Marking Gauge - clone of Tite-Mark

[Mike Henderson]

I teach hand cut dovetails and provide tools for the students to use. One tool is the marking gauge and the one that most people like is the Tite-Mark (http://www.glen-drake.com/Tite-Marks/) by Kevin Drake. But at $90 each - and I recommend that they have two for dovetails - it's an expensive tool to bite off on.

Recently I found a marking gauge (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B017Z03G4Y/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1) by Taylor Tools on Amazon that appears to have the same ease of use as the Tite-Mark so I ordered one to check it out. It's operates the same as the Tite-Mark so you can do one hand adjustments. And the cutter is the same size and with the same screw threads as the Tite-Mark so if you break the cutter, you can replace it with one ordered from Kevin Drake.

It sells for $30 so you can buy two for less than one Tite-Mark.

The fit and finish is not as good as the Tite-Mark but it works fine.

Here's a couple of pictures. The Taylor version is at the top and the Tite-Mark is on the bottom.

352492

Looking at them from the end, the Taylor is on the right and the Tite-Mark on the left.

352491

I haven't used it much yet but it seems to work fine.

Mike

[Tony Wilkins]

I really enjoy my tite-mark and for myself I like the quality but for those who can't afford one or for loaning purposes this looks like a good option.

[Phil Stone]

Mike, why do you recommend using two gauges for dovetails?

[Mike Henderson]

Mike, why do you recommend using two gauges for dovetails?
If you're doing dovetails and the wood is different sizes (or for half blind dovetails) it's nice to have two where you can set them for the two dimensions and then not touch them again. If you only have one, you have to keep changing your setting on the gauge and you'll almost certainly have differences in the settings.

If you're doing through dovetails and the two pieces of wood are exactly the same size, then one gauge is enough.

Mike

[And rarely are you doing only one set of dovetails. For example, if you're making a box, you'll do four, all of the same sizes. With a drawer, you need to do both sides.]

[Phil Stone]

If you're doing dovetails and the wood is different sizes (or for half blind dovetails) it's nice to have two where you can set them for the two dimensions and then not touch them again. If you only have one, you have to keep changing your setting on the gauge and you'll almost certainly have differences in the settings.

If you're doing through dovetails and the two pieces of wood are exactly the same size, then one gauge is enough.

Mike


That makes sense. Thanks.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I have the grinder tool rest from them. Probably better stuff out there, but for the price I think it is good value, and it works for me. If I recall correctly they list on eBay as well, and the eBay listing was cheaper than the Amazon listing.

[Rich Riddle]

Mike,

You reminded me that there is a Tite-Mark in the drawer that hasn't ever been used. It's been there for at least five years. The Neander side of the hobby never bit me despite having all the tools.

[glenn bradley]

Nice find Mike. Thanks for sharing that.

[Andrew Nemeth]

Mike,
Have you ever used the Veritas Wheel Marking Gauge from Lee Valley? I will likely be ordering a gauge soon and was wondering how these stack up. The Duel Marking Gauge from Veritas is also being considered.

Thanks,
Andrew

[Jim Koepke]

Mike,
Have you ever used the Veritas Wheel Marking Gauge from Lee Valley? I will likely be ordering a gauge soon and was wondering how these stack up. The Duel Marking Gauge from Veritas is also being considered.

Thanks,
Andrew

Andrew, here is a post on my comparison of the two:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?133966-Tite-Mark-Compared-to-Veritas-Wheel-Gauge

I am wondering if the less expensive copy is infringing on any patents or other intellectual property.

jtk

[paul cottingham]

Andrew, here is a post on my comparison of the two:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?133966-Tite-Mark-Compared-to-Veritas-Wheel-Gauge

I am wondering if the less expensive copy is infringing on any patents or other intellectual property.

jtk

Was wondering the same thing. Or even the ethics of copying it.

[Stanley Covington]

Mike,
Have you ever used the Veritas Wheel Marking Gauge from Lee Valley? I will likely be ordering a gauge soon and was wondering how these stack up. The Duel Marking Gauge from Veritas is also being considered.

Thanks,
Andrew

I own 2 Titemarks, and one Veritas Wheel Marking Gauge. The Titemarks are jewels and worth every penny. The Veritas is garbage and a waste of money and time.

Veritas has some excellent designs for their tools, and I relied on that reputation when I bought their marking gauge, sorry to say.

Stan

[Prashun Patel]

Andrew, I have the Veritas Micro-adjust wheel gauge and do not care for it. It requires two hands to micro-adjust and it's (for me) not intuitive. In fact, it's unnecessary. I have a 'regular' wheel gauge that is every bit as 'adjustable' as the micro-adjustable Veritas, and it's easier to use.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike,
Have you ever used the Veritas Wheel Marking Gauge from Lee Valley? I will likely be ordering a gauge soon and was wondering how these stack up. The Dual Marking Gauge from Veritas is also being considered.

Thanks,
Andrew
Yes, I own two of the Veritas marking gauges (and four of the Tite-Marks). The Veritas gauges are fine but they generally require two hands to adjust, while the Tite-Marks can be adjusted one handed. It's really not a big thing because you generally have two hands free when setting your marking gauge, but like most people who have used both, I prefer the Tite-Mark.

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

Andrew, here is a post on my comparison of the two:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?133966-Tite-Mark-Compared-to-Veritas-Wheel-Gauge

I am wondering if the less expensive copy is infringing on any patents or other intellectual property.

jtk
I doubt if there are any patents on the concept of the Tite-Mark marking gauge but there could be a design patent on it. In any case, the Taylor Tools version is not an "exact" copy - it's a conceptual copy. That is, it does the same thing as the Tite-Mark but does not look exactly like it.

Our economic system encourages people to make products that compete with other products on price and function. Looks to me that Taylor Tools is doing exactly that. People have a choice: They can purchase the Tite-Mark if they feel that the quality of its fit and function is worth the price - and they can purchase the Taylor Tools if they feel that its quality is sufficient for their needs.

In any case, Quality is defined as meeting the needs of the customer (sometimes quoted as "Quality is what the customer says it is") and price is part of the customer's quality matrix.

Mike

[James Waldron]

Andrew, here is a post on my comparison of the two:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?133966-Tite-Mark-Compared-to-Veritas-Wheel-Gauge

I am wondering if the less expensive copy is infringing on any patents or other intellectual property.

jtk


Was wondering the same thing. Or even the ethics of copying it.

When the Titemark was developed, there was the possibility of filing for a utility patent, a design patent, and possibly a copyright registration of some aspects of the design. If none of these is done, the design passes into the public domain and is freely available to be reverse engineered and copied.

No one prevented Glen-Drake from seeking protection of their intellectual property. Economic considerations may have done so, but that comes with the territory for thinly capitalized businesses.

It is also possible that Glen-Drake applied for protection and such application(s) was/were denied. The result is much the same as never have applied in the first place. The design becomes part of the public domain.

Copying of a design in the public domain is legally permissible. Indeed, enabling the public to practice inventions (after expiration or lapse of a patent if one is obtained) is a fundamental purpose that underlies the grant of a (time limited) patent monopoly in the first instance. In the view of many, this last facet of the system defines the ethics of copying a design. If the design is in the public domain, it is ethically permissible to copy it in that view.

In the view of others, a more restrictive view is that it is not ethical to copy a design developed by an individual or small business, particularly one that can't afford the costs of intellectual property protection. While such a concept seem noble at a glance, it is prone to a troublesome lack of precision: the vast majority would agree that Glen-Drake is a small business in this context. But how about, say, Gramercy Tools, with a number of people on board. Then consider Lie Nielsen or Veritas: compared to many woodworking tool makers, they are pretty large. On the other hand, compared to Irwin or Dewalt, they are pretty small. Where does one draw the line? Because of the vague and imprecise nature of such a precept, it is not a common approach.

In the end, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

[Phil Mueller]

Hi Andrew, I'll chime in here also. I have the Tite-Mark as well as the single and dual marking gauges from Veritas. As others have said, the Tite-Mark is by far my favorite if for no other reason than the ease to dial in a very accurate measurement. The Veritas single wheel gauge works fine and I use it often as well.

The Veritas dual wheel just doesn't do it for me. I've used it, I can get it to work, but just not real convenient. Instead, I ordered a number of dual wheels for the Tite-Mark...much better solution in my opinion.

If you'd like to try the Veritas dual wheel gauge, I'd be happy to loan it to you. Just PM me if interested.

[Derek Cohen]

I think that wheel gauges rock! I have a couple of Tite-Marks, a bunch of Veritas, and even one I built.

The only adjustable ones I have are the TM. They are beautifully made and the ergonomics are exceptional. Having said this, a fine adjuster is of relatively low importance for most set ups. I like particularly the stainless steel Veritas with the off-set fence, and sans fine adjuster. These are now only available in brass (I snapped up two in SS when they were offered - an amazing bargain at the time). Also exceptional. I like their greater heft over the TM.

Each gauge has a different purpose. The Veritas are easier to set up when dovetailing. The TM are preferred when dialling in a specific measurement. The dual arm Veritas is capable of offset mortice-and-tenon marking, which a Kinshiro cannot do.

Using double wheels to mark mortice-and-tenon joints is a waste of time, in my experience. I have tried with dedicated- and paired wheels. The lines cut are too faint to be helpful. The weak area of a wheel gauge is that the lines are fine (that is good) but become finer and fainter when doubled up (double pressure needed). That is not good. Better to use two gauges for the two lines, or to use the Veritas double arm gauge (which is effectively two gauges since the arms can be fixed to a specific offset). Do not try and use the double arm gauge as a single gauge as it runs into the same issue as the double wheel.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Derek50/Marking%20and%20Measuring/gauge7_zpsnoooqnr6.jpg

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

Better to use two gauges for the two lines, or to use the Veritas double arm gauge (which is effectively two gauges since the arms can be fixed to a specific offset). Do not try and use the double arm gauge as a single gauge as it runs into the same issue as the double wheel.

My reading on this is to mark each of the mortise or tenon sides separately, which makes good sense.

jtk

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I have the veritas. For a long time I thought the lines it left were too fine to be practical. Recently I took the blade off, and honed the flat side on a 1000 grit stone. For whatever reason it now leaves a much better line.

As far as copying goes, aren't they all just copies of the older Stanley model?

[Rich Riddle]

The patent for the Tite Mark in the USA is US D517931 S1. You are not supposed to copy a patented item, even for personal use. But no one really goes after someone who makes a copy for himself. Additionally, companies that manufacture clones at the end of a patent life don't wait until after the 20 year patent expires to make the clones, they only wait that long to sell the clones. The day after the Fein patent expired on the oscillating tool, Bosch and several other manufacturers had their versions up for sale.
Was wondering the same thing. Or even the ethics of copying it.

[J. Greg Jones]

That patent is for the Veritas Micro-Adjust gauge, although the patent does include a reference to the Tite Mark. I could be mistaken, but I believe Drake chose not to patent his products due to the high cost of defending a patent against the clone makers.

