An awful counterfeit

[Patrick Bernardo]

Based on the recent thread on beading tools, I decided to go over to that auction site and see what was available.

I stumbled across item # 141447650273.

Somebody is trying to turn around a quick $75 by spray-painting an old Stanley 'bronze' and engraving it with the words "Lie Nielsen." I looked at the menu to 'report this item,' and outright fraud is not one of the categories. Seems the site is willing to let the market sort it out? I'm sure that the seller will hide behind the usual, "I don't know anything about tools, etc." At least, I guess, it serves as a reminder to be really careful to check pictures. I can't imagine this fooling anybody who actually looks at the pictures, but if somebody were doing a drive-by of the listing, they might leap at it.


(Edited because I typed the wrong price first time around.)

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Wow. I saw that and it was a great price but I was not in the market so I did not look at the detail pics. That is a pretty sorry thing to do.

In case it gets pulled, here is a screenshot of the listing.


299077

[Sean Hughto]

I don't have the LN 66 - just a vintage Stanley. I went to the listing. To me it is not obvious that this is a counterfeit that was painted or engraved. Maybe if I had ever seen a LN in the flesh it would be glaringly obvious? Just looks tarnished from here. The lettering does look sort of muddled and hand done I guess. It seems a lot of trouble to go through to make a 66 that likely would sell for (I dunno, $75) into a beat up LN that goes for $175 new, and therefore in this condition wouldn't do much more than net you an extra $50. And then when the buyer receives it and realizes it's paint and not bronze, you risk having to refund and/or getting your account suspended on eBay. This just does not add up to my mind.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Sean, I agree- it does not make sense. They could have sold the Stanley for some decent money.

[Sean Hughto]

Here is my 66. To make it look like the one in the listing, the seller would have had to grind or fill the letting on the top of the handles as well!

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3241/3096320087_746d1911b8_b.jpg

[Patrick Bernardo]

That would be interesting if this turned out to be an early model of LN, and I completely misjudged it. However, the current Lie Nielsen is marked on the body of the plane, where the fence slot is, not under the handle. Also, doesn't the texture of the plane look odd? That's what made me go to the LN website to compare with the original. I don't own either, though.

From what I saw when I looked the 66 without cutters goes for $30-40. If this one goes for asking price - or gets bid up near the L-N price, it might be worth it for somebody.

It's also possible that the modification was done before the antique dealer got it. I once purchased a piece of jewelry for my wife from the 1920s. When it broke, I had an acquaintance who was a jeweler take a look at it, who verified that it was an authentic forgery from the 1920s. It had been made well enough to pass for almost 80 years, since nobody had much reason to look twice. Well, at least the diamond was real!

[David Weaver]

An email to Tom Lie Nielsen would find out of there is any chance that they had prototyped castings early on. They've had the beader for a long time, and there have been other oddballs found in the wild (derek has one of their first 140s that he got in bits and pieces). The screws on that one online look modern, I've never seen those on stanley tools.

Some of LN's very early stuff did look like it was made by hand.

[Patrick Bernardo]

I'll defer to you guys, for sure. Here I was, thinking I was outing a great crime. Now I'm not so sure. I guess it's too late to add a question mark to the title of this thread.

[george wilson]

The name is engraved so crudely it looks like a fake. It is possible that it could be an early prototype though,with the name hastily added by the pattern maker. I'd just pass it by due to doubt anyway.

The tool doesn't look painted. At least in the one picture that was posted here.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Would LN use that hand-scratched lettering, even on a prototype? Wouldn't a toolmaker at least have a stamp for letters?

The metal in some photos appears to be bronze and in others looks suspect.

[george wilson]

Who knows?

[Harold Burrell]

hmmm...this is going to be an interesting thread, methinks. I too wonder why someone would go to all of this trouble for not so much money. Especially when that person seems to be such an established seller of antiques and such. Obviously, it is possible that they are trying to rip people off. However, it is also possible that the seller (1) picked this up from someone else, not knowing it was a fake or (2) it IS a genuine early Lie Neilsen piece. That would be cool, actually.

[David Weaver]

Would LN use that hand-scratched lettering, even on a prototype? Wouldn't a toolmaker at least have a stamp for letters?



Not sure. You'd have to have a stamp that would work on an inside curve for that. There weren't many people working at LN in the very early days, they could've pretty much done or made anything...but still, the answer would be easily had by just asking them. I'm sure TLN would remember if they did anything like that.

