Allen Jordan
12-16-2014, 1:30 AM
I've been using my wood river v3 #6 for a few years now, and it's fantastic. Still one of my favorite planes, even next to my LN and LV planes. In fact, I used it today to plane a long angled edge for a lap desk. My blade was also a little concave on the back, but it was easy enough to flatten. I think they machine the blades before heat treatment, and the steel warps a bit in the quench.

Chris Hachet
12-16-2014, 12:00 PM
I've been using my wood river v3 #6 for a few years now, and it's fantastic. Still one of my favorite planes, even next to my LN and LV planes. In fact, I used it today to plane a long angled edge for a lap desk. My blade was also a little concave on the back, but it was easy enough to flatten. I think they machine the blades before heat treatment, and the steel warps a bit in the quench.

This is good to know, as I ahve been thinking about a wood river #6. I want a #6, but don't want to drop the coin on an expensive one when my 5 and 7 will see more use.

Jim Koepke
12-16-2014, 12:41 PM
This is good to know, as I ahve been thinking about a wood river #6. I want a #6, but don't want to drop the coin on an expensive one when my 5 and 7 will see more use.

Compared to a Stanley/Bailey the Wood River #6 is expensive.

Are your #5 & 7 Wood River planes?

jtk

Chris Hachet
12-16-2014, 2:08 PM
Compared to a Stanley/Bailey the Wood River #6 is expensive.

Are your #5 & 7 Wood River planes?

jtk

#5 is a Stanley Bailey, #7 is a wooden bodied plane. I also have a 1940's era Craftsman #5 that belonged to my wife's grandfather IIRC. I am thinking of adding either a Bedrock #5 or a LV/LN Low angle jack to the plane collection. Thinking that being able to sharpen more quickly and not having to mess with a chip breaker might be nice for general flattening.

Mostly I think about a #6 wood river out of guilt. The people at my local Woodcraft are really nice but I buy most of what I need through Wood Werks or online through Lee Valley.

Bill Stephenson
05-03-2015, 9:54 PM
I picked up the WR #3 ver.3 about a year ago. your review was right on but I would like to mention that the toe is shorter on the WR than on my Stanley #3. I find that it makes a difference while edge planing a board, it results in a less stable starting point.
This is the only issue I have with the plane but tend to use my old Stanley more often because of it.

Jim Sevey
05-03-2015, 11:05 PM
I appreciate the review and I think it is accurate for all the V3 bench planes. I have the WR 3, 4 1/2, 5 1/2, and 6. All have been exceptional out of the box. I did have some minor chipping on one but after a second grind and hone it's a non-issue. I may just be sloppy- but measuring to .001 is way tighter than I worry about. It is a testament to the quality control in the factory. Most of my Stanley's are now earning a well deserved rest on display in my office.

Frederick Skelly
05-04-2015, 7:21 AM
Thanks guys. I'm glad it was helpful.

I didn't realize the toe was shorter on the WR than the Stanley. I'm curious to know how much shorter is the toe?

FWIW, I still like this tool and use it regularly. For about $100 on sale, I just couldn't beat it with any other new tool. I have noticed that some of their larger planes are getting closer in price to LV's. They also sell a neat little #1 for about $125. The adjusting mechanism isn't quite as fine as I'd like, but I use it regularly for tasks where I'd rather use two hands than one (I use a block plane for one handed tasks).

Fred

Simon MacGowen
05-04-2015, 1:33 PM
Compared to a Stanley/Bailey the Wood River #6 is expensive.

Are your #5 & 7 Wood River planes?

jtk

Not necessarily as it depends on the condition of the old planes. A WR plane bought new may require much less time and effort to get it going, as Fred's review indicated. I would not tell my students to spend hours on fixing an old Stanley and in the end, if they counted their labor hours (say, at $15 to $30 an hour), they might be better off getting a new WR.

Simon

Simon MacGowen
05-04-2015, 1:36 PM
Im sorry to hear it. Ive been using the tool I reviewed for a year now and Im (still) quite happy with it.

Id be interested to learn more about why youre "not impressed".
Fred

I don't think we will hear from Gary on this, won't we?

Simon

Jim Koepke
05-04-2015, 1:58 PM
Not necessarily as it depends on the condition of the old planes. A WR plane bought new may require much less time and effort to get it going, as Fred's review indicated. I would not tell my students to spend hours on fixing an old Stanley and in the end, if they counted their labor hours (say, at $15 to $30 an hour), they might be better off getting a new WR.