The patent for the Tite Mark in the USA is US D517931 S1. You are not supposed to copy a patented item, even for personal use. But no one really goes after someone who makes a copy for himself. Additionally, companies that manufacture clones at the end of a patent life don't wait until after the 20 year patent expires to make the clones, they only wait that long to sell the clones. The day after the Fein patent expired on the oscillating tool, Bosch and several other manufacturers had their versions up for sale.

[Mike Henderson]

The patent for the Tite Mark in the USA is US D517931 S1. You are not supposed to copy a patented item, even for personal use. But no one really goes after someone who makes a copy for himself. Additionally, companies that manufacture clones at the end of a patent life don't wait until after the 20 year patent expires to make the clones, they only wait that long to sell the clones. The day after the Fein patent expired on the oscillating tool, Bosch and several other manufacturers had their versions up for sale.
I think that's the design patent for the Veritas (https://www.google.com/patents/USD517931). Design patents are different from utility patents (the patents most people think of). It protects the design (shape) of the item and not the function.

The only protection offered by a patent is the right to assert it against others who infringe the patent - and infringement is a matter for the civil courts.

Mike

[david charlesworth]

The Taylor tools gauge is a terrible design.

One of the essentials for good marking gauge technique, is firm sideways force, pressing the fence against the work.

Lo and behold the Taylor gauge has a huge lump where the sides of a finger should press.

It is c##p.

David Charlesworth

[lowell holmes]

I have both Veritas wheel gages. They both do their job quite well. I have other marking gages as well.

[paul cottingham]

The patent for the Tite Mark in the USA is US D517931 S1. You are not supposed to copy a patented item, even for personal use. But no one really goes after someone who makes a copy for himself. Additionally, companies that manufacture clones at the end of a patent life don't wait until after the 20 year patent expires to make the clones, they only wait that long to sell the clones. The day after the Fein patent expired on the oscillating tool, Bosch and several other manufacturers had their versions up for sale.

Honestly, even though I'm not especially well off, I'll honour the Tite Mark patent holder by not buying a clone. I'm very uncomfortable with supporting people who run around in gray areas of the law like that.

I'll continue to bumble along with my veritas ones, or my ancient wooden ones, or save my money. Fundamentally, I'm not in such a hurry that I can't just use my veritas ones.

[allen long]

Stan,

I think you should tell us how you REALLY feel about the Veritas!

I had the Veritas micro adjust and sent it back. I didn't care for it at all. But my three other LV gauges seem to work fine. That is, the standard, the dual arm, and the little stainless one with a head on each end (which fits in a shirt pocket and is very handy for having two different settings on a single unit).

You all are making me want the TiteMark - - Stop making me spend my money!




The Veritas is garbage and a waste of money and time.

Stan

[Mike Henderson]

David's post, above, got me to thinking about how I hold a marking gauge and whether the shape of the Taylor Toolworks gauge would be a problem. I discovered that I hold the gauge in my fist and draw it along the wood, while simultaneously putting pressure towards the wood. Here's a couple of pictures of me holding the two gauges. First, the Taylor gauge.

352551

And then the Tite-Mark.

352550

Both were equally comfortable in my hand and both performed essentially the same.

Mike

[Mike Henderson]

Honestly, even though I'm not especially well off, I'll honour the Tite Mark patent holder by not buying a clone. I'm very uncomfortable with supporting people who run around in gray areas of the law like that.

I'll continue to bumble along with my veritas ones, or my ancient wooden ones, or save my money. Fundamentally, I'm not in such a hurry that I can't just use my veritas ones.
Just to point out, there is no patent on the Tite-Mark - not even a design patent. The only patent that anyone has pointed to is the design patent on the Veritas marking gauge. So there's certainly no "gray area" of the law in the manufacture of the Taylor Toolworks marking gauge.

You may feel that your ethics would not allow you to purchase a product which is similar to another company's, and if so, you have every right to take that approach. The problem with that, however, is that almost every product has items copied from another product. The most obvious example is the Android smartphones and the Apple iPhones. There are many, many more examples, including computers, televisions, automobiles and I don't know what else. Just about every product in the world builds upon earlier products and copies many of their features.

Mike

[Andy Nichols]

Mike:

Thanks for the tip ordered one to test for myself....have a Lee Valley micro adj and don't like it.

So far my favorite wheel cutting gauges are the Tite Mark and the Rob Cosman gauges, really like Cosman's design that won't roll off the bench, plus the big wheel option is great for the standard as well his mortise gauge

Andy -- mos maiorum

[Mike Henderson]

Mike:

Thanks for the tip ordered one to test for myself....have a Lee Valley micro adj and don't like it.

So far my favorite wheel cutting gauges are the Tite Mark and the Rob Cosman gauges, really like Cosman's design that won't roll off the bench, plus the big wheel option is great for the standard as well his mortise gauge

Andy -- mos maiorum
One thing to look out for: When I received mine, the middle "spinner" that you use to adjust it was screwed tightly to the bottom of the adjustment mechanism. I took the head apart and put the tight part in my vise to use a tool to loosen it. Worked fine but here's the catch. It's left hand threads on the bottom of the spinner and right hand threads on the top. Has to be to get it to work the way it does. So if you get a tight one and have to use a tool to loosen it, remember that it's left hand threads and you have to turn it the opposite way that you'd be accustomed to.

Mike

[Andy Nichols]

OK

Thanks for the info.....

-- mos maiorum

[Phil Mueller]

Derek, trust me, you're the last person I would want to debate on the merits of different marking guages. I will just say that regarding the Veritas double wheel versus the Tite-Mark dedicated mortise wheel, I find the Tite-Mark faster to set up and produces more distinct lines.

I actually decided to give it a test...at least from the set up stand point. I started with the Veritas double wheel on the bench, and the Tite-Mark with the single wheel attached and my little packet that has the dedicated wheels and allen wrenches setting on the bench. Test set up would be 1/2" offset from the face edge and a 1/4" mortise using a Ray Isle 1/4" mortice chisel.

At a relaxed pace, the Veritas took 1:36.18 to set. The Tite-Mark took 1:08.29 to set.

I only present this in the spirit of fun, and frankly, 28 seconds or so really doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things. And yes, I'm between projects and don't have much else to do at the moment :)

[Derek Cohen]

Phil, thanks for the clarification.

We are discussing the two gauges from a different perspective/priority. You are looking at speed of set up. I am looking at the clarity of the lines produced by each gauge.

I would agree that a single set of wheels are both quicker and easier to set up. I have both individual- and dedicated width TM mortice/tenon wheels. However, using two wheels at the same time requires double the downforce of one. Wheel cutters are thin and do not show up well on end grain. A double wheel leaves a very faint line. For this reason I prefer a single gauge to score tenon lines. The double arm is simply two single arms together - they are used independently of each other, not simultaneously (as with a double wheel).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[glenn bradley]

I hold mine as Mike's pics show. The Veritas with the eccentric stem is my preferred. Like many "hand" tools, your hands make the difference in what is good or poor.

[Stewie Simpson]

Andy; I use the single cutter Veritas marking gauge, and got sick of being caught out with an incorrect gauge line when the cutter wheel decided to loosen off. 3 months ago I ended up using a couple of drops of Loctite on the thread of tightening screw, and its remained secure since that time. Something to think on.

regards Stewie;

[Phil Mueller]

Derek, thank you for your clarification! My problem/mistake was trying to use the Veritas double wheel by forcing both wheels simultaneously. I now understand the principle and in my latest "test" found you are absolutely correct.
Thanks!

[Andy Nichols]

Andy; I use the single cutter Veritas marking gauge, and got sick of being caught out with an incorrect gauge line when the cutter wheel decided to loosen off. 3 months ago I ended up using a couple of drops of Loctite on the thread of tightening screw, and its remained secure since that time. Something to think on.

regards Stewie;


Thanks for the tip....

Andy -- mos maiorum

[James Waldron]

Honestly, even though I'm not especially well off, I'll honour the Tite Mark patent holder by not buying a clone. I'm very uncomfortable with supporting people who run around in gray areas of the law like that.

I'll continue to bumble along with my veritas ones, or my ancient wooden ones, or save my money. Fundamentally, I'm not in such a hurry that I can't just use my veritas ones.


There is no Titemark patent. There is no gray area of the law involved. The cited patent is for a different product and a different company, as noted above.

Look before you leap!

[Jim Koepke]

There is no Titemark patent. There is no gray area of the law involved. The cited patent is for a different product and a different company, as noted above.

Look before you leap!

That is correct, there isn't a patent on the Titemark gauge. The expense of lawyers to enjoin another's benefiting from an originator's work wouldn't prevent the next bottom feeder from popping out of the woodwork to copy the original design.

As end users of a product we all make our decisions to either support those who work to bring us inovative products or we can support those who come along later who invest little to copy those designs hoping to profit at a lower price point.

jtk

[Bob Lang]

It isn't a legal issue but a moral one. I know Kevin Drake and consider him to be friend. After graduating from the College of the Redwoods Fine Woodworking program he stayed put and started Glen-Drake. His operation is very small and he has developed a number of excellent products. Almost everything he has developed has been knocked off, and the copy cats include large and well known retailers. In classes I've taught, knock-off gauges didn't even have flat registration faces. In fairness I don't know if these were the ones being discussed in this thread or not. In my experience the gauges and brass hammers look like the real thing but are functionally worthless. My point is that there are consequences to others based on our personal purchase decisions. I don't worry much about legality but I try to put my money where my values are and support small independent and creative businesses.

Bob Lang

[glenn bradley]

Andy; I use the single cutter Veritas marking gauge, and got sick of being caught out with an incorrect gauge line when the cutter wheel decided to loosen off. 3 months ago I ended up using a couple of drops of Loctite on the thread of tightening screw, and its remained secure since that time. Something to think on.

regards Stewie;


Funny story; I did that when I first got the tool due to someone posting that tip here. I forgot all about it and couldn't figure out why the screw was in so tight when it was time for a cutting edge touch up ;-)

[Mike Henderson]

It isn't a legal issue but a moral one. I know Kevin Drake and consider him to be friend. After graduating from the College of the Redwoods Fine Woodworking program he stayed put and started Glen-Drake. His operation is very small and he has developed a number of excellent products. Almost everything he has developed has been knocked off, and the copy cats include large and well known retailers. In classes I've taught, knock-off gauges didn't even have flat registration faces. In fairness I don't know if these were the ones being discussed in this thread or not. In my experience the gauges and brass hammers look like the real thing but are functionally worthless. My point is that there are consequences to others based on our personal purchase decisions. I don't worry much about legality but I try to put my money where my values are and support small independent and creative businesses.

Bob Lang

Bob raised an interesting point in his comment - how well made is the Taylor Toolworks marking gauge. He mentioned that some he had seen that were based on the Tite-Mark did not have flat registration surfaces so I decided to compare the Tite-Mark to the Taylor gauge. Here are the two gauges on my table saw. I used the top of the table saw as a reference. It's about as flat as anything I have in my shop.

352600

Then what I did was use a felt tip pen and mark the face of each gauge.

352599

Than I rubbed the face of each marking gauge against my table saw top. The table saw top has some light scratches in it from years of use so it functioned as a flat, light abrasive. I rubbed each one about the same amount - just a few seconds each. Here's the Tite-Mark after rubbing.

352602

You can see that the face is not flat - it's a bit higher around the outside.

