What is right about WoodRiverplanes?

[Mike Henderson]

WC didn't just copy the basic Stanley Bailey design. That would have been no big deal in anyone's book as Clifton and Record, and Sargent, and on and on. WC took LNs version of the design as modified as well as sort of "trade dress". ( i.e. the look LN had developed).

If WC did take the design as modified by LN, and LN did not have any protections for the modifications they made, then WC was in the clear.

Copying "trade dress" to the point that someone will confuse the two products is not okay. If you put a WC plane and an LN plane side-by-side, would anyone think they were the same planes?

Mike

[But I think this thread is just going to re-hash what has already been discussed in the previous thread. We've already shown that copying non-protected material is not wrong; that it's encouraged by our legal and economic system. And I think we put to bed the urban legend that WC used an LN plane to make the molds for the WR planes. Now, we have the accusation of copying of "trade dress".]

[Sean Hughto]

Mike, I have no interest in arguing about this. I don't contend they did anything technically illegal. I was merely trying to convey to Patrick that I thought it went beyond using the mechanics of the long expired Stanley- Bailey patents. I personally remember well the days when my local WC had LN planes and I saw the original WR planes and it was obvious to my eye that they saw an opportunity to make more margin with what was effectively a knock off. Legal or not, whatever.

[Mike Henderson]

Mike, I have no interest in arguing about this. I don't contend they did anything technically illegal. I was merely trying to convey to Patrick that I thought it went beyond using the mechanics of the long expired Stanley- Bailey patents. I personally remember well the days when my local WC had LN planes and I saw the original WR planes and it was obvious to my eye that they saw an opportunity to make more margin with what was effectively a knock off. Legal or not, whatever.

So what's wrong with that?

Mike

[This is off subject but I've only owned one WR plane - the Stanley 65 knockoff block plane. I just didn't like it and eventually sold it.]

[Sean Hughto]

This thread was intended to discuss what is right about the planes. I was imagining folks who are fans coming up with specific aspects of the tools as they use them that they appreciate. I was just trying to concede what I saw as a shaky beginning to get to the "right" of fixing it.

And yup there is plenty corporate America can legally do that I think is ethically compromised and not anything I want to support with my money.

[Kees Heiden]

It's the price and the overall quality. You get a lot of usefull plane for your money.

They're not quite my cup of tea, because I'm not into modern planes, but I also have the low angle blockplane and it is very decent.

[Graham Haydon]

Sean I have tried one V3 WoodRiver. I liked the plane Iron. The ones in the UK are I think T10 carbon steel. Not sure on all the details but I think it s a water quench. Anyway it honed nice on my oil stones and I prefer it to the A2 in other brands I have tried. I think they have a different yoke design to most planes I've seen where it engages the cap iron for adjustment. Not sure it makes much difference but it's different. The one I tried was very well finished and well within specs for accurate work. It gave the impression of something made very well. I have been able to look at a couple of other well made modern planes and in one example I felt the WoodRiver was better but only slightly and in another it seemed pretty equal. The lateral adjustment was nicely made, I think on earlier ones it was just a pressed item. The ergonomics were fine for me, some of the early ones got flack for a bad placement of the tote. This issue is pretty subjective though. I felt it was good value for money.

[Daniel Rode]

My opinion is that the #4 V3, which is the only one I have used, is very well made in every aspect. I think it is an absolute bargain and works perfectly. Smooth, predictable operation, nicely finished, comfortable. I also have the polar opposite. A modern Stanley #4 "contractor model" purchased about 10 years ago. Despite many hours of fettling, it is barely fit to do the roughest work and incapable of smoothing. The operation is best described as stiff and crunchy, unpredictable and uncomfortable. It is made in the general shape of a Stanley Bailey #4 but that's where the similarities end. Both planes are made offshore (Both in China, I believe).

If I were to purchase another modern bench plane, it would be a Wood River. But it's doubtful I would buy one at all.

