Squares are ....square

[Van Huskey]

One thing that is often missed is this comes down to value and value is a VERY personal thing. I see it most starkly on the watch forums I frequent. The largest one has sub-forums for Chinese (not knockoff) watches all the way up to high-end where the buy in is 10k+. The "problem" comes in when the $10 Parnis watch does basically the same thing as a $100k Patek and why you see people with collections of $10 watches just as proud and happy with them as the guys with 7 figure collections. Each feels they are getting value for their money and hard to argue even the person with a million dollars tied up in wrist jewelry is dumb, since unless he/she is a trust fund baby he/she almost certainly did something intelligent over and over to be able to afford them.

It is probably safe to say if we all had Bill Gates money you wouldn't see much discussion of rehabbing an old Craftsman 6" table top jointers found on CL but lots more about how long the lead time is on a new Martin. Will the Maloof Rocker or Boston Highboy they each make look different based on whether they were milled on a $100 or $40k jointer, no but they probably feel they both got value. There are a wide variety of people here, some will have to save for a while to buy a PEC blem and for some the price of a Starrett 12" combo is a literal rounding error on their lunch tab from earlier today, most of us live somewhere in the middle but we all see value different.

I get your issue with advertising and content creators but Woodpeckers makes a quality tool in the US and while they make some expensive niche tools that it is often hard to see where the value lies they apparently it has merit for some people.

[Cary Falk]

PS To be fair, I also think a Range Rover is worth the price so I may not be normal.

My wife had a 2006 Range Rover Sport HSE. I don't claim it. I was so happy the day we sold that pig. We must have got a bad one.

[David Kumm]

My wife had a 2006 Range Rover Sport HSE. I don't claim it. I was so happy the day we sold that pig. We must have got a bad one.

Tata beats Ford. Dave

[Nick Decker]

I don't know of anybody who claims you NEED the red stuff to do good work, but it "feels" well made. I don't claim to be a master at woodworking, but I do take pride in my work. I get the feeling that WP takes that same kind of pride in making their tools. I usually don't get that feeling from stuff from the big box stores.

[Van Huskey]

I agree that some of the one time tools are out there and I don't buy them if they are of no use to me. I don't see the same hate for large expensive sliders that hobbyist buy for example. I have gone through a rash of bad squares. I was always fighting square until I stepped up to better measurement equipment(several names on my previous lists.)

I think it may be due to the fact not a lot of people can drop 10-20 grand on a new mid-level slider so they simply don't read nor comment on it. They are also not going to comment on a 2K Aigner shaper fence, even if they think it is silly for a hobbyist. A $100 square is more in their wheelhouse so they are more likely to call it out. Again Woodpeckers has turned some people against them with the One Time Tools, I am sure you remember the "uproar" when the released the first OTT for the second time... We could all build stuff with a worn out $8 Lufkin tape and a beat up $4 plastic speed square but sometimes the journey is the most fun and sometimes using (really) nice tools makes the journey a little more satisfying.

I also respect and believe the OP's data points but at the same time like you my experience has not been as stellar with cheap squares.

[Mike Cutler]

Companies have a product to sell people, that's just the way of it. The "Red Company" selling squares is no different. If their products were not as they advertised, that would be one thing, but apparently they are as advertised, and as such they're allowed to ask what they believe it is worth and what the market will bear. It is the same with most anything.
In Williams post I would argue a few points.
Firstly, without a NIST Certification you have no accuracy. I don't care what color the square is, or who's name is on it. If the "red company has NIST traceable certs in their manufacturing process than that is what you are paying for. You're buying a "standard".
I have a 6' long Starrett machine rule. Prior to losing it's NIST cert it was worth $700.00 in 1996. Once it lost it's NIST cert it was about as valuable as any piece of metal in the bin. That Cert is expensive. It would have had to go back to Starrett to regain the NIST CERT.
Second. All of the squares were referenced and adjusted to the "red square" and not a standard. This is a reverse iterative calibration method.
Third. A "standard" tape measure was used to establish a sheet of plywood as at the reference for a parallel, reverse "calibration" checks. That the sheet of plywood was square, all four sides, is amazing to me. Same with the drywall tee's.
I understand the argument that William is presenting, and actually agree with it. The methodology of the testing has to many variables and flaws for me. As someone that early in their career worked in a mechanical standards lab, and actually calibrated rulers, squares, gauging blocks, dial indicators, micrometers, etc. Willam's testing is to unorthodox for me. Given that, I would also say that, were I to go back into the lab and repeat the same tests William did, the result would be very similar.
Products today are not being made by hand any longer to a large degree. They're being made on machines that are fully automated that have tolerances and accuracies expressed as percentages of the digital word equivalent of LSD, and the baud rate the machine is running at. as long as the machine is setup accurately, everything coming off that machine will be within those accuracy specification.
I have one "quality" square, and it's primary purpose is machine setup, and layout. I primarily see the use of a square as a tool to setup a machine, not so much to simply draw a line. The machine setup needs to be as good as you can make it. You want any given part coming out of a machine to be statistically the same as every other part made with that existing machine setup. That's not accuracy, that's repeatability.

I have a number of L&N planes and chisels. They're beautiful and very gratifying to work with. I also have a number of flea market specials, and a box of assorted plane parts collected over the years. I can mix and match the parts in that box, and make a plane that will function, exactly as one of the L&N planes. It won't be as nice, and the handle may be held together with electrical tape, but that blade and sole will work. Was I a fool to have bought L&N products for their "hype"? I hope not.