And here's the Taylor after rubbing.

352601

It's pretty flat. I'm not surprised because it should be fairly simple to grind that surface flat.

Now, I've used the Tite-Mark gauge quite a bit and never had any problem because its face was not perfectly flat. The amount it's off is so small that it just doesn't matter. I certainly would not choose one or the other based on the flatness of the faces.

Mike

[I went back and did some more testing on the two gauges. I'm convinced that, within my ability to analyze, the faces of the two gauges are equally flat. When I rubbed the Taylor gauge in the pictures above I think maybe the ink was still wet on it. By the time I did the Tite-Mark, the ink was dry and that accounted for the difference in the results.]

[paul cottingham]

Just to point out, there is no patent on the Tite-Mark - not even a design patent. The only patent that anyone has pointed to is the design patent on the Veritas marking gauge. So there's certainly no "gray area" of the law in the manufacture of the Taylor Toolworks marking gauge.

You may feel that your ethics would not allow you to purchase a product which is similar to another company's, and if so, you have every right to take that approach. The problem with that, however, is that almost every product has items copied from another product. The most obvious example is the Android smartphones and the Apple iPhones. There are many, many more examples, including computers, televisions, automobiles and I don't know what else. Just about every product in the world builds upon earlier products and copies many of their features.

Mike

Mike, what do I misunderstand about this, then? I'm not being difficult, I just don't understand.

The patent for the Tite Mark in the USA is US D517931 S1. You are not supposed to copy a patented item, even for personal use. But no one really goes after someone who makes a copy for himself. Additionally, companies that manufacture clones at the end of a patent life don't wait until after the 20 year patent expires to make the clones, they only wait that long to sell the clones. The day after the Fein patent expired on the oscillating tool, Bosch and several other manufacturers had their versions up for sale

[Mike Henderson]

Mike, what do I misunderstand about this, then? I'm not being difficult, I just don't understand.

The patent for the Tite Mark in the USA is US D517931 S1. You are not supposed to copy a patented item, even for personal use. But no one really goes after someone who makes a copy for himself. Additionally, companies that manufacture clones at the end of a patent life don't wait until after the 20 year patent expires to make the clones, they only wait that long to sell the clones. The day after the Fein patent expired on the oscillating tool, Bosch and several other manufacturers had their versions up for sale
The posting you refer to is in error - if you look up the referenced patent you will see that it was issued to Lee Valley and the subject matter is the Veritas marking gauge. You can see the patent here (https://www.google.com/patents/USD517931) (well, a summary of it). It is a design patent rather than a utility patent.

It does not cover the Tite-Mark marking gauge and I've been unable to find any patent - design or utility - that covers the Tite-Mark marking gauge.

This information has been stated several times, in posts 16, 22, 23, 39 & 40.

Mike

[Bob Lang]

The gauges I saw (this was a few years ago) had a definite hump in the center, were made in China and sold through an American chain of suppliers to woodworkers. I checked by placing the long edge of a machinist's rule on the surface, aiming it at the light and looked for gaps. Your methodology is a bit unusual. Any tool sold should be usable, and if these are functional it's a good thing. I still think it's not ethical to copy the work of someone else. I've been the victim of people cashing in on my efforts and I don't want to be a part of that. As I said before, these are ethical decisions we all make every time we buy anything. You may not have the reservations that I do, and that's OK.

Bob Lang
'

[Mike Henderson]

The gauges I saw (this was a few years ago) had a definite hump in the center, were made in China and sold through an American chain of suppliers to woodworkers. I checked by placing the long edge of a machinist's rule on the surface, aiming it at the light and looked for gaps. Your methodology is a bit unusual. Any tool sold should be usable, and if these are functional it's a good thing. I still think it's not ethical to copy the work of someone else. I've been the victim of people cashing in on my efforts and I don't want to be a part of that. As I said before, these are ethical decisions we all make every time we buy anything. You may not have the reservations that I do, and that's OK.

Bob Lang
'
When you go into business, you implicitly agree to live within our economic system. And our economic system encourages competition.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if the Tite-Mark cost 50% more than the Taylor Toolworks product. I'd pay $45 for a Tite-Mark instead of purchasing the Taylor product.

Apparently, Taylor can make money selling the tool for $30 - while the Tite-Mark cost three times that amount ($90). Either there's a very big markup on the Tite-Mark or Kevin Drake has an expensive manufacturing facility or a lot of overhead.

Mike

[Derek Cohen]

It isn't a legal issue but a moral one. I know Kevin Drake and consider him to be friend. After graduating from the College of the Redwoods Fine Woodworking program he stayed put and started Glen-Drake. His operation is very small and he has developed a number of excellent products. Almost everything he has developed has been knocked off, and the copy cats include large and well known retailers. In classes I've taught, knock-off gauges didn't even have flat registration faces. In fairness I don't know if these were the ones being discussed in this thread or not. In my experience the gauges and brass hammers look like the real thing but are functionally worthless. My point is that there are consequences to others based on our personal purchase decisions. I don't worry much about legality but I try to put my money where my values are and support small independent and creative businesses.

Bob Lang

I chose not to respond to this issue earlier in this thread because my views on copying have been broadcast for as long as the first WoodRiver Planes came on the scene.

The short term view says the world is dog eat dog. It is defended by looking at the legal loopholes so that one may say they remained within the letter of the law.

But this is not how I want my world to develop, and my choice is to foster growth around me, not kill it off. We need to protect all our innovators and their enthusiasm to invent and develop. Kevin Drake is one of the innovators we should be supporting, not killing off. I am not sure which is worse for Kevin - the loss of a sale to an inferior copy, or the valuation of his ideas to the few dollars that represent the cost difference between his original and the knock off.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mike Henderson]

I chose not to respond to this issue earlier in this thread because my views on copying have been broadcast for as long as the first WoodRiver Planes came on the scene.

The short term view says the world is dog eat dog. It is defended by looking at the legal loopholes so that one may say they remained within the letter of the law.

But this is not how I want my world to develop, and my choice is to foster growth around me, not kill it off. We need to protect all our innovators and their enthusiasm to invent and develop. Kevin Drake is one of the innovators we should be supporting, not killing off. I am not sure which is worse for Kevin - the loss of a sale to an inferior copy, or the valuation of his ideas to the few dollars that represent the cost difference between his original and the knock off.

Regards from Perth

Derek
Our economic system has produced the highest level of innovation. Once a business can "rest on it's laurels" it starts to go downhill. Innovators have to continue to innovate. Innovation can come in the form of new products or in ways to lower the cost of an existing product.

It is "dog eat dog" - it's cut throat - it puts tremendous pressure on existing businesses and on new businesses. And it works. The alternative is very limited to no progress.

You can view Taylor as copying a product. Or you can view Taylor as innovating the manufacturing and marketing process to be able to offer an equivalent product at a lower price. Essentially that's what Amazon did. They took an existing product (initially books) and sold them in a different way (on line) for a lower price. And then innovated on delivery (overnight and two day for one annual charge).

I know you don't like it but that's our economic system and it has produced a lot of good for all of us.

Mike

[AT&T was a regulated company - you essentially couldn't get communications service except through them. And they had Bell Labs to do research that would advance telecommunications. And we all paid higher prices for telephone service to pay for all that.
Eventually, AT&T was broken up and the telecommunications market was opened to competition. And that's when innovation exploded.
We used to pay quite a lot of money to make a long distance call - people would wait until after certain hours to make long distance calls. Now, long distance is essentially free. And the old AT&T is dead.
So, yes, I support dog-eat-dog competition. It produces advantages for all of us.]

[Another example is Compaq computer who invented the portable computer. Should people have felt obligated to buy all their portable computers from Compaq because Compaq produced the first one? Of course not.]

[Xerox essentially died after their patents expired because the new players sold better products and had a better range of products. Xerox could have done all that while they were protected. "Protecting our innovators" as you describe it doesn't work. It only holds back innovation.]

[You're making an assumption that the Taylor gauge is an inferior product but apparently you have not looked at one yet. And the "few dollars that represent the cost difference between his original and the {Taylor}" is not a few dollars. It's three times the price - from $30 to $90. Kevin should have done what Taylor did - before Taylor entered the market. For example, he could have offered a lower level product, perhaps at $45, while keeping the existing product as the "premium" product.]

[Derek Cohen]

Mike, at the end of the day these are personal decisions that are based upon one's moral compass. We all have opinions in this regard.

I could but would rather not debate this area since I have no desire to see the thread end. One issue is that there is a choice which tool to purchase, and from whom. The other issue is what makes a good tool. I am happier to continue discussing the latter.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

Innovators have to continue to innovate. Innovation can come in the form of new products or in ways to lower the cost of an existing product.

Why would someone be compelled to innovate if someone else is going to take their idea to some low wage location and undermine your sales? That isn't a business model my dollars will be spent supporting. Many of us have met Glenn Drake at tool events. Has anyone seen the makers who copy his design(s) bring support of any kind to the woodworking community?

This reminds me of an old demotivational poster composed of an breath taking image with these words below, "Corporations who go to the end of the world for their employees will find they work for one tenth of what Americans will."

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

Why would someone be compelled to innovate if someone else is going to take their idea to some low wage location and undermine your sales? That isn't a business model my dollars will be spent supporting. Many of us have met Glenn Drake at tool events. Has anyone seen the makers who copy his design(s) bring support of any kind to the woodworking community?

This reminds me of an old demotivational poster composed of an breath taking image with these words below, "Corporations who go to the end of the world for their employees will find they work for one tenth of what Americans will."

jtk
Ask Intel. AMD used to build a clone to the Intel processors. It was a spur to Intel to build even better ones. And we all have computers which work faster and cost less because of it. And the AMD chips are made in Asia. Andy Grove (of Intel) used to say "Only the paranoid survive" meaning you have to worry about your competition and beat them to the market.

Competition doesn't stop innovation - it enhances it. If I can build a unique product I can be successful selling it. But I can't stop. I have to keep improving it and find ways to make and sell it cheaper. If your competitor can sell it cheaper, or add additional features, so can you. You just have to do it before he does.

Mike

[And for those who advocate an ethical reason for buying the higher priced item - How long does that obligation last? One year, ten years, forever? How soon before you can ethically purchase the lower cost item? How long before you would have purchased a portable computer from another company than Compaq after competitive products were available?
And how much of a difference in price will you tolerate? 50%, 100%, 200%, 500%? Where will the price difference override your ethical concerns?]

[Van Huskey]

No patent = legal. Moral and ethical considerations aside but those like politics and religion are generally best avoided on public forums, IMO.

I have no idea why a patent was not pursued or possibly rejected but that is what it is.

One case study to consider re: innovation is the Fein Multimaster. While the general machine was under patent it stayed very much the same and commanded a high price. Since the patent expired we have seen a cornucopia of new similar tools. Over a short period of time Fein has also brought out a ton of new innovations as well as better/stronger/faster machines. The marketplace is packed with innovation from $20 to $600. The patent process worked as it should in this instance. Fein had the time to recoup its R&D, develop market share and prepare for the patents expiration. If you don't patent an idea you don't have the legal protection.

[Derek Cohen]

I have no idea why a patent was not pursued or possibly rejected but that is what it is.

