Tool imperfections happen

[Patrick Chase]

There seem to have been a fair number of "tool build quality" threads lately, so I thought I'd share my personal experiences over several years in the hopes of calibrating people on what should be expected and how the vendors handle it if/when contacted. Note that I tend to customize my tools anyway, so in most cases I decided that a bit of tweaking was less hassle for me than contacting the vendor. I have been very explicit about those cases.

I'm restricting myself to LV/LN here as those are the ones from which I have a meaningful sample size. I have several times more LV tools than LN, so even though they will appear more times on the list my experience has been that LV has at least equivalent quality as measured by "percentage tools that require some sort of unexpected intervention". One interesting note is that LN does very well with plane bodies, but recently seems to have had trouble with their iron assemblies (and this has been reflected in some other recent experiences outlined on SMC).

What you won't see here is any mention of out-of-box tune or readiness. I honestly don't even pay attention to that, because I would never put a tool to use without at least honing it. I did mention one case where an iron required notable work to get the back flat enough, but other than that I don't "score" on tune.

• LV edge planes (L+R). Soles warped and more than a few mils out of square, particularly on fence side. Resolved by lapping to square on a high accuracy (cast and ground) reference angle iron, with PSA sandpaper on one side and UHMV film on the other so that I could target one face at a time. Vendor not contacted.
• LV BU jack rabbet plane. Toe insert had convex top registration surface, such that it "rocked" against the plane sole and didn't register solidly in front of the mouth. The resulting "give" made it noticeably difficult to maintain a thin shaving, though note that this isn't really what the BUJR is for. Resolved by scraping the top "rails" of the toe insert (the parts that register to the body on either side of the screw boss), using Prussian Blue to check engagement to sole in expected range of operating settings. Base re-lapped to align toe to sole. Vendor not contacted.
• LV 3/4" PM-V11 Butt Chisel. Corner came chipped, such that grinding back would have sacrificed 1 mm of edge life. Vendor contacted and replaced immediately, no question asked.
• LV Low-angle smoother. Face of toe insert was >5 mils out of square w.r.t. bed/iron when iron was set to uniform cutting depth. Checked multiple irons to confirm it wasn't a one-time mating issue (see footnote). Resolved by filing trailing edge of toe insert to match iron. Vendor not contacted.
• LV Traditional (non-custom) #4. Cap iron out of square such that it couldn't be set uniformly close to a square blade without overhanging on one side and leaving the other "uncovered". Resolved by regrinding cap iron bevel. Vendor not contacted.
• LN #8. Cap iron leading edge lip "over-cut" (bevelled the wrong way such that it formed a massive fiber trap). Resolved by regrinding cap iron lip with under-cut. Vendor not contacted.
• LN #10-1/2. First cap iron had skewed leading edge, which caused cap iron sides to extend past edge of blade when leading edge was set square. This is not a good thing in a rabbet plane. Resolved by grinding lengthwise taper into cap iron sides to accommodate rotation without overhang. A second/spare/experimental cap iron was wider than the iron, which is also not a good thing in a rabbet plane. Resolved by grinding cap iron to match iron width. Vendor not contacted.
• LN #3. Significantly warped iron corner (the most I've seen from a top vendor). Resolved fairly quickly by lapping on diamond paste and cast iron, though it would have been a chore earlier in my progression. Vendor not contacted.

My point here is not to beat up on LN and LV, but to point out that imperfections are inevitable with tools as complex and sensitive as these (and with the vagaries of UPS, in the case of the chisel). The mostly minor issues listed above impacted a small minority of my LV tools, and perhaps a somewhat larger fraction from LN. Both vendors deliver terrifically made tools overall, and it would he hard for them to do better without adding a lot of cost in the form of extremely thorough QA inspection. IMO we need to understand what we are (and aren't) paying for and be ready to work with the manufacturers to deal with the inevitable issues (or fix them ourselves without complaining if/when that's the easier option. Again, this post is NOT a complaint).

FOOTNOTE: Fun fact: In a plane with a 12 deg bed, 1 mil of side-to-side tilt in the bed will produce ~5 mils of iron-edge skew when the iron is set to cut a constant depth from edge to edge. Low-angle planes are tolerancing nightmares, and I'm continuously amazed that they turn out as well as they do.

[bridger berdel]

Tool maintenance is a fact of life. Complex tools need complex maintenance. Mass production inherently has a failure rate. Heck, so does hand building of tools or anything else. Perfect is a pipe dream. Fitness for purpose is what is relevant, and the 'premium' production tool makers have to walk a fine line to satisfy their target market. Seems to me they do a more than adequate job.

