What's wrong with Woodriver?!

[John Kananis]

Ok, this thread is a bit rhetorical but here's the story:

A buddy comes by the other day and as we're talking (obviously hanging out in the shop), he says, "Hey, is that a 4 1/2 over there?" I say yes and hand him the plane (it is a woodriver - I have others as well, LN, LV and Stanley; this one was among the mix). He was excited to notice the plane but when I handed it to him, I got an: "Oh, its a woodriver..." and he placed it down without a second look.

Gosh darned things are good planes - I understand the whole China thing but from a utilitarian perspective, what the hek?! Am I missing something, I love these planes - good price, good performance (even the mystery steel they use isn't that bad at all - although the stock blades in mine have been replaced I still think they're decent).

I guess I'm done venting but wouldn't mind your thoughts.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I tried one a while ago at a Woodcraft. It seemed like a decent plane, but I did not like it enough to pay what they were asking. My old Stanleys seem to be just as good, and were much cheaper.

[Stew Denton]

John, there was a published review a few years ago that was none to good when it comes to the Woodriver planes. It was clear at that time that there were some significant problems with them.

However, one of the guys here on the Neander forum wrote one a while back that was really positive. Thus, if his report is typical of the more recent ones, then Woodriver Planes may be on the way.

Stew

[Frederick Skelly]

I have two of their v3 planes - a #3 and a #1. They work just fine. I'm told the V3 planes sre much better than earlier models, but don't know first hand what the originals were like.

Their smaller planes (#1- #4 1/2) seem to provide good value when stacked up against other brands. The value per dollar is less clear (to me) with the larger/longer ones.

Fred

[Jim Koepke]

My recollection could be off. A few years back, Woodcraft sold Lie Nielsen planes. Somewhat abruptly the relationship ended.

There were a few stories of various legal actions.

One explanation sounds very reasonable that when the relationship started it was one store. Woodcraft became a franchise. Lie Nielsen could not keep up with demand and keep to their mission of a high quality tool provider. There was also some problem with Woodcraft not wanting to train all of their store personnel in the use and handling of the Lie Nielsen product line.

I found a link to this information by searching on > woodcraft lie nielsen legal <

The above information was found at:

greystonegreen.blogspot.com/2009/12/chat-with-patrick-jackson-of-lie

I hope linking to a blog doesn't go against the TOS.

If it does and the moderator removes the link, search > chat with patrick jackson at lie <

Wow! A lot of posts between when I started this and when I pressed the post button. One thing I forgot to mention is a lot of businesses can die real fast when they have one big retailer who decides they no longer want to carry a product line. One good rule of business is to not have one customer you can not afford to lose.

jtk

[Prashun Patel]

I am with you John. I am star struck by the good brands and they have earned their reputation. But if someone hands me a good Bailey or woodriver that they can make sing, I am just as happy to work with it.

[Frederick Skelly]

Good article Jim. Thanks for posting it.

[Daniel Rode]

My planes are for woodworking only. I don't collect them as object to be admired and I don't really show them to people. My shop is a pretty solitary place :)

I bought a Wood River V3 #4. I can't think of a bad thing to say about it. I got it on sale for around $110 and I still feel it is the best new plane for the money. I think all their V3 bench planes are great planes and the prices are very good. Apparently the older WR planes had some issues but I never used any of them. All my other planes are vintage. The WR is prettier than the rest. Mechanically, It's smooth, predictable and precise. I'm not as sold on the block planes, but that's another story.

My issues with the WR planes is the same as I have with LN, Veritas, etc. A) They are heavy. B) I prefer --very slightly-- the Bailey style to the Bedrock style planes.

Sometimes a heavy plane is an advantage but, for me, that's rarely the case. I much prefer the lighter vintage planes. I'm afraid to try my hand with good wooden plane. I suspect I'd be hooked after one stoke :)

I also love using old tools for reasons that have nothing to do with money or status or superior quality.

[Patrick Chase]

Ok, this thread is a bit rhetorical but here's the story:

A buddy comes by the other day and as we're talking (obviously hanging out in the shop), he says, "Hey, is that a 4 1/2 over there?" I say yes and hand him the plane (it is a woodriver - I have others as well, LN, LV and Stanley; this one was among the mix). He was excited to notice the plane but when I handed it to him, I got an: "Oh, its a woodriver..." and he placed it down without a second look.

Gosh darned things are good planes - I understand the whole China thing but from a utilitarian perspective, what the hek?! Am I missing something, I love these planes - good price, good performance (even the mystery steel they use isn't that bad at all - although the stock blades in mine have been replaced I still think they're decent).

I guess I'm done venting but wouldn't mind your thoughts.

Jim alluded to this, but the way the WoodRiver / Lie-Nielsen / Rob Cosman thing went down left a bad taste in a lot of folks' mouths. Very truncated version: Cosman was L-N's Canadian distributor and had a lot of input to product development. For reasons that differ depending on who's telling the story he parted ways with L-N, and then turned around and worked with Quangsheng to design and manufacture the WR planes.

The WoodRiver BD planes and the Lie-Nielsens are both fundamentally Bed Rock clones, so at that level you can't really fault Quangsheng/WR - They both copied a design that has been in the public domain for almost a century. The picture gets a little less pleasant when you look at detailed execution though: There are several modifications that L-N made to the basic BedRock design and that have been copied by Quangsheng/Cosman/WR. L-N didn't patent those when they were first starting, probably because doing so would have cost more than they could afford back then. This FWW piece itemizes the similarities: http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/14189/who-begot-who-comparing-planes-from-lie-nielsen-wood-river-and-stanley.

EDIT: FWIW my personal opinion is that L-N is probably better off without WR. To hold onto that business they would have had to ramp volume up and cost down, and would have been dragged down into the "volume" segment just as Quangsheng entered it and made life hard for everybody else. I think that L-N will be better served in the long term by remaining a "premium" brand, but I'm not a marketing person so this is just a semi-informed opinion.

[John Kananis]

I understand that there were some issues with earlier models (I only have experience with the v3's) - what's the stigma? Is it that they're made in China? If so, I actually give the Chinese some credit on this product - not their usual crap and repeat.

@Jim: Interesting perspective/spin - Let's play devil's advocate for a minute: How many woodcraft employees do you think have no knowledge (or not enough to sell the product) of Lie-Nielsen products? I think there is more to it than that though. From what I've been told (I am no authority and neither are my sources), part of the arrangement was that LN required a dedicated floor-space for display and demonstration. That equates to a lot of square footage devoted to a single line which may not be (most likely isn't) that high profit. Not really a fair demand.

I'm not knocking LN here (I really love that company and its culture - even went to the last open house).

[John Kananis]

Jim alluded to this, but the way the WoodRiver / Lie-Nielsen / Rob Cosman thing went down left a bad taste in a lot of folks' mouths. Very truncated version: Cosman was L-N's Canadian distributed and had a lot of input to product development. For reasons that differ depending on who's telling the story he parted ways with L-N, and then turned around and worked with Quangsheng to design and manufacture the WR planes.

The WoodRiver BD planes and the Lie-Nielsens are both fundamentally Bed Rock clones, so at that level you can't really fault Quangsheng/WR - They both copied a design that has been in the public domain for almost a century. The picture gets a little less pleasant when you look at detailed execution though: There are several modifications that L-N made to the basic BedRock design and that have been copied by Quangsheng/Cosman/WR. L-N didn't patent those when they were first starting, probably because doing so would have cost more than they could afford back then. This FWW piece itemizes the similarities: http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/14189/who-begot-who-comparing-planes-from-lie-nielsen-wood-river-and-stanley.

EDIT: FWIW my personal opinion is that L-N is probably better off without WR. To hold onto that business they would have had to ramp volume up and cost down, and would have been dragged down into the "volume" segment just as Quangsheng entered it and made life hard for everybody else. I think that L-N will be better served in the long term by remaining a "premium" brand, but I'm not a marketing person so this is just a semi-informed opinion.

Interesting, thanks Patrick, I wasn't aware of the Cosman relationship to Lie-Nielsen. The plot is a bit thicker that I was aware.

[Patrick Chase]

My planes are for woodworking only. I don't collect them as object to be admired and I don't really show them to people. My shop is a pretty solitary place :)

I bought a Wood River V3 #4. I can't think of a bad thing to say about it. I got it on sale for around $110 and I still feel it is the best new plane for the money. I think all their V3 bench planes are great planes and the prices are very good. Apparently the older WR planes had some issues but I never used any of them. All my other planes are vintage. The WR is prettier than the rest. Mechanically, It's smooth, predictable and precise. I'm not as sold on the block planes, but that's another story.

I think that at list price the value is a bit iffy, particularly on the bevel-up jack.

For example the WR #4 lists for $145. I think that the classic (pre-custom, "East German swimmer special") Veritas #4 at $220 is a better value when you consider its manufacturing quality and the fact that it has a mouth adjustment that's independent of cut depth. At the $110 price that you paid the WR starts to look attractive though.

The WR bevel-up jack lists for $200 which is drastically overpriced IMO, given that the larger (2.25" blade vs 2") and better-made Veritas bevel-up jack is $245 and the newer Stanley is $100.

[James Waldron]

[snip]

Sometimes a heavy plane is an advantage but, for me, that's rarely the case. I much prefer the lighter vintage planes. I'm afraid to try my hand with good wooden plane. I suspect I'd be hooked after one stoke :)
[snip]

There's nothing quite as satisfying as the snick, snick of planing with a wooden plane with a really sharp blade. Well, one thing: it's even better (and a lot cheaper) if you made that plane yourself. It ain't that hard.

[Patrick Chase]

@Jim: Interesting perspective/spin - Let's play devil's advocate for a minute: How many woodcraft employees do you think have no knowledge (or not enough to sell the product) of Lie-Nielsen products? I think there is more to it than that though. From what I've been told (I am no authority and neither are my sources), part of the arrangement was that LN required a dedicated floor-space for display and demonstration. That equates to a lot of square footage devoted to a single line which may not be (most likely isn't) that high profit. Not really a fair demand.

It's common for premium brands to demand that sort of placement/merchandising as a condition of being sold through mass-marked outlets like Woodcraft, and it happens across basically all industries. Have you ever noticed how Festool's stuff gets dedicated floor space at Woodcraft? That's no accident...

[John Kananis]

It's common for premium brands to demand that sort of placement/merchandising as a condition of being sold through mass-marked outlets like Woodcraft, and it happens across basically all industries. Have you ever noticed how Festool's stuff gets dedicated floor space at Woodcraft? That's no accident...


Sure but I'd like to see the difference in the margins - I would imagine the higher profit items getting the floor space and I can't see Tom paying so high a commission (why should he?).

[Patrick Chase]

Sure but I'd like to see the difference in the margins - I would imagine the higher profit items getting the floor space and I can't see Tom paying so high a commission (why should he?).

It's not that simple. "Halo" products often aren't particularly profitable for the retailer, but they can still be a significant win inasmuch as they draw the right sort of customers to the store. For example the owner of a local WoodCraft buys Clifton planes at trade shows and prominently displays them (WC stores are franchises and they have some latitude to do stuff like that, though they're on their own for distribution). He's clearly not making much if any money on those, but he's decided it's worth it because they bring well-heeled customers through the door. I asked a store manager about it at one point and he was quite blunt that he was using them to make up for the loss of the L-Ns.

Similar logic has applied to every consumer-oriented product line I've worked on in my career. It is not uncommon to create marginally profitable halo SKUs specifically to enable the retailers to do stuff like that. Professional/industrial stuff is very different of course.

[Jim Koepke]

I also love using old tools for reasons that have nothing to do with money or status or superior quality.

+1 on that.

It feels good to know that something wasn't tossed aside just because something slicker, shinier and newer came along.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

The issue with WoodRiver is that the original planes left a bad taste in the mouths of many. WoodCraft represented Lie-Nielsen and Lee Valley, and then contracted a Chinese factory to make copies of their tools (and these are still around: spokeshaves, edge planes, etc). There was a storm of debate on a few forums, notably Knots, with sides for and against the moral and ethical issues of copying designs. While LN planes may be based on the Stanley Bedrock design, they added their own characteristics, such as the brass lever cap, as well as ramping up the construction. Fine Woodworking magazine demonstrated quite clearly that the Chinese factory had used a LN plane to cast their versions for WoodCraft. The livery was also copied. A number of Lee Valley tools were also treated in a similar way. As I recall, both LN and LV pulled out of WC, and LN took WC to court.

Clearly the message got through to WC - or WoodRiver - since they brought out a MkII version, which now featured changes. These were not successful designs. At this point Rob Cosman came in to design MkIII. Now the WR planes came into their own. By all accounts, these have been very good planes, however it is evident that many still remember the duplicity that surrounds their history, and prefer not to support them.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Allen Jordan]

Politics aside, I do love my WR No. 6. One of my very favorite planes. The finish on the tote/knob sucks though... it was giving me blisters until I scraped it off and refinished with shellac and wax. The blade back on mine is slightly concave, great for flattening actually.

[Patrick Chase]

The issue with WoodRiver is that the original planes left a bad taste in the mouths of many. WoodCraft represented Lie-Nielsen and Lee Valley, and then contracted a Chinese factory to make copies of their tools (and these are still around: spokeshaves, edge planes, etc). There was a storm of debate on a few forums, notably Knots, with sides for and against the moral and ethical issues of copying designs. While LN planes may be based on the Stanley Bedrock design, they added their own characteristics, such as the brass lever cap, as well as ramping up the construction. Fine Woodworking magazine demonstrated quite clearly that the Chinese factory had used a LN plane to cast their versions for WoodCraft. The livery was also copied. A number of Lee Valley tools were also treated in a similar way. As I recall, both LN and LV pulled out of WC, and LN took WC to court.

When you say "used a LN plane to cast their versions for WC" are you suggesting that Quangsheng physically created a casting directly from an L-N plane?

LV products are still offered through WC, though not their handplanes - I suspect that they only allow WC to sell stuff that doesn't compete with WC's own products. L-N pulled out entirely.

I agree with your implied point. That's why I posted the link to the FWW article earlier in this thread - those pictures speak stronger than words IMO...

[Derek Cohen]

Patrick, read the last paragraph of the link to the FWW article:

"So who begot who? For sure, we know there’s Bedrock DNA in both Lie-Nielsen and Wood River. And, based on my side-by-side look, it appears there are Lie-Nielsen genes in Wood River."

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Chris Hachet]

+1 on that.

It feels good to know that something wasn't tossed aside just because something slicker, shinier and newer came along.

jtk

This is pretty much my thought. That and saws, I prefer to spend bucks on premium saws and specialty tools.

[Chris Hachet]

Politics aside, I do love my WR No. 6. One of my very favorite planes. The finish on the tote/knob sucks though... it was giving me blisters until I scraped it off and refinished with shellac and wax. The blade back on mine is slightly concave, great for flattening actually.


I have a #6 sized vintage Stanley that I love. Not sure why the #6 sizedoes not get a lot of love...

[Chris Hachet]

I am with you John. I am star struck by the good brands and they have earned their reputation. But if someone hands me a good Bailey or woodriver that they can make sing, I am just as happy to work with it.

Exactly. I actually want to own some planes outside of the norm...thinking after test driving themk at the alst L-N tool event I might give one of Steve Voight's wooden planes a go round on my bench.

[george wilson]

I think the WC store in Richmond,Va. still has a few LN planes in their nice display case for sale. but,I haven't been there for a while. If they still have a few LN's,they have been there for several years.