Van, it is not only costly to apply for a patent (in how many countries are applications needed to protect your design?), but it is even more expensive to defend it in court. Who is the winner with Sawstop and Bosch at this very moment? Not many small start up operators have the capital to invest in a way that large manufacturers can. That is where we come in - the people protect each other, not the law.

Mike, many items can be made cheaper, especially when the cost of design and the research is no longer part of the equation. What percentage of the selling price is just raw materials and what percentage is the development cost that needs to be recouped? Competition is great, but it morphs into theft when there is disregard for ownership of the original design. The answer is to find another way, another design, to do the same thing.

Higher prices are not a justification to build the same item cheaper and call it competition. We would all like a cheaper Domino machine. No doubt, the moment that Festool's protection runs out, we will see a proliferation of such machines - some good and some bad ... just as we see good, bad, cheap and expensive battery drills. At that point it is up to the consumer to say who is the winner, and the manufacturer's challenge is to produce the best unit they can at the best price. Until then, patents protect the investment in design - not the freedom for the manufacturer to sell at the price point they wish ... buyers will vote with their feet. We do still have the ability to make a choice in this regard, which is not lost on manufacturers.

Nothing really changes for me when there is no patent to address the legal issue. Patents are pieces of paper. Original inventions represent people.

Regards from Perth

Derek

p.s. I do hope that the moderators permit this discussion, since it is being conducted in a civil manner. It is a valuable and important discussion, which is the reason I continued when I earlier said I did not wish to do so. Recognition of these issues may help protect our small manufacturers and sustain woodworking for all of us.

[Patrick Walsh]

Excellent post Derek.

[Jim Koepke]

And for those who advocate an ethical reason for buying the higher priced item - How long does that obligation last? One year, ten years, forever? How soon before you can ethically purchase the lower cost item? How long before you would have purchased a portable computer from another company than Compaq after competitive products were available?

Was Compaq the maker of the first portable computer or the first portable using DOS?

I believe the Osborn portable computer was released before the Compaq. The Osborn and the Kaypro ran CP/M.

DOS was an operating system that could be licensed by computer makers. It wasn't so much copying Compaq's portable design as it was building a system compatible with DOS.

Osborn failed because they couldn't supply a DOS machine as quickly as the market demanded. A premature announcement of a superior DOS machine being in the works tanked their sales which led to the demise of the company an the phrase, "Osborn effect."

Sometimes having someone who will support their clientele is worth the extra cost. Does the maker of the lower cost marking gauge offer any accessories or replacement parts? What happens if companies like Glenn Drake's fail due to makers using low cost labor to copy their original designs? What if he decides to quit making the TiteMark and replacement parts? That makes it a bit inconvenient for everyone.

Mike,
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

I'm neutral in my opinion towards which product to buy, but subjective portions of the purchase need to be brought forth. When I bought my GlennDrake, what was the portion of the cost attributed to speaking (then buying from him) about how to use, sharpen, retract the cutter, etc.? For the LV, how much of the portion of the cost is attributed to a buyer's unconditional ability to return a product for refund, if not fully satisfied? Try that with the knock-offs!

Conversely, having a patent gives the holder a period of time of market protection to continuously improve the product, in order to protect markets, when protection expires. If the holder chooses to not improve and refile, he does so at his own peril.

Finally, just because appearances indicate an identical product does not mean the product is the same. For example, on a UK woodworking forum last year, there was a "spirited" discussion of LV's PM-V11 material. Yes, those talking about it had maybe identified components, but that didn't mean ability to duplicate. As any holder of a patent knows (Mke-I belive you hold at least one, as I do in company name) you put enough into the application to gain approval but not every nuance of how to do or make it. A product can look the same, but be vastly different.

In the end, the markets decide success or failure. To many users, the extra cost of the TiteMark is definitely worth it (I hope high enough to keep the company viable). LV's PM-V11 is worth the cost, which is barely higher than the cost of lesser competing metals. My opinion is LV's product will see rapidly expanding use as the years pass. Another case to consider are handplanes: LV innovates and patents, LN copies and refines. WoodRiver copies and refines. I own products of the first two names, but my personal opinion on long term survival of each company, identical to what exists today, differs from my purchases. LV will be there, because each product innovates and improves with each iteration, but the other two will fight it out in future years for a limited market share, unless each decides to improve their offering to aid the consumer's choice (and ultimately their ability to survive). Given two identical products, with identical opration and results, same long term wearability, and identical customer service, but one half the cost of the other, which company/supplier will survive the coming years?

[John Gornall]

I suggest reading Glen Drake's blog. He's where he wants to be, expresses it well, and being in a similar place in another industry I will be quoting him often - thanks Kevin.

[Jason Dean]

I may be wrong on this point (and I am a dual arm Veritas man myself), but was not Mr. Drake inspired in his design by an illustration from "Making & Modifying Woodworking Tools" by Jim Kingshott for a micro-adjustable marking gauge? https://blog.lostartpress.com/2008/05/10/the-beginnings-of-the-tite-mark/

I am going out on a limb somewhat as I don't have a copy of the book to see the original form. But, it sounds like Mr. Drake took a tool design that was already in the public domain, improved the design and offered it for sale. His intellectual property then (if he has any) relates to the specific way his gauge works. Unless someone straight up copies his mechanism, there is nothing here either unethical or illegal.

[Mike Henderson]

Van, it is not only costly to apply for a patent (in how many countries are applications needed to protect your design?), but it is even more expensive to defend it in court. Who is the winner with Sawstop and Bosch at this very moment? Not many small start up operators have the capital to invest in a way that large manufacturers can. That is where we come in - the people protect each other, not the law.

Mike, many items can be made cheaper, especially when the cost of design and the research is no longer part of the equation. What percentage of the selling price is just raw materials and what percentage is the development cost that needs to be recouped? Competition is great, but it morphs into theft when there is disregard for ownership of the original design. The answer is to find another way, another design, to do the same thing.

Higher prices are not a justification to build the same item cheaper and call it competition. We would all like a cheaper Domino machine. No doubt, the moment that Festool's protection runs out, we will see a proliferation of such machines - some good and some bad ... just as we see good, bad, cheap and expensive battery drills. At that point it is up to the consumer to say who is the winner, and the manufacturer's challenge is to produce the best unit they can at the best price. Until then, patents protect the investment in design - not the freedom for the manufacturer to sell at the price point they wish ... buyers will vote with their feet. We do still have the ability to make a choice in this regard, which is not lost on manufacturers.

Nothing really changes for me when there is no patent to address the legal issue. Patents are pieces of paper. Original inventions represent people.

Regards from Perth

Derek

p.s. I do hope that the moderators permit this discussion, since it is being conducted in a civil manner. It is a valuable and important discussion, which is the reason I continued when I earlier said I did not wish to do so. Recognition of these issues may help protect our small manufacturers and sustain woodworking for all of us.
In our economic system, we have laws that define what people and companies can do and court cases that refine the interpretation of those laws. As such, people and companies have a pretty good idea of what they can legally do in the marketplace.

Your proposal is that we substitute some "ethical or moral" test to replace those laws. But your test is not well defined so even someone who wished to follow your proposal probably could not. Some questions for your position:

1. Who should be the beneficiaries of your position? Should it apply to all companies, or only small companies, or what? If small companies, how small and measured in what way?

2. If a company meets this first criteria, how long of a grace period do they get, measured from the time the product first enters the market? One year, five years? And is the grace period the same for all products? Some products become obsolete quickly while others have significantly longer lives? Obviously, this grace period cannot extend forever. Even patents have lifetimes.

3. How much price difference does this grace support? If the original product cost twice as much as the new product should you buy the original product or the new product? If so, how about if it costs five times as much?

4. Or is this one of those situations that cannot be defined but is like pornography, where you may not be able to give a good definition but "you know it when you see it?"

Our laws provide several mechanisms for people and companies to protect their intellectual property. When no protection exists, it's either because the inventor believed that his/her invention did not rise to the level where protection could be granted (perhaps the inventor was aware of prior art), or where they chose to not protect it (for whatever reason). Is it an ethical or moral imperative that we provide something (individually) that the inventor did not seek? Even if the inventor was unable to prosecute claims of infringement s/he would at least have the moral high ground if they obtained legal protection. And things like copyright, trademark registration or a design patent are not that expensive.

I understand that you feel strongly about your position. But without defining it adequately it appears to be something that you apply selectively to those people you like (perhaps you've come to know them personally), or only to products that fall within your area of interest.

Mike

[The laws and rules of our economic system developed over hundreds of years - some go back to English common law. The rules on intellectual property have likewise been developed and refined over many years and continue to be refined in an attempt to provide clarity, consistency and fairness.
It's not a perfect system but, as a country, we've shown the willingness to modify the laws to make the system clearer and fairer. If you can suggest changes to the laws that would achieve that purpose, I hope you'll suggest them, here and in other forums. It's good to have a robust discussion about the system and to understand the differing viewpoints and the difficulties involved in various modifications.]

[Jim Koepke]

In our economic system, we have laws that define what people and companies can do and court cases that refine the interpretation of those laws. As such, people and companies have a pretty good idea of what they can legally do in the marketplace.

Your proposal is that we substitute some "ethical or moral" test to replace those laws. But your test is not well defined so even someone who wished to follow your proposal probably could not. Some questions for your position:

[edited]

Our laws provide several mechanisms for people and companies to protect their intellectual property. When no protection exists, it's either because the inventor believed that his/her invention did not rise to the level where protection could be granted (perhaps the inventor was aware of prior art), or where they chose to not protect it (for whatever reason). Is it an ethical or moral imperative that we provide something (individually) that the inventor did not seek? Even if the inventor was unable to prosecute claims of infringement s/he would at least have the moral high ground if they obtained legal protection. And things like copyright, trademark registration or a design patent are not that expensive.

I understand that you feel strongly about your position. But without defining it adequately it appears to be something that you apply selectively to those people you like (perhaps you've come to know them personally), or only to products that fall within your area of interest.

Mike

One of the problems with our system of laws is the cost of a patent and then bringing it to court are prohibitive for many businesses. Then if a vendor is stopped, what is to stop the next from selling the same item under a different name?

Yes, there are laws where legal resources could be brought to bear against those who wish to benefit from the work of others. Often these cases end up being won by the side with the most money.

At one time copyright laws did not extend protection as long as they currently do. We have Disney, Mickey Mouse and a whole lot of money to thank for changing our copyright laws.

Where the law does not reach it becomes up to the individual to make their own choice. I choose to not purchase products from those who make knock off copies in low wage labor markets.

By the way, there have been innovations with the Tite-Mark:

http://www.glen-drake.com/Tite-Marks/

How many of these are available from the maker of the copy?

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

One of the problems with our system of laws is the cost of a patent and then bringing it to court are prohibitive for many businesses. Then if a vendor is stopped, what is to stop the next from selling the same item under a different name?

Yes, there are laws where legal resources could be brought to bear against those who wish to benefit from the work of others. Often these cases end up being won by the side with the most money.

jtk
Patents are not that expensive when compared to other costs that a company experiences. When I was involved with utility patents, our company had a deal with a law firm and they would do our patents for a flat rate of $3,000 each (but we did a lot of patents). Design patents are cheaper and quicker.