[Patrick Chase]

Tool maintenance is a fact of life. Complex tools need complex maintenance. Mass production inherently has a failure rate. Heck, so does hand building of tools or anything else. Perfect is a pipe dream. Fitness for purpose is what is relevant, and the 'premium' production tool makers have to walk a fine line to satisfy their target market. Seems to me they do a more than adequate job.

Yes, that's a very good summary of the point I was trying to make.

I find it interesting that both makers' jack rabbets made my list. Those are problematic designs in terms of stiffness, casting stability, and availability of "good" datum/registration locations, so I think that sort of reinforces your point about complexity. The fact that the toe insert has to be "T-shaped" instead of rectangular, and the fact that it has to extend "into space" to meet the iron probably contributed significantly to the issue I saw with the LV. Similarly there are unique width/straightness constraints (a form of complexity) on the 10-1/4's cap iron, which tripped LN up not once but twice.

The edge planes are also deceptively complex from a manufacturing perspective, in that they're asymmetric castings (which may make them prone to warp) and can't be conventionally surface ground.

EDIT: I should probably also note that of the tools I listed, only the chipped chisel, the L-N #8, and the L-N #3 were in a truly unserviceable state out of the box, such that their respective issues had to be remediated before they could be honed and put to productive use. The rest were all borderline judgment calls.

[Patrick Chase]

One last example, this time of the most extensive tuneup I've ever done on a new tool that I didn't simply reject.

The lucky winner is: The Tsunesaburo chamfer plane, which I highly recommend nonetheless. IMO it's a somewhat infuriating Rube Goldberg contraption that happens to be better at what it does than anything else I've tried, not least because it has a cap iron and eats problematic corner grain for lunch. On the plus side the tool came out of the box with the sharpest iron and most usably profiled cap iron I've ever seen (tending to further confirm that the Japanese makers were and are ahead of us in that department). On the minus side it had the following immediately obvious issues:

1. The tool tended to initially rock even more than I expected, where "initially" means "before both of the bevelled clamshell halves reach full contact". This was true even though I always focus on riding one of the two clamshell halves until the second reaches engagement (if you don't do that then it will be all over the place).
2. The iron couldn't be set straight by any amount of tapping, as there wasn't enough clearance in the cheek rabbets.
3. The iron projected more on the edges than in the center.

Examination revealed that the sole of the "mini-Dai" that rides in the clamshell portion of the plane was bellied in both length and width, and that the brass insert in front of the mouth was sitting proud a tiny bit. None of this matters at the end of the cut when you're riding entirely on the bevelled clamshell halves, but it made the plane difficult to use earlier in the beveling process and gave it a tendency to dig in unpredictably if not guided with authority. The belly caused both the rocking and the lack of center extension. The brass insert's backside was very roughly finished with flash projecting around the screw holes and preventing it from seating in its slot.

I made the following changes:

1. Straightened the cheek rabbets with chisel and float, carefully avoiding adding clearance.
2. Jointed the bottom of the "mini-Dai" to eliminate belly. For this plane I don't see any point in trying for a concave profile or anything like that.
3. Filed a very tiny recess into the top of the clamshell pieces where the iron rides. The key word is "tiny", because if you overdo this it becomes a shaving trap.
4. Filed the back of the brass insert until it sat flush with the bottom of the Dai. At this point the Dai had about 5 mils of clearance at the two ends where it's supposed to be a tight friction-fit into the clamshell, so the remaining steps are about addressing that.
5. Using a shoulder plane, pared the tops of the end tabs that are supposed to be a friction fit into the "slots" in the clamshell, until there was about 15 mils of clearance.
6. Glued ~20 mil thick oak veneer shims to the tops of the aforementioned end tabs.
7. Using a shoulder plane, trimmed the tops of end tabs to achieve a friction fit in the clamshell.

Even after all of that, I absolutely love the plane (much more than I did at first). IMO this sort of thing just comes with the territory with tools like that.

[Brian Holcombe]

Interesting, my plane was much easier to setup from the sound of it. All in all pretty good, most often with Japanese tools we’re paying for a retailer so they work a margin in for them and still deliver a product that seems pretty fairly priced at $160 or whatever they charge for it.

