I own the no 4 sweetheart and hate it. The chip breaker comment you mentioned is absolutely right. It took me forever to figure out why my shavings had a corrugated appearance. To fix it too a lot of time at my diamond stones. I also had to put quite a bit of work on the side that mates with the blade to get it to sit properly and not allow shavings in between. The amount of backlash is awful and frustrating when making adjustments. The lateral adjust is difficult to make fine adjustments due to the slop and the way the lever cap works. I like being able to advance the blade as I move the plane and you have to use two hands with the Norris adjuster. The sole of the plane is so coarsly ground the it drags on the wood. I wax the sole twice as often to reduce drag. The one good thing is the weight and the sides are square to the sole making it ideal for shooting. I am ready to get rid of it as I have a new Lie Nielsen on the way. Oh well, live and learn I guess. Good review.
Hats off to all those who venture on to TH-cam to do a tool review. My greatest take away is not the tool review, because if you are not reviewing to a standard of some kind, it’s all subjective. That brings me back to my greatest take away, all the different views based on your personal expectations of the tool, how you define quality, and how you use and apply the tool in your work. There is no perfect plane out of the box (in my observation) as all of us have different expectations and with that, each needs to be tuned to meet our own subjective standards and expectations. Personally, I have a collection of pre WWII Stanley planes, refurbished to like new, #2 - #7, a Sargent #8 (also pre WWII) and a Lie Nielsen low angle #5 (2015) and I would not trade either of them for a brand new set of anything - why....? Because they are all tuned to my liking , to fit my style, and my expectations. Thank you for all the views and information.
You are a thousand times right: this is the essential question, but on this level, we find no answer in the video. This video is a very poor comparison that doesn't teach anything important...
Another nice comparison. I have the WR No. 5 and the Stanley No. 4 myself and like them both. I had the same issue with the chipbreaker on the Stanley so I called them and they sent me new one, no questions asked.
I bought the WR 4 and 5 1/2 from Rob Cosman and I have to say that BOTH planes were amazingly well made . The blades were flat and the machining was great .I never knew that WR were Chinese Quang Sheng rebranded . . But they are good quality . if i had known they were Chinese i would have gone for Veritas. or Lie Nielsen. Very good review though .
I am a fan of both the Stanely and the wind river. You have to keep in mind Wind river only improved on the long held stanely patents. I for one dont own a Sweet heart but I do have a few old no 4s, among others. For the money I paid for them, they do just fine. I am glad there is still a company that is still making planes.
Excellent review my friend. I actually received a rocker catalog in the mail today and it has three or four "Bench Dog" (maybe rockers versions) of planes and I was looking for reviews on them. I didn't see any, and I had already picked out this WoodRiver plane and its in my wish list, so it was nice to hear such a good review on one I had already picked out as one for in the near future. Thanks again my friend and have a blessed week. Dale
I got a woodriver #7 jack plane and have never had any problems. Im looking at getting a 4 1/2 as soon as they go on sale for the holidays. The blade on my #7 holds an edge pretty well. I plane everything from Spruce to Ebony as I repair and build guitars. Never had a problem, with Spruce I get 0.0045 shavings all day, yes 45 thousandths of an inch. Does need a little work honing the blade but not much. After going through my Japanese water stones up to 8000grit I can literally shave with the blade.
Great video, thanks. I had that ugly square edge chip breaker problem which thanks to your video I've now removed and after about three hours flattening the back of the blade I'm starting to actually like the sweetheart!...still not a fan of the lengthy backlash though.
I agree with you about Wood river planes, I just got a new shoulder plane and with very little attention to the blade it's ready to go. I enjoyed your thoughts on the different planes as well
I looked at both planes at the store and online. Some of the points you brought up was not a concern for me. I did appreciate the more leaner modern look of the Stanley versus the old style bulky look of the WR. I also have large hands and like the feel of Stanley. But the main reason I bought the Stanley was that many reviews said the blade on the WR was weak. The A2 metal composition on the Stanley is pretty good but I could not find any info on the WR. So if I had to upgrade the blade on the WR, it would increase the price by a large margin. Since the WR is already around $150 versus the $100 for the Stanley I spent at HD, that additional blade cost made no sense.