[Harold Burrell]

Would LN use that hand-scratched lettering, even on a prototype? Wouldn't a toolmaker at least have a stamp for letters?



Maybe we've got this all wrong. Maybe this was not made to be sold at all. MAYBE...this was indeed made by Tom's grandfather (or even great-great grandfather)...and he made it for himself...and marked his name on it by hand...to, I dunno, perhaps be able to identify it in case it was stolen by Indians or something...

Wow...

I'll bet that's what it is.

I think I might bid on it.

And then resell it here for...say...$7500 (with a letter of authenticity, of course).

[Mike Henderson]

I sent the guy a note, just in case he doesn't know any better.

I also sent a note to LN with the eBay number.

Mike

[David Weaver]

Personally, I think someone ought to find out from TLN if it's real before they report the guy. It's very unlikely that it's a stanley beader or any older beader at all. It may be something that someone else casted, though.

But have a look at the current more refined LN version and then have a look at the screws and fixtures on that one. They're not much different.

[Mike Henderson]

Personally, I think someone ought to find out from TLN if it's real before they report the guy. It's very unlikely that it's a stanley beader or any older beader at all. It may be something that someone else casted, though.

But have a look at the current more refined LN version and then have a look at the screws and fixtures on that one. They're not much different.
It's hard for me to believe that LN would allow something like that to leave their shop, and if they did, they'd either not mark it at all, or do a much better job of marking it. It may be a casting that someone made from a real LN - but then the LN name would be in the casting (copied from the original).

My guess it that it's a casting that someone made - without the LN name -and then someone added the name.

Mike

[David Weaver]

There'd be no harm in asking if that's the case. LN could easily confirm it. All of the suppositions in the world that we could make wouldn't bottom out a balance against a yes or no from TLN.

it could be 25 years old for all we know, and our thoughts about what they make now (vs. when they started or shortly thereafter and made sort of a homely version of the stanley 95) could be on the wrong place in the timeline, if you know what I mean.

It's curious to me that the screws on it are the same as they are on LN's current makes, but not similar to anything else out there.

[Mike Henderson]

There'd be no harm in asking if that's the case. LN could easily confirm it. All of the suppositions in the world that we could make wouldn't bottom out a balance against a yes or no from TLN.

it could be 25 years old for all we know, and our thoughts about what they make now (vs. when they started or shortly thereafter and made sort of a homely version of the stanley 95) could be on the wrong place in the timeline, if you know what I mean.

I sent LN a note about it.

Mike

[David Weaver]

I sent LN a note about it.

Mike

It'll be interesting to see what you find, though actually knowing the answer will certainly squash what could've been a 100 post thread!

Place your bets everyone. I have a stick of white chalk on it originating from LN several decades ago. high roller terms for anyone else who wants take a bet that has no real winners and no real payoff!!

[Sean Hughto]

The more I look, the more legit it looks. So, David, not sure who is going to take the other side of the action.
http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTEyOVgxNjAw/z/vp4AAOSwajVUSZyd/$_57.JPG?rt=nc

[David Weaver]

Wow...those letters are in the casting. Not added later.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

If it turns out to be real, then it is worth twice the price of a new one. I base this on a recent offering of this LN bronze #1. Apparently they double in value after purchase.

299084

[David Weaver]

Hahah...did someone actually buy the 1 for that?

The rare times that something like this shows up and is real, it seems like very few people have interest in it.

Nobody here is going to snag it BIN to be the holder of the famous crusty looking prototype plane, huh?

[Malcolm Schweizer]

That #1 stayed up for a while. Either some poor soul bought it, or more likely someone let the guy know what it sells for new and he ended the auction.

As for the original topic- the rough edge on that beading tool would tell me it is most likely a fake. I would think any good tool maker would have dressed that edge with a file if nothing else. ... or else I just insulted TLN? Sorry Tom, but if that's real I will end on a positive- your skills have much improved over time. :-)

[Derek Cohen]

I think that this may be genuine - an early model. It is not a Stanley: it lacks the patterning of the Stanley ...

LN on eBay ..

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/LN_zps12adc8b0.jpg

Stanley (mine) ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/Improving%20the%2066%20Hand%20Beader_html_m56cbef7 8.jpg

and LN (from LN site) ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/Improving%20the%2066%20Hand%20Beader_html_m78f2414 9.jpg

Not that the fences in the new LN are the same. The blade holder is the same design as the LN (but a bit cruder), and different from the Stanley.