[Jim Koepke]

My only real defect is something that hasn't been addressed. On my LN #62 the adjustable mouth plate wasn't machined on one side. It works, but every once in a while it kind of makes me think about asking for a replacement. My only hesitation is on both of my LN planes with an adjustable mouth the plate was honed just a smidge to make it slide a bit easier. A replacement plate would likely require a touch of tune up to work to my liking.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

My only real defect is something that hasn't been addressed. On my LN #62 the adjustable mouth plate wasn't machined on one side. It works, but every once in a while it kind of makes me think about asking for a replacement. My only hesitation is on both of my LN planes with an adjustable mouth the plate was honed just a smidge to make it slide a bit easier. A replacement plate would likely require a touch of tune up to work to my liking.

jtk

As I tried to clarify there is a huge grey area here, which is why I spoke in terms of whether tools are "perfect" rather than using more negative terms. A lot of people might not notice some of the stuff I fixed, and still more folks who are more sensible than I might not care (again with the exception of the 8 and the 3).

I'm having a hard time visualizing a toe plate that wasn't machined on one side. Out of curiosity, which surface isn't machined, and what's the practical/functional impact?

I've noticed that L-N planes tend to have tight assemblies that require some use to "work in" or alternatively some fine-tuning as you describe. For example I have a couple of their planes that came with initially very stiff lever caps, and it sounds to me as though the toe plates may be similar.

I think that your attitude towards such imperfections is about the same as mine (and along the lines that I was trying to advocate), though it sounds like you may be a bit more conservative in how you address them :-).

[Stanley Covington]

I have commented to similar threads in the past, and have been flamed each time. But as someone whose reputation, career, and self-respect relies on delivering quality physical results and products, I feel this is an important subject to all, and therefore will step into the furnace again. Those who have ears to hear...

I grew up and worked in the US, but have lived in Japan and worked in the construction industry here for many years. There is a fundamental difference between the attitudes towards quality of the people of these two countries that impacts many aspects of life.

The first difference is that Americans tend to trust manufacturers and retailers in quality matters, and give them the benefit of the doubt. This tendency reveals itself in comments already seen in this thread. “All tools have problems;” “It is easier to correct it myself,” etc. Also, Americans are forgiving, and tend to dismiss negative comments as just “ one guy’s opinion.” Americans share these attitudes even when the defects are clearly due to manufacture’s error or poor QC. Americans have historically suffered for this kind attitude.

Many manufacturers rely on this forgiving attitude, and lack of credence to negative opinions, to fatten their bottom line and bonuses. They calculate how many and what degree of quality problems customers will tolerate before they stop buying their products. If you study the history of manufacturing, especially the automobile and household appliance industries, this is glaringly apparent.

In Japan, customers immediately return defective products to the retailer and demand a refund or replacement. In some cases, they may even demand compensation for lost to income, or damages, or the trouble of dealing with the defective product. Custom and the courts support this. The retailer demands replacement and damages of the wholesaler. He will think three times before procuring or selling that product again. Of course, the Wholesaler and manufacturer all share in the pain to a magnified degree.

Japanese customers talk to each other about their experiences. Soon, everyone knows that this tool made by this manufacturer sold by that shop is bad. Sales plummet, and loses result, right or wrong. Reputations and bottom lines are sensitive to public perception and credible consumer gossip,

The result is that manufacturers are quickly impacted by QC failures, and marketplace gossip to a degree not seen in the US. They learn lessons and make corrections and work hard to prevent repetition of mistakes. They see it not as a PR or Risk Analysis problem, but for what it is: a quality problem.

That said, there will always be quality problems to some degree. Every manufacturer and retailer needs to be made aware of those problems and given the chance to remediate current problems and prevent future problems. Only then can we purchase consistently high-quality tools.

To that end, we should return defective tools and expect either replacement, remediation, or refund along with an apology. If, after being given adequate opportunity, the retailer fails to come through, we should warn our fellow consumers.

The warning process may offend advertisers and others with a financial stake in preventing the widespread dissemination of complaints, even if the complaints are valid. I say to the devil with them.

I once had a problem with an LV product. I complained politely, but a misguided employee told me I was SOL. But Rob immediately remedied the problem the instant he became aware of it. I highly recommend LV tools and have total trust in their products in part because of this experience. LV has my loyalty.

Please share your good and bad experiences with us all. Only then will things improve.

Stan

[Patrick Chase]

Replying to Stanley:

In principle I agree with you, but of course the problem is that it's not always as cut and dry as you seem to suggest. Let's consider two of the examples that I gave in post 1: The bevel-up jack rabbet with the slightly convex datum surface on its toe insert, and the low-angle smoother with the toe insert not quite square to the blade.