Fair comparison. I have the Stanley 62 and dislike the Norr8s adjuster for the same reasons. I found the blade to have a serious belly which took a lot of work to flatten. No problems with the throat adjustment knob.
Thanks for the video. The milling marks on the Stanley frog aren't really bad. When younger, I rebuilt an old table saw, After polishing the ways, the saw never retained the correct height, In short, a slightly rough surface is desirable under certain circumstances, and I see this as one condition where they aren't a bad thing, even somewhat desirable. are Wood River planes made in China ?
Yes they're made in China if you were going to spend the money buy a Lyle Nelson they're made in the USA Panera Jack copy of the Stanley bedrock only done a whole lot better then the Wood River
Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm new to hand planes and trying to decide which #4 to buy. I've narrowed it down to WoodRiver and Veritas. The Stanley Sweetheart was a contender too due to the price but I'll pass on it now. Thanks again.
Great comparison. There isn't a lot of info around about the "new" Sweetheart planes. The competition is the mid range Quengsheng/WoodRiver etc. planes so interesting to see how they compare... I am really happy with my SW Low Angle jack, it is big step up if you are used to the cheap box store planes.
I own both and I can tell you that the WR planes equally as well as my LV at a far lesser price .Go and watch Rob Cosman .he does tell the truth and so am I .Good luck to you.The WR is also easier to adjust on the fly as opposed to the Stanley Norris adjuster .
I've purchased all my stanley hand planes from flea markets or craigslist for less than 20 bucks apiece. With a little bit of work and tuning up, i got all my planes working like new. just my 2 cents
Thanks for the review! Other than the surface finish, any comment on the Stanley cast-in frog vs the Woodriver bedrock style frog? Ease of throat adjustment between the two?
Knob under norris adjuster tightens norris adjuster.no slop.its squashed between the knob on lever cap.so all tight and still lose enough to advance the blade.works great for me if you ballance the two.
Enjoyed the video. However, in comparing two tools, shouldn't one be comfortable and knowledgeable on how both of them operate? Near the end, you "weren't really sure how that works" on the Stanley. I've used both and love them both equally.
Doesn't surprise me about Stanley you've always had to work on them they don't come out of the box ready they never have they never probably will although it'd be nice if Stanley actually put forth an effort making them ready to come out of the box
the wood river blade was clearly honed on the back...regardless of the words that come out of your mouth....not that I am against it in any way...I just think you should be honest in a review.AND the stanley DID have alterations done(they changed the mouth opening for one thing.)...I know..I've been looking at getting a new plane for about 2 years now...and I cannot settle on one.....the other points may be viable..I do not own either...or I would not be here.
Two years to make your mind up on a plane, god your Mrs must love it when you go out for a meal, indesicive people are the worst take a gamble in life ffs!
I just dont see any point in buying either one when anyone can buy an old bailey for way cheaper. Even replace those old irons with hock irons and still be cheaper... if someone was gonna buy a new plane it should be a veritas or LN imo.
Ugh, the LN/Veritas cork-sniffers are so annoying. Just because a person can’t drop $350+ on a plane means they shouldn’t buy one or any other plane on the market can’t do a decent job? Hardly true.
@@darinnetherland3466 that's why I suggested an old stanley bailey. my entire plane collection are old Stanley's. BUT if you were to buy new、veritas or LN is the way to go. that's my thought. I tried a new stanley and have seen WR. I use only hand tools in my woodworking. but maybe one day will buy a table saw
adam toth same difference, the idea that only vintage that require a lot of work or also pricey refurbished or LN/Veritas are worthy. A lot of people don’t have the time/skill to refurbish an old one of India’s a beat on worthy of refurbishment. Many mid range or even cheap planes are perfectly fine with a little tuning. I just watched a video of a guy that is strictly hand tools for decades and has rebuilt or made his own planes for ages, and he called out a few budget planes that are perfectly fine to use for most people like a #4 Grizzly with A2 steel sells for $32. For that price you’re lucky to find a good vintage that would still need a lot of work and maybe new iron.
