# WoodRiver 5 1/2 Jack Plane Passaround



## Peter Sefton (29 Oct 2014)

This is a passaround for the new WoodRiver 5 ½ Jack Plane V3

I will pull an unopened box off the shelf and send it out with the Pinnacle - IBC Matched Chip Breaker and Blade Set, 2-3/8" for WoodRiver #4-1/2, 5-1/2, 6, 7. 

I am sure you will be very happy with the WoodRiver blade but this gives you something else to try out Ed.

If I send it out to Richard first; he can send it onto Ed, and so on.
If anyone else is interested please copy and paste the list into your reply and add your username at the bottom, then send a private message with your real name and postal address, to the person named before you on the list.

Here is a link to my YouTube video of me unboxing a WoodRiver 4 ½ to give you an idea of what to expect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDYM-4i45tI

To have a play with the plane you need to have been a forum member since the 1st October 2014 and have posted at least 50 posts to date.

I will send out the plane and then each participant will need to send it onto the next on the list by signed for delivery and to be fair to other users only within mainland UK Zone 1. Feel free to have the plane for a few days, give it a good workout and let us know your thoughts and post any photos and reviews of its performance. To keep things moving along for everyone please only have it for a few days.

Here is the list so far

Wood Workers Workshop
Riclepp
Ed Bray

Cheers Peter


----------



## Ed Bray (29 Oct 2014)

Thanks Peter, really looking forward to this.


----------



## Peter Sefton (30 Oct 2014)

All packed up and on it's way to Richard, thanks guys for taking part.

Cheers Peter


----------



## riclepp (31 Oct 2014)

Hi Peter

Many thanks, it arrived this morning, will play at the weekend and send on it's to Ed on Tuesday.

Many congratulations on your prestegious award.

Regards


Richard


----------



## Peter Sefton (31 Oct 2014)

I hope you have playing with it, and thanks for the good wishes.

Cheers Peter


----------



## David C (1 Nov 2014)

Peter,

I am keen to see it please, not sure if I have done the list correctly?

David Charlesworth



Here is the list so far

Wood Workers Workshop
Riclepp
Ed Bray
David Charlesworth


----------



## Peter Sefton (1 Nov 2014)

That all looks fine David, just a reminder to send a private message with your postal address to Ed Bray so he can forward it to you when he's finished playing with it.

Cheers Peter


----------



## Ed Bray (1 Nov 2014)

Hmm, I might have to visit North Devon the weeks after next so it may time in nicely with my passing the plane on.

Really appreciate the opportunity Peter, really looking forward to trying it out.


----------



## Peter Sefton (1 Nov 2014)

Ed Bray":2ibgcrqy said:


> Hmm, I might have to visit North Devon the weeks after next so it may time in nicely with my passing the plane on.
> 
> Really appreciate the opportunity Peter, really looking forward to trying it out.



Sounds like a damm fine excuse to go and see David's setup.

Cheers Peter


----------



## David C (1 Nov 2014)

Good idea,

David


----------



## matt_southward (3 Nov 2014)

Hi All,

I'd like to add my name to the list too. I'm interested to see how the Woodriver compares to my No 5 Clifton (particularly after the recent Cliffie thread!) and funds permitting I'm hoping to be in the market for a jointer sometime soon and unfortunately can't justify the price of a Clifton so it would be really useful to see the Woodriver. 

So that would make the list:

Wood Workers Workshop
Riclepp
Ed Bray
David Charlesworth
Matt Southward

Thanks to Peter for the opportunity to try it out. 

And as I'm only an hour and a half a way from DC's I might be able to make the relevant excuses for a day out to N. Devon myself for the hand-over!  

Cheers, Matt


----------



## Peter Sefton (11 Nov 2014)

Just to let you know the WoodRiver 5 1/2 is now with Ed who will be passing it onto David C when he is finished with it after the weekend.

Cheers Peter


----------



## G S Haydon (18 Nov 2014)

Warning - Follow the link and loose 18mins of your life you won't get back!  :lol: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOIzhdE ... N6dlbXU0mw

In the main I’m a user of vintage planes although a few new ones have also passed through my hands. If folks like Peter or Matthew want to offer around the latest stuff I'll gladly give it a try. Throughout my time with the plane I contrasted it with what I normally use.
The plane is made in the very familiar “Bedrock” pattern. The quality of the casting and general finish is exceptionally high and it does seem care and attention have been used throughout. Although the neat black, brass and crisp surfaces don’t guarantee good performance when combined here the aesthetic for me at least is pleasing. 

The position of the tote is right on the money with no stretching of the finger to reach the adjustment wheel. For my medium sized hands there was plenty of room and I felt no issue with comfort at all. The tote is a little thicker than my Bailey style planes so if you wanted to tweak it you could.

For normal use I found it a little more comfortable than my Bailey. One of the most pleasing aspects of the tool for me is the cutting Iron. For those who like spec sheet comparisons it’s a T10 steel hardened to RC 63 but I’m not that kind of person and the bottom line is T10 is excellent and perhaps deserving of more widespread praise. The cap iron is also good but I did add a secondary bevel to the front edge to enable the best results when the cap iron is set very fine. The only issue with the whole blade/cap iron set up is the screw. With the cutting iron done so well by WoodRiver it was a shame not to have serrations on the cap iron retention screw. Perhaps it’s just what I’m used to but Bailey style planes have this feature and it makes it easier and more comfortable on the fingers when setting the cap iron close. Although my wooden planes do not have serrations the screw head is deeper allowing more grip. It’s a small issue and not prohibitive to good work and could be improved by the user or perhaps even better by WoodRiver in the future. 