[Robert Engel]

You're going to find a lot of hand plane snobbery out there, on both sides. This is a fairly typical reaction of a biased person who's never really tried the tool

I got one just to try and now I'm up to 3 of them, a 4, 6 and 7. I love them all. Yes they are a few notches below my LN's, but not as much as you think.

There are the Stanley only guys out there you will never convince so I'll just say its a matter of opinion.

I've own them all: LN, LV, Stanley and Woodriver.

All of them will work. Any of them could have an issue.

I also will say the 6 is my most used plane. It leave almost as good a surface as my LN 4 1/2.

[Daniel Rode]

It's all pretty subjective and depends on what you value. The Veritas, LN other premium makers boast certain features. Different materials, closer tolerances, design differences. However, I am skeptical that any of this equates to a difference in planing wood. I find $145 to be much less than $220 for what I consider to be equivalent tools. Among equal items, cheaper is better. Someone who values the premium features more or enjoys the aesthetics or status from a brand name would weight things differently. This is why all my other planes are vintage. For me, the older planes have the ideal mix of quality and cost.

I think that at list price the value is a big iffy, particularly on the bevel-up jack.

For example the WR #4 lists for $145. I think that the classic (pre-custom, "East German swimmer special") Veritas #4 at $220 is a better value when you consider its manufacturing quality and the fact that it has a mouth adjustment that's independent of cut depth. At the $110 price that you paid the WR starts to look attractive though.

The WR bevel-up jack lists for $200 which is drastically overpriced IMO, given that the larger (2.25" blade vs 2") and better-made Veritas bevel-up jack is $245 and the newer Stanley is $100.

[Sean Hughto]

+1


what Derek said.

[glenn bradley]

The MkIII's are reported to be quite decent. For me Woodriver planes break my 60% rule for all tools; if I have to pay 60% of the price of a really good one, I'll go ahead and get the really good one.

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, read the last paragraph of the link to the FWW article:

"So who begot who? For sure, we know there’s Bedrock DNA in both Lie-Nielsen and Wood River. And, based on my side-by-side look, it appears there are Lie-Nielsen genes in Wood River."

Regards from Perth

Derek

Yes, I had already read that a few times. You used different wording in your post so I asked for clarification of what you meant. As you have pointed out many times you often know things FWW doesn't.

If they had actually copied the casting (as opposed to copying some design features) that would make my opinion of WC/WR even more negative.

[Pat Barry]

When you say "used a LN plane to cast their versions for WC" are you suggesting that Quangsheng physically created a casting directly from an L-N plane?..
Looking at the FWW article and accompanying measurement data and pictures it is very unlikely that they directly copied the LN tool. They may have used some ideas for sure, but there isn't anything wrong with that, especially if LN didn't have IP filed for it. I would call it plagiarism to make a direct copy and that would be obvious and no doubt LN would take them to court and win if that were the case. As far as the comment about genes - everybody borrows ideas from everyone and there's nothing blatantly wrong with that.

[george wilson]

It is not unusual for Chinese or Taiwanese to directly use tool or machine parts as patterns.They might at least add some material to thicken up the original parts because of shrinkage. But,they may not in some cases.

I have a Taiwan copy dead accurate of an American Bridgeport milling machine.

[Jim Koepke]

If they had actually copied the casting (as opposed to copying some design features) that would make my opinion of WC/WR even more negative.

As with many things there can be a downside when it comes to resell.

Which has been a better store of value, Lie Nielsen, Lee Valley or Woodriver?

Many years ago when my hobby was coin collecting gold bullion coins had different premiums. The Chinese Panda and the Canadian Maple Leaf coins had a desirability factor over and above the South African Krugerrand mostly due to political sentiments.

It appears now there isn't as much differential in the bullion coin prices. The political situation in South Africa has changed. It now appears the Krugerrand is valued the same as other bullion coins in some markets. A small premium difference in others.

To me it is doubtful Woodriver will ever overcome the antipathy it has generated in many folks.

In the case of the Krugerrand, it is the exact same 24 karat gold as other bullion coins. In the case of Woodriver, being exactly the same as another maker's plane is a major factor in the animus among the plane buying public.

jtk

[george wilson]

consumers might like better to trust the reputation of a LN plane,rather than buy a copy cheaper,even if the copy is quite close in quality. The cache of an established brand name is important. In fact,when brand name food products started appearing in stores in the 19th. C.,it stopped a lot of fraud. Crooked grocers would put stuff like paint and wool in ice cream they could scoop themselves,to make it go farther. They didn't care what it did to the children who ate it.

China has done so much to cause people to not trust their products,it does them no good. Even now,I have seen(actually BOUGHT) things like milling machines whose cross feed and longitudinal feed nuts were threaded so shallow that the threaded feed screws would just start jumping the threads soon after they started using them. I got one whose brass nuts were threaded only .015" deep. And,that was to accommodate a screw of 8 threads per inch. And,sure enough,no spare parts were available for the recently built machine. This was a used machine that was nearly new. Might have been why the original owner(whoever he was),sold it. The Chinese did this shallow thread because it was a lot faster to make than a thread of full depth. They often will do anything to cut corners. That includes puttying up large voids in castings and painting over them.

[John Kananis]

Interesting perspectives, thanks everyone for joining in on this discussion.

[paul cottingham]

As a matter of principle, I won't purchase tools whose genesis mirror that of Woodriver. For me, it is that simple. I won't rehash all the arguments re: LN being copies of Stanleys, that has been covered well in previous posts.

Every time folks buy tools from companies who have the origins in such things, we harm real innovators. Again, it is that simple. The fact that I am quite poor doesn't change the ethical dimension. If a Woodriver tool was the only one available, I would just go without.

[Brian Holcombe]

When I bought a lot of LN stuff I did so because of my trust in the brand, and they make a nice product, and have done well by me. I've had my planes for a number of years now and they do fine, I have some nitpicks but overall quite happy with the quality of the products.

As a consumer I am able to vote with my dollars and do so by supporting small retailers and producers which have devoted themselves to quality. It's quite literally the only thing you can do that will have any impact, as a consumer. Doing so has done well for me as I have very few complaints or frustrations with my tools.

[Patrick Chase]

When I bought a lot of LN stuff I did so because of my trust in the brand, and they make a nice product, and have done well by me. I've had my planes for a number of years now and they do fine, I have some nitpicks but overall quite happy with the quality of the products.

As a consumer I am able to vote with my dollars and do so by supporting small retailers and producers which have devoted themselves to quality. It's quite literally the only thing you can do that will have any impact, as a consumer. Doing so has done well for me as I have very few complaints or frustrations with my tools.

I'm in the same boat as you, but I also recognize that my day job gives me the luxury of supporting brands like L-N. I would never look askance at somebody who's financially constrained and has to make a choice between, say, WR or no tool at all.

I also agree with George's points.

[Patrick Chase]

Looking at the FWW article and accompanying measurement data and pictures it is very unlikely that they directly copied the LN tool. They may have used some ideas for sure, but there isn't anything wrong with that, especially if LN didn't have IP filed for it. I would call it plagiarism to make a direct copy and that would be obvious and no doubt LN would take them to court and win if that were the case. As far as the comment about genes - everybody borrows ideas from everyone and there's nothing blatantly wrong with that.

I've heard that L-N didn't patent their modifications to the BedRock plane, probably because getting a patent through the system these days is bloody expensive (I have first-hand knowledge from helping friends with start-ups over the years). If that's the case then L-N wouldn't have any legal recourse against even a direct copy, unless Quangsheng also violated copyright by appropriating trademarks etc.

IMO our system is absolutely backwards in the sense that we grant crappy patents to people who have deep enough pockets to file amendment after amendment, while discouraging good patents from people like L-N

[steven c newman]

I stick with vintage planes. They are the originals, after all.

Tried a WR #4 V3 for one year, then sold it. Seemed to be good only at making super thin shavings.......was hard to adjust, too heavy for a #4 sized plane. More I used it, the worse it seemed to get. Finally tried to sharpen it, and never found the settings again. Had better results with a Millers Falls No.9.

In fact, the first version I recieved as a gift......had an issue with the depth adjuster...wheel was about ready to fall off, before I could make a nice thin shaving. It had the older chipbreaker. Told WR about it, with photos, they sent a replacement PLANE and a box to return the defective plane. On their dime.

I'll stick with the oldies. Irons and all, mind you. Just the way this shop runs.

[Mike Henderson]

I've heard that L-N didn't patent their modifications to the BedRock plane, probably because getting a patent through the system these days is bloody expensive (I have first-hand knowledge from helping friends with start-ups over the years). If that's the case then L-N wouldn't have any legal recourse against even a direct copy, unless Quangsheng also violated copyright by appropriating trademarks etc.

IMO our system is absolutely backwards in the sense that we grant crappy patents to people who have deep enough pockets to file amendment after amendment, while discouraging good patents from people like L-N
Getting a patent is not that expensive. When I worked for a large company, we had a contract with a large law firm and they handled our patents for a flat fee of $3,000 per patent (this was in the 1990's). Of course, we filed a lot of patents so I suppose it was worth it to the law firm, but let's say it would have cost LN $10,000 to get a patent. That's not a lot of money to protect your intellectual property.

But I don't know what LN could have patented. They copied the Bedrock planes. Maybe there's something special they did that would merit a patent but I don't see anything from my look at the planes.

I might mention that LV has a patent on the two screws that hold the blade in position so that when you take the blade out and then replace it, it goes back into the same place. So fairly small things can be important (and valuable) and can be patented.

The material (idea) that can be patented has to be novel. It cannot be something that would be obvious to "one skilled in the art." So making the body out of brass instead of cast iron would not be patentable. Using ductile cast iron instead of ordinary cast iron would not be patentable. Using A2 steel for the iron instead of plain carbon steel would not be patentable, etc.

Mike

[Zach Dillinger]

Getting a patent is not that expensive. When I worked for a large company, we had a contract with a large law firm and they handled our patents for a flat fee of $3,000 per patent (this was in the 1990's). Of course, we filed a lot of patents so I suppose it was worth it to the law firm, but let's say it would have cost LN $10,000 to get a patent. That's not a lot of money to protect your intellectual property.

But I don't know what LN could have patented. They copied the Bedrock planes. Maybe there's something special they did that would merit a patent but I don't see anything from my look at the planes.

I might mention that LV has a patent on the two screws that hold the blade in position so that when you take the blade out and then replace it, it goes back into the same place. So fairly small things can be important (and valuable) and can be patented.

Mike

I'm probably wrong here, but my understanding is that it isn't the cost of getting the patent that is prohibitive, but the cost of enforcing the patent / protecting one's own IP. And don't the Chinese have a history of ignoring intellectual property laws anyway?

[Mike Henderson]

I'll add that the United States intellectual property laws encourage people to copy. A patent is spoken of as "teaching" and should contain sufficient information that someone else can exploit the idea contained in the patent. The patent gives the owner the right to control the patented material for a certain length of time, but after that time, our system basically encourages others to use the idea.

Another concept is "trade secrets" but in our present "first to file" patent system, a company who attempts to keep something a secret can find that someone else has patented the concept. Then, they might have to seek a license to do what they had been doing.

[Disclaimer: I am not a patent attorney - just someone who has gone through the patent process a number of times (I hold a number of patents).]

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

I'm probably wrong here, but my understanding is that it isn't the cost of getting the patent that is prohibitive, but the cost of enforcing the patent / protecting one's own IP. And don't the Chinese have a history of ignoring intellectual property laws anyway?
You're absolutely correct - enforcing the patent is up to the patent owner. But that's hardly an excuse to not get a patent. A patent can have value in many ways. For example, there are patent trolls who will purchase your patent and they will enforce it. They raise money from investors to do so, and provide a return to the investors based on their success in collecting for the patents. Intellectual Ventures (a company) is one of those patent troll companies.

Chinese companies may ignore patents but if they attempt to sell into the US, they can be brought to court just like any other company, and if the patent owner wins, their goods will be seized at the port of entry. A US patent has no meaning in foreign countries. You have to get a patent in every country that you want to enforce your rights in.

So if a Chinese company builds a device containing US patented material (no Chinese patent) they can sell it in China legally. Conversly, Chinese patents do not protect in the US.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

... I would never look askance at somebody who's financially constrained and has to make a choice between, say, WR or no tool at all.


A WR or no tool at all? Are there many tools made by WR which are not available on the used market or from other makers at reasonable cost?

The WR #4 is priced at $145. I have 3 Stanley #4s that cost me less than half of that. One is a cobbled together Frankenplane which is a great user.

I do not see the WR or no tool at all as being realistic vindication.

jtk

[Daniel Rode]

Exactly! I couldn't agree more.

A WR or no tool at all? Are there many tools made by WR which are not available on the used market or from other makers at reasonable cost?

The WR #4 is priced at $145. I have 3 Stanley #4s that cost me less than half of that. One is a cobbled together Frankenplane which is a great user.

I do not see the WR or no tool at all as being realistic vindication.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

Tried a WR #4 V3 for one year, then sold it. Seemed to be good only at making super thin shavings

This is kind of funny Steven. One of my books with information on planes has the writer saying something about people who are proud of the super thin shavings their planes can make. For many of them, that is the only kind of shaving their planes can make.

My planes that can take super thin shavings usually only have problems with thick shavings due to a tight mouth.

In my opinion, a plane that can not take a healthy shaving is more useless than a plane not being able to make a 0.001" shaving.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

The MkIII's are reported to be quite decent. For me Woodriver planes break my 60% rule for all tools; if I have to pay 60% of the price of a really good one, I'll go ahead and get the really good one.


I'll add that the United States intellectual property laws encourage people to copy. A patent is spoken of as "teaching" and should contain sufficient information that someone else can exploit the idea contained in the patent. The patent gives the owner the right to control the patented material for a certain length of time, but after that time, our system basically encourages others to use the idea.

Another concept is "trade secrets" but in our present "first to file" patent system, a company who attempts to keep something a secret can find that someone else has patented the concept. Then, they might have to seek a license to do what they had been doing.

[Disclaimer: I am not a patent attorney - just someone who has gone through the patent process a number of times (I hold a number of patents).]

Mike

I obtained a provisional patent and need to apply for non-provisional by 4/7/16. My costs to date are a whisker above $29,000. To complete the process, my patent attorney says to expect to spend between $4 and $8,000 more.

For the market I am in (I own a powder metal part manufacturing business), I have decided to not complete the process for the very reason of defending process and material against encroachment is so costly. Further, the burden would be on me to identify and challenge those encroaching. Knowing what I know today, I would not have gone down the patent path in the first place, at least for one, such as mine containing predominantly intellectual property.

I see more innovation in LV products than LN, and as a compnay I believe LN is aware of difficulties in challenging any that copy their iteration of the Bedrock design. There is a cost involved that in many times is never recouped, hence gentlemen agreements and then hard feelings or even lawsuits when said weak agreements fail.

[Tony Zaffuto]

The MkIII's are reported to be quite decent. For me Woodriver planes break my 60% rule for all tools; if I have to pay 60% of the price of a really good one, I'll go ahead and get the really good one.


This is kind of funny Steven. One of my books with information on planes has the writer saying something about people who are proud of the super thin shavings their planes can make. For many of them, that is the only kind of shaving their planes can make.

My planes that can take super thin shavings usually only have problems with thick shavings due to a tight mouth.