Similarly, the shoulders near the handles are the same shape (square), while the Stanley is rounded.

I'd argue that this is indeed a "tarnished" and worn early LN.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Pat Barry]

It'll be interesting to see what you find, though actually knowing the answer will certainly squash what could've been a 100 post thread!

Place your bets everyone. I have a stick of white chalk on it originating from LN several decades ago. high roller terms for anyone else who wants take a bet that has no real winners and no real payoff!!
I'm on your side on this one! I'm betting it was a LN prototype and that it went missing from their shop years ago and as now surfaced on EBay. They probably want it back. They might be willing to pay $$$ for the historical significance. On the other hand you might be aiding and abetting a crime to sell / buy it.

[Patrick Bernardo]

Man, now I feel like doubly a fool. You guys are convincing me it's most likely the real deal. I was misled by the crudeness overall, and didn't consider some of the features that you guys are now pointing out, that really make it seem like it's an early version. I jumped to conclusions based on what looked like a crude etch, and didn't take the time to think it through or compare the features much. Feel foolish about that. Thanks for setting me straight. And oh, the double the fool is because it looks like I could've sniped an early L-N for $75, if it turns out to be genuine! :) Still holding out hope that Thomas L-N denies its existence, so that I'm not totally wrong, I guess…

But I enjoy a good mystery, so thanks for the detective work, and I’ve learned a lesson or two along the way!

[Jim Koepke]

But I enjoy a good mystery, so thanks for the detective work, and I’ve learned a lesson or two along the way!

Someone once told me, "if you aren't learning something new everyday, you aren't trying hard enough."

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

Looks like it's real. Here's the note I got from LN:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank you for your email, Michael! That is actually a Lie-Nielsen tool. For the first five or so years that we made the No. 66 we did not have the tooling to mark it with our logo. We do appreciate your concern!

Best wishes,

Kirsten

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Well shut my mouth. Oh, and Tom- about that comment I made earlier about the quality of work... ummm... I hope this won't come between our relationship where I give you all my money and you send me tools. :-)

[Patrick Bernardo]

Any takers on a pool for what price it now gets?

[Malcolm Schweizer]

OK, tell ya what- I'll bet you $1,000 it goes for more than $100. Wanna bet?

[David Weaver]

It might. I've seen their early and less neat tools get spurned, though. My stick of chalk bet can't hold a candle to real dollars.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Actually, David, I was going to take his bet, bid $101, and cash in. :-)

[Jim Koepke]

Actually, David, I was going to take his bet, bid $101, and cash in. :-)

You would need someone else to bid it up above the minimum.

Any offers to split the winnings?:eek:

jtk

[Moses Yoder]

This whole story alone is worth $500. It's on my watch list now.

[Patrick Bernardo]

Haha - you know I can hear you, right?

I've made a fool of myself once in this thread. No chance of any suckers bets here. Trust me, I'm going to be very suspicious before I commit to anything in the next week or so, until I forget about this thread...

[Jim Matthews]

+1 on this.

We must police our own.
eBay has millions of listings,
they can't verify all of them.

Down to us, to make sure somebody else
doesn't get taken in by fraud.

[David Weaver]

Haha - you know I can hear you, right?

I've made a fool of myself once in this thread. No chance of any suckers bets here. Trust me, I'm going to be very suspicious before I commit to anything in the next week or so, until I forget about this thread...

I would've wrinkled my face at it at first look, too, but not thought much else other than that they had been casting some samples and some got loose. They are in maine, and things work a little bit differently there.

[Mike Brady]

There used to be a guy on the auction site that claimed that he worked at LN back when they were starting out, and he would buy seconds from the production. He would then take the imperfect tools and rework them into usable ones and sell them on his own. I bought a 212 scraping plane from him that I think was white bronze, but I don't recall exactly. It had a rosewood knob. The price was about what used ones might sell for. This beader would be the kind of stuff he might have had access to. An owner or two later this might be one of his items. Who knows?

[Malcolm Schweizer]

Okay, so who bought it? It went for $81. Ahhh Patrick must be kicking himself for not taking my bet. ;)

[Patrick Bernardo]

I'm curious who bought it too. I watched the auction, but didn't pull the trigger. I figured that if I'm buying ugly, I'm buying Stanley ugly for cheaper. I want my Lie Nielsen to be pretty if I'm shelling out the cash.

I was a bit surprised that your bet would've been a good deal. I figured that this discussion kicked up enough dust here that people would be bidding on that one.