Simon

If someone was paying me $15 to $30 an hour during the times set aside for fettling a plane, I might engage in the work to make money. Then at a later time when no one was offering to pay for my time I would likely take some time to fettle the plane and save the money that would later be spent on a new plane.

I know, because that is what I did before retiring from a well paying job. The money not spent on new tools was like getting paid again for rehabilitating and using some very well made tools.

Most old planes will work well without a lot of hours invested in fettling. My refurbishing a #7 is about the most time spent on one of my planes. Just as much time was spent in documenting the procedure:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?114373-Fettling-A-Plane-from-Junker-to-Jointer

The current price on a WR #7 is $305 on the Woodcraft web site. They list the #3 at $140. (Please note these prices are rounded to the nearest dollar. Throw in shipping and it will be more.)

Using my #7 gives me more enjoyment from the pride of rehabilitation of an 1890s American made tool than would ever come from purchasing an equivalent tool made overseas for the low wages.

BTW, my Stanley/Bailey #3 SW set me back about $40. All it needed was a honing of the blade. Since then a Millers Falls made Dunlap #3 size plane set me back $3. A Keen Kutter K3 set me back less than $30. The total time of getting all three into usable condition was less than an hour.

My two #6s cost me a total of $45. One of them needed some parts that were in my parts box. The other just needed a sharpening and a little adjustment of the chip breaker. From my #3 to my #10-1/4 (no, there is not a #9 in my shop) the most any one of them has cost me was $50. It took patience and time, but most folks do not need as many planes as are in my shop. BTW, the #10-1/4 will likely cost more for a replacement blade than the plane cost me. That is the case with many of my planes when one looks at a new blade from Hock or LV.

jtk

Tony Zaffuto
05-04-2015, 4:04 PM
Fred,

Nice review. Only question I have is concerning the blade. Do you have any idea of what material was used to make the blade (A2, O1 or ????). I don't pay much attention to tool catalogs or ads anymore, and I seem to think that the WR planes were to have blades by Rob Cosman, but I may be wrong.

T.Z.

ken hatch
05-04-2015, 6:29 PM
Fred,

Nice review. Only question I have is concerning the blade. Do you have any idea of what material was used to make the blade (A2, O1 or ????). I don't pay much attention to tool catalogs or ads anymore, and I seem to think that the WR planes were to have blades by Rob Cosman, but I may be wrong.

T.Z.

I believe the irons are T-10 Carbon Steel, it is very hard and takes a good edge. How does it compare to A-2? I would guess about the same.

ken

Nicholas Lawrence
05-04-2015, 7:58 PM
If someone was paying me $15 to $30 an hour during the times set aside for fettling a plane, I might engage in the work to make money. Then at a later time when no one was offering to pay for my time I would likely take some time to fettle the plane and save the money that would later be spent on a new plane.

I know, because that is what I did before retiring from a well paying job. The money not spent on new tools was like getting paid again for rehabilitating and using some very well made tools.


I agree with this. My basic set of a block plane, #3, #5, and #7, would be over $800 new (I just checked the website: $105 for a Stanley block plane?). Buying used old tools I don't think I paid more then $150 (I did not buy the #3 though, it came from my grandfather's basement). I know prices have gone up, but you can still get that set for less then half of what they are selling for new.

I would hate to see someone who wants to get into hand tools turned away because they think they need to spend $800 on planes (plus more for a router, plow, scrub, shoulder, rabbet, etc., etc.), plus $500 on a basic set of saws, plus more for a set of paring chisels, bench chisels, mortise chisels, crook necked chisels; plus a bench, plus their choice of sharpening systems.... when $30 or $40 Baileys and $10 "Warranted Superiors" might fit the budget and can do some respectable work.

More power to the people with tools that are flat to .001, and if someone has the budget to buy and enjoy tools like that there is no reason they should take a chance on a bucket of rust from Ebay, but when I get done with a project and see "character" (imperfections), I have to tell you it is consistently because I lacked the ability (or more often patience) to control my saw, chisel, or plane to 1/16th, or 1/32nd, or 1/64th, and not because the tool was "fettled" to .003 versus .001.

Frederick Skelly
05-04-2015, 8:06 PM
I don't think we will hear from Gary on this, won't we?