The vintage planes have 3 advantages for me over any modern plane. First, they are much less expensive. The several vintage planes I've purchased have required very little effort to prepare. The most expensive of the lot was still a small fraction the cost of a LN, Veritas or even Wood River. Secondly, they are significantly lighter that the modern premium copies. I much prefer lighter planes. Lastly, I like using (reusing) the vintage tools. I like the history and patina, I like that they are being used to make things instead of going to a landfill or being turned into a coat rack. As a bonus, I think the vintage tools are possibly superior in some ways. Many will disagree, but I'm not convinced the new irons and chip breakers are as good as the old. The different shapes, thicknesses and alloys are just that: different. Perhaps hundreds of years of experience in working wood influenced the way the old plane were designed but no one bothered to write it down for today's engineers to read.

Maybe they did write it down but we think we know better today

If I ever buy a new plane, I'm pretty sure it will be a wooden double iron plane.

[Gene Davis]

Can't say why for sure, but I think I want to have a 4-1/2-size smoother. I am in a part of the country (Denver metro area) where there is no market for vintage planes, so eBay is my only option if I want an old Stanley.

The eBay market usually has two or three 4-1/2 planes, the good ones going for about the price of the WoodRiver. Woodcraft is discounting them this month and one can get one for around $140 plus tax.

The WoodRiver is much more like the Stanley Bedrock models than the Sweethearts and Baileys, and if a Bedrock appears on eBay, the market for that plane, in good shape, seems to be around $275. So the WoodRiver looks like a bargain.

The comparable LN 4-1/2 goes for $160 more than the WR, a premium that goes to almost $185 when compared to the WR at its this-month sale price. With that $185 difference, one could buy a nice set of bench chisels.

I have watched the YouTube 1/2-hour-length video in which Rob Cosman examines the V3 WR 4-1/2, and it is terribly convincing. The plane appears to be a very well-designed tool that functions beautifully.

[Frederick Skelly]

This thread was intended to discuss what is right about the planes. I was imagining folks who are fans coming up with specific aspects of the tools as they use them that they appreciate.

Hi Sean. Here's my 2 cents in answer to your question.

I find the casting to have excellent fit/finish. The sole is flat, the sides are square. The blade is thick, sharpens well and holds an edge acceptably long. The chipbreaker fits properly. The back of the blades sometimes need work - not uncommon or terribly surprising to me. The tool takes shavings as thin and chatters as little as any other plane I own (LVs and vintage).

Bought on sale, I've found the low number planes (e.g., 1, 3, 4) to be good value and perform well on the projects that I build. Some of the higher number planes get closer in price to LV when not on sale - enough to make me think about going with LV. But I have tried WR's longer planes and they seem to perform as well as the two small ones that I own. I see no reason NOT to consider them. In fact, I was seriously considering a WR #6 when a buddy of mine offerred to ship me a Tom-Bussey-prepared Bedrock #6 that he didn't want any more. (How the heck do you turn down one of Tablesaw Tom's beauties for less than $100?) Else, I'd have watched for a sale at WC and may very well have nabbed one. (WR #6 is $165 on sale today, vs $269 for the Veritas). BTW, I'm a HUGE LV fan.

Fred

[Brett Luna]

I'd have watched for a sale at WC and may very well have nabbed one. (WR #6 is $165 on sale today, vs $269 for the Veritas). BTW, I'm a HUGE LV fan.

Same here. I'm no hand plane expert, by any means...but I like my WR #6 that I purchased during a similar sale. The performance-to-price ratio is pretty darned high, in my opinion. Not that I'm done with Veritas planes, though. I like my #4 a lot and recently obtained the LA Jack.

[Tom Vanzant]

Gene, I have a cabinet full of Stanleys and Bedrocks, and one WR, a #4-1/2 V3. Other than a slightly rough lateral adjuster, it has been a delight. Be aware that it weighs a full 1.25# more than the Stanley version...with the added weight, all you do is push. I bought mine at a WC sale a couple of years ago. Enjoy!