@@darinnetherland3466 so this is just my thought on the matter. I gave my opinion. most woodworkers nowadays only use hand planes for specific jobs. in that case it's nice to have something that just works. I dont have a lot of money so I buy old and put the time into making it workable and it also helps me understand the nuances of that piece. I want something that works perfect for the job I need and I can trust without spending all the time while working to fiddle with it. I have been woodworking for a little over 15 years and am 33. I am by no means an expert. BUT、I absolutely love my old stanley planes. i tried the new stanley planes and there was manufacturing defects and I also dont want to support Chinese manufacturing when I have the option to buy and support a high quality business. that's my opinion on the matter from my experience. it's your decision to take all the info you have and buy a product that's right for you. just be informed and the correct decision will come. at the end of the day it's all about the curls
TrumpetGuy83 Stanley has been around for over 120 years. They bought the plane design from a guy named Bailey and also created the Bedrock style. All others have copied them.
@@darinnetherland3466 The Stanley sweetheart plane featured in the video is not a Bailey pattern or Bedrock design. It has a completely different frog and depth adjuster as well as a different body design.
not a Stanley fanboy but.... if you are going to give a review of two planes against each other, take the time to learn them both. Saying you are not sure how to use the locking mechanism or what it is for shows you havnt learned the Stanley. And because of that the review isnt fair. I would take the V3 over any Stanley after the type 19's. But reviews should be done with all knowledge of both planes or not done at all.
You know, it's easy to pick on someone for some aspect of their video, but it's hard to actually get in front of the camera and put yourself out there. Telling someone their video shouldn't have been made is really impolite, especially coming from someone who doesn't make content and doesn't have any skin in the game. Personally, I thought this was a good review and the presenter not knowing ONE thing didn't really detract from that.
It wasn't an insult. It was just friendly advise. Come at me bro! Lol No really though... so many people with little knowledge on products or experience on a given subject are putting videos out there that are a complete waist of time. It makes researching and learning a lot more complicated than the work itself. This bloke has more than most but seriously... did you see him fumbling around with it like he had not taken the time to get familiar with it. Lol. It was almost like he was intentionally trying to make the Stanley look bad. Then he made it look like you only have to quick click the V3 lever cap off and then back on....where it is quite finicky to line that thing up the way it should be...as Rob C shows in his tutorials, so in that regard no review on setting the blade was given in detail. Just lacking bro. Comment sections are here for this reason. Then comments from people get reviewed and the whole mess gets multiplied. As for my skin...its much thicker than yours..obviously. Lol
Tone? You hear tone when you read. Maybe concentrate more on the words, their definitions and the context and use a little less wondering imagination. Which must be fueled by replies you get on your vids... but hey... i am just speculating with no justifiable evidence. Like your vids by the way. Ive seen a few of them over the past months since I started getting into woodworking.
I own the no 4 sweetheart and hate it. The chip breaker comment you mentioned is absolutely right. It took me forever to figure out why my shavings had a corrugated appearance. To fix it too a lot of time at my diamond stones. I also had to put quite a bit of work on the side that mates with the blade to get it to sit properly and not allow shavings in between. The amount of backlash is awful and frustrating when making adjustments. The lateral adjust is difficult to make fine adjustments due to the slop and the way the lever cap works. I like being able to advance the blade as I move the plane and you have to use two hands with the Norris adjuster. The sole of the plane is so coarsly ground the it drags on the wood. I wax the sole twice as often to reduce drag. The one good thing is the weight and the sides are square to the sole making it ideal for shooting. I am ready to get rid of it as I have a new Lie Nielsen on the way. Oh well, live and learn I guess. Good review.
