Woodpeckers OTT disappointment

[Mark Katz]

Just received this special-edition stainless steel 1281SE square from Woodpeckers. Notice the difference between the two pictures below, the first being from their website. On the web picture, the numbers and markings are bright and bold. The one that arrived has very low contrast markings. With my older eyesight, these markings are just too faint to be useful.

Admittedly, there are lots of uses for such a square that don't involve the markings, but I would like to be able to use them if needed.

Probably going to send it back (assuming OTTs are returnable). I'll stick with the red aluminum tools from now on.

[Matt Day]

Looks to me that the markings and numbers are plenty white, but the main gray color is much darker on the website picture, so your lighter gray gives less contrast.

I’d first call them and nicely explain the issue and see what they suggest. Might want to request a red one. Hopefully they’d offer to pay shipping to get the gray one back and send you a new one.

[Ben Rivel]

FWIW the 1281SE isnt made of stainless steel. It's aluminum (cast apparently) that has a "Hard Coat" anodizing which is supposedly tougher than their usual red anodizing. Definitely not worth the extra money IMO. Their stainless version of the 1281 is this one for reference: LINK (https://www.woodpeck.com/measuring/squares/woodpeckers-stainless-steel-squares.html)

[David Utterback]

The web site example does is not designated as the SE. Looks like they are different models and maybe materials.

[Bob Hinden]

I have one of the red ones. It's nice as a square, but given the thickness of the blade, using the marking is challenging as there is a lot of parallax error. The newer one with a stainless steel blade looks a lot better to me.

Bob

[Mark Katz]

FWIW the 1281SE isnt made of stainless steel. It's aluminum (cast apparently) that has a "Hard Coat" anodizing which is supposedly tougher than their usual red anodizing. Definitely not worth the extra money IMO. Their stainless version of the 1281 is this one for reference: LINK (https://www.woodpeck.com/measuring/squares/woodpeckers-stainless-steel-squares.html)

You're right - I misspoke.

[Mark Katz]

The web site example does is not designated as the SE. Looks like they are different models and maybe materials.

Well, it's true that the picture shows just 1281 but it's right off the webpage for the the 1281S1E - see https://www.woodpeck.com/onetime-tool-1281se-special-edition-woodworking-square.html. Picture is probably a prototype and they hadn't designed the 1281SE logo yet.

In any event, what I saw isn't what I got so I will try to return or exchange it for something different.

[Derek Cohen]

Mark, this may not be helpful ...

I find square with markings to be problematical. As Bob mentioned, there are issues with parallax if the blade is thick. Far better are thinner-bladed Starrett combination squares, which have two marking edges (the sides and the end). Or, if you want to get really precise, get the Incra T-rule. One of my favourites is the Veritas Sliding Square.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51opBAdIB7L._AC_.jpg

http://www.veritastools.com/Content/Assets/ProductLarge/EN/05N3201L.jpg

I like machinist squares to score square lines and to check square sides, and not to measure distance, per se. The WP looks better for this task.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Randy Heinemann]

Woodpeckers takes a lot of heat for their OTT marketing concept. However, I have always found them to be responsive, way more than almost all companies I have bought tools from. Since all of their tools have a lifetime warranty, I would imagine a request to replace it would be honored. In one case, they repaired a square which I dropped on my concrete shop floor without question even though the responsibility for damage was all mine.

[Dave Power]

You may have gotten a badly manufactured one. One time, they accidentally sent me my order twice at the same time. The markings on the squares I got were noticeably different. Of course I chose the one I could read better and sent the bad one back.

[Robert Hayward]

Do you realize this is a 3+ year old thread?

[Dave Sabo]

Shoulda bought a Starrett.

[Matt Day]

3 year old thread people.