Simon


No, I think it's clear that he didn't want to respond to a request to clarify his generalization Simon. I dislike comments like that with no follow up (after months), but to each his own huh?

Frederick Skelly
05-04-2015, 8:12 PM
Fred,

Nice review. Only question I have is concerning the blade. Do you have any idea of what material was used to make the blade (A2, O1 or ????). I don't pay much attention to tool catalogs or ads anymore, and I seem to think that the WR planes were to have blades by Rob Cosman, but I may be wrong.

T.Z.

Hi Tony,
No, I was never able to determine that. I too was expecting a Pinnacle or a Cosman iron when I bought it, but it's generic and their catalog doesnt specify. (Pinnacle irons ARE specified as A2.) I agree with Ken's statement that it takes a nice edge. But I'd guess it's nothing fancy like A2, or they'd use it in their sales material.
Fred

ken hatch
05-04-2015, 8:36 PM
The new vs. old decision is a chicken/egg dilemma. No question good used can be cheaper than good new, if and it is a huge "if", you are lucky and/or know what you are looking for and can fett your tools. Maybe it is because of personal experience but I know for sure when I first started collecting tools I didn't have a clue what any of the tools were suppose to do, how they should work, nor how to sharpen a iron or saw. I was lost with out a map.

Today it is easier because of the amount of information on the internet but still without a reference point, nothing to tell you "yes this good and working correctly" or "what a piece of junk". Bootstrapping is still difficult. With new good quality tools a person will have at least one foot anchored, have a reference to work towards. That is the reason I will almost always suggest starting with new good quality planes, saws, and chisels. Once you know "good" and need to build your kit and either saving money or you just like to play with rust is important....then go for the rust. It can be great fun and a hobby in and of itself.

As always with anything wood....YMMV.

ken

Tony Zaffuto
05-04-2015, 9:34 PM
Woodcraft might do well to offer a Cosman blade as an option for their WR planes. I'm very well covered in LN, Veritas & vintage Baileys & Bedrocks (and a Clifton!), but I'm still tempted to "try" a WR! I'm curious if Woodcraft might be thinking ahead into the next level of refinement.

Chuck Hart
05-05-2015, 2:44 AM
Thanks Fred for the review. I also have two Wood River planes. I have a #4 and #6. Both planes are producing .001 shavings. No matter the material I am planing I know the #4 will give a good indication of how it is going to plane. I like both and recently I bought a WR shoulder plane. I am happy with that purchase also. I can not see enough difference in shavings to justify the cost of a LN plane. Hold on I am not slamming LN planes I just can't see a difference in the shavings.

Chuck

Chuck Hart
05-05-2015, 2:50 AM
This is good to know, as I ahve been thinking about a wood river #6. I want a #6, but don't want to drop the coin on an expensive one when my 5 and 7 will see more use.

I have a WR 6 and I am very happy with it. It is just so smooth and heavy.

Simon MacGowen
05-05-2015, 9:50 AM
No, I think it's clear that he didn't want to respond to a request to clarify his generalization Simon. I dislike comments like that with no follow up (after months), but to each his own huh?

That just means one thing: he can't support what he said and can be ignored completely.

I recall seeing this happen recently to Derek Cohen. Someone hinted that Derek's tool reviews related to some Veritas planes were a concern to him. But when he was called out to fill in more details, he stayed silent. Again, his comment could be ignored.

Simon

Bill Baethke
05-05-2015, 11:01 AM
The WR 4 V3 was my first plane, and is the one I usually end up using the most. I did spend a bit of time flattening it, but nothing more than I expected. I love using and restoring old tools, and use a MF 22' jointer, and an old transitional Stanley 27. The WR is surprisingly well made, and has a nice cap, frog, etc. I even think the stock iron has good staying power. Considering the price, I think they are an excellent value for a hobbyist, like me. I just purchased the WR low angle block plane, and do regret that decision. I should have gone LV on that plane.

Tom Vanzant
05-05-2015, 11:56 AM
All WoodRiver planes are heavy for size. My bench planes are Stanley/Baileys and Bedrocks except for my WR V3 4-1/2. It's a full 1-1/4# heavier than my Stanley 4-1/2. The "high-carbon" iron sharpens, planes and retains its edge well, but it's NOT A2. I like it, but time will tell.