Hats off to all those who venture on to TH-cam to do a tool review. My greatest take away is not the tool review, because if you are not reviewing to a standard of some kind, it’s all subjective. That brings me back to my greatest take away, all the different views based on your personal expectations of the tool, how you define quality, and how you use and apply the tool in your work. There is no perfect plane out of the box (in my observation) as all of us have different expectations and with that, each needs to be tuned to meet our own subjective standards and expectations. Personally, I have a collection of pre WWII Stanley planes, refurbished to like new, #2 - #7, a Sargent #8 (also pre WWII) and a Lie Nielsen low angle #5 (2015) and I would not trade either of them for a brand new set of anything - why....? Because they are all tuned to my liking , to fit my style, and my expectations. Thank you for all the views and information.
How do you feel about the difference between the blades? Do you have any notes regarding thickness and hardness of the blades?
You are a thousand times right: this is the essential question, but on this level, we find no answer in the video. This video is a very poor comparison that doesn't teach anything important...
Another nice comparison. I have the WR No. 5 and the Stanley No. 4 myself and like them both. I had the same issue with the chipbreaker on the Stanley so I called them and they sent me new one, no questions asked.
I bought the WR 4 and 5 1/2 from Rob Cosman and I have to say that BOTH planes were amazingly well made . The blades were flat and the machining was great .I never knew that WR were Chinese Quang Sheng rebranded . . But they are good quality . if i had known they were Chinese i would have gone for Veritas. or Lie Nielsen. Very good review though .
I am a fan of both the Stanely and the wind river. You have to keep in mind Wind river only improved on the long held stanely patents. I for one dont own a Sweet heart but I do have a few old no 4s, among others. For the money I paid for them, they do just fine. I am glad there is still a company that is still making planes.
Excellent review my friend. I actually received a rocker catalog in the mail today and it has three or four "Bench Dog" (maybe rockers versions) of planes and I was looking for reviews on them. I didn't see any, and I had already picked out this WoodRiver plane and its in my wish list, so it was nice to hear such a good review on one I had already picked out as one for in the near future. Thanks again my friend and have a blessed week.
Dale
Bench dog is the same as shop fox on amazon but cheaper... check it out
@@adamtoth7474 Oh sweet, Ok. Thank you so much for the information, it is appreciated. Thanks again and have a blessed week.
Dale
I got a woodriver #7 jack plane and have never had any problems. Im looking at getting a 4 1/2 as soon as they go on sale for the holidays. The blade on my #7 holds an edge pretty well. I plane everything from Spruce to Ebony as I repair and build guitars. Never had a problem, with Spruce I get 0.0045 shavings all day, yes 45 thousandths of an inch. Does need a little work honing the blade but not much. After going through my Japanese water stones up to 8000grit I can literally shave with the blade.
The No.7 is not a Jack plane it is known as a Try/Jointer Plane.
Let's not forget that the Wood River is an exact copy of the Stanley bedrock
Great video, thanks. I had that ugly square edge chip breaker problem which thanks to your video I've now removed and after about three hours flattening the back of the blade I'm starting to actually like the sweetheart!...still not a fan of the lengthy backlash though.
Thank you, I'm not a #4 fan but that WR is impressive in machine aspect
I agree with you about Wood river planes, I just got a new shoulder plane and with very little attention to the blade it's ready to go. I enjoyed your thoughts on the different planes as well
I looked at both planes at the store and online. Some of the points you brought up was not a concern for me. I did appreciate the more leaner modern look of the Stanley versus the old style bulky look of the WR. I also have large hands and like the feel of Stanley. But the main reason I bought the Stanley was that many reviews said the blade on the WR was weak. The A2 metal composition on the Stanley is pretty good but I could not find any info on the WR. So if I had to upgrade the blade on the WR, it would increase the price by a large margin. Since the WR is already around $150 versus the $100 for the Stanley I spent at HD, that additional blade cost made no sense.