In my opinion, a plane that can not take a healthy shaving is more useless than a plane not being able to make a 0.001" shaving.

jtk

Agreed Jim, but with the caveat that the resulting surface is acceptable per the plane's purpose. This is one of the strong points made by Waren Mickley, Dave Weaver, to name a few, that have demonstrated how useful a well set chipbreaker can be.

[Patrick Chase]

I'll add that the United States intellectual property laws encourage people to copy. A patent is spoken of as "teaching" and should contain sufficient information that someone else can exploit the idea contained in the patent. The patent gives the owner the right to control the patented material for a certain length of time, but after that time, our system basically encourages others to use the idea.

Another concept is "trade secrets" but in our present "first to file" patent system, a company who attempts to keep something a secret can find that someone else has patented the concept. Then, they might have to seek a license to do what they had been doing.

[Disclaimer: I am not a patent attorney - just someone who has gone through the patent process a number of times (I hold a number of patents).]

Mike

You're absolutely correct: The "iron law of trade secrets" is that you must be absolutely sure that nobody else can figure out what you're doing.

w.r.t. patent cost it's north of $10K these days, or more if you have to iterate with the patent office. Whether that's prohibitive or not depends on how deep-pocketed you are. My understanding is that L-N was started on a shoestring.

[Patrick Chase]

A WR or no tool at all? Are there many tools made by WR which are not available on the used market or from other makers at reasonable cost?

The WR #4 is priced at $145. I have 3 Stanley #4s that cost me less than half of that. One is a cobbled together Frankenplane which is a great user.

I do not see the WR or no tool at all as being realistic vindication.

jtk

Yeah, I intended that as a hypothetical rather than an assertion of fact, hence "if, say ...". I foresaw both the counterargument and the fact that you in particular would raise it :-).

The cases you chose as examples are ones where used Stanley planes are cost-effective. There are others where they aren't, for example the #62 or #1.

[John Sanford]

Put simply, methinks there are three things that set some folks off regarding Woodriver.

1) Chinese "knockoff". Yes, a good knockoff, but still, Country of Origin is the People's Republic of China, a factor that does not sit well with some folks.
2) The previously mentioned Lie-Nielsen / Woodcraft disruption.
3) Less than stellar previous iterations. This, I think, is a big part of what hurts them. When it takes THREE tries to get a knockoff right, what with modern manufacturing being applied to a tool design that is a century old, it simply reinforces the "Chinese junk" paradigm.

The V3 planes are, according to reviews by users I've run across, good planes. Certainly better than a plane you'll find at Home Depot / Lowes / Sears / Ace / True Value. They darn well better be, since a Woodriver plane costs a higher multiple of a hardware store plane than a LN does of a Woodriver. This, of course, presents another question. IF you can get a Chinese made plane for $20 at Home Depot, why should you pay 7 times as much for a Chinese made plane at Woodcraft?

[Jim Koepke]

Agreed Jim, but with the caveat that the resulting surface is acceptable per the plane's purpose. This is one of the strong points made by Waren Mickley, Dave Weaver, to name a few, that have demonstrated how useful a well set chipbreaker can be.

I think the writer I was paraphrasing had a different idea other than just the chip breaker that can be moved back for heavier work. My take was a plane should be usable over the full range of the operator's ability to provide the energy needed to make the cut.

One of my neighbors brought over an off brand plane of low quality. He was hoping I could sharpen the blade and get it to work. It was difficult to get it to take more than the lightest shaving without it bucking like a fresh rodeo bronco. I have had some very inexpensively made planes that were amazing at how well they worked. I have seen some mass marketed plane shaped objects that should have been embarrassments to those who foisted them off on the plane purchasing public.

My shoulder will go out on me with any extended planing over about 0.008". With a freshly sharpened blade right after my morning coffee I can get up to about 0.015" on the edge of a board.

Some of my planes will clog due to a tight mouth on shavings over about 0.008". This is with the frog all the way back and a stock Stanley blade.

A range of ~0.001-0.008" isn't really asking that much of a plane. I feel confident if the mouths were filed open a bit they would be capable of even thicker shavings.

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

You're absolutely correct: The "iron law of trade secrets" is that you must be absolutely sure that nobody else can figure out what you're doing.

w.r.t. patent cost it's north of $10K these days, or more if you have to iterate with the patent office. Whether that's prohibitive or not depends on how deep-pocketed you are. My understanding is that L-N was started on a shoestring.
My problem is that I don't see anything in the LN planes that could be patented. They appear to be nothing more than Bedrocks made to a high precision and with slightly different metals (ductile iron instead of regular cast iron). But maybe I'm missing something.

And lacking intellectual property protection, they are unable to prevent someone else from copying the Bedrocks, or for that matter, copying them.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

There are others where they aren't, for example the #62 or #1.

I honestly think most woodworkers could do without a #1. It is a nice little plane, but not a do or die case.

The #62 might be another story. If the skew bladed LA/BU planes were available when I bought my #62, I might have purchased one of them instead.

jtk

[Rich Riddle]

One day in a shop someone handed me a plane to use for a bit. I used it but couldn't quite adjust to the way it "felt." After using it for a while, I looked down and noticed it was a Woodriver plane. I simply prefer Veritas and at times a Lie Nielsen plane because of the "feel" of the planes. I don't understand those who don't try them first. But to each his own.

[Robert Engel]

When I bought a lot of LN stuff I did so because of my trust in the brand, and they make a nice product, and have done well by me. I've had my planes for a number of years now and they do fine, I have some nitpicks but overall quite happy with the quality of the products.

As a consumer I am able to vote with my dollars and do so by supporting small retailers and producers which have devoted themselves to quality. It's quite literally the only thing you can do that will have any impact, as a consumer. Doing so has done well for me as I have very few complaints or frustrations with my tools.While I wholeheartedly agree with this idealistically - and in the best world, but economic reality trumps especially for the young ww'er starting out or anyone with limited funds, $400 is just out of reach for a hand plane.

Hence the popularity of restored Stanleys.

Back to the original intent of the thread, the WR finds its market in those leaning toward a premium plane, or those who realize many times the price paid for an old Stanley is upwards of $200. And there are those, like myself, who got fed up with the elusive $5 Stanley restoration and don't have the time or energy for the caravan to flea markets and yard sales.

And we're not even going to mention hand saws, are we?
Have a good one.

[Brian Holcombe]

Restored vintage Stanley's and others are certainly a great way to go and the process of restoration will teach the user a great deal about the plane.

There are many, many small makers and if I'm buying a new tool I will always go that direction. Anymore I prefer to support small and very high quality makers and sellers like individual blacksmiths and plane makers. Ultimately every economic event will support many people in some small way, but supporting the small high quality makers encourages more people to move into that field, more competition encourages even higher quality and more choices made available. Higher quality usually requires educated and professional sources to sell it, further increasing the amount of information made available to the consumer.

I think these things are important and so I support them, not everyone will agree and that is fine with me.

Idealism is a fault of mine, I would sooner sit on the floor while saving money to purchase a well made chair then to purchase a cheap chair.

[Chris Fournier]

I'm Canadian and I'll buy American woodworking tools before I buy Chinese copies every time! You guys south of my border need to buck up! I am not a vintage fan and that is likely because we don't have much vintage up here but I'd buy US vintage before I bought Chinese.

[Chuck Tringo]

I dont have a problem with made in China in general. My problem with it is when an American (or Canadian or European) company has products manufactured in China. The only reason to do so is to save $$ and when that happens, 99 times out of 100 you get what you pay for. It is too complicated a discussion for me to spend time on here, but I support American Nd Canadian jobs whenever possible with my $$. I also disagree with the costs too much argument, plenty of vintage around and even a few dealers who sell them tuned and rewdy to go. I actually avoid shooping at Woodcraft as I find they tend to stock overpriced made in china and india junk, and their sale prices usually only bring items prices down to what can be had elsewheres normal price.

[Jeff Heath]

I'm probably wrong here, but my understanding is that it isn't the cost of getting the patent that is prohibitive, but the cost of enforcing the patent / protecting one's own IP. And don't the Chinese have a history of ignoring intellectual property laws anyway?

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner.

This is exactly the issue. As George, and several others, have already stated several times over in this thread previously, the chinese have a history of putting the onus of copyright and patent infringement enforcement on the patent owner. This costs money. Lots of it. Huge money. The chinese know it. They do it all day long, every day. The difference is, in most cases, they're not very good at copying. They use inferior cast iron, and the fit and finish on planes from WR and the mountain of Bridgeport clones leaves much to be desired.

This is one of those debates that will probably continue on forums forever. Some people don't care about the issues, and all they care about is the dollar coming out of their pocket. Some care heavily about the issues, and choose to buy fewer items, and buy quality from a North American or European maker, at all costs. Some just stick with restoring the old stuff.

I have been lucky enough to have been "in the room" as an innocent bystander during a heated discussion on this topic, with some of the previously mentioned players who have a stake in this game. After listening to it play out, I made my decision, right then and there, to never buy anything ever again from Woodcraft. I also made the same decision regarding any tools from china, in general. I have done a pretty solid job of purging my entire workshop of tools made in china, for both wood and metal working. I sleep pretty good at night knowing I've made the right choice for me.

Here's how I see it, in it's simplest and least wordy form. Stanley/Bailey designed the bedrock plane long ago, and stopped making them decades ago. Lie Nielsen took that design, which was, at that time, no longer protected by any patent, and also did no harm to anyone, as no company was making bedrock style planes in the world at that time. They took an existent design, improved upon it in several areas, and improved the machining quality immensely. This resulted in a plane that, for the first time in (perhaps) forever, worked correctly right out of the box. Eureka. Sales in droves, and LN is partially responsible for the beginning of the current resurgence in the hand tool golden renaissance that's been going on for quite a while.

Along comes Woodcraft and Woodriver, and they ship a LN plane over to china, and copy it. Plane and simple. Forget about patents and legal rights. How about thinking about what is just right vs. wrong. They copy it, only they make a mess of things, using poor quality cast iron and questionable machining practices. They get the plane to the North American market for 1/3 the price of a LN. 3 versions later, people who don't care about the "right vs. wrong" discussion buy them because, now, they apparently work as they should, at least some of the time, and they are still much cheaper than an American Made LN plane, or a Canadian made Veritas plane.

For myself, living by a code is what keeps me going. I will never buy a chinese made tool as long as I live, and I haven't stepped foot in a Woodcraft store since being the "fly on the wall" at a tool event several years ago.

I am not a patent attorney, and I didn't play one in a movie, either. However, I am opinionated on this subject matter, in case you couldn't tell.:o

[Frederick Skelly]

......the fit and finish on planes from WR ..... leaves much to be desired.

Many of your points are valid Jeff. But I take exception to the single statement I excerpted above. I'm not sure where you're coming from there. Perhaps you saw a version 2? You see, I own a WR #3 version 3 that I bought for $103 specifically to evaluate it. (My review is in the archive if you're interested.) I find the fit and finish for that plane to be as good or better than the vintage Stanleys I own. I would say that the FIT AND FINISH (only) is at least 80% as good as that of my 3 Lee Valleys. The only beef I have is that it's too heavy for my taste.

I also own a WR #1. Price decided that for me - I wanted a small plane for box work and I couldn't justify the cost of LN, nor the cost of a vintage #1. The fit/finish is fine there too. The ONLY beef I have with the WR #1 is that I'd prefer a finer thread on the adjuster.

But like I said, many of your points are quite valid. It's only this one point with which I take issue.

Fred

[Gene Davis]

FWIW, Woodcraft says in their latest sale flier that anything that cuts and is worked by hand, i.e., chisels and planes, is discounted 15 percent right now.

But is 15 percent off on a Woodriver plane any kind of a deal?

[Jim Koepke]

I am opinionated on this subject matter, in case you couldn't tell.

Some are of the same opinion Jeff.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

But is 15 percent off on a Woodriver plane any kind of a deal?
Yes. Thats the only time to buy them. Else, spend the extra and buy the LV.

[Gary Cunningham]

I have a #6 sized vintage Stanley that I love. Not sure why the #6 sizedoes not get a lot of love...

I have the WR #6. Works fine. The tote shape sucks. Someday I will reshape it.

[Gary Cunningham]

One day in a shop someone handed me a plane to use for a bit. I used it but couldn't quite adjust to the way it "felt." After using it for a while, I looked down and noticed it was a Woodriver plane. I simply prefer Veritas and at times a Lie Nielsen plane because of the "feel" of the planes. I don't understand those who don't try them first. But to each his own.


I have a LN 4 1/2 and I can't seem to get the "feel" down.:(

[Jeff Heath]

[QUOTE=Frederick Skelly;2549303

It's only this one point with which I take issue.

Fred[/QUOTE]

Fred

I used to teach woodworking classes several years ago in my shop on Saturdays. One that was very popular was on the tuning and use of hand planes. One of the guys who attended frequently brought in a couple of WR planes. He couldn't get them to work right, and asked if I could show him what they needed. What they needed was to be re-machined. The sole was not machined square to the sides, and the bed was not square to the mouth, so the frog wasn't able to keep the iron bedded properly without skewing the cutting iron. It was on a jack plane. I showed him my LN low angle jack, and how he could use one iron for low angle end grain work, as well as most planing you run into on a project. I also showed him how to adjust a 2nd iron with a higher bevel to attain an effective cutting angle between 55° and 60° for difficult-to-plane woods and grain. He took his WR jack and smoothing plane back, and bought the low angle jack from LN.

I have also seen other WR planes where the machining quality was not up to snuff with the likes of LV or LN. I have no idea about versions 1, 2 or 3. If you are one of the lucky ones that got a decent quality plane or planes, then good for you. My question is, what about all the woodworkers who bought these planes when the first 2 versions were being sold. They were getting junk most of the time, and a lot of them didn't know enough about planes to even know that they were getting junk to begin with.

I was never comparing the WR fit and finish to older Stanley/Bailey planes. For my own quarter, I'd rather have a fleet of old Stanley's, bedrock or not, than anything from WR. For the longest time, I had a pretty full set of Bedrock planes from 603 to 608. No junior jack, but the 605 1/2 was one of my favorites. I tuned them all myself, which required extensive work in most cases. It was a labor of love, done at the end of my work day each day for a while until I closed up shop for the day. Some took more than others. After a decade of that, I began acquiring Lie Nielsen planes. At the time, Bedrock planes were selling for near what LN planes were selling for, and I was gladly making the trade-off, selling my Stanley Bedrock's for silly money, and using that to buy brand new LN planes.

Now, I've sold most of my LN planes because I make my own wooden planes. I was impressed by how well they held their value to the ebay world. Every one of them sold within a few bucks of what a brand new one cost. I have kept a few of them; my low angle jack, which is one of my most used planes, and the #4 smoother. I also have their adjustable mouth block plane, their rabbeting block plane, and the medium shoulder plane, and all 3 Bogg's spokeshaves. Great tools.

I have met Tom LN in person, and he is a gem of a guy. It meant a lot to me, and still does today, to give my hard earned money to an American businessman who is a class act. I don't feel the same way about Woodcraft, and I won't give my money to a chinese manufacturer unless there's absolutely no other choice. With tools, there's always a choice. My shop is all old American iron, and one Canadian machine, that I restored myself. I just replaced my last Taiwanese made machine, a 16 year old Jet 15" planer, with a Baxter Whitney 30" planer. I can't wait to get it tuned and up and running so I can sell the Jet. It'll be a very happy day for me to see it go, and not because it wasn't a good machine. It was a very good machine, after I made plenty of changes to get it to perform better. It just represents the driving force of what's wrong with our economy in our country, and I wished I knew better back when I bought it, and other's like it. I've made the correction, and I feel good about that.

