Member
Don't leave us hanging....why not?Originally Posted by Gary Price
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.
[OP]
Contributor
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
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
“If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”
Member
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.
Member
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.
Contributor
Compared to a Stanley/Bailey the Wood River #6 is expensive.
Are your #5 & 7 Wood River planes?
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
#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.
Member
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.
Member
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.
[OP]
Contributor
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
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
“If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”
Member
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
Member
I don't think we will hear from Gary on this, won't we?
Simon
Contributor
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/showthre...ker-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
Last edited by Jim Koepke; 05-04-2015 at 2:13 PM. Reason: spelling & wording
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Member
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.
If the thunder don't get you, the lightning will.
Member
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
Contributor
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.
Reply With Quote