And dealing with a patent dispute can be expensive to the company which did the infringing. If they lose, they will have to pay the judgment and may have an injunction against them. Depending on the situation, they may have to pay the company who owns the patent's legal fees. It's not so simple that they can just do it again under a different name. The idea of patent litigation is to take the profit from the company which infringed.

But in any case, if you're going to ask people to refrain from buying certain products, you need to define what conditions should invoke that non-purchase. Otherwise, it's just "I know it when I see it" and you want others to accept your interpretation of what's right and what's wrong.

Mike

[There are other ways to enforce a patent. For example, small companies sell all or a portion of their patent to a patent troll company, such as Intellectual Ventures. The patent troll company has deep pockets and will bring suit against the infringer. That's how they make money. In many cases, a letter will cause the infringing company to shut down a product or to pay a license fee to continue to manufacture it.
It's possible in our legal system for small companies to legally protect their intellectual property. If they do nothing, they do not have any protection. You and others seek to provide to those companies an advantage they did not even seek.]

[James Waldron]

Van, it is not only costly to apply for a patent (in how many countries are applications needed to protect your design?), but it is even more expensive to defend it in court. Who is the winner with Sawstop and Bosch at this very moment? Not many small start up operators have the capital to invest in a way that large manufacturers can. That is where we come in - the people protect each other, not the law.

Mike, many items can be made cheaper, especially when the cost of design and the research is no longer part of the equation. What percentage of the selling price is just raw materials and what percentage is the development cost that needs to be recouped? Competition is great, but it morphs into theft when there is disregard for ownership of the original design. The answer is to find another way, another design, to do the same thing.

Higher prices are not a justification to build the same item cheaper and call it competition. We would all like a cheaper Domino machine. No doubt, the moment that Festool's protection runs out, we will see a proliferation of such machines - some good and some bad ... just as we see good, bad, cheap and expensive battery drills. At that point it is up to the consumer to say who is the winner, and the manufacturer's challenge is to produce the best unit they can at the best price. Until then, patents protect the investment in design - not the freedom for the manufacturer to sell at the price point they wish ... buyers will vote with their feet. We do still have the ability to make a choice in this regard, which is not lost on manufacturers.

Nothing really changes for me when there is no patent to address the legal issue. Patents are pieces of paper. Original inventions represent people.

Regards from Perth

Derek

p.s. I do hope that the moderators permit this discussion, since it is being conducted in a civil manner. It is a valuable and important discussion, which is the reason I continued when I earlier said I did not wish to do so. Recognition of these issues may help protect our small manufacturers and sustain woodworking for all of us.


I agree that this is a worthwhile and even important thread and should continue, and I encourage participation by others, including you, Derek.

In my view, your position is fine, but beneath the surface, I would disagree with some of the underpinnings:

Titemark makes an excellent case study of the topic, since it is not cluttered by too many variables.

First and foremost, we can take the legal question out of the debate, since there is no patent and the design is in the public domain as a result of public use (which means no one else can get a patent either). The patent subject is a different one, discussed below.

Second, there is a direct copy offered in the marketplace, which focuses the debate on the actualities of the issue. Speculative hypotheticals are not needed.

So then, how does one go about assessing the issue? Is it a matter of morality and ethics? I think not. Is it important? I think so.

In my view, one's position is a value judgement: does one wish to favor an innovator and inventor voluntarily (whether because he's a small business or even a sole individual or because of some other reason) or does one prefer to support the copier (because the copy is cheaper and good enough, or because one wishes to stimulate competition, or because ....). Those choices, on either side, are not about right and wrong or good and evil. They are about personal values.

At the extreme margins, there are those who oppose patents and other provisions for exclusive property rights in inventions, and indeed, in the very concept of "property." Interestingly, some and perhaps many of those same people also oppose competition as the genesis of capitalism which they fully abhor. While these people are busy protesting the WTO and the world economic order, they rarely do much for either Glen-Drake or for Taylor or for Veritas. Despite their efforts to elevate their value judgements to matters of universal morality and ethical duties, those efforts have generally been rejected by most people, most governments and most of their mothers, who wish they would come home and get a job.

Attempts to impose your value judgements on me as an ethical obligation leads to contention and ill-will and occasionally to war. There's far too much of that going around these days.

*****

Now, about patents: Glen-Drake doesn't have one. It may well be the result of a conscious decision that the patent system is prohibitively expensive for a small business, as suggested.

The startup of a new business requires capital. The most common reason for the failure of new businesses is inadequate capital. If the new business is founded on deployment of a new and inventive product, protection of that invention should be a core requirement and, no matter how expensive, the capital necessary to obtain adequate protection should be provided before opening one's doors for business. To do otherwise is to put the creativity of the invention at risk of imitation without recourse.

Spending the money to get a patent is necessary but not sufficient. There are a number of factors that can lead to the failure of a patent application and those should be carefully evaluated before beginning. On the other hand, a decision not to apply is certain: there will be no patent. The invention will be freely available for reverse engineering and copying as soon as it appears in public. When one begins a new business on such a basis, copying surely cannot come as a surprise. Competitors, whether large or small, are certain if the unpatented invention is a good one. If the business is started on the expectation that the invention will not be copied in the absence of a patent, the entrepreneur is unrealistic, unprepared and naive and/or poorly advised. If a business is started without doing the business-like things to make it succeed as planned, there are likely to be (predictable) consequences.

[paul cottingham]

The posting you refer to is in error - if you look up the referenced patent you will see that it was issued to Lee Valley and the subject matter is the Veritas marking gauge. You can see the patent here (https://www.google.com/patents/USD517931) (well, a summary of it). It is a design patent rather than a utility patent.

It does not cover the Tite-Mark marking gauge and I've been unable to find any patent - design or utility - that covers the Tite-Mark marking gauge.

This information has been stated several times, in posts 16, 22, 23, 39 & 40.

Mike

Then I stand corrected. As I've stated many times in other posts, I have a head injury, and I sometimes miss things.

I must admit, I find it curious, the amount of almost hostility there is for people who just want to support someone who makes a good product, and came up with it "first" and would rather not support a company who is perceived as copying his work.

[James Pallas]

There will always be a place for well made tools like the Tite-mark. I like well made and usable tools. I don't own a Tite -Mark because I don't feel that I need it in the course of the work that I do. I have used one at a friends place and found it to be very good. If you need a tool that fits the work you are doing then the price is not an issue. I think it's a matter of need and not ethics or price. If I was going to use a particular tool to do a job and use it often then I would buy the best I could afford. If I was going to put it in the tool box and use it once a year maybe a lees expensive example that didn't work as easily would be a better choice. Easy for me to decide may be harder for others.
Jim

[Jim Koepke]

It's not so simple that they can just do it again under a different name. The idea of patent litigation is to take the profit from the company which infringed.

Yes, the litigation might stop one person. Then a different person comes along and sells the same item made by the same off shore maker. Where would it end?

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

Yes, the litigation might stop one person. Then a different person comes along and sells the same item made by the same off shore maker. Where would it end?

jtk
That's not how it works. If a company is successful in defending their patent, it puts other companies on notice. No reasonable company is going to enter a market where the patent has held up to a court challenge. Would you? For the new company to be profitable, they have to be able to sell their product, not get a financial judgment (and probably an injunction) against them and not be stuck with a bunch of inventory that they can't sell when they lose the court case. That would be a recipe for certain failure. They'd go do something else rather than try to copy a patented product.

If the company enlisted the help of a patent troll, the troll company would welcome someone stupid enough to try that.

Mike

[Dave Anderson NH]

In response to several member comments, I intend to allow this thread to continue as long as it stays on the civil course it has maintained so far. SMC allows and even encourages spirited discussion. My only warning would be the standard one, read your work before you post it and if you have any doubts play it safe. Personally I am finding this thread to be fantastic. Keep it up folks.

[Jim Koepke]

That's not how it works. If a company is successful in defending their patent, it puts other companies on notice. No reasonable company is going to enter a market where the patent has held up to a court challenge. Would you? For the new company to be profitable, they have to be able to sell their product, not get a financial judgment (and probably an injunction) against them and not be stuck with a bunch of inventory that they can't sell when they lose the court case. That would be a recipe for certain failure. They'd go do something else rather than try to copy a patented product.

If the company enlisted the help of a patent troll, the troll company would welcome someone stupid enough to try that.

Mike

Would a trial/judgement as you mentioned stop them in the U.S. or would it stop them world wide? It may stop a U.S. citizen from selling the products, but they still might be able to have an overseas base to sell world wide.

Again, if the copying company is better financed than the originator, this could lead to the demise of the plaintiff.

Sometimes the only court where these arguments are heard and carry any weight is in the court of opinion.

My shopping dollars will be spent with those who appeal to my sense of what is best for my neighbors, locality, state and country. It behooves me to not let my shopping dollars go to those who may actually damage my neighbors, locality, state and country. Though in many cases it is difficult to live in a modern civilization as we do without lending some support to those whose businesses may not be the glowing examples we would like them to be.

We each must determine for ourselves how we measure, deal or become comfortable with the dissonance in our own life's philosophies.

jtk

[Graham Haydon]

Good discussion so far, thanks for starting it Mike.

When dovetailing I nearly always use one gauge for through dovetails and two for half laps. I really find favour with cutting gauges for this type of work http://www.toolnut.co.uk/products/measuring_tools/marking,_mortice_gauges/Joseph_Marples_Cutting_Gauge.html . I'm not sure who has a patent on them but they work very well indeed!

Not sure who came up with the all metal cutting gauge that seems popular these days, I'm guessing it's a late Victorian idea? The Glen Drake version looks well made and clearly people like it. I'd class it as a Gentleman's tool. Those attracted to that type of thing would always buy from the boutique maker so I doubt many sales have been lost. The people going for the cheaper version would not of been likely to buy a gauge for $90.00, let alone four of them for some part time woodworking at home.

I would think the single biggest issue for small tool makers is the small market sector of people with enough money to spend. I'd venture that the "globalised" world we inhabit has made these issues seem more acute. Now it's not a case of someone within the same county, state or nation taking the design forward. Jobs are moved around globally, I could go into that nest of vipers but suffice to say it's been at best a mixed blessing.

As there is no law here it is about the heart. In this subjective case, if I wanted a metal gauge I'd buy perhaps a tite-mark or a veritas. Luckily I don't as I see no benefit or innovation in their design over more traditional western designs. If I needed one quick I'd put a wood screw into a piece of wood and sharpen the head, it's amazing how easy they are to adjust and how well they work.

[Mike Henderson]

Would a trial/judgement as you mentioned stop them in the U.S. or would it stop them world wide? It may stop a U.S. citizen from selling the products, but they still might be able to have an overseas base to sell world wide.

jtk
If you don't have a patent in a particular country, there's no protection for that country. Most US companies only get foreign patents in certain countries because the market in the other countries is deemed not big enough to make it worthwhile. And since those markets are small, it would be difficult for a company to have sufficient sales to justify making the product.

For most products you need to be able to sell into the United States and Europe to have a market big enough to make it worthwhile. As China grows, it may be added to that list for certain products.

