Charles Stanford
You seriously don't think that the core functionality of a specialist plane shouldn't be mentioned at all in a review of that plane?

Really?

The majority of the review was a review/comparison/contrasting of tool steels that could just have easily been loaded in a No. 4 as in a several hundred dollar shooting board plane. We've seen all of that material before yet we get nothing about core functionality, i.e. boards planed square or at a prescribed angle? Ease of doing so? Any weird problems creep up? Any need for tweaks to the already existing shooting board? We just assume/presume that this part was totally smooth sailing - the does it actually do what it's supposed to do part?