[Chuck Tringo]

I couldnt agree more with Jeff. Woodcraft rarely gets my $$ anymore and then only when they have something that I cannot get elsewhere and I make sure that it is not made in Any Asian country other than Japan.

[george wilson]

The cost of patent protection is high indeed. Roland White invented the "Bored through cylinder" for revolvers. With bored through cylinders,modern style cartridges could be loaded into pistols easily from the rear of the cylinders. Percussion pistols did not have bored through cylinders.

Roland got into a deal with Smith and Wesson where he'd get a royalty from every pistol they sold with a bored through cylinder. Smith and Wesson shrewdly inserted in their contract that Roland would pay the cost of litigation protecting the patent.

The result was that Smith and Wesson got wealthy making pistols with bored through cylinders while Roland White died in poverty from paying for law suites protecting his invention.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Jeff made an excellent point, with regards to V1 & 2 of the WR planes. If Woodcraft were to act in a manner similar to LV or LN, they would have recalled the planes and corrected the issues or replaced the planes.

[Frederick Skelly]

All good points Jeff. I understand where you're coming from.

Best regards,
Fred

[Frederick Skelly]

If Woodcraft were to act in a manner similar to LV or LN, they would have recalled the planes and corrected the issues or replaced the planes.

Absolutely Tony. If Woodcraft had done so, it would have gone a long way toward repairing the damage done to their reputation by those sub-standard planes. I was surprised when LV sent me a free depth stop for my small router plane and even more surprised when the sent a new (free) depth stop for my plow plane. And their offer to upgrade the tool to the latest specs for only $59 blew me away.

[lowell holmes]

I'm Canadian and I'll buy American woodworking tools before I buy Chinese copies every time! You guys south of my border need to buck up! I am not a vintage fan and that is likely because we don't have much vintage up here but I'd buy US vintage before I bought Chinese.

I have a #3 Bailey that is a Canadian made plane and it is my goto plane. So I like that Canadian plane.:)

[george wilson]

I have been disappointed with some of the junky stuff Woodcraft sells. Their needle files and rifflers are strictly Chinese junk,for example.

[Jeff Heath]

All good points Jeff. I understand where you're coming from.

Best regards,
Fred

The very best to you, too, Fred. I'm at a point in my life where I've become very comfortable with the concept that it is always best to purchase 1 item of quality than 6 of questionable origins. My own kids are 34, 27, and 26 years old respectively. It is hard to get them to understand, when they have a whole house to furnish, that it is much better to go slow and buy quality stuff vs. running over to "Best Buy" and filling the house up with a bunch of electronic crap made in china that will be thrown away in a year or two. Of course, for furniture, they don't have to worry about that stuff because I am a sap of a father, and build all their stuff for them.

I try to not come off as overbearing in these forums, but it's not always easy. The written word is difficult to read without knowing the emotion or intent of the writer. Often, there is a fine line between making sense with a post, vs. sounding like a whack job who is just beating the drums again.

From the perspective of hand planes, I think that a woodworker who is just getting started using hand planes is much better off starting out with a flea market find or two. There is no better way, that I can think of, of truly understanding what makes a plane work properly than going through the process of fettling an old, quality made Stanley (or other brand from same era, like Miller Falls, etc...) to make it work correctly. The transformation of a plane like this from paper weight to functioning tool is an eye opener for beginning woodworkers. Once the understanding of how much work it takes to actually make that "1939 604" sing and dance across the top of your prized piece of curly cherry, a greater appreciation can be understood about the high quality of the delivered tool from both LN & LV.


with regards to V1 & 2 of the WR planes. If Woodcraft were to act in a manner similar to LV or LN, they would have recalled the planes and corrected the issues or replaced the planes.

Here's my personal experience with this. My wife gifted me with a Lie Nielsen shooting board, #50 I believe, when they first came out. I live out in the country, and am surrounded by nature. Chipmunks and mice are frequent uninvited visitors to my shop. One night, a chipmunk dragged a walnut inside my shop, hopped up on my plane-holding table, where all my planes are stored, and dismantled the walnut for supper. This was evident by the husks and shells found. While enjoying his/her dinner, or perhaps afterwards, the chipmunk urinated all over the table between my #50 and a Bedrock 606. By the time I discovered it some days, or even a week or more later, the damage was done, and both planes were very rusty, along with some serious discoloration to the table top. I was furious, but the damage was done.

I contacted customer service at LN and asked them about refinishing the plane, which already had the beginnings of pitting. They told me to send the plane back to them. I asked about cost, and the woman on the phone said "they would have to see it." I kept the wooden box for the plane, so I packaged it up and sent it back. Less than a week later, a brand new #50 in a "never opened before" box arrived at my door. I called them immediately, and their response was that they wanted me to have a brand new plane without any bad memories of what had occurred with the chipmunk. No charge, and please enjoy your Lie Nielsen planes.

Woodcraft has been known to start an argument over surface rust on an attempted return of a Hock replacement iron. They just don't get it.....


Edit: My only hope, in writing any of this in this thread, is that some new woodworker who is trying to figure out what first plane or two to buy with his hard-earned money, will learn what the consequences are of purchasing the cheap chinese stuff, and how much it actually helps our own economy when we support our own small business owners in North America. I strongly believe that a movement, however small, has begun in our country, and it's a serious step in the right direction. I have a few friends in the machining world who have barely survived the last 15 years, losing most of their business to overseas cheap work. That business is starting to come back home because manufacturers who need these parts to actually work are figuring out how bad a high failure rate is for customer satisfaction. OK, I'm putting my drum away......

[Al Launier]

Practicality sometimes loses its benefit in favor of partiality. If it does what you want at a less expensive price, I say buy it. If you think its long term usfulness comes up short compared to a more expensive model, spend the extra, i.e. spend more, spend once.

[Warren Mickley]

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding!!!
Lie Nielsen took that design, which was, at that time, no longer protected by any patent, and also did no harm to anyone, as no company was making bedrock style planes in the world at that time. They took an existent design, improved upon it in several areas, and improved the machining quality immensely. This resulted in a plane that, for the first time in (perhaps) forever, worked correctly right out of the box.

LN is partially responsible for the beginning of the current resurgence in the hand tool golden renaissance that's been going on for quite a while.

Right out of the box? I have never owned LN plane, but I have been to half a dozen LN events and have never seen a plane that performed like my two Stanley planes.

Back when the hand tool renaissance started Woodcraft Supply was devoted to hand tools and was very helpful. That was before Lie Nielsen bought out Ken Wisner, before there were Wisner planes, before Lie Nielsen worked for Garrett Wade, and before there was a Garrett Wade.

[Glen Canaday]

That's not all. Rather than itemize and send the thread further off topic, if a tool is made in China, it doesn't go in my shop. I don't have a choice on some stuff, like wire brushes and the like, but if there is an alternative made in the US, Canada, England, anywhere else in Europe, that is what I will buy.

I have heard good things about the WR v3 planes, no doubt. I've considered giving them a shot. But I have a full set of vintage MF planes and can do without. When I buy a #1, there is a very high probability that it will be a LN.

[lowell holmes]

I walked into a Woodcraft store in Houston and walked out with a LN 4 1/2, so they did sell Lie Nielsen planes. It was in a sealed plastic bag. It was a cast iron plane.

I didn't use it that much, so I sold it to buy a Lee Valley smoother. I still have the smoother, but I don't use it that much. I tend to use a #3 Bailey, and 604, 605, and 607 bedrocks. I have a 5 1/2 bailey I like and use on occasion. It is wide and is longer than the 605.

I'm probably the only one that just has to have a tool, buy one, and after a while it just sits there. I know that none of you do that.:)

[Mike Henderson]

...

Along comes Woodcraft and Woodriver, and they ship a LN plane over to china, and copy it. Plane and simple. Forget about patents and legal rights. How about thinking about what is just right vs. wrong. They copy it, only they make a mess of things, using poor quality cast iron and questionable machining practices. They get the plane to the North American market for 1/3 the price of a LN. 3 versions later, people who don't care about the "right vs. wrong" discussion buy them because, now, they apparently work as they should, at least some of the time, and they are still much cheaper than an American Made LN plane, or a Canadian made Veritas plane.

The basis of the international free market is the idea that anyone is free to copy unprotected material - in fact the free market encourages others to copy unprotected material. The idea is that if many people are selling essentially the same product, the customer will benefit because only the most efficient producers will survive. In this case, if WoodRiver makes bad planes, the market will punish them by customers not purchasing the product. If they make good planes, the market will reward them.

You can rail against people who copy an unprotected product that someone else has made - and you can choose not to purchase a copied product. That's your right. But don't try to say that the producer who copied the product is doing something unfair or unethical. They are doing what our economic system encourages them to do, and that economic system, for all of it's faults, has done pretty well. It's like Churchill's comment about democracy: "...Democracy is the worse form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..."

For those of you who think copying unprotected material is wrong, try to come up with an economic system that incorporates that idea. How do you decide what is copied and what is independently developed but looks like what someone else has done? If you decide something is copied, what remedies should be provided? etc., etc. I think you'll soon find out that it's an impossible task.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

The basis of the international free market is the idea that anyone is free to copy unprotected material - in fact the free market encourages others to copy unprotected material. The idea is that if many people are selling essentially the same product, the customer will benefit because only the most efficient producer will survive. In this case, if WoodRiver makes bad planes, the market will punish them by customers not purchasing the product. If they make good planes, the market will reward them.

You can rail against people who copy an unprotected product that someone else has made - and you can choose not to purchase a copied product. That's your right. But don't try to say that the producer who copied the product is doing something unfair or unethical. They are doing what our economic system encourages them to do, and that economic system, for all of it's faults, has done pretty well. It's like Churchill's comment about democracy: "...Democracy is the worse form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..."

For those of you who think copying unprotected material is wrong, try to come up with an economic system that incorporates that idea. How do you decide what is copied and what is independently developed but looks like what someone else has done? If you decide something is copied, what remedies should be provided? etc., etc. I think you'll soon find out that it's an impossible task.

Mike

Being an efficient producer often requires streamlining the production process. If there is a slight drop in quality most will not notice because they never used the quality product.

To me it seems a bit unfair or unethical for the copier to use the casting of the first producer to make their molds.

The economic system that will support and incorporate the idea of not copying others rests in the hearts, minds and wallets of the buyers. Some will understand supporting their fellow citizens by purchasing products produced in their own countries or neighboring countries. Others will not think anything about supporting a producer who doesn't worry about product development, livable wages or the environment as long as they have kept a few more dollars in their own wallet. Until it is their job that is eliminated, they will be happy to buy cheaper products surreptitiously copied from the development process of their fellow countrymen.

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

Being an efficient producer often requires streamlining the production process. If there is a slight drop in quality most will not notice because they never used the quality product.

To me it seems a bit unfair or unethical for the copier to use the casting of the first producer to make their molds.

The economic system that will support and incorporate the idea of not copying others rests in the hearts, minds and wallets of the buyers. Some will understand supporting their fellow citizens by purchasing products produced in their own countries or neighboring countries. Others will not think anything about supporting a producer who doesn't worry about product development, livable wages or the environment as long as they have kept a few more dollars in their own wallet. Until it is their job that is eliminated, they will be happy to buy cheaper products surreptitiously copied from the development process of their fellow countrymen.

jtk
You raise several issues:

1. What is quality? Most people think they know what quality is but when you push them, it usually turns out to be defined as "I know it when I see it." The most usable definition is: "Quality is what the buyer says it is." That is, if you can machine something to extremely tight tolerances but the customer doesn't need those kind of tolerances, the additional accuracy is not quality to the customer, and it's unlikely they will pay for it.

2. An economic system is defined by the rules that control it. And our economic system, whether you like it or not, encourages copying unprotected material. When one company produces a toothpaste that whitens teeth, others will copy it - if the customers buy it. And we all gain by that competition. If you want to have protected industries (or companies) - industries (or companies) that are protected from competition (even if that competition is copying) - there are countries where you can see the outcome. Go to any communist country and you'll see industries (and companies) protected from competition and look at their products. And look at the buyer's satisfaction with the products produced. I think you'll agree that our system, for all it's faults, is pretty good.

Our economic system makes life difficult for companies who make products. Every company wishes they had a monopoly on their product. Andy Grove wrote a book called "Only the Paranoid Survive (http://www.amazon.com/Only-Paranoid-Survive-Exploit-Challenge/dp/0385483821/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1459718319&sr=8-1&keywords=only+the+paranoid+survive)". That sums up the problem for most companies. Our economic system is tough but it gives the buyer the best products at the lowest price (best is as defined by the customer, which includes price). Another comment that sums up our economic system is Schumpeter's "Creative Destruction". Companies are destroyed by new companies who produce a better product or are more efficient in their production of an existing product.

You are free to buy or not buy from any company based on your beliefs - but your beliefs do not define an economic system. Only the laws of the country define an economic system. If you are going to be consistent in your belief, you should refuse to purchase any product which copies another product. But if you did so, there would not be much that you could purchase.

Mike

[P.S. If a company obtains some type of legal protection over their product(s), they can protect them. Even if they don't have a patent, they may be able to assert copyright protection. But if they don't have ANY legal protection, then anyone can legally copy their product(s), even if they copy them exactly (generic drugs). In our legal and economic system, it is up to the owner of the intellectual property to protect it. If they do not, the legal assumption is that it is considered public domain, available to all.]

[Derek Cohen]

Mike, this is where the discussions headed several years ago. It came down to Legal vs Moral. For some the legal right to make and sell what you will was a rationalisation to ignore the morality behind right and wrong.

In society, we all have to decide on whether legally right is appropriate, and where our moral compass should be pointed.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mike Henderson]

Mike, this is where the discussions headed several years ago. It came down to Legal vs Moral. For some the legal right to make and sell what you will was a rationalisation to ignore the morality behind right and wrong.

In society, we all have to decide on whether legally right is appropriate, and where our moral compass should be pointed.

Regards from Perth

Derek
Yes, and in all my posts, I stated that anyone has the right to purchase or not purchase based on their beliefs. It is the legal aspect that I am pointing to - that every company copies and if you're opposed to buying any copied product, there will not be much to buy.

But what I'm hearing is that many people's belief about this issue only applies to hand planes and then perhaps specifically to the Woodcraft - LN situation. Which I think is hypocritical and situational morality.

Mike

[paul cottingham]

Some are of the same opinion Jeff.

jtk
Amen, there, young fella.

[Jeff Heath]

Mike

My entire contention by participating in this thread is that the, as you called it, the international free market is the worst thing that ever happened to this country. From a legality point of view, I agree with everything you're saying. You're absolutely and undoubtedly correct in your legal assessment. As Derek so eloquently put it, I'm speaking of the morality of it all. I know from personal experience how impossible it is to protect copyright. What I write about is whether or not it should be done. Some people care about this stuff, and some people just don't.