All dimensions have associated tolerances and errors. No surface is truly flat, and no pair of lines (as, say, between the edge and the mouth) are truly parallel. You can't possibly hold a manufacturer to a standard of perfection on such things as you seem to suggest, because there is no such thing. Nobody would ever transact a sale under that standard. So now the question becomes, were those two tools clearly bad, clearly good, or in a grey area? If the latter how does that map into your construct of "always holding makers to account for defective products"? For what it's worth I believe that those two tools were good or perhaps "light grey". They could certainly be improved, but they were both fit for purpose as shipped. As a (former) product design engineer I'm acutely aware that we operate in those grey areas a very high percentage of the time, and that's why I posted what I did in this thread.

Of course there are clear-cut cases where the product isn't fit for purpose, and for those we are indeed best off *collectively* by always holding the maker to account. For example if I'd thrown back my #8 with its misground cap iron a couple years ago, then maybe the maker would have gotten their QA for that tool under better control and not sent out a series of grossly mis-machined #8 lever caps to the OP in another recent thread. Unfortunately I didn't do that because I was in a hurry to use the plane and it seemed easy to remedy. As you say this appears to be a case where my expedient action in the short term was bad for all of us in the longer term. Point taken.

[Jim Koepke]

I'm having a hard time visualizing a toe plate that wasn't machined on one side. Out of curiosity, which surface isn't machined, and what's the practical/functional impact?

On the top side of the toe plate it is machined where it interfaces with the plane body. On mine, one side is machined and the other has a partial machining and mostly the surface left from the casting process. As far as the fit it works fine and the sole seems to be true.

jtk

[Stanley Covington]

Replying to Stanley:

In principle I agree with you, but of course the problem is that it's not always as cut and dry as you seem to suggest. Let's consider two of the examples that I gave in post 1: The bevel-up jack rabbet with the slightly convex datum surface on its toe insert, and the low-angle smoother with the toe insert not quite square to the blade.

All dimensions have associated tolerances and errors. No surface is truly flat, and no pair of lines (as, say, between the edge and the mouth) are truly parallel. You can't possibly hold a manufacturer to a standard of perfection on such things as you seem to suggest, because there is no such thing. Nobody would ever transact a sale under that standard. So now the question becomes, were those two tools clearly bad, clearly good, or in a grey area? If the latter how does that map into your construct of "always holding makers to account for defective products"? For what it's worth I believe that those two tools were good or perhaps "light grey". They could certainly be improved, but they were both fit for purpose as shipped. As a (former) product design engineer I'm acutely aware that we operate in those grey areas a very high percentage of the time, and that's why I posted what I did in this thread.

Of course there are clear-cut cases where the product isn't fit for purpose, and for those we are indeed best off *collectively* by always holding the maker to account. For example if I'd thrown back my #8 with its misground cap iron a couple years ago, then maybe the maker would have gotten their QA for that tool under better control and not sent out a series of grossly mis-machined #8 lever caps to the OP in another recent thread. Unfortunately I didn't do that because I was in a hurry to use the plane and it seemed easy to remedy. As you say this appears to be a case where my expedient action in the short term was bad for all of us in the longer term. Point taken.

"Defective" is the critical word. If you know the design/production specs, and allowable tolerances, defective or not can often be measured and assessed. Lacking this information, common sense must be employed. In the case of planes, that might include considerations as "Will it do the job intended for without using file or grinder?" Or "is the appearance nasty?" Or "It should be flat and free of twist to the degree I can check it with my trysquare."

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Pat Barry]

I got the idea reading Patrick's OP that the tools weren't really defective (except for the chisel with the broken edge) but that they just weren't perfect as Patrick could make them. I'm pretty certain that if he felt they were defective that he would have taken other action than to rework them himself to his own level of satisfaction. My own experiences have been positive with LV, Stanley, and other tool makers. Sure my tools may not have been perfect, I couldn't even measure out of squareness, but they did measure up to my expectations and, as of yet, I have not felt need to return anything that I can recall.

[Phil Mueller]

Interesting discussion. I think we all agree there is a difference between “defective” and “not perfect”. It’s the same with all products. I own a specialty retail store that sells high end ergonomic products...office chairs starting at $2K, full body massage chairs $5K-10K, zero gravity recliners $3K, etc.