Mike Cogswell
05-05-2015, 12:56 PM
I've had a Woodriver #4 v3 since the end of 2011. At the time I got mine Woodcraft did say it had an A2 blade, which is also how it was described in the June 2011 test of 14 smoothing planes by Fine Woodworking (issue 219). I have an obscene number of planes (wooden planes add up fast, especially when hollows and rounds come in sets of 18). While the majority are old, I have several from Woodriver, Lee Valley and Lie Nielsen. All three make fine planes, which is reflected by the Fine Woodworking test which had the LN tied for Best Overall while the Woodriver tied with two LVs for best value.
Over the past three and a half years the Woodriver has seen by far the most use, not least because it's the cheapest. My daughter and I have renovated three houses during this time, which has included a lot of woodwork. The WR gets tossed in the toolbag, largely because I can't bring myself to treat the LN that way. I've used it in a wide variety of ways on a selection of North American woods, and the Woodriver has performed flawlessly. The blade quickly takes an edge on a waterstone and holds it very well. Recently I've been using it without problems on suger (hard) maple with fairly wild grain which the WR has handled without difficulty. All in all, I heartily recommend them if you want a good quality plane at a bargain price that will work well out of the box and superbly after a few minutes with a waterstone.

i agree completely with Fine Woodworking rating the LN best overall. The thicker chip breaker does make a difference, albeit a slight one. While the LN also is nicer in fit and finish, the biggest operational difference between the WR and the LN is in adjustment. The WR (at least mine) has excessive backlash in the blade advance. It doesn't keep me from being able to easily adjust to take a walnut shaving thin enough you can read the newspaper through it, but it is annoying if you overshoot your adjustment and need to back off.

if they fit your budget, by all means buy the LN. It will never disappoint you and, if you care for it well, it will hold its value better than any other new tool. But if you want 90 or 95% of the function for not much more than half the price, the WR is an excellent choice.

Because my first WR was so good I subsequently purchased a 5 and a 6 as well as a pair of their block planes. I have found them to be as good as the 4. However, I have always waited for a sale to get the best deal. Woodcraft periodically has sales of 20, and sometimes 30% off. LN never has a sale as far as I know. I have even more LN planes than WR by far. They have a much wider variety, although WR keeps added new ones. My LN planes are a joy to use, but certainly are not cheap. I purchased more than half of them on eBay, which can save you 15% or so if you are patient.

Either way I think you'll be happy.

Jim Koepke
05-05-2015, 1:41 PM
LN never has a sale as far as I know. I have even more LN planes than WR by far. They have a much wider variety, although WR keeps added new ones. My LN planes are a joy to use, but certainly not cheap. I purchased more than half of them on eBay, which can save you 15% or so if you are patient.

The problem with sales is much the public then considers the sale price to be the actual price.

LV has a sale with free shipping. Many actually wait for this regular event to purchase some big ticket items. Some of us wanting a few small items might add some extra items to make it to the minimum. My recollection is they also have a cyber Monday sale of seconds or something.

LN has tool events, if you order at the event there is free shipping and possibly an extra item like a tee shirt thrown in.

One can always take a "buy second hand" approach in hopes of saving a few dollars.

Much satisfaction can be gained using a tool that has been owned since it came out of the box. There is also much satisfaction to be had by giving TLC to an old tool that was set aside long ago to anoint itself with an oxide patina.

Most of my tools purchased new still get used and most of them are enjoyed. They just do not give me the same sense of pride as some of my tools that took an hour or more to bring back from their years of neglect.

jtk

Frederick Skelly
05-05-2015, 10:05 PM
All WoodRiver planes are heavy for size. My bench planes are Stanley/Baileys and Bedrocks except for my WR V3 4-1/2. It's a full 1-1/4# heavier than my Stanley 4-1/2.

I had planned to buy a WR 4 1/2. So I tried one on a business trip. It's a nice tool that makes thin shavings. But it just felt too heavy for my taste, so I bought the LV BUS instead. The WR weighs in at just over 6#, while the BUS is 4# 14 oz.

Tony Zaffuto
05-06-2015, 5:27 AM
I had planned to buy a WR 4 1/2. So I tried one on a business trip. It's a nice tool that makes thin shavings. But it just felt too heavy for my taste, so I bought the LV BUS instead. The WR weighs in at just over 6#, while the BUS is 4# 14 oz.

I'm with you on this! I have a Bailey 4-1/2 and I've never got used to it because of the weight. My favorite smoother is a Clifton #3-just perfect. I've play around with some woodies and one of these days I may pick up an ECE-feels like pushing air.