I care. Whenever possible (and it's harder and harder these days) I always buy American, even though it costs more. That's ok. I know where the money is going, and I know a like minded individual as me is benefiting from my purchase. That's good enough for me. All my machines are old American iron. I wouldn't buy a pacific rim machine if you held a gun to my head. BTW, my attitude includes our good neighbors to the north. I've got a 1966 Poitras 8" jointer (my small jointer) made in Canada that is a fantastically made machine. Lots of great stuff made in Europe, too. Wadkin, Stenner, Robinson, etc...from the U.K., and the list goes on.

Just imagine what would happen to our economy if everybody thought this way......

[Mike Henderson]

Mike

My entire contention by participating in this thread is that the, as you called it, the international free market is the worst thing that ever happened to this country. From a legality point of view, I agree with everything you're saying. You're absolutely and undoubtedly correct in your legal assessment. As Derek so eloquently put it, I'm speaking of the morality of it all. I know from personal experience how impossible it is to protect copyright. What I write about is whether or not it should be done. Some people care about this stuff, and some people just don't.

I care. Whenever possible (and it's harder and harder these days) I always buy American, even though it costs more. That's ok. I know where the money is going, and I know a like minded individual as me is benefiting from my purchase. That's good enough for me. All my machines are old American iron. I wouldn't buy a pacific rim machine if you held a gun to my head. BTW, my attitude includes our good neighbors to the north. I've got a 1966 Poitras 8" jointer (my small jointer) made in Canada that is a fantastically made machine. Lots of great stuff made in Europe, too. Wadkin, Stenner, Robinson, etc...from the U.K., and the list goes on.

Just imagine what would happen to our economy if everybody thought this way......
As I've said multiple times before, you have the right to buy or not buy based on your beliefs. What I'm trying to point out is that if all you're going to rail against is the Woodcraft/LN "copy" situation, you're being hypocritical. Essentially ALL companies copy - it's what our economic system encourages. If you're morally against a company copying another company's product, you need to rail against the general situation of copying non-protected material by companies, and not buy any product that contains any non-protected copied material.

However, that will not leave you much to purchase, and I assume that's why many people only rail against this one particular situation.

Mike

[And, yes, our international free market has a lot of faults. But it's a lot better than all the other economic systems out there. If you've ever traveled to Russia, or even Cuba, you'll appreciate our free market.]

[John Kananis]

I feel like I started a rock throwing fight here...

Copying is no different than what MF or Sergent did with Stanley but many of us own those planes. The problem now a days is that manufacturing is outsourced way too much (don't get me started on the multitude of issues this causes). Most countries that are doing ok now a days have kept manufacturing (and pride in product) in country. We Do need more companies like LN, many more.

However, we do live in this particular day in age and the circumstances are that there are no similar US companies producing the type of product that LN produces. Now, for many newbies, who already undertake a new curriculum in woodworking, fettling fleamarket planes seems more a chore/task/additional challenge getting in the way of woodworking (I think the appreciation for these vintage tools often-times comes later).

Wealthy folks aside that can invest large amounts of money on a full LN catalog, Woodriver offers an almost ready out of the box plane that will last and grow with the user. Even at full price, look at the set that comes with the low-angle block, a number 4 and a number 6; cost is about $370. What's a number 6 cost over at LN?

Copying isn't really the problem here, China is but without more competition right here in our own back yard there are few alternatives for new.

[Jim Koepke]

Yes, and in all my posts, I stated that anyone has the right to purchase or not purchase based on their beliefs. It is the legal aspect that I am pointing to - that every company copies and if you're opposed to buying any copied product, there will not be much to buy.

But what I'm hearing is that many people's belief about this issue only applies to hand planes and then perhaps specifically to the Woodcraft - LN situation. Which I think is hypocritical and situational morality.

Mike

Sometimes it isn't so much what was done as how it was done. Someone else mentioned the first prototypes were actually made using the LN planes as the molding masters. That it was also done by one party in a business relationship to the other party in a business relationship does not warm my feelings toward the party doing the deed. If this is how they honor a partner in a business relationship, how will they honor a relationship with someone like me when I walk in the door?

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

I would be happy with the choice, instead of complaining. When you are rich and can equip your shop with LN tools, well, more power to you. A poor sod like me works up the vintage stuff and learns to love them. When you have a small budget and need some planes now, then there is the very reasonable quality at an affordable price with the woodriver planes. What's not to like about a situation like that?

And don't worry too much about LN's market position. It seems pretty solid. Great reputation, loyal customer base, high quality, excellent service.

[Pat Barry]

Mike

My entire contention by participating in this thread is that the, as you called it, the international free market is the worst thing that ever happened to this country. From a legality point of view, I agree with everything you're saying. You're absolutely and undoubtedly correct in your legal assessment. As Derek so eloquently put it, I'm speaking of the morality of it all. I know from personal experience how impossible it is to protect copyright. What I write about is whether or not it should be done. Some people care about this stuff, and some people just don't.

I care. Whenever possible (and it's harder and harder these days) I always buy American, even though it costs more. That's ok. I know where the money is going, and I know a like minded individual as me is benefiting from my purchase. That's good enough for me. All my machines are old American iron. I wouldn't buy a pacific rim machine if you held a gun to my head. BTW, my attitude includes our good neighbors to the north. I've got a 1966 Poitras 8" jointer (my small jointer) made in Canada that is a fantastically made machine. Lots of great stuff made in Europe, too. Wadkin, Stenner, Robinson, etc...from the U.K., and the list goes on.

Just imagine what would happen to our economy if everybody thought this way......
I tend to agree with most of your points Jeff, but sadly, the world has changed, and its never going to go back to the way it was. We all may need to shop the boutique makers if we truly want to buy American (Canadian) for our tools because there is no way an American company can compete in the world marketplace by building in America - its too tricked up by Wall Street and the Government. We can't go back to be isolationist as a country because that train no longer runs.

[Robert Engel]

Yes, there was a time when your TV, your shoes, your automobile, furniture and lawnmower were all made in the USA. But those days are gone.

I agree with the previous ^ poster. American business has to compete with cheap labor in world markets and at home jump through regulation and employment hoops, and if the California $15/hour minimum wage sweeps the country be ready. US is headed backward toward the extremely rich and the rest of us.

You can "buy American" only if you can afford it. Yo will spend 3x for a Northfield tablesaw that won't perform any better.

While a LN plane is 3X the cost of a WR while (as a user of both) the performance is not worth the extra cost.

[Zuye Zheng]

Great points, having both LN and WoodRiver (v3) as well as Baileys and LV, I would say they all shave wood pretty well with varying degrees of effort and bling factor. I have WR in 6 and 7 since they had the largest difference in price and they were pretty good out of the box. Blades are not as flat or sharp as LN but with a slight hollow took a couple minutes to get going and a little more slop in the wheel. No brass lever cap and handles are a little uglier but none of those effect function.

That said, the generalizations and blame on China are kinda disconcerting, could be the Chinese American in me. Pretty sure it was an American company with the help of a Canadian who contracted a Chinese manufacturer to produce the WoodRiver line of planes. Weak Chinese patent laws, although true, don't really apply since LN could've gone after WoodCraft to stop at least distribution if there were any merit which would've been hard given the prior art of the Stanley patents. US patent law is not without flaws either, see pharma, patent trolls, etc.

However, after dealing with both LN and WC, I would hands down prefer to do business with LN for their service and accountability to their product. And given the he drama recounted here, definitely think LN also has the moral high ground. But saying I would never by Chinese (or any country X for that matter) seems kinda extreme, especially in this case when the "Chinese" product is quite good and it's actually a US company. If you don't want to support US companies with questionable or practices that are unagreeable that seems like a different argument.

Would you buy Chinese tools if they were originally novel and of good quality?

[Jeff Heath]

Have fun guys. This thread is heading where they always do....spiraling into a pi$$ing contest.

I'm out; I've said what I had to say, with one small last question;

A Northfield tablesaw won't perform any better than what????? One of the pacific rim saws? You must be joking, or you haven't used a good OWWM saw. The gap in quality is as large as the Grand Canyon.

Later.....

[john zulu]

Woodriver does not gain my support as they started with ill intention first. Thanks for the clarification Derek.

[Pat Barry]

Have fun guys. This thread is heading where they always do....spiraling into a pi$$ing contest. I'm out; Later.....
For some strange reason I found this to be hilarious commentary. I think it has something to do with the volume of words already expressed by the author before reaching this inevitable conclusion.

[Patrick Chase]

The cost of patent protection is high indeed. Roland White invented the "Bored through cylinder" for revolvers. With bored through cylinders,modern style cartridges could be loaded into pistols easily from the rear of the cylinders. Percussion pistols did not have bored through cylinders.

Roland got into a deal with Smith and Wesson where he'd get a royalty from every pistol they sold with a bored through cylinder. Smith and Wesson shrewdly inserted in their contract that Roland would pay the cost of litigation protecting the patent.

The result was that Smith and Wesson got wealthy making pistols with bored through cylinders while Roland White died in poverty from paying for law suites protecting his invention.

Don't forget that Rollin White's patent (at least the workable version of it - the earlier one was garbage) was issued in 1855, just before a wee little "domestic disturbance" that caused the federal govt to abridge all sorts of rights. By 1863 White was suing gun manufacturers who were at the time desperately trying to ramp up production to support the war effort.

My favorite part was that after the war Congress passed a bill to give some retroactive relief to White, but (by then President) Grant vetoed it specifically because White had thrown sand in the gears of the war effort.

[steven c newman]

Hmm, someone is ticked off that a copy was made......of another firm's copy that they made.....of a design patented by another firm long ago. Even back then, Sargent had their version of it, some place called vaughn & bushnell had their version of it. Later, some of the designs were also copied by....Kunz? And even a company from India? As for the "Bailey" designs......EVERYONE made copies of that style of plane...Millers Falls was almost direct knockoffs of the Bailey design, other than the lever cap they designed.

Someone copies a design......then gets mad because someone else does the same thing? But.....which did this "bad" company copy from? The original or the modern copy? I guess nothing disrupts a good crusade more than just plain facts. To quote Angus Young..."Who made who?"

[Patrick Chase]

The basis of the international free market is the idea that anyone is free to copy unprotected material - in fact the free market encourages others to copy unprotected material. The idea is that if many people are selling essentially the same product, the customer will benefit because only the most efficient producers will survive. In this case, if WoodRiver makes bad planes, the market will punish them by customers not purchasing the product. If they make good planes, the market will reward them.

This is right, but the argument goes further still: The ENTIRE intent of the patent system is to encourage public disclosure of inventions so that they eventually (after the granted period of exclusivity) enter the public domain and become usable by all.

We've had the opposite situation in the past, where there was no incentive to disclose and the medieval guilds kept their tools and the knowledge of how to make and use them to themselves. There are extremely good reasons why that time was called "the dark ages".

I think there are several reasonable arguments to be made as to why and how the patent system is broken, but I see no problem at all in copying a design that's in the public domain.

[Patrick Chase]

Being an efficient producer often requires streamlining the production process. If there is a slight drop in quality most will not notice because they never used the quality product.

To me it seems a bit unfair or unethical for the copier to use the casting of the first producer to make their molds.

Do we know that that actually happened?

I asked earlier in this thread and didn't get a definitive answer. I personally suspect not - From examining the pictures of the "v1" WR in FWW it appears to me to have been cast from a separate pattern that included many of the same design features.

[Patrick Chase]

My entire contention by participating in this thread is that the, as you called it, the international free market is the worst thing that ever happened to this country. From a legality point of view, I agree with everything you're saying. You're absolutely and undoubtedly correct in your legal assessment. As Derek so eloquently put it, I'm speaking of the morality of it all. I know from personal experience how impossible it is to protect copyright. What I write about is whether or not it should be done. Some people care about this stuff, and some people just don't.

You are conflating two very different things here:

1. The system of patents, which has been around for almost the entire existence of the US (and that is explicitly provided for in the Constitution). On the whole that system has served us very well, by strongly encouraging disclosure of inventions and thereby allowing others to use, extend, and yes, even copy them.

2. The much more recent system of globalized, free trade that has made it possible for WC to cheaply sell such copies made by Quangsheng in particular.

As much as I love to grab lightning rods I'm going to avoid this one except to say: Even if globalisation is a net benefit as its advocates claim, not enough has been or is being done to offset its negative impacts on specific groups of people. What we have now are a few people who are benefitting hugely and a whole lot of others not so much.

[Mike Henderson]

As much as I love to grab lightning rods I'm going to avoid this one except to say: Even if globalisation is a net benefit as its advocates claim, not enough has been or is being done to offset its negative impacts on specific groups of people. What we have now are a few people who are benefitting hugely and a whole lot of others not so much.
I agree with this.

In the United States, labor costs are somewhat equal across the states. Some states are higher than others but there are generally good reasons. Once you extend labor to the world stage, you will wind up with general equality of labor costs - except that many countries have people willing to work for very small amounts of money. What is happening, if nothing is done to affect it, is that labor costs will be somewhat equal across countries, and because of the low cost of labor in many countries, that means labor in the US will not see the kind of reward for their labor that they had in the past.

The only people in the US who will see a fair reward for their labor are those who are doing work that CANNOT be done in other countries. Labor that is personal, such as barbers, auto repair, etc. But those are threatened by robots.

Mike

[John Sanford]

One day in a shop someone handed me a plane to use for a bit. I used it but couldn't quite adjust to the way it "felt." After using it for a while, I looked down and noticed it was a Woodriver plane. I simply prefer Veritas and at times a Lie Nielsen plane because of the "feel" of the planes. I don't understand those who don't try them first. But to each his own.

Try them where? Outside of Canada, AFAIK, the only place to try a Veritas plane is at a WW show that Lee Valley attends. Or to find somebody who has 'em and is willing to host the curious, which can be easy, or darn hard, depending on where one lives. Lie-Nielsen isn't quite as challenging to find for try first. After all, it only took 3 years after I moved up here before the LN roadshow came along. When will the next one be along? Who knows, but I can rest comfortable knowing that there probably will be another show within 400 miles in the next couple of years. I realize that the LN roadshow is a lot more accessible for the majority of our population than it is for those of us lurking in the Intermountain West, but trying a plane isn't always as simple as riding 10,000 miles and toodling over to Warren. (Which, oddly enough, is how I first got my paws on an LN other than a 60 1/2.)

[Patrick Chase]

Try them where? Outside of Canada, AFAIK, the only place to try a Veritas plane is at a WW show that Lee Valley attends. Or to find somebody who has 'em and is willing to host the curious, which can be easy, or darn hard, depending on where one lives. Lie-Nielsen isn't quite as challenging to find for try first. After all, it only took 3 years after I moved up here before the LN roadshow came along. When will the next one be along? Who knows, but I can rest comfortable knowing that there probably will be another show within 400 miles in the next couple of years. I realize that the LN roadshow is a lot more accessible for the majority of our population than it is for those of us lurking in the Intermountain West, but trying a plane isn't always as simple as riding 10,000 miles and toodling over to Warren. (Which, oddly enough, is how I first got my paws on an LN other than a 60 1/2.)

You do know that Lee Valley:

1. Has a 60-day (IIRC), no-questions-asked return policy.

2. Sends a prepaid return label with every shipment.

If you want to try something just order it. In the very worst case you'll be out the shipping to you (and they often have free shipping deals for that...)