Not unlike LN or LV, a premium product within it’s category comes with certain expectations. No different for our products.
Any issues with fit/finish are unacceptable...scratchs, dents, cracks, uneven finish, flaws in leather beyond “natural” cow hide blemishes, mechanicals that don’t work smoothly, etc., are all returned for replacement. We do, however, on rare occassion, get the customer who will put a level across a chair seat and claim it’s leaning 1/4” to one side. Usually, it’s an uneven floor. But it could be a slight difference in the foam/upholstery, or a bit of wiggle in mechanism. The manufacturer will gladly replace the chair, but will not guarantee it will be any more level. Some accept this. A few don’t. Those that don’t get a full refund. It’s just never going to be “right”. My feeling (right or wrong), is it’s too bad some won’t get the benefit of a really good ergonomic product, because nothing is going to be up to their standards.

[Stanley Covington]

Interesting discussion. I think we all agree there is a difference between “defective” and “not perfect”. It’s the same with all products. I own a specialty retail store that sells high end ergonomic products...office chairs starting at $2K, full body massage chairs $5K-10K, zero gravity recliners $3K, etc.

Not unlike LN or LV, a premium product within it’s category comes with certain expectations. No different for our products.
Any issues with fit/finish are unacceptable...scratchs, dents, cracks, uneven finish, flaws in leather beyond “natural” cow hide blemishes, mechanicals that don’t work smoothly, etc., are all returned for replacement. We do, however, on rare occassion, get the customer who will put a level across a chair seat and claim it’s leaning 1/4” to one side. Usually, it’s an uneven floor. But it could be a slight difference in the foam/upholstery, or a bit of wiggle in mechanism. The manufacturer will gladly replace the chair, but will not guarantee it will be any more level. Some accept this. A few don’t. Those that don’t get a full refund. It’s just never going to be “right”. My feeling (right or wrong), is it’s too bad some won’t get the benefit of a really good ergonomic product, because nothing is going to be up to their standards.

Great input, Phil.

I deal with clients for entire buildings including MEP, FF&E, soup to nuts. Some clients will never be happy, as you pointed out, and harm themselves through bipolar behavior.

On the other hand, there are those clients that obsess about some things, but have no eyes for others. A large and expensive building I finished a year ago is a case in point. They freak out over a less than perfect laminate on a desk corner, but ignore serious cracks that have developed recently in the terrazzo floor and neglect to make any effort to compel the GC to remedy obvious defects, even when shown photographic evidence, before the one-year warranty expires. Go figga.

A year from now, when the warranty has expired, and retention money has been released, some new guy with the Client with working eyes will freak out, but it will be too late.

On the other hand, I now know to NEVER let that flooring subcontractor onto any of my jobs ever again, and I made sure to let everyone I work with aware of the problem so they will be for forewarned and secure better quality for future Clients.

Stan

[Patrick Chase]

Interesting discussion. I think we all agree there is a difference between “defective” and “not perfect”. It’s the same with all products. I own a specialty retail store that sells high end ergonomic products...office chairs starting at $2K, full body massage chairs $5K-10K, zero gravity recliners $3K, etc.

Not unlike LN or LV, a premium product within it’s category comes with certain expectations. No different for our products.
Any issues with fit/finish are unacceptable...scratchs, dents, cracks, uneven finish, flaws in leather beyond “natural” cow hide blemishes, mechanicals that don’t work smoothly, etc., are all returned for replacement. We do, however, on rare occassion, get the customer who will put a level across a chair seat and claim it’s leaning 1/4” to one side. Usually, it’s an uneven floor. But it could be a slight difference in the foam/upholstery, or a bit of wiggle in mechanism. The manufacturer will gladly replace the chair, but will not guarantee it will be any more level. Some accept this. A few don’t. Those that don’t get a full refund. It’s just never going to be “right”. My feeling (right or wrong), is it’s too bad some won’t get the benefit of a really good ergonomic product, because nothing is going to be up to their standards.

I can completely understand people being OCD-ish about their tools/chairs/whatever. I think I've provided plenty of evidence in this thread that I fall solidly into that category.

What I have a lot of trouble with is when OCD-ish people like me aren't self-aware about it and don't behave reasonably toward the vendors. Throwing back an expensive massage chair because the stuffing isn't perfectly distributed doesn't just deprive that customer of benefit, it also drives up the cost and prices other people out of that benefit. That's why I'll almost never return a tool for a tolerance issue unless it's truly blatant or something I can't dial in for myself.

Again, the only reason I publicized the "not clearly defective" examples in this thread is to highlight the sort of stuff that people should expect to fix for themselves (or ignore if they're actually rational about it :-).