Fair comparison. I have the Stanley 62 and dislike the Norr8s adjuster for the same reasons. I found the blade to have a serious belly which took a lot of work to flatten. No problems with the throat adjustment knob.
Thanks for the video. The milling marks on the Stanley frog aren't really bad. When younger, I rebuilt an old table saw, After polishing the ways, the saw never retained the correct height, In short, a slightly rough surface is desirable under certain circumstances, and I see this as one condition where they aren't a bad thing, even somewhat desirable. are Wood River planes made in China ?
Yes they're made in China if you were going to spend the money buy a Lyle Nelson they're made in the USA Panera Jack copy of the Stanley bedrock only done a whole lot better then the Wood River
@@kd9856 Thanks for the info. I will never buy Chinese anything if I can get it from another country.
Thanks for sharing your experience. I'm new to hand planes and trying to decide which #4 to buy. I've narrowed it down to WoodRiver and Veritas. The Stanley Sweetheart was a contender too due to the price but I'll pass on it now. Thanks again.
Great comparison. There isn't a lot of info around about the "new" Sweetheart planes. The competition is the mid range Quengsheng/WoodRiver etc. planes so interesting to see how they compare... I am really happy with my SW Low Angle jack, it is big step up if you are used to the cheap box store planes.
I own both and I can tell you that the WR planes equally as well as my LV at a far lesser price .Go and watch Rob Cosman .he does tell the truth and so am I .Good luck to you.The WR is also easier to adjust on the fly as opposed to the Stanley Norris adjuster .
I've purchased all my stanley hand planes from flea markets or craigslist for less than 20 bucks apiece. With a little bit of work and tuning up, i got all my planes working like new. just my 2 cents
Interesting to hear other people's views. Thanks
Thanks for the review! Other than the surface finish, any comment on the Stanley cast-in frog vs the Woodriver bedrock style frog? Ease of throat adjustment between the two?
I like the idea of an adjustable shoe vs the frog.
Knob under norris adjuster tightens norris adjuster.no slop.its squashed between the knob on lever cap.so all tight and still lose enough to advance the blade.works great for me if you ballance the two.
Can you find a quality replacement blade for the Stanley?
Enjoyed the video. However, in comparing two tools, shouldn't one be comfortable and knowledgeable on how both of them operate? Near the end, you "weren't really sure how that works" on the Stanley. I've used both and love them both equally.
Doesn't surprise me about Stanley you've always had to work on them they don't come out of the box ready they never have they never probably will although it'd be nice if Stanley actually put forth an effort making them ready to come out of the box
the wood river blade was clearly honed on the back...regardless of the words that come out of your mouth....not that I am against it in any way...I just think you should be honest in a review.AND the stanley DID have alterations done(they changed the mouth opening for one thing.)...I know..I've been looking at getting a new plane for about 2 years now...and I cannot settle on one.....the other points may be viable..I do not own either...or I would not be here.
Two years to make your mind up on a plane, god your Mrs must love it when you go out for a meal, indesicive people are the worst take a gamble in life ffs!
Always go with a stanley. If you can Lie Nielson is better love there low angle block plane.
I thought you were doing an antique, ohh well. I heard the SW is crap. This might be interesting, but the design on the sw looks questionable to me.
All the problems that you were finding on the SW mine hasn't got any of them. Thats the truth
WR planes are the best value today, hands down! China got it right!
It pains me to say but you are 100% correct.
I just dont see any point in buying either one when anyone can buy an old bailey for way cheaper. Even replace those old irons with hock irons and still be cheaper... if someone was gonna buy a new plane it should be a veritas or LN imo.
EXACTLY.
Ugh, the LN/Veritas cork-sniffers are so annoying. Just because a person can’t drop $350+ on a plane means they shouldn’t buy one or any other plane on the market can’t do a decent job? Hardly true.