You're perfectly free to spend your dollars however you want and on whatever you want, based on your ethics and moral code. When you advocate that others do the same, you need to define how they should make their decision - the questions I posed earlier - or if your position is just "I know it when I see it."

Mike

[And as I mentioned, a small company with a good patent can enlist the aid of a patent troll company. Troll companies are extremely well financed and have lawyers on staff to pursue patent claims. A small company really can defend their patent although they will have to assign some (or all) of the benefits to the troll company. But even if they sell the patent to the troll company, they have extracted value from the patent. A patent is just a company asset and will be used in the way that maximizes the gain for the owner.]

[Nicholas Lawrence]

From my point of view, I might avoid a product if the toolmaker complained about it. I have seen a post on the Drake site about hammers that were not made by them, but were sold as having been made by them. If I were in the market for a hammer (I am not), and could identify who he is talking about (I could not), I would probably take that into account. Probably not enough to buy a $90 hammer, but probably enough to avoid the people copying their design. I have not seen any comparable post or statement about these gauges. Nor did I see anything about the Woodriver/Lie Nielsen thing we had a thread about a while ago.

I am having a problem understanding the problem with this particular gauge. It is obviously not an identical copy. Nobody is pretending it was made by Drake or is the same quality as his are. If it is the idea that is the issue, I don't know what the difference is between this evil one and the apparently good and virtuous Lee Valley one I have. Both are wheel gauges. Both are micro adjustable. Both retract the wheel into the face. From what I read, both are inferior to the Drake one. Both cost half as much. What is it that makes the one good and the other immoral?

I have never heard anyone complain about Lie Nielsen literally copying the Stanley catalog. But somehow people were outraged when the Woodriver stuff started coming out.

We live in a reasonably civilized society. If I want to know who owns a certain piece of (real) property, I go to the courthouse and look up the record. If I want to know who owns intellectual property I go to the database the government maintains to keep track of that. If that isn't good enough, what am I supposed to do before I can "ethically" buy a tool?

If the toolmaker doesn't think it is worth the time or effort or for whatever reason doesn't want to register their intellectual property, that is their right. But, I don't know why anyone would think I have a moral obligation to care, when the toolmaker does not care enough to either register the design, or even put out a statement about it.

[george wilson]

I made myself a Gretsch Chet Atkins model guitar for my own use,not for sale. It has no label inside,and no serial # stamped on the back of the peghead. It does have the Gretsch name on the face of the peghead,because the ex vice president was selling parts that he bought apparently thousands of after the final fire that put Gretsch out of business. It has an ebony fingerboard and originals had only rosewood. There are also some very different things inside from the originals. Easily seen through the "F" holes. Any collector should be able to spot that this guitar deviates from originals.

At the time,Gretsch was out of business,and I did not want to spend ten grand on an original. Nor was I in a position to ! They were never worth that kind of money anyway. They were all plywood construction,which is good for an electric guitar body,but no where the work of making carved arch tops and backs. Their value as collectibles is based on the Chet Atkins association. I happen to like the tone of those Gretsch Filtertron pickups. Gretsch guitars had more variation in their quality than any other brand I can think of. Their bodies were made in a few different locations. F holes,bindings,and some other details can vary wildly in workmanship.

A few years after I made my guitar,the Japanese made ones came on the market.I have 3 of them. They are actually made better than the originals,except they all have narrower necks than the old ones,and I have large hands.

The one I made is the guitar I always go back to,after playing others in my collection of about 20 guitars,mostly old Gretsches. But,NOT the badly made ones!

Gretsch wants about $10,000.00 for a "hand made" Chet Atkins model,made in USA(from Japanese parts!) The normal,imported ones run about $1500 to $2000.00. In my opinion,they were always over priced,riding upon Chet Atkin's endorsement.

Anyhow,I don't feel bad about making myself one guitar. Especially since it can be seen to be different from originals in places I've mentioned.

About the marking gauges,that extra "lump" on one of them,the circular lump that was said to get in the way of holding it,is not well executed. It is too vague in shape,and does not terminate on either side in a crisp fashion. Best leave off things that aren't done well. They take more trouble,and are not good features if not properly designed.

As an interesting side note,have you guys heard about the guy who searched copyrights,and found out that "Coke" was never copyrighted? I could be wrong,but I think he made Coca Cola pay him handsomely to buy the rights to their own product back from him. There are people who go around searching for well known products that never got copyrighted. Then,they make the manufacturers pay them to get their name back!

[Jim Koepke]

When you advocate that others do the same, you need to define how they should make their decision - the questions I posed earlier - or if your position is just "I know it when I see it."

I may not know it when I see it. Folks will make their own decisions themselves based on what they know and how they feel.


I have never heard anyone complain about Lie Nielsen literally copying the Stanley catalog. But somehow people were outraged when the Woodriver stuff started coming out.

My understanding of this was Lie Nielsen was given an okay by Stanley (or what ever corporate name they happen to be under) before they went into production. On the Woodriver situation the early word was the first castings were direct clones from Lie Nielsen planes.

If there is something incorrect in the above, please correct my error.

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

My understanding of this was Lie Nielsen was given an okay by Stanley (or what ever corporate name they happen to be under) before they went into production. On the Woodriver situation the early word was the first castings were direct clones from Lie Nielsen planes.

If there is something incorrect in the above, please correct my error.

jtk
It is highly unlikely that Lie Nielsen would seek "permission" from Stanley before starting his business. First, the patents on the Stanley planes had expired long ago, in the early 20th century. Second, why would Lie Nielsen put his future business at the whim of another company? Let's say that there's a housing lot next to your house. Would you expect that the owner would come to you and ask permission to build a house? You have no rights over that lot and the owner is certainly not going to put his/her future home at your whim. If you have objections to the house, your objections must be based on the laws in effect at the time the permit is issued. If the house meets all the legal requirements, the owner certainly does not need your "permission". Same with intellectual property that is in the public domain.

I have read interviews of Thomas Lie Nielsen where he talked about the creation of his company. Never once did he mention getting "permission" from Stanley. He said that he believed there was a market for a high precision version of the Stanley planes and set out to create and sell that. Turns out he was right.

That sounds like an urban legend that was started by people attempting to justify Lie Nielsen's copying of the Stanley planes. There was nothing wrong with Lie Nielsen copying the Stanley planes.

And I think that canard about the first Woodriver planes being castings direct from LN planes has already been put to rest as false here on this forum.

Summary: There was nothing wrong with LN copying the Stanley planes and there was nothing wrong with WR copying the Stanley planes or the LN planes.

Mike

[I hold a number of US patents but they were all assigned to my employer. Most of them have probably expired by now, but when they were in force, if someone wanted to use the intellectual property in one of those patents, they went to my employer and negotiated a license. They had no legal, moral or ethical obligation to contact me and get my permission, even though the invention was my own. The agreement with my company is that I got a job (that I loved), HW and SW tools and continuing education that allowed me to be able to develop the intellectual property. I also received a small honorarium and the recognition from my peers as having helped advance the state of the art in my field.
But I had no ethical claim on anyone who used the intellectual property.
When intellectual property passes into the public domain someone who wants to use it does not have to contact, or get permission from, the inventor or the previous owner. By definition, it's available to all.]

[Andrew Nemeth]

Thank you Mike for starting this thread and to all the others who have contributed comparisons and opinions of different wheel marking gauges. I can't honestly say that I have it figured out yet, but it is not for a lack of options or opinions.

-Andrew

[James Waldron]

This thread is civil because this is one of the very few places left on the planet where civility is the norm. I first came to the Creek from a history of participation in a forum of "drunken sailors" who are avowed practitioners of anarchy and who kept to their vows each and every day. It took a while to adjust and I still lapse once in a while. The moderators have been gentle with me, though, so I have not been excommunicated. Yet.

I have said it before and continue: the issue in this thread is not a moral question but one of weighing personal value judgements.

Do I support the innovative boutique maker or do I go to the competitor at one third the price. The boutique maker's product is elegantly designed, engineered and built. The competitor has a slightly/substantially inferior product, but it will/may meet my needs.

I have no duty to buy from the boutique maker. I may, however, choose to buy from him to acknowledge and support his excellence and reward his creativity and to enjoy the superiority of his product. While I may enjoy the excellence of the tool, I will not find a greater reward in heaven for making this choice. There's no right or wrong in my decision.

I will not be jailed or damned to perdition if I buy from the competitor. I may choose to buy the inferior copy to save the money and not let the quality difference be a factor, since the copy is good enough to do the job I require. I don't want perfect to be the enemy of the good (enough); I've got expenses to cover and the savings are important for my family. Again, there's no right or wrong in my choice.

My personal decision? While it really doesn't matter in the least, I have my own personal herd of shop made cutting, marking and mortice gauges in multiple sizes. Most are made of red oak with O1 steel cutters or pins that I harden in my shop. So there is, after all, a third way to go. After all, I"m a cheap SOB and also get to avoid explaining to SWMBO why I'm "wasting money" on another tool. We've already got too much furniture at home, so I'm not permitted to make any more unless on a commission. So again, I avoid any issues of right and wrong.

So we have a market where Glen-Drake chooses to compete on the basis of quality and excellence at a premium price. Taylor chooses to compete on the basis of price, with mediocre quality. Both face competition from other, different designs from a wide array of sources.

You pays your money and you takes your chances.

There are quite a number of boutique tool makers who offer exquisite tools at quite steep prices. IMHO, such makers create and offer "tools as art." While their tools are said to work quite exceptionally well in many/most cases, the aesthetics of design and constructions are taken far beyond the requirements of excellence of utility. Beautiful as they may be, and as well as they work, they are priced beyond the reach of many woodworkers. While many of these tools are offered at prices which reflect the extent of effort and the costs of the (often exotic) materials use, much of the effort is in excess of good quality, focusing on aesthetic values, using costly materials based on aesthetic values rather than utility. In reality, there are few (too few) small tool makers who offer good quality user tools at good prices accessible to the majority.

If you wish to support tools as art and subsidize makers as artists, and can afford to do so without leaving your family hungry, good for you. And if you want to actually use art tools as users in your shop, have at it. Or is you want to make a glass front display cabinet for art tools, that's okay too. Like I said, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

Glen-Drake, by all reports, makes an exquisite tool that he offers at $90.00. Taylor reportedly offers a fairly close copy with poorer quality construction at $30.00. If there has been a head-to-head comparison of performance, I've missed it. If there is a report of fettling the Taylor tool to improve it's qualities, I've missed it. If the Taylor tool can't do the job in the shop, I haven't heard about it. What I've heard is that there are a number of users who don't care for the wheel cutter tools and prefer a pin or knife based marking gauge.

When we get right down to it, defining an issue of choosing between Glen-Drake and Taylor is a false choice. In reality, there are a quite substantial number of choices offered to the user community, and there is no need to constrain the decision to two candidates. The right choice is the gauge that best suits your work and your personal values of quality.

[Derek Cohen]

the issue in this thread is not a moral question but one of weighing personal value judgements.

Thanks Jim. This echoes my own sentiments, expressed earlier.