[John Sanford]

From the perspective of hand planes, I think that a woodworker who is just getting started using hand planes is much better off starting out with a flea market find or two. There is no better way, that I can think of, of truly understanding what makes a plane work properly than going through the process of fettling an old, quality made Stanley (or other brand from same era, like Miller Falls, etc...) to make it work correctly. The transformation of a plane like this from paper weight to functioning tool is an eye opener for beginning woodworkers. Once the understanding of how much work it takes to actually make that "1939 604" sing and dance across the top of your prized piece of curly cherry, a greater appreciation can be understood about the high quality of the delivered tool from both LN & LV.
I have to disagree with you here. I personally think that the best way for someone to start using handplanes (other than taking a good hand tool class) is to get a LN/Veritas low angle block plane and also (recommended) a #4 or jack plane. THEN, after they understand HOW a good plane is supposed to work, they can venture into the realm of flea market finds. The simple act of chamfering an edge and trimming just a wee bit off using a sharp, decent block plane is eye opening. Yes, it is a more expensive route, but it's likely to be far more productive. Why? Because fettling a plane when you don't know what the end result is supposed to be can be a darn frustrating experience. Trust me, the frustration isn't going to be any lower when trying to use and/or fettle a decrepit old Stanley than it is with a junk Asian plan

[John Sanford]

What we have now are a few people who are benefitting hugely and a whole lot of others not so much.
Actually, the number of people benefitting vastly outnumbers the number who aren't. Unless, of course, you don't count as "people" the Chinese peasant farmer who doubles, and then doubles again, his standard of living by going to work at a foundry that's making raw plane bodies that will eventually become WoodRivers. While working at the foundry, he meets a cutie, they get married and she opens a noodle shop for the foundry workers, and life gets better again. Now multiply that peasant farmer/foundryman and wife by the hundreds of millions, as their story is being told throughout Asia, India and may eventually actually make it to Africa. btw, the biggest culprit in our manufacturing job losses isn't "off shoring", it's technology. Technology has been disrupting manufacturing since the first guy realized that chipping flint would make it easier to make that new bearskin rug, thereby putting his mother-in-law out of the bearchewing biz. (Which perhaps explains an awful lot about the subsequent course of relations with MILs.)

[John Sanford]

We've had the opposite situation in the past, where there was no incentive to disclose and the medieval guilds kept their tools and the knowledge of how to make and use them to themselves. There are extremely good reasons why that time was called "the dark ages". Uh, minor yet significant historical correction. The "Dark Ages" predated the guild system. And, while neither here nor there, were not actually all that "Dark".

[Mike Henderson]

Actually, the number of people benefitting vastly outnumbers the number who aren't. Unless, of course, you don't count as "people" the Chinese peasant farmer who doubles, and then doubles again, his standard of living by going to work at a foundry that's making raw plane bodies that will eventually become WoodRivers. While working at the foundry, he meets a cutie, they get married and she opens a noodle shop for the foundry workers, and life gets better again. Now multiply that peasant farmer/foundryman and wife by the hundreds of millions, as their story is being told throughout Asia, India and may eventually actually make it to Africa. btw, the biggest culprit in our manufacturing job losses isn't "off shoring", it's technology. Technology has been disrupting manufacturing since the first guy realized that chipping flint would make it easier to make that new bearskin rug, thereby putting his mother-in-law out of the bearchewing biz. (Which perhaps explains an awful lot about the subsequent course of relations with MILs.)
What you say is absolutely true. International free trade will certainly improve the living standard of people in many countries but in the meanwhile, it likely will have a negative effect on the living standard of most workers in the US.

And just as all politics is local, concern for living standard starts at home.

Mike

[John Schtrumpf]

You do know that Lee Valley:

1. Has a 60-day (IIRC), no-questions-asked return policy.

2. Sends a prepaid return label with every shipment.

If you want to try something just order it. In the very worst case you'll be out the shipping to you (and they often have free shipping deals for that...)
:D But VERITAS doesn't make a bevel down #3.

[Frank Martin]

:D But VERITAS doesn't make a bevel down #3.

Who knows, perhaps they will make one soon.

[Frederick Skelly]

I have to disagree with you here. I personally think that the best way for someone to start using handplanes (other than taking a good hand tool class) is to get a LN/Veritas low angle block plane and also (recommended) a #4 or jack plane. THEN, after they understand HOW a good plane is supposed to work, they can venture into the realm of flea market finds. The simple act of chamfering an edge and trimming just a wee bit off using a sharp, decent block plane is eye opening. Yes, it is a more expensive route, but it's likely to be far more productive. Why? Because fettling a plane when you don't know what the end result is supposed to be can be a darn frustrating experience. Trust me, the frustration isn't going to be any lower when trying to use and/or fettle a decrepit old Stanley than it is with a junk Asian plan

That's what happened to me. Couldnt figure out why - after fettling - I still couldnt get my grandfather's MF#9 to take very thin shavings. When I bought the WR #3 -brand new - I finally figured out that the reason my fettle job wasnt giving me thin shavings was simply because I hadn't flattened it quite enough. I needed a new, pretty good tool to compare against to figure it out.

I LOVE that MF #9.
Fred

[Patrick Chase]

Actually, the number of people benefitting vastly outnumbers the number who aren't. Unless, of course, you don't count as "people" the Chinese peasant farmer who doubles, and then doubles again, his standard of living by going to work at a foundry that's making raw plane bodies that will eventually become WoodRivers. While working at the foundry, he meets a cutie, they get married and she opens a noodle shop for the foundry workers, and life gets better again. Now multiply that peasant farmer/foundryman and wife by the hundreds of millions, as their story is being told throughout Asia, India and may eventually actually make it to Africa. btw, the biggest culprit in our manufacturing job losses isn't "off shoring", it's technology. Technology has been disrupting manufacturing since the first guy realized that chipping flint would make it easier to make that new bearskin rug, thereby putting his mother-in-law out of the bearchewing biz. (Which perhaps explains an awful lot about the subsequent course of relations with MILs.)

Oh, I'm VERY acutely aware of all of that as I've designed many products that were made overseas. Note that I very carefully avoided saying that more people had lost out than had gained.

Fun fact: The US manufacturing sector is larger today in terms of inflation-adjusted dollar value added (i.e. discounting components/subassemblies manufactured elsewhere and integrated) than it has ever been. It just happens to do so with many fewer people for precisely the reason you state. If anything those statistics may lowball the value of US manufacturing because of the way profits are allocated via transfer pricing.

If I were cynical I'd say that we let those lower-skill jobs go gradually (over the course of a few decades) knowing that automation would cause a far more sudden dislocation down the line. It's happening right now, and it isn't pretty. That's why everybody is watching China closely to see if they can make a sufficiently rapid transition to a post-manufacturing economy. I'm obviously over-simplifying of course.

[Simon MacGowen]

I have to disagree with you here. I personally think that the best way for someone to start using handplanes (other than taking a good hand tool class) is to get a LN/Veritas low angle block plane and also (recommended) a #4 or jack plane.

Except for the brands, I agree with you that for most beginners, the proper approach is not to start with fixing a plane from a flea market. The flea market approach may work for a few. I think any good plane, including the WR v3 LAJ, would work under your recommended approach. LN and Veritas are better, of course, if one can afford them.

As for whether it is a good thing to buy a WR plane, each buyer has their own set of criteria and they can judge or decide. None of us can point a finger one way or the other because each of us is from a different background and in a different circumstance. I don't buy any boutique tools which I can all afford but at the same time I think those who did have made the right decisions. It is their (hard earned) money, just like someone willing to spend $100k on a luxury car.

Simon

[Jim Koepke]

Hmm, someone is ticked off that a copy was made......of another firm's copy that they made.....of a design patented by another firm long ago. Even back then, Sargent had their version of it, some place called vaughn & bushnell had their version of it. Later, some of the designs were also copied by....Kunz? And even a company from India? As for the "Bailey" designs......EVERYONE made copies of that style of plane...Millers Falls was almost direct knockoffs of the Bailey design, other than the lever cap they designed.

Someone copies a design......then gets mad because someone else does the same thing? But.....which did this "bad" company copy from? The original or the modern copy? I guess nothing disrupts a good crusade more than just plain facts. To quote Angus Young..."Who made who?"

To say this nothing more than copying the work of another is an illusion.

Did Lie-Nielsen use an old bedrock plane as the pattern for their molds?

As with all of the other companies mentioned they most likely had their own patterns made by craftsmen/crafswomen.

Millers Falls had a distinctive difference in the area around the front knob. As you mentioned they also did a new trick on the lever cap. Their production of planes didn't start until 60 years after the first Bailey style planes rolled off the production line. They were also designed to be distinctively different than other planes made at the time. They were not trying to be the equal of others, they were trying to make something the buyer would see as an improvement to the other planes available.

If you want to consider copying, Leonard Bailey copied the idea of holding a blade in a carrier. Only before his planes it was mostly done in wood instead of metal. He designed an adjusting mechanism with an integral cap iron to control blade depth. When the patents expired other manufactures were free to use the same design. Stanley improved their planes by adding a lateral adjuster. Others were free to include lateral levers when the patents ran out on those.

I have had good customer service from Lie-Nielsen to the point I almost feel guilty calling them with a minor problem. I feel they will make anything I have bought from them right if I perceive a problem.

I have not seen a lot of posts extolling Woodcraft's eagerness to swap out the early Woodriver planes that had problems.

I strongly doubt any large retailer of Stanley/Bailey planes took examples to another manufacture and asked them to make them for a cost lower than the Stanley made products. It is my understanding Woodcraft initiated a plan to have planes made off shore. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong on this. If it was another company approaching Woodcraft with a quality product at a lower cost, my feelings on this might be somewhat different. In any case, the early Woodriver product was not known to be a quality product. To me it seemed a bit dishonest to pass this off on the general public as being the same thing at a lower cost. That is an insult to consumers looking for quality products and workers who take care to produce quality products.

I do not see a real problem with a company deciding to make the same product as another company as long as they are not violating patents or intellectual property. I do see a problem when a company in a business relationship decides to go behind the back of their partner and in effect stab them in the back. If people can not see such simple, subtle differences in this situation, then it is likely beyond clarification to their satisfaction. I do not see it as simply copying an old design as much as I see it a breach of trust in a business relationship.

I find no incentive to trust doing business with an entity able to treat an honorable partner in such a repulsive manner.

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

I do not see a real problem with a company deciding to make the same product as another company as long as they are not violating patents or intellectual property. I do see a problem when a company in a business relationship decides to go behind the back of their partner and in effect stab them in the back. If people can not see such simple, subtle differences in this situation, then it is likely beyond clarification to their satisfaction. I do not see it as simply copying an old design as much as I see it a breach of trust in a business relationship.

jtk
Businesses change suppliers all the time. For example, Costco recently dumped American Express. Would you say that Costco stabbed American Express in the back, and treated an honorable partner in a repulsive manner?

None of us were party to the relationship between WC and LN, so we don't know how all of this went down. I think you're just making some assumptions to fit your beliefs, including the statement that WC sent an LN plane to China and they used that to make a casting mold for the WoodRiver plane.

Suppose it came out that the Chinese company used a Bedrock as a model for their casting mold and they made changes to the overall design, similar changes to the changes that LN made. Would that make it okay?

If you don't like the WC planes, fine. Don't buy them and tell others of your experience with the planes. But all this morality-based vitriol appears to be based more on urban legends than on fact.

Mike

[A reasonable scenario is that WC wanted to offer a mid-priced line of hand planes IN ADDITION to the premium-priced LN planes so that they would have something to offer to customers who found the LN planes too expensive. If LN could have provided a mid-priced line of planes, WC would probably have bought from them. But LN can't do that for marketing reasons. So WC proceeded to build their own mid-priced line of planes. Note that WC still sells LN products (at least the WC I go to).]

[steven c newman]

335155
Note how far back that wheel is? This is the plane that first came in my shop, as a prize. I complained to WoodRiver.....with photos.
They sent out a replacement plane, and had me send the bad plane back on their dime.
335156
This is the second one, and is the "V3". It worked nicely..for awhile. Then came the first sharpening.....things went downhill from there.
335157
After about a year, this wound up getting sold of Fleabay. I was having better luck with a Millers Falls No.9, which was almost half the weight. Still have the No. 9, too. Along with a Stanley No.4 T-13. Don't even miss the WR#4,V3. Now, of course some of the diehard anti-WR fellows can download one of these pictures, print it out, and glue it to a cork board as a dart board......and have the same effect of WR's sales as this 120+ post thread....

[Kees Heiden]

For information: Quang Sheng can't have used a LN casting as a pattern for their foundry. They would have gotten planes 10% smaller, cast iron shrinks quite a bit during cooling. So they must have made their own patterns.

[Jim Koepke]

Businesses change suppliers all the time. For example, Costco recently dumped American Express. Would you say that Costco stabbed American Express in the back, and treated an honorable partner in a repulsive manner?

None of us were party to the relationship between WC and LN, so we don't know how all of this went down. I think you're just making some assumptions to fit your beliefs, including the statement that WC sent an LN plane to China and they used that to make a casting mold for the WoodRiver plane.

Suppose it came out that the Chinese company used a Bedrock as a model for their casting mold and they made changes to the overall design, similar changes to the changes that LN made. Would that make it okay?

If you don't like the WC planes, fine. Don't buy them and tell others of your experience with the planes. But all this morality-based vitriol appears to be based more on urban legends than on fact.

Mike

[A reasonable scenario is that WC wanted to offer a mid-priced line of hand planes IN ADDITION to the premium-priced LN planes so that they would have something to offer to customers who found the LN planes too expensive. If LN could have provided a mid-priced line of planes, WC would probably have bought from them. But LN can't do that for marketing reasons. So WC proceeded to build their own mid-priced line of planes. Note that WC still sells LN products (at least the WC I go to).]

To the best of my knowledge Costco had an exclusive agreement with American Express having both a beginning date and an end date with clauses to extend at the approval of both parties. There have been discussions of some who are not happy with the situation. I have never noticed anything different since I always use a debt card at Costco. If that was the extent of what I had heard about Woodcraft and LN, then my take on WC would be different.

You are correct in my opinion being based of what I have read here and from other sources on the internet.

If the manufacture used an old Bedrock body as their molding master I would still not have much respect for them. One of my jobs was as a drafter at a company that made castings to build large engines. Making a mold from a casting is a sloppy way to make a mold.

As others have expressed, some of the emotion is also based on the failure of people to see the false economy of saving money by purchasing products made by people who are impoverished through their employment.

I do not see LN products listed at WC online. There are some Woodcrafters stores in Oregon. No relation to Woodcraft or Woodcraft.com. I do business with them occasionally.

jtk

[Kees Heiden]

Another clue that Quang Shaeng didn't copy the LN plane directly is the weight. The Woodriver planes are a full pound heavier (#4). The Chinese took a 100 year old design. They looked probaly a bit too hard at the LN planes during the design phase, and got quite a bit of flak about that allready, no need to pile it on any further. In the mean time the V3 is quite distingueshable from the LN planes.

As you probably know, the design of something simple like a woodworking plane, where the bugs have been ironed out allready a century ago, is not the problem. The real challenge is setting up the factory, the logistics, quality control etc.

And I wouldn't look at the Chinese factory workers as underpaid slaves. For them it is a huge step forward. In Mao's time they still starved from famine, that's not so long ago.

[lowell holmes]

[QUOTE=Kees Heiden;2550115]Another clue that Quang Shaeng didn't copy the LN plane directly is the weight. --------

They are different lengths as well. I agree with Kees.

You can get the weight and length on line reading the adds. I haven't seen any anguish over the Indian copies of various hand tools.

