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
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by george wilson
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.....).