[Greg R Bradley]

Actually, you need to change your title because a square is NEVER square. It is always a question of the tool being good enough for the task. In a precision machine shop we bought new Starrett Master Squares like a 20-12 for $700 and then marked the accuracy and problem areas.

I went through all of the Empire squares at a borq to find maybe one or two out of 8-10 that were good enough for carpentry. Had to wonder about people buying the ones that i left behind. Probably would have to work with it to make it good enough for any precision woodworking.

Go to Harry Epstein and buy PEC seconds of a 4" or 6" Double Square for $12-15. Buy a 12" Combination Square for $45. Later, if you have the desire, spend $100 for a Woodpecker 1281 from Carbide Processors. At that point you will stop using the Combination Square for all uses except where you need the "Combination" part. The three make a great combination.

The value in the Woodpecker square is the design and function. It won't be any more accurate than a $17.50 solid machinist square from HJE here: https://www.harryepstein.com/index.p...id-square.html

[Brian Holcombe]

I worked in a machine shop for a few years so I’d rather have the ‘machinist’ brands, but I use a PEC tools for everyday stuff.

As Dave mentions, error compounds and it’s expensive to spend time on something that should be accurate but is not.

Wood movement is a moot point that is constantly brought up to suggest that doing accurate work is folly. If you are building parts in batches then they will move similarly. Also my project time lines are typically narrow enough that I’m not experiencing significant wood movement until after they’re finished. At which point I like to see that my joints are still tight and attend to anything that has caused an issue.

I notice far fewer issues the more accurately I work, just does well for me and the type of work I do.

[Van Huskey]

Tata beats Ford. Dave

Can't argue with that point.

I don't disagree with you often but Land Rovers are low on my value chart. While not with the same cache the Toyota/Lexus Land Cruiser and LX are much better made and just as capable. This comes from someone for whom his LR Defender was one of his all time favorite vehicles. While you could see the panel gaps from space it was one of the most capable from the dealer passenger vehicles ever made, along with the diesel H1 and the old G-wagons (pre- Brad and Angelina matching pairs, when they were grey market only like the Defender).

Before some wise butt chimes in I don't consider the Unimog a passenger vehicle but possibly the coolest vehicle on the planet, and that planet includes the 911 GT2 RS...

[Brett Luna]

I think of these things as the chrome tipped exhaust of woodworking, no real need, but who doesn't like a little bling.

My eyes are every bit as old as I am and are prebyopic, astigmatic, and have the beginnings of cataracts. A little satin chrome bling goes a long way to making a blade more readable.

[Steve Demuth]

So... I think we can conclude that the $8 measuring and squaring tools will provide dutiful service, and that the hype is just hype. Discuss.

I've got one pretty spendy (Starrett) square that I use as a reference for machine setup and checking / squaring other tools, as well as machining tasks. I have used it to align the squareness of a miter gauge on my table saw, and having done so, could cut an 18 segment circle (36 total cuts) 12" in diameter with no more than .005" total gap in the segments.

My other woodworking squares are "off the shelf" tools. But essentially 100% of them required fettling into true square using the reference tool. Some weren't initially square. Some blades weren't really straight. Some had both problems. Were they good enough before fettling? Depends on what you wanted to do with them. The cheap Stanley rafter square was good enough to build steps for my deck. I wouldn't have wanted to use it to for aligning cabinet doors that had to meet with a visually uniform reveal between them. Its long edge wouldn't do to verify co-planarity on a jointer either. I still wouldn't use it for that, but after some work, it's close enough that I probably could.

[Jacob Mac]

I get where you are coming from for sure. With that said, I have one Woodpecker tool, and I really like it. I got some clamping squares for a gift and I use them on almost every project.

I also am saving for a LN 4 1/2. So I'm probably too caught up in nice tools.

[William Chain]

All of the squares were referenced and adjusted to the "red square" and not a standard. This is a reverse iterative calibration method.

I’ll clarify - I did not adjust anything. I compared the cheap ones with the “square” one just to see. Everybody seemed to be consistent. By no means were my analyses super rigorous, I tried them under conditions typical of my work and I’d venture to guess most other work here. Bottom line is these cheap ones will produce fine work. And yes, I’d feel differently if the prices were not ridiculous for what you get. The OTT things I find mostly hysterical. For example, the $140 stick. It’s a stick... Their marketing is (necessarily) boastful and I guess it’s proving effective.

And to clarify further, I have little disdain for some of the other brands cause they aren’t busy saturating social media with their wares. Just honest and most of the time affordable. With WP, I’m reminded of a Family Guy bit about children’s photos... So I felt the need to experiment to prove (granted without a NIST certificate) a point.

[Chris Fournier]

If you needed a sheet of plywood you used a sheet of plywood to verify your red square hypothesis you are already out of the running in my books. Not sure why you tested a square like you did.

Machine a straight edge and us a knife to score a line with your square. Flip the square 180 degrees and score a line again? Where are you at? Two times the error of the square.

I have cheap carpentry squares and expensive machining and woodworking squares. They all represent good value to me although they cost magnitudes of $$$ difference. I have never begrudged the cost of a precision measuring instrument. Not once. They inspire me to do the best work. They will last more than my lifetime. Can't say that for the cheap stuff which is not to say that the cheap stuff wasn't worth the money.

[johnny means]

Their is no doubt that their is a difference in quality between the different price tiers of measuring tools. I think the OP is pointing out the folly of "you should by the Starrett..." Imagine if every, "Which saw should I buy?", was answered with either Martin or Altendorf. We would all see that as pretty unproductive.