I've posted before that for some reason I "yearn" for the no. 1 plane Woodcraft sells. I don't know why, but I do. I have never been short-changed at Woodcraft. It's like a kid in a candy store when I visit one of their stores.

[Robert Engel]

It worked nicely..for awhile. Then came the first sharpening.....things went downhill from there.

Care to explain why in case someone considering a WR reads this?

I've never, ever had a problem sharpening a V3 blade and I own 3 different WR's.

I actually find the thicker blades on WR and LN to be easier to sharpen because its much easier to find the angle.

The extra weight is a matter of personal choice and physical limitations, but for many, the extra weight helps the plane perform better.
One of the biggest problems with Stanleys, etal is the lightweight castings which are prone to warping.
I've spent many an hour trying to flatten a warped sole this is why I don't do flea market rustoration projects I would rather be doing ww'ing.

Bottom line is what ever works is what you use taking into account ones needs and $$ limitations, but many wrongly slam a product because of a perceived issue or its country of origin.

[Robert Engel]

I have to disagree with you here. I personally think that the best way for someone to start using handplanes (other than taking a good hand tool class) is to get a LN/Veritas low angle block plane and also (recommended) a #4 or jack plane. THEN, after they understand HOW a good plane is supposed to work, they can venture into the realm of flea market finds. The simple act of chamfering an edge and trimming just a wee bit off using a sharp, decent block plane is eye opening. Yes, it is a more expensive route, but it's likely to be far more productive. Why? Because fettling a plane when you don't know what the end result is supposed to be can be a darn frustrating experience. Trust me, the frustration isn't going to be any lower when trying to use and/or fettle a decrepit old Stanley than it is with a junk Asian planI totally agree with this. I tried this route and because I did not know what a fine plane CAN do, I had no reference point to understand what the old Stanley was SUPPOSED to do. It wasn't until I obtained my first premium plane that I realized just getting a shaving doesn't mean a plane is functioning properly.

So for me (and I suspect many others) how much is your time and gas worth searching for the elusive $15 flea market plane? And for what you will pay on Ebay for a work ready plane you can buy a new WR.

Its all a matter of preference really. Some like the cache of using a vintage plane and have the time/talent/knowledge to restore one and get it working properly. For some it is a financial consideration. I find the "Stanley guys" can get quite agitated for some reason, though. I was even called a "WR shill" on another thread for advocating what the poster said.

Bottom line: if it produces the results your desire, then that's what you should use.

[Daniel Rode]

While I have some strong opinions on corporations, patent law and such, I've mostly stayed out of the fray. This thread seems too much like a religious debate for my taste. It's a battle of the Good Guys versus the Bad Guys. I'd prefer more on how the planes function compared to one another, what features or even which is more attractive. I've never used a Clifton, or LN or Veritas plane, so I'd like to know how they compare to my poor old planes :)

For what it's worth, rarely is human conflict (of any type) a case of good versus bad. Nearly always, opponents each believe they are the Good Guys.

[Patrick Chase]

Another clue that Quang Shaeng didn't copy the LN plane directly is the weight. The Woodriver planes are a full pound heavier (#4). The Chinese took a 100 year old design. They looked probaly a bit too hard at the LN planes during the design phase, and got quite a bit of flak about that allready, no need to pile it on any further. In the mean time the V3 is quite distingueshable from the LN planes.

There are also some detail differences (different radii, etc) that wouldn't exist in a direct copy. Your shrink argument in another post is also compelling.

At this point I would say that the claim that QS used an L-N plane as a pattern is best described as "pernicious slander". It's about time for folks to stop repeating it.

[steven c newman]

After sharpening, it went into a over-weight, mouth-clogging, hard to KEEP set, PITA to use. IF I can make even a Stanley Handyman #1204 outpreform it......it was just taking up too much wasted space in the til.

I found Millers Falls products much easier to keep set, to sharpen, and easier on the arms after a LONG day of pushing planes around. Much easier to use a No. 9 smoother, after an hour or two of using #14s, and then a Stanley #6c, T-10. Seemed like the WR weighed as much as the Stanley #5-1/2, T-17.......and the Stanley did a better job.

Lot of mine older planes also have thick irons....tapered ones. I have no trouble putting a sharp edge on those, and keeping them sharp. Soles I have found are rarely "warped" , but, they are a bit on the worn side, from decades of hard use. According to patrick Leach......the perfectly flat sole is a myth, as they were never done. Good luck finding one, even new in the box. And yet, even the oldtimers were able to use such planes...every day. If someone wishes to get OCD about the perfect flatten sole.....fine, but seems to be a waste of time that could have been used to do the work the plane was made for.

As for that Stanley #4, T-13 I have? A $2 garage sale find, at a house 2 miles away from mine. I was driving the wife around, as she wanted to find a few things, the plane was a bonus for the morning's driving around. Went back the next day, and found a $2 Disston D-23 that I have since sharpened as a Rip. I merely had to clean the plate a bit, and even found a fully readable etch. I'd say it was more than more the 1/2 gallon of gas to get those two items.
BTW, other than some rust and dirt....the #4 was minty. barely used.

[Patrick Chase]

After sharpening, it went into a over-weight, mouth-clogging, hard to KEEP set, PITA to use. IF I can make even a Stanley Handyman #1204 outpreform it......it was just taking up too much wasted space in the til.

I find it remarkable that sharpening a bevel-down plane as pictured in your previous post would cause clogging. Can you please explain the mechanics by which that happened? Did you ruler-trick the blade back or do anything else that might impact the cap iron to blade interface?

Also the out-of-box tune on those planes isn't very good, so making one worse after sharpening is also quite remarkable.

Seriously, while I'm not much of a WR fan (I find their planes both overweight and overpriced for the quality) it sounds to me as though there are some additional variables here that you are not disclosing. It is simply not credible that a well-executed sharpening would cause what you describe. The blades in those planes are decent (not great) HCS and take a reasonable (not great) edge.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, do you have any other planes with "machined" cap irons (you know, the sort that Warren hates)? If I had to guess I'd venture that you're doing something with the blade back or cap iron that works with the more compliant stamped/bent style cap irons but not with the less compliant (lower preload, higher spring constant) machined ones.

[Pat Barry]

For what it's worth, rarely is human conflict (of any type) a case of good versus bad. Nearly always, opponents each believe they are the Good Guys.
Amen.........

[Mike Henderson]

To the best of my knowledge Costco had an exclusive agreement with American Express having both a beginning date and an end date with clauses to extend at the approval of both parties. There have been discussions of some who are not happy with the situation. I have never noticed anything different since I always use a debt card at Costco. If that was the extent of what I had heard about Woodcraft and LN, then my take on WC would be different.

You are correct in my opinion being based of what I have read here and from other sources on the internet.

If the manufacture used an old Bedrock body as their molding master I would still not have much respect for them. One of my jobs was as a drafter at a company that made castings to build large engines. Making a mold from a casting is a sloppy way to make a mold.

As others have expressed, some of the emotion is also based on the failure of people to see the false economy of saving money by purchasing products made by people who are impoverished through their employment.

I do not see LN products listed at WC online. There are some Woodcrafters stores in Oregon. No relation to Woodcraft or Woodcraft.com. I do business with them occasionally.

jtk
I understand your position, and I respect it. I think this all may have started as a reaction to a company going to China to develop a somewhat competing product to a well respected US company.

My objections are to the idea that WC had done something wrong in developing their line. My opinion is that:
1. They did not copy any protected information in the process, and
2. Were under no obligation to LN to continue the relationship with LN (although they may have wanted to).

I feel that WC is being demonized for making normal, ordinary business decisions.

Now, if anyone does not want to purchase a WR plane - or anything else from WC - because they do not like the idea that WC went to China for their product, they are free to do so. But whatever objections someone might have to WC, they should apply those same objections to all companies who do the same thing. Otherwise, it's situational morality and hypocrisy.

We all need to support American business and American workers. Rail against all the companies who are moving their work offshore, don't just pick on this one while you buy a table saw made in the same place.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

I understand your position, and I respect it. I think this all may have started as a reaction to a company going to China to develop a somewhat competing product to a well respected US company.

My objections are to the idea that WC had done something wrong in developing their line. My opinion is that:
1. They did not copy any protected information in the process, and
2. Were under no obligation to LN to continue the relationship with LN (although they may have wanted to).

I feel that WC is being demonized for making normal, ordinary business decisions.

Now, if anyone does not want to purchase a WR plane - or anything else from WC - because they do not like the idea that WC went to China for their product, they are free to do so. But whatever objections someone might have to WC, they should apply those same objections to all companies who do the same thing. Otherwise, it's situational morality and hypocrisy.

We all need to support American business and American workers. Rail against all the companies who are moving their work offshore, don't just pick on this one while you buy a table saw made in the same place.

Mike

When other companies use similar business practices they do not have my support nor my dollars. There is one large retailer who may have better prices than most of the other stores where I shop, but I think the cost of doing business with them is much higher than the few dollars saved on groceries and other goods. At one time they proudly displayed "Made In America" banners. Those were quietly taken down years ago. The family behind this company until recently held 4 places in the top 10 richest people in the world charts. With all their riches many of their employees require public assistance. It really isn't a savings when my tax dollars subsidize their business model whether I shop their or not. Of course they are not overtly breaking laws. They do occasionally have legal skirmishes over some of their practices.

To get to what you mention I do my best to avoid commiting situational morality and hypocrisy. I strive to be honest in my dealings. Some have even called me a fool for giving back an extra $10 an errant clerk gave me making change (I used to wonder why this happened so often). I just explain, "I sleep better at night this way."

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

I do not see LN products listed at WC online. There are some Woodcrafters stores in Oregon. No relation to Woodcraft or Woodcraft.com. I do business with them occasionally.


We've covered this one in depth before (in this thread no less), but here goes once again:

WoodCraft brick-and-mortar stores are franchises, and the franchisees have a certain amount of latitude to carry stuff that isn't offered by the mothership. As a concrete example, my local WoodCraft carries Clifton planes that the owner directly procures at trade shows.

If the owner of an individual store had a preexisting positive relationship with L-N such that L-N remained willing to sell to them, then there's no reason why they wouldn't be able to continue to offer the line. The fact that you don't see L-N products online at the mothership therefore proves absolutely nothing w.r.t. Mike's claim that his local WC carries L-N.

IMO this one should be as dead as the "QS cast their molds directly from L-N planes" trope. They're both thoroughly bogus.

[John Sanford]

For information: Quang Sheng can't have used a LN casting as a pattern for their foundry. They would have gotten planes 10% smaller, cast iron shrinks quite a bit during cooling. So they must have made their own patterns.

Actually, in this day and age of CAD / CAM / 3D scanning and printing, they most certainly could have done so. I'm not saying that they did (I have no idea), simply that building a properly scaled 3D model for a casting pattern from an existing object is much quicker and easier, assuming one has access to the high tech resources, than it was "back in the day." And even back in the day it could have been done, it simply would have taken a skilled patternmaker committed to doing it properly.

It's only slightly more difficult than hitting the Enlarge button on a copy machine, albeit more expensive. This is both a curse and a boon for us going forward. It will be an great boon for those seeking to restore and/or reproduce vintage objects, especially castings and forgings. One simple example that has recently come to mind is the gawdawful pot metal/plastic trunnions infesting the Delta 14" bandsaw and it's innumerable clones. 3D printing those using a better metallurgy seems like a definite "thing to do." It will be something of a curse as many durable physical goods see the capital intensive barriers to reproduction collapse much as has happened with media. Just like the entertainment industry has seen their business model change, so to will physical goods producers see the same.

How, exactly, does one go about monetizing (and thereby incentivizing) innovation when everybody has a blasted Star Trek replicator? Needless to say, changes in intellectual property paradigms will continue to stack up. A Second Industrial Revolution may very well be upon us. And this doesn't even take into account the equally great disruptive potential of robotics, which threatens to obliterate much of the service sector.

interesting times, indeed. Especially when a discussion of them is spurred by a multi-generational take on a tool developed a century and a half ago...

[John Sanford]

:D But VERITAS doesn't make a bevel down #3.

Which is why a LN #3 in bronze joined my squadron after their recent Hand Tool event in my neck of the woods. Now I'm trying (not very hard, because it's not a pressing issue) to decide between an LN #7, or a Veritas Custom #7.

[Patrick Chase]

Actually, in this day and age of CAD / CAM / 3D scanning and printing, they most certainly could have done so. I'm not saying that they did (I have no idea), simply that building a properly scaled 3D model for a casting pattern from an existing object is much quicker and easier, assuming one has access to the high tech resources, than it was "back in the day." And even back in the day it could have been done, it simply would have taken a skilled patternmaker committed to doing it properly.

It's only slightly more difficult than hitting the Enlarge button on a copy machine, albeit more expensive. This is both a curse and a boon for us going forward. It will be an great boon for those seeking to restore and/or reproduce vintage objects, especially castings and forgings. One simple example that has recently come to mind is the gawdawful pot metal/plastic trunnions infesting the Delta 14" bandsaw and it's innumerable clones. 3D printing those using a better metallurgy seems like a definite "thing to do." It will be something of a curse as many durable physical goods see the capital intensive barriers to reproduction collapse much as has happened with media. Just like the entertainment industry has seen their business model change, so to will physical goods producers see the same.

How, exactly, does one go about monetizing (and thereby incentivizing) innovation when everybody has a blasted Star Trek replicator? Needless to say, changes in intellectual property paradigms will continue to stack up. A Second Industrial Revolution may very well be upon us. And this doesn't even take into account the equally great disruptive potential of robotics, which threatens to obliterate much of the service sector.

interesting times, indeed. Especially when a discussion of them is spurred by a multi-generational take on a tool developed a century and a half ago...

Ah, now we're getting into some semantic hair-splitting that I purposely avoided. I've created molds/tooling in basically that manner (though only from "properly owned" artifacts), as I suspect you have as well. I think Kees was intentionally skirting that as well as he's also literate around this sort of stuff).

I wouldn't describe scanning-to-model, scaling for shrink, thickening the casting to make it heavier, changing some radii and angles here and there, etc etc to be "creating a mold directly from the LN plane". Obviously the line has gotten quite a bit more vague as you say. It's sort of like the definitions of "the dark ages" (so much for Petrarch) and "the advent of the guild system" :-).

At the end of the day public domain is public domain. For whatever reason (it's been debated ad nauseum) L-N didn't hold IP and QS did exactly what the system is intended to allow. There's no question of legality here.

We also haven't gotten to the point of a replicator. Good additive processes still cost a pretty penny, and unfilled ABS and PLA are not exactly first-class engineering materials. Soon, though.

[Chuck Tringo]

But saying I would never by Chinese (or any country X for that matter) seems kinda extreme, especially in this case when the "Chinese" product is quite good and it's actually a US company. If you don't want to support US companies with questionable or practices that are unagreeable that seems like a different argument.

Would you buy Chinese tools if they were originally novel and of good quality?

I would...as I stated in my earlier post my problem was that an American company's signature line of products is largely made in China, Solely to save money/increase Corporates bottom line. If I had a chance to try and use a Chinese company's chinese tool and found it satisfactory, I would gladly purcahse it. (mujinfang comes to mind, some of their planes look interesting).

[lowell holmes]

I would...as I stated in my earlier post my problem was that an American company's signature line of products is largely made in China, Solely to save money/increase Corporates bottom line. If I had a chance to try and use a Chinese company's chinese tool and found it satisfactory, I would gladly purcahse it. (mujinfang comes to mind, some of their planes look interesting).