There is no point in justifying the Taylor tool as a "better buy" based on price, or the Tite-Mark tool the preferred tool as based on quality. There is no legal constraint here to deal with. I choose to buy the TM because it is both reliably high quality and especially because it was designed and built by Kevin Drake. This is important to me. I accept that others have different perspectives, and will decide for themselves.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Andy Nichols]

Received mine yesterday, and it's very good quality...

352784

Have several Harris Tools items and they used to be based in Costa Rica, in fact my favorite pocket square that I've had for many years was made by them, not sure but assumed it is the same company.

I'm about as conservative as one can get, and like to buy locally if possible, but don't follow this moral or ethical argument that's bantered about here.

No patent, and don't even think the name is trademarked...

Look at all of the handplanes that are on the market, and I consider that good for the hobb, prefer Lie-Nielsen myself but Woodriver planes are of a decent quality and fill a void in the market.

No one complains that Rob Cosman or Bad Axe is making dovetail saws....would be silly to do so, but if someone could make a saw of the same general quality as them at 1/3 the price, I'd buy....

The new Preston router plane is nice, very limited production and costs $$$, if someone made a copy that was close to the original in quality at 1/3 the cost I'd buy.....

Spokeshaves are yet another example....Harris Tools use to make a very nice one.

Moreover, consider all the current makers/copies of the Norris smoothing plane, some with neat little improvements, and some are almost exactly copied, no one complains when they are copied by someone else.

Said all that to say:

Mike no need to defend your purchase or recommendation, especially not morally or ethically, and the marking gauge is a good quality item and at $30.00 it's fantastic!



Andy-- mos maiorum

[Prashun Patel]

no political tinder please. It's extremely flammable and we would have to extinguish immediately and edit posts which I know you all despise.

[paul cottingham]

I have to disagree with you on that. Our courts are responsible for the change to same sex marriage restrictions. There are many people who are still vehemently, and all too often violently, opposed to same sex marriages. None of them have been able to explain to me how my marriage suffers from two men or two women being allowed to marry.

Though it is often far from the case, our Constitution and Bill of Rights speaks against creating laws giving preference to religious doctrine.

I also often find myself at odds with those whose driving focus is on how much more money can be drawn in to their coffers. Especially when it is done without regard to the effects it may have on others.

Though it is difficult to avoid, most of my purchasing ability avoids products made in China or other low wage sources.

Yes, it may be legal for a manufacture to avoid the cost of design, development, pattern making and even 'trade dress' by making a direct copy of those who went before them. It is my personal sense of values to not encourage them.

jtk

I'm with Jim here. If there is an alternative, not made in China, I'll buy it. Even if it means going without for a long time while I save up for it. I'd much rather put money into the pockets of a company that compensates employees fairly, and encourages innovation. Oddly enough, this same decision leaves me in the position where I would never buy a Sawstop. Weird.

It often costs me more money, but, principles often do.

Again, a personal position.

[Graham Haydon]

Thankfully patent laws and the like have been all sorted out long before boutique solutions looking for the problems of gentleman woodworkers became an issue. Thankfully the patent laws do create innovation. I hate to say it but them amount of innovation in a tite-mark gauge or a bedrock plane of any description is laughable. They are simply well made tools.

Brian makes a very good point about how people producing non patented products work harder to show why a purchase from them might be more worthwhile. Because there is no innovation in the items discussed, it is only the attention to detail and build quality that can influence a person to buy them and also the fact they may like the people or group of people producing them.

[paul cottingham]

Graham brings up a good point. Even if a product isn't necessarily innovative, I will purchase it if it is of substantially better construction (in other words, built to last, or it doesn't have bits sticking out where there shouldn't be) or any of the other factors we beat to death above.

As as I like to say to my wife, I'd like my daughter to be able to use my tools or hand them down to her kids.

[Simon MacGowen]

Said all that to say:

Mike no need to defend your purchase or recommendation, especially not morally or ethically, and the marking gauge is a good quality item and at $30.00 it's fantastic!

Andy-- mos maiorum

Agreed. No one needs to defend their purchases decisions. Once again, woodworkers love to overthink. I buy tools, giving zero consideration to where it is made or whether it is copied (is it the job of a consumer to verify that?. If I bought a used car from a dealership, it wouldn't be my responsibility to check if it was a stolen property, would it?). Woodworking is for fun; many people here show they are way too serious about a lot of things.

Simon

[Mike Dowell]

Mike - I have the Taylor gauge, and I must say, it's perfect.

[David Dalzell]

I had an opportunity to check out the Taylor marking gauge. I do have a Drake Titemark to use as a comparison. (I also have the Veritas micro-adjustable gauge) First, the Titemark shows superior machining and finish. When moving the stem in/out there is a noticeable, thought slight grabbiness. i.e. not a very smooth movement. This doesn't effect operation of the Taylor, but it is noticeable. Next, the Titemark feels better balanced in my hand. I can't describe this difference, but the Titemark simply feels more comfortable/natural in my hand. Third, the Titemark can be micro adjusted by keeping the back screw tight and then loosening the forward screw and then rotating the knurled barrel with the fingers. The front screw stays put in the shaft groove. This is possible due to the knurled adjusting barrel being threaded into both the front and aft screw mechanisms. The Taylor marking gauge has the same two screws (front and rear) but there is no independent barrel that rotates to perform micro-adjustments. The barrel is independent of the front screw mechanism, but is part of the aft screw mechanism, not independent. The front screw can be loosened and the entire head rotated to change the depth of the cut; but the rotation also rotates the holding front screw. i.e. the screw does not stay in the same position and winds up out of the shaft groove when the desired depth is reached. Very clumsy and awkward to use. The result is a gauge that looks like the Titemark, but operates very differently. i.e. the two screws seems to serve no combined purpose. It is probably a useful marking gauge, but it is definitely not in the same class as the Titemark.

[Jim Koepke]

David, Thanks for the clear description of the differences between the gauges.

That seems like an odd arrangement to not have threads at both ends. Maybe it had to do with the expense of setting up to do a second set of threads that would have to be left handed for the adjuster to work.

Could it be one side was assembled too tight?

jtk

[lowell holmes]

Mike, why do you recommend using two gauges for dovetails?


Doesn't everyone have two or three gages?

[Jim Koepke]

Doesn't everyone have two or three gages?

I have at least four plus a Stanley Odd Jobs that are used regularly. Then there are a few more for which a new home could be found.

jtk

[david charlesworth]

Two pencil gauges, two cutting gauges, three with the flat side out and one with flat side in, makes 8 in total.

Actually I have many more, but this is a result of curiosity.

It is good practice to preserve gauge settings till the work is finished. This allows for "refreshing" lines that have become indistinct.

David

[Joe Kasier]

There is even one for $15 on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0000DD2Z8/ref=pd_luc_rh_sbs_02_04_t_img_lh?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

[Jim Koepke]

There is even one for $15 on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0000DD2Z8/ref=pd_luc_rh_sbs_02_04_t_img_lh?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

Yes, that one isn't a knock off of the TiteMark® nor is it micro adjustable.

Many of my Stanley marking gauges were $10 or less.

jtk

[Rob Luter]

There is even one for $15 on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0000DD2Z8/ref=pd_luc_rh_sbs_02_04_t_img_lh?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1

I bought one of these Shop Fox marking gauges when I was just getting back into the hobby. It's junk. Even if it was $5, it's junk.

[Jim Koepke]

The thing my TiteMark® can do that makes me think about sending Glen Drake Tools some more of my money is the ability to hold it in one hand and set it against a work piece or a rule and get close with one fast setting, then dial in the exact size equally as quick and get to work.

From what David Dalzell posts:


The Taylor marking gauge has the same two screws (front and rear) but there is no independent barrel that rotates to perform micro-adjustments. The barrel is independent of the front screw mechanism, but is part of the aft screw mechanism, not independent. The front screw can be loosened and the entire head rotated to change the depth of the cut; but the rotation also rotates the holding front screw. i.e. the screw does not stay in the same position and winds up out of the shaft groove when the desired depth is reached. Very clumsy and awkward to use.

It sounds like the TalorTools gauge comes up short. This sounds similar to how the Veritas micro adjustable gauge works. My Veritas gauge is usually only used when a fourth or fifth gauge is desired on a project.

jtk

[Adrian Ponik]

The thing my TiteMark® can do that makes me think about sending Glen Drake Tools some more of my money is the ability to hold it in one hand and set it against a work piece or a rule and get close with one fast setting, then dial in the exact size equally as quick and get to work.

From what David Dalzell posts:



It sounds like the TalorTools gauge comes up short. This sounds similar to how the Veritas micro adjustable gauge works. My Veritas gauge is usually only used when a fourth or fifth gauge is desired on a project.

jtk

I just recently got one of the Taylor Tools gauges through their ebay store, and I can't speak for what David got, but mine functions exactly like the TiteMark. Independent barrel, one half with right hand threads, one with left hand threads. What I received looks exactly like the pictures Mike posted at the start of this thread. Again, I can't speak for what David got, but the one I received will do exactly as Jim describes above with one handed adjustment, quick coarse setting and the barrel for fine adjustment.

[lowell holmes]

I have at least four plus a Stanley Odd Jobs that are used regularly. Then there are a few more for which a new home could be found.

jtk

I have an Odd jobs, but never use it. Oh well.:confused:

[Jim Koepke]

I have an Odd jobs, but never use it. Oh well.:confused:

It is like the late 19th century version of a speed square.

Mostly mine is used to mark a pencil line for a rip cut on the bandsaw. A combination square could do the same thing. For me the Odd Jobs is quicker/easier.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

I gave in and bought a Stanley Oddjob and one of the clones made in Gettysburg, PA. They guard the shop! I also have a couple of Speed squares-use them by a chop saw for a quick refernce mark. As far as accuracy, I have two out of three that are spot on-one was a Swanson bought maybe 20 to 25 years ago and a new Stanley (color is black). The third lays around just waiting to be borrowed!

Speed squares just seem to awkward to carry in my apron-I much prefer my 6" Starret combo square.

[Jim Koepke]

I just recently got one of the Taylor Tools gauges through their ebay store, and I can't speak for what David got, but mine functions exactly like the TiteMark. Independent barrel, one half with right hand threads, one with left hand threads. What I received looks exactly like the pictures Mike posted at the start of this thread. Again, I can't speak for what David got, but the one I received will do exactly as Jim describes above with one handed adjustment, quick coarse setting and the barrel for fine adjustment.

That was the reason for my question to David about whether one end could be stuck.

Otherwise one has to consider Taylor Tools has two gauges and nothing to clarify which one will ship.

jtk

[Andy Nichols]

My Taylor Toolworks is just like a Tite Mark, can be operated one handed....makes me wonder if there is a Chinese knockoff of the knockoff? ;-D

[Ron Bontz]

Interesting thread. Thus far, I have found the Tite mark to be superior to the Taylor. The Taylor has too much play in the threads for my taste, and is just not machined as well. But then again, when you consider the price points of each...... So the Taylor goes in to my carpenters bucket and the Tite Mark stays in my work bench.
Best wishes.

[Mike Henderson]

The thing my TiteMark® can do that makes me think about sending Glen Drake Tools some more of my money is the ability to hold it in one hand and set it against a work piece or a rule and get close with one fast setting, then dial in the exact size equally as quick and get to work.