@@darinnetherland3466 that's why I suggested an old stanley bailey. my entire plane collection are old Stanley's. BUT if you were to buy new、veritas or LN is the way to go. that's my thought. I tried a new stanley and have seen WR. I use only hand tools in my woodworking. but maybe one day will buy a table saw
adam toth same difference, the idea that only vintage that require a lot of work or also pricey refurbished or LN/Veritas are worthy. A lot of people don’t have the time/skill to refurbish an old one of India’s a beat on worthy of refurbishment. Many mid range or even cheap planes are perfectly fine with a little tuning. I just watched a video of a guy that is strictly hand tools for decades and has rebuilt or made his own planes for ages, and he called out a few budget planes that are perfectly fine to use for most people like a #4 Grizzly with A2 steel sells for $32. For that price you’re lucky to find a good vintage that would still need a lot of work and maybe new iron.
@@darinnetherland3466 so this is just my thought on the matter. I gave my opinion. most woodworkers nowadays only use hand planes for specific jobs. in that case it's nice to have something that just works. I dont have a lot of money so I buy old and put the time into making it workable and it also helps me understand the nuances of that piece. I want something that works perfect for the job I need and I can trust without spending all the time while working to fiddle with it. I have been woodworking for a little over 15 years and am 33. I am by no means an expert. BUT、I absolutely love my old stanley planes. i tried the new stanley planes and there was manufacturing defects and I also dont want to support Chinese manufacturing when I have the option to buy and support a high quality business. that's my opinion on the matter from my experience. it's your decision to take all the info you have and buy a product that's right for you. just be informed and the correct decision will come. at the end of the day it's all about the curls
I like the concept behind the Stanley, but obviously poor quality product.
So the Stanley looks like it's trying to imitate the Veritas plane.
TrumpetGuy83 Stanley has been around for over 120 years. They bought the plane design from a guy named Bailey and also created the Bedrock style.
All others have copied them.
@@darinnetherland3466 The Stanley sweetheart plane featured in the video is not a Bailey pattern or Bedrock design. It has a completely different frog and depth adjuster as well as a different body design.
not a Stanley fanboy but.... if you are going to give a review of two planes against each other, take the time to learn them both. Saying you are not sure how to use the locking mechanism or what it is for shows you havnt learned the Stanley. And because of that the review isnt fair. I would take the V3 over any Stanley after the type 19's. But reviews should be done with all knowledge of both planes or not done at all.
You know, it's easy to pick on someone for some aspect of their video, but it's hard to actually get in front of the camera and put yourself out there. Telling someone their video shouldn't have been made is really impolite, especially coming from someone who doesn't make content and doesn't have any skin in the game. Personally, I thought this was a good review and the presenter not knowing ONE thing didn't really detract from that.
It wasn't an insult. It was just friendly advise. Come at me bro! Lol
No really though... so many people with little knowledge on products or experience on a given subject are putting videos out there that are a complete waist of time. It makes researching and learning a lot more complicated than the work itself. This bloke has more than most but seriously... did you see him fumbling around with it like he had not taken the time to get familiar with it. Lol. It was almost like he was intentionally trying to make the Stanley look bad. Then he made it look like you only have to quick click the V3 lever cap off and then back on....where it is quite finicky to line that thing up the way it should be...as Rob C shows in his tutorials, so in that regard no review on setting the blade was given in detail. Just lacking bro. Comment sections are here for this reason. Then comments from people get reviewed and the whole mess gets multiplied. As for my skin...its much thicker than yours..obviously. Lol
I hear you, but it didn't come across as friendly. The tone seemed kind of superior. If that's not the way you meant it, then great!
Tone? You hear tone when you read. Maybe concentrate more on the words, their definitions and the context and use a little less wondering imagination. Which must be fueled by replies you get on your vids... but hey... i am just speculating with no justifiable evidence. Like your vids by the way. Ive seen a few of them over the past months since I started getting into woodworking.
Why would you do 'the rule trick' on a super flat blade? The trick is designed to compensate for non-flat blades.
NO it is NOT . It is to put a small micro bevel INSTEAD of the WHOLE back
@@738polarbear YELLING doesn't make it true.