I have one of their plow planes. It does what it's supposed to do.

[Patrick Chase]

I would...as I stated in my earlier post my problem was that an American company's signature line of products is largely made in China, Solely to save money/increase Corporates bottom line. If I had a chance to try and use a Chinese company's chinese tool and found it satisfactory, I would gladly purcahse it. (mujinfang comes to mind, some of their planes look interesting).

The WR planes are made by Quangsheng. You can find their "own brand" planes in various places like Workshop Heaven, though it won't save you any money relative to buying from WR.

In my experience the trope about America companies moving manufacturing overseas to pocket the profit is neither accurate nor useful in understanding what's really happening. More often it's a race to the bottom wherein everybody either switches or perishes. If WR had "stood on principle" as some seem to advocate and hadn't partnered with QS, then somebody else would have done so in their place and drastically undercut them.

[Derek Cohen]

Statements like ...

"WR planes are cheaper ... I cannot afford LN, LV, or Clifton ..."

"It's the way business is run today .."

"If Wood Craft had not, someone else would have done it ..."

..... all these statements (and there are many others) are just rationalisations. Any one can find a way to justify a decision.

I am not going to preach to you what is right or wrong. It is up to you to make what you truly believe to be an appropriate decision. Some find this hard. Others find this easier. Just do not seek to convince me (to convince yourself) that you are right by using one of these rationalisations.

Regards from Perth

[Kees Heiden]

It's just like politics these days, emotions are important, ratio not so much anymore.

The fact that LN isn't harmed at all by the woodriver planes, doesn't seem to play a role in the discussion.

[Dave Anderson NH]

I'm not going to close this thread because folks have remained polite and respectful which I truly appreciate.

On the other hand don't you think we've beaten this one to death?

[Daniel Rode]

335290
I agree completely :)

[Kees Heiden]

Yes, I suppose so.

[Pat Barry]

I thought they killed a printer???

[Patrick Chase]

Statements like ...

"WR planes are cheaper ... I cannot afford LN, LV, or Clifton ..."

"It's the way business is run today .."

"If Wood Craft had not, someone else would have done it ..."

..... all these statements (and there are many others) are just rationalisations. Any one can find a way to justify a decision.

I am not going to preach to you what is right or wrong.

It is up to you to make what you truly believe to be an appropriate decision. Some find this hard. Others find this easier. Just do not seek to convince me (to convince yourself) that you are right by using one of these rationalisations.

Regards from Perth

Have you ever been involved in a supply-chain decision like this, where you had to decide whether to sacrifice some employees (by outsourcing) or all (by not)? I have, though I've since moved out of that line of work. If you haven't then please just stop, because you're holding forth with no concept of who or what you're impugning or how much they likely agonized over their actions.

The companies (and by extension their employees) that make these decisions are by and large just doing what they have to to survive. If you want to fix this then you need to focus on the higher-level economic policies that are creating the conditions under which such decisions are necessary. Banging on the likes of WC accomplishes nothing but to reveal the speaker's own ignorance.

Derek, you have the luxury of working in a profession that's somewhat protected from competition (Oz has board-certification for psychologists if I'm not mistaken) so you are in a uniquely privileged situation. Please think before you talk down to those of us who live in the real world.

[Mike Henderson]

Statements like ...

"WR planes are cheaper ... I cannot afford LN, LV, or Clifton ..."

"It's the way business is run today .."

"If Wood Craft had not, someone else would have done it ..."

..... all these statements (and there are many others) are just rationalisations. Any one can find a way to justify a decision.

I am not going to preach to you what is right or wrong. It is up to you to make what you truly believe to be an appropriate decision. Some find this hard. Others find this easier. Just do not seek to convince me (to convince yourself) that you are right by using one of these rationalisations.

Regards from Perth
It's not a rationalization, Derek. It's the way the world works. It's the difference between idealism and pragmatism.

Mike

[And if you want to rationalize your position on moral grounds, you really need to offer some evidence (or even a reasonable argument) that WC did something wrong. We've already shown that copying non-protected material is not wrong; that it's encouraged by our legal and economic system. And I think we put to bed the urban legend that WC used an LN plane to make the molds for the WR planes. Finally, WC had no long term commitment to LN and could legally and morally terminate the relationship at any time. Where are your moral grounds?]

[Derek Cohen]

Have you ever been involved in a supply-chain decision like this, where you had to decide whether to sacrifice some employees (by outsourcing) or all (by not)? I have, though I've since moved out of that line of work. If you haven't then please just stop, because you're holding forth with no concept of who or what you're impugning or how much they likely agonized over their actions.

The companies (and by extension their employees) that make these decisions are by and large just doing what they have to to survive. If you want to fix this then you need to focus on the higher-level economic policies that are creating the conditions under which such decisions are necessary. Banging on the likes of WC accomplishes nothing but to reveal the speaker's own ignorance.

Derek, you have the luxury of working in a profession that's somewhat protected from competition (Oz has board-certification for psychologists if I'm not mistaken) so you are in a uniquely privileged situation. Please think before you talk down to those of us who live in the real world.

Oh please, Patrick, that is stretching it all a bit far. What on Earth has the decision made by Wood Craft to employ a factory in China to build cheap versions of a LN-lookalike as well as copies of Veritas tools (yes, they did those too) got to do with a company looking to save bucks to retain the position of their employees in the USA?!

In my world - hopefully real - one does not knife a partner in the back .... not unless you are one of my patients, of course :)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

From your persistant defense of the matter, one gets the impression that YOU are the one that thinks they have been "stabbed in the back"

L-N threatened by all of this? Hardy. A spokesperson for them, maybe? Seems that one doest protest a wee bit too much. Cash Cow in trouble there, me boy-oh?

For the record, I have never been into a Woodcraft store, and have never bought a Wood River tool. The one I tried out was a gift, due to my winning a monthly prize.

Maybe time to send this Le Grande Crusade to bed, and just stagger back out to the wood shop? Maybe L-N could pull what Stanley used to do? They would buy out a competitor/rival, use up all the remaining inventory( without making a new) and then just close the doors on the factory. Say, like they did to both Ohio Tool Co. and Union Plane Co.? Problem solved, right. Cash Cow has been saved!!

[Patrick Chase]

From your persistant defense of the matter, one gets the impression that YOU are the one that thinks they have been "stabbed in the back"

L-N threatened by all of this? Hardy. A spokesperson for them, maybe? Seems that one doest protest a wee bit too much. Cash Cow in trouble there, me boy-oh?

For the record, I have never been into a Woodcraft store, and have never bought a Wood River tool. The one I tried out was a gift, due to my winning a monthly prize.

Maybe time to send this Le Grande Crusade to bed, and just stagger back out to the wood shop? Maybe L-N could pull what Stanley used to do? They would buy out a competitor/rival, use up all the remaining inventory( without making a new) and then just close the doors on the factory. Say, like they did to both Ohio Tool Co. and Union Plane Co.? Problem solved, right. Cash Cow has been saved!!

Bed time indeed. Thanks!

[Robert Engel]

I find it remarkable that sharpening a bevel-down plane as pictured in your previous post would cause clogging. Can you please explain the mechanics by which that happened? Did you ruler-trick the blade back or do anything else that might impact the cap iron to blade interface?

Also the out-of-box tune on those planes isn't very good, so making one worse after sharpening is also quite remarkable.

Seriously, while I'm not much of a WR fan (I find their planes both overweight and overpriced for the quality) it sounds to me as though there are some additional variables here that you are not disclosing. It is simply not credible that a well-executed sharpening would cause what you describe. The blades in those planes are decent (not great) HCS and take a reasonable (not great) edge.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, do you have any other planes with "machined" cap irons (you know, the sort that Warren hates)? If I had to guess I'd venture that you're doing something with the blade back or cap iron that works with the more compliant stamped/bent style cap irons but not with the less compliant (lower preload, higher spring constant) machined ones.I don't think he's going to have an answer for us. I've never had anything remotely like the issues he is describing.

I've observed many will discredit the tool for one of two reasons, either "Stanley Or Nothing" or "I hate WR planes because they are made in China". I have 3 WR planes and and they all function beautifully for me, in fact with fresh blades they are almost equal to my LN.

I don't care who they copied. Didn't LN copy the Bedrock?

[Frederick Skelly]

Statements like ...

"WR planes are cheaper ... I cannot afford LN, LV, or Clifton ..."

"It's the way business is run today .."

"If Wood Craft had not, someone else would have done it ..."

..... all these statements (and there are many others) are just rationalisations. Any one can find a way to justify a decision.

I am not going to preach to you what is right or wrong. It is up to you to make what you truly believe to be an appropriate decision. Some find this hard. Others find this easier. Just do not seek to convince me (to convince yourself) that you are right by using one of these rationalisations.

Regards from Perth

Please allow me to make one counterpoint, if you don't mind Derek? That is: I choose not to buy LN for the same reason I don't buy a BMW - I don't need/desire/require that level of car (or tool) for the things that I do. Is that BMW a fine, fine machine? Sure it is. I dont know anyone who has one that isnt thrilled with theirs (BMW or LN). Doesn't mean I need/want one, friend - and the choice has nothing to do with cost. I just don't need it. Much like I dont need/want/require a $10,000 european table saw, etc. It's just not something I want.

Respectfully,
Fred

Edit: My mix of Stanleys, LV and WR seems sufficient for the planing I do. If something changes, so might my tool choices.

[Mark Gibney]

I better not come on here and mention the Harbor Freight no. 33 I bought on impulse / curiosity a few years ago....

[Derek Cohen]

Please allow me to make one counterpoint, if you don't mind Derek? That is: I choose not to buy LN for the same reason I don't buy a BMW - I don't need/desire/require that level of car (or tool) for the things that I do. Is that BMW a fine, fine machine? Sure it is. I dont know anyone who has one that isnt thrilled with theirs (BMW or LN). Doesn't mean I need/want one, friend - and the choice has nothing to do with cost. I just don't need it. Much like I dont need/want/require a $10,000 european table saw, etc. It's just not something I want.

Respectfully,
Fred

Edit: My mix of Stanleys, LV and WR seems sufficient for the planing I do. If something changes, so might my tool choices.

Hi Fred

You are quite correct. One might interpret what I wrote in a literal manner, but that was not my intent. I would never prescribe what one should or should not purchase. Indeed, I would argue that the Mk III version of the WR plane is a different kettle of fish to the Mk I (which caused all the kerfuffle). These planes are now a design of their own, and from reports are very good (reflecting the input of Rob Cosman, brought in after the Mk II was designed - poorly - to distance the plane and criticisms from the clouds surrounding the Mk I). Personally, I would not purchase one from Wood Craft, who initiated the whole situation. My comments about rationalisations were about those who sought to justify their purchases of the WR planes from Wood Craft. It is a while back now, but I do recall that LN took Wood Craft to court over the Mk I design.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

So, they started out on the wrong foot. Copying an existing design (which wasn't an original design to start with), and making a poor job of it. Remember the Japanese when they started their industrialisation? Copying and poor quality. Now they are highly respectable. Quang Sheng moved on too. You can buy their planes with a clean conscience.

[Tony Zaffuto]

I better not come on here and mention the Harbor Freight no. 33 I bought on impulse / curiosity a few years ago....

I bought one of those also, and made it perform like a LN (took about $80 of time from one of my machinists). And to show I'm not a cheapskate, I recently traded my 2012 328 for a 2016 528.

[george wilson]

Since Stanley themselves copied planes,and just about everyone else copied Stanley (who had a legal battle with Bailey over their copying his designs.) These old designs are WAYYYYYYYY past patent expiration,I don't see the validity of indignation about Wood River,really. I'd limit my examination of their planes to ARE THEY GOOD? I don't own one personally,as I have way too many planes, but have examined them in the local Woodcraft store in Richmond. There is nothing sacred about LN planes as far as I am concerned. Even if they did use a bronze lever cap. Frankly,I don't think that feature would be patentable. Nor would thicker bodies(been done) or thicker blades(been done,too).

Now,I do have several LN planes,as I think they are nice. But,they are ALL beefed up copies of Stanleys. Are they not???????

Is anyone indignant about the proliferation of crank type pencil sharpeners? Steel belted radial tires? Overhead valves in car engines? Overhead cams in car engines? Internal combustion engines? THE V-8 engine?(Ford had that patent for years. I recall Chevy coming out with theirs in 1955.) Zippo style cigarette lighters? The list could go on forever of expired patents being taken up by others. I'm not wording this very well,but I hope you all get the point.

I fail to see HOW LN could take WC to court for copying THEIR designs,which were copies of Stanleys. I guess they did,though,with tricky enough lawyers. Delta took Chinese makers to court for making ROUND TOP 14" bandsaws. I can't see HOW,since those old round top bandsaws had been around for MANY,MANY years. But,they did,and apparently won. I bought the LAST ROUND TOP Asian bandsaw from Bridgewood back in the 80's,to make it into a metal cutting saw.

[Daniel Rode]

I tried to stay out of the conversation. This really is pointless but here's my $0.02 anyway:

The purpose behind patent law is to encourage development of new products by providing a limited period of time where the inventor can exclusively profit from their work. After that period, these things become public domain so that anyone might produce a copy, incorporate the idea into another product or improve upon the original in some way. To be patentable, at least in the US, the work needs to be novel (new and meaningful) and not obvious.

Patent law is not a tool designed enrich certain individuals, it is to benefit society as a whole.

Rather than planes copied with little meaningful improvement in 100 years, think about medicine. The development costs are extremely high. No one will take on the risk and expense to develop new drugs unless they can see a path to future profits that outweigh the risks. Patents allow the drug companies to profit and therefore encourage development. However, that alone is insufficient. If the patent never expires, costs remain high due to lack of competition. In addition, the drug companies are not further encouraged to develop improvements. They can profit on the old and prevent anyone else from deriving new drugs from thiers. Progress therefore, is impaired and everyone loses.

Perhaps the secret to success of LN (and they are successful) is not the design of their tools. They do not, in fact, cut wood any differently. Is it instead that they focus on high quality and excellent customer service?

I would suggest Veritas more likely produces designs that may be patentable but even so, their main key to success in not due to preventing copies but in their reputation for quality and customer service.

It is not only permissible to make copies of existing work, it provides a tangible benefit to society by lowering costs and spurring work on new products both derivative and novel.

[Mike Henderson]

It is a while back now, but I do recall that LN took Wood Craft to court over the Mk I design.

Regards from Perth

Derek
I would be very interested to learn more about this alleged suit. When and where was it filed? What did LN allege in the filing? Any information about why the suit did not proceed? Did LN drop it, was there a settlement. etc. etc.?

Court cases are public so if it happened there will be a record of it.

Mike

[Even a newspaper report of the suit would be good.]

[Patrick Chase]

I tried to stay out of the conversation. This really is pointless but here's my $0.02 anyway:

The purpose behind patent law is to encourage development of new products by providing a limited period of time where the inventor can exclusively profit from their work. After that period, these things become public domain so that anyone might produce a copy, incorporate the idea into another product or improve upon the original in some way. To be patentable, at least in the US, the work needs to be novel (new and meaningful) and not obvious.

Patent law is not a tool designed enrich certain individuals, it is to benefit society as a whole.

I tried to disengage, but feel compelled to remark: VERY well stated. I'd tried to say the same thing a couple times above, but I think you did an excellent job here.