From what David Dalzell posts:



It sounds like the TalorTools gauge comes up short. This sounds similar to how the Veritas micro adjustable gauge works. My Veritas gauge is usually only used when a fourth or fifth gauge is desired on a project.

jtk
See my posting in post #31. Sounds like that's what David has. The Taylor toolworks gauge works exactly the same as the Tite-Mark. I agree with Ron (post #101) that there's a bit more slop in the threads of the Taylor than in the Tite-Mark but the Taylor is very usable. After all, the Taylor is $30 and the Tite-Mark is $90.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

See my posting in post #31. Sounds like that's what David has.

I thought you mentioned having to deal with yours being sticky. That was the reason for my question to David. My search for your original mention was fruitless. It was my intention to quote you in my reply to David's comment.

jtk

[David Dalzell]

I need to take another look at the Taylor gauge. I am pretty sure the barrel was not independent.

[I just recently got one of the Taylor Tools gauges through their ebay store, and I can't speak for what David got, but mine functions exactly like the TiteMark. Independent barrel, one half with right hand threads, one with left hand threads. What I received looks exactly like the pictures Mike posted at the start of this thread. Again, I can't speak for what David got, but the one I received will do exactly as Jim describes above with one handed adjustment, quick coarse setting and the barrel for fine adjustment.)

[lowell holmes]

I gave in and bought a Stanley Oddjob and one of the clones made in Gettysburg, PA. They guard the shop! I also have a couple of Speed squares-use them by a chop saw for a quick refernce mark. As far as accuracy, I have two out of three that are spot on-one was a Swanson bought maybe 20 to 25 years ago and a new Stanley (color is black). The third lays around just waiting to be borrowed!

Speed squares just seem to awkward to carry in my apron-I much prefer my 6" Starret combo square.

Or a 6" clone from Lowes.:)
I also have a 4" Veritas double square that gets used a lot.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Or a 6" clone from Lowes.:)
I also have a 4" Veritas double square that gets used a lot.

Before Christmas I bought two of the Lowes clones combo squares, for including with other tools for my older daughters. The heads were colored blue (can't remember the brandname), blades were engraved and not painted. In giving them a closer look, I saw the "made in USA" mark, and bought two, at less than $10 each. Checked for square at home & fine!

[Jim Koepke]

It must be me, but combo squares do not get used much in my shop. When one does get used in my shop it is usually a no name 4" or a M.F. Co. 8". Not sure if that is a Millers Falls mark or some other company.

There are a couple of Union heads with protractors that are occasionally used and one rule with a center finding head also getting occasional use.

jtk

[David Dalzell]

:o My apologies to all. How embarrassing! I took another look at the Taylor and discovered that the barrel is indeed independent, and does work like the Titemark. The aft threaded section was very tight against the barrel, and showed no discernible break between the barrel and the aft section. I tried but was unable to loosen tho two sections until I realized I was turning in the wrong direction. Right v left threads. It took some effort to break the threads loose, but I managed it. Now it works. Haste makes mistakes!


That was the reason for my question to David about whether one end could be stuck.

Otherwise one has to consider Taylor Tools has two gauges and nothing to clarify which one will ship.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

Glad it worked out for you David.

Maybe others will now be aware to check if their's are stuck.

jtk

[Tom Vanzant]

The combo square at Lowes is Irwin...stainless blade, zinc head. FWIW, Veritas offers a small "pocket marking gauge" with a wheel cutter at each end. It takes both hands to set, has no micro-adjust, and only 3/4" dia fences. An inexpensive option to two gauges of whatever brand.

[Edwin Santos]

This whole discussion is really interesting. We've covered:
personal views of what's right vs. public reality on what's legal,
behavioral economics,
globalization,
trend changes in retailing and consumerism,
the ever elusive definition of quality
fine technical distinctions between two relatively similar products.

It gets even more fascinating if you take the time to read the owner's blog at Glen-Drake toolworks. He's an interesting character, no shortage of dogmatic opinions, but you have to admire his conviction. Not sure he's if he's the enlightened craftsman living on a higher rung on the ladder of Zen, or if he's a naive albeit valiant soldier trying to fight back the Roman legions of change.

Who would predict a simple forum post about a marking gauge would be so thought provoking?

[andy bessette]

...Who would predict a simple forum post about a marking gauge would be so thought provoking?

Well It provoked me into ordering a Lee Valley marking gauge. :)

[Edwin Santos]

Well It provoked me into ordering a Lee Valley marking gauge. :)
Ha! That's a good one.
I have the original Lee Valley gauge and have always thought it was pretty good. Sometimes the passionate discussions about elite level heirloom tools and location of manufacture get into your head and make you start to think the tool you already own is now suddenly deficient and you need to upgrade. In reality, I have to remind myself that a "better" marking gauge is not going to improve my hand cut dovetails anywhere near as much as more practice and skill development on my part. Mind you, I fully appreciate how much of a pleasure it can be to simply own a fine tool. I guess it's all a personal balancing act.

I'd say the OP is encouraging people to dovetail by hand, and offered the suggestion for those who cannot (yet) justify a much higher priced alternative. If he helps one or more people enjoy the satisfaction of dovetailing he's made the world a better place in my view. We woodworkers are head cases.... and the Neanderthal Haven is the insane asylum of the whole forum! Love it.

[Bob Lang]

Ha! That's a good one.

We woodworkers are head cases.... and the Neanderthal Haven is the insane asylum of the whole forum! Love it.

We're all together here because we're not all together there.

Bob Lang

[Tim Cooper Louisiana]

We're all together here because we're not all together there.

Bob Lang

Hehe. I've never seen that before. Love it!

[Malcolm McLeod]

...
Who would predict a simple forum post about a marking gauge would be so thought provoking?

So, this is your first visit to the Neanderthal Nirvana is it?? (Just a hint of advice: Don't bring up sharpening!! ...or other forms of religion.)

[andy bessette]

"Don't bring up sharpening!!"

Or power tools! :)

[Edwin Santos]

So, this is your first visit to the Neanderthal Nirvana is it?? (Just a hint of advice: Don't bring up sharpening!! ...or other forms of religion.)

Well I'm only here because I was kindly asked to leave the power tool forum for suggesting that Festool buy Sawstop with the money they can raise by selling the Domino patents to Bosch.

[Pat Barry]

This whole discussion is really interesting. We've covered:
personal views of what's right vs. public reality on what's legal,
behavioral economics,
globalization,
trend changes in retailing and consumerism,
the ever elusive definition of quality
fine technical distinctions between two relatively similar products.

It gets even more fascinating if you take the time to read the owner's blog at Glen-Drake toolworks. He's an interesting character, no shortage of dogmatic opinions, but you have to admire his conviction. Not sure he's if he's the enlightened craftsman living on a higher rung on the ladder of Zen, or if he's a naive albeit valiant soldier trying to fight back the Roman legions of change.

Who would predict a simple forum post about a marking gauge would be so thought provoking?
Thanks for the summary - I don't recall having read more than page 1 of this thread and was wondering what kept it going now with over 8000 views and 100 plus comments.

[Ray Bohn]

You are not counting possible PMs to OP. I sent several and received several very helpful replies. This site is fantastic.

Thanks for the summary - I don't recall having read more than page 1 of this thread and was wondering what kept it going now with over 8000 views and 100 plus comments.

[Prashun Patel]

Well I'm only here because I was kindly asked to leave the power tool forum for suggesting that Festool buy Sawstop with the money they can raise by selling the Domino patents to Bosch.

clap. clap. clap. Well played!

[Stewie Simpson]

Well I'm only here because I was kindly asked to leave the power tool forum for suggesting that Festool buy Sawstop with the money they can raise by selling the Domino patents to Bosch.

Edwin; you shouldn't cause any strife mentioning power tools within the hands tools forum. Very few of us restrict ourselves to hand tools only. A Bench Grinder is a power tool. A Cordless Drill is a power tool, and so on.

Neanderthal is by name only.

Stewie;

[mike v flaim]

I have an Odd jobs, but never use it. Oh well.:confused:
.
You're missing out, I love mine. Use it for setting up the height of my table saw blade as well as a general depth gauge.

[Jim Koepke]

.
You're missing out, I love mine. Use it for setting up the height of my table saw blade as well as a general depth gauge.

My Odd Jobs gets used sometimes as a depth gauge.

Mostly it is used like a marking gauge with a pencil. It is also great for finding centers on a piece like any other gauge.

Another thought, sometimes it is used for setting my bandsaw fence.

jtk

[lawrence munninghoff]

Having read the posts I did not see anyone say whether the Taytools beam on the gauge is stainless steel. Are the beam and two steel knobs stainless like they are on the Tite- Mark?

[Mark Maleski]

I teach hand cut dovetails and provide tools for the students to use. One tool is the marking gauge and the one that most people like is the Tite-Mark (http://www.glen-drake.com/Tite-Marks/) by Kevin Drake. But at $90 each - and I recommend that they have two for dovetails - it's an expensive tool to bite off on.

Mike

Another option, and perhaps a better approach if your classes are filled with beginners, is to use a combination square to mark out for dovetails. Beginners likely won't have the necessary tools or ability to ensure a perfectly square edge to be marked by the wheel gauge. With a combo square, you'd be able to teach the importance of a reference edge. Plus everyone needs one (just one) good combo square.

I own 2 Tite-Mark marking gauges and can remember a time when they weren't yet on the market. Glen did us all a favor by bringing these to market and AFAIK there's still no equal available. I hope he's able to keep producing them for a long time.

[Richard Jones]

.....I own 2 Tite-Mark marking gauges and can remember a time when they weren't yet on the market. Glen did us all a favor by bringing these to market and AFAIK there's still no equal available. I hope he's able to keep producing them for a long time.

Not sure how these are so different than the Veritas. Can you explain? Thanks.

Not questioning, just asking the question.............

[Mark Maleski]

I only have the standard Veritas marking gauge (without a micro adjust), so can't say authoritatively of how the Veritas micro-adjust differs from the Tite-Mark. I'm going on reviews of the Veritas micro-adjusting gauge that suggest that setting it is a 2-hand operation. The convenience of the Tite-Mark is that I can hold my work in the left hand, and set the micro-adjust precisely with my right hand.

Perhaps someone with the Veritas Micro-Adjust gauge can confirm?

[Jim Koepke]

Not sure how these are so different than the Veritas. Can you explain? Thanks.

Not questioning, just asking the question.............

Here is a comparison of the two:

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?133966

The Tite-Mark is easier to set. It is also less likely to roll off of a bench due to the set screws size.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

Not sure how these are so different than the Veritas. Can you explain? Thanks.

Not questioning, just asking the question.............

I had a Veritas gauge originally, bought a Titemark, used both for a while and sold the Veritas. Why? Tactile feel of the Titemark was better, with the micro adjust, easier to set-up, didn't roll off the bench and was just easier to use!

Since that time, I believe Lee Valley made significant changes to their gauge, and though I have not used one, those that have use it and the Titemark, say the advantages of one over the other have disappeared. I can't recall if it was this forum or another, but I posted my current most favored gauge is the Lee Valley stainless dual stem marking gauge. It works!