The lateral adjustment lever has the bearing set up like one of my older Record planes and the depth adjuster has a rounded end. It is anticipated that this will reduce wear. Time will tell on that one. All my irons are sharpened on an India stone and lightly stropped.
The most pressing issue though is what happens when the iron meets the wood. Well all I can say is its very good. Adjustment of the blade feels very smooth and there is a very pleasing amount of backlash in the adjuster, about a quarter turn. My vintage tools have much more and I can forgive them that as it does not pose a problem but it’s nice to see a modern plane with this attention to detail. The size of the adjustment wheel allows one finger to advance or retract the cutting iron while in use allowing very precise setting to be achieved easily. I don’t feel limited by my existing planes or indeed feel the need to change them but I have to be honest and say it was "easier" to get fine settings with the WoodRiver when compared with the Bailey.

While I don’t have the means to test flatness to engineering standards I am able to put typical woodworking hurdles in the way to see if the tool will do what is expected of it. Edge jointing was easily done, tearout was tamed and end grain was shot. At no time did I find any issue causing a problem and the WoodRiver felt very tight and crisp. To be fair though my other planes also do what I ask of them. There is a significant weight to the WoodRiver that lends itself well to refining, smoothing, jointing and shooting. However if you use a plane in a looser way for working at odd angles, shaping or for any volume of stock preparation from the rough you might prefer to add a lighter vintage plane to the list.

As a vintage tool user I know how to get the best out of them to suit my needs but I often feel for someone totally inexperienced the biggest hurdle would be knowing just what that means. What the WoodRiver does very well is provide superb value hone and go experience that can be used with no extra fettling allowing the user to get on with making things. It comes with the back up of a guarantee and the ability to get help at the end of the phone if you have and issue or even send it back! It also could provide a benchmark for people new to vintage tool restoration. I wish this option were there for me when I started work in the late 1990’s. As I pack the plane back into its box and send it back my thoughts are well done WoodRiver, if the cap iron screw was to be improved I’d find it hard to find fault.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Nov 2014)

Are you a vintage tool user or a user of vintage tools? ...just a thought...


----------



## G S Haydon (18 Nov 2014)

:lol: I wish I knew Philp :lol:


----------



## Ed Bray (18 Nov 2014)

I really enjoyed your review Graham. I agree if you are looking for a new plane you could do a lot worse than a Woodriver.


----------



## G S Haydon (18 Nov 2014)

Thanks Ed, I think you have it in a nutshell!


----------



## Peter Sefton (18 Nov 2014)

Thanks Graham for taking the time to do your great review and the You Tube video as well, what a Brucie bonus! 

I am pleased you found the T10 steel preformed as I would have expected and that the plane was ready to go pretty much out of the box. I loved the fact you used the WoodRiver to flatten the sole of your Woody which then was very good indeed. 

WoodRiver have been asking for my feedback on the planes in the UK, I will pass on your comments regarding the cap iron screw to the design team and this will filter through to the quality inspector who is based in the factory.

I look forward to hearing how the other forum members get on with the planes, if any one else would like to play please just let me know.

Cheers Peter


----------



## G S Haydon (18 Nov 2014)

No worries Peter, thanks for offering this in the first place and yes quite the irony with the wooden jack!


----------



## matt_southward (18 Nov 2014)

Well that was a great summary Graham - I haven't 'wasted the 18 minutes of my life' on the youtube video yet, but I'm about to  

I don't have the experience or the technical knowledge (but I'm learning fast) to be able to compete with your review, but I'm looking to offer a comparison to my Clifton which might help others appreciate the amazing value these planes offer (leaving aside the arguments about where it is made for now). I was really keen to try the WoodRiver after seeing some of the youtube videos that Rob Cosman put out and even from the videos the fit and finish looks pretty impressive - and that's relative to my Clifton (maybe I got a duffer?). Anyway, we'll see how that goes - hopefully it'll arrive from David fully 'Charlesworthed' so I will get it in it's prime!


----------



## G S Haydon (18 Nov 2014)

No worries Matt, thanks for the kind words! I don't think you'll be unhappy with the WR. Price point considered it's good stuff and yes a "Charlesworthed" plane should be blooming splendid! I'll add my name to the Clifton list and it'll be nice to see how it fares.


----------



## matt_southward (19 Nov 2014)

18 minutes later...

Good round up Graham - not a waste at all. That was exactly the sort of thing I needed around a year ago when I bought my Clifton and exactly the sort of reasoning - ie something that works (almost) right out of the box. For the new user who doesn't know a Bailey from a Norris or what sharp is, they need that reassurance. 

Great to see the comparison of the 3 too. I'm working toward getting to grips with wooden planes, as I love the reduced friction. I've a few old smoothers which aren't fettled yet and I'd like to get a wooden jack - just not sure what to look for - 99p sounds good though!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (21 Nov 2014)

Hi Graham

Very nice presentation. Good attention to the important details of the plane. 

Question: do you consider a #5 1/2 to be a smoother or a jack plane? 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## G S Haydon (21 Nov 2014)

Hi Derek

Glad you liked it.

That's a tough one really. I almost look at it as a Panel Plane - Big Smoother - Edge Jointer - Shooter kinda thing for a furniture maker. It's Jack sized but for me it's not a "true" Jack for roughing due to the weight and general overkill for that task. So if that's the kind of thing a user wants then it could be good. 

Cheers

G


----------



## Peter Sefton (21 Nov 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Hi Graham
> 
> Very nice presentation. Good attention to the important details of the plane.
> 
> ...




Hi Derek

I always say it's a jack of all trades! A good mid sized plane that can smooth but also flatten boards and shoot edges. 

The 5 1/2 is wide and heavy bit of kit which suits me but can be a little unwieldy for some.

Cheers Peter


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (22 Nov 2014)

Outside of David C, who routinely uses a #5 1/2?

I have one, which 20 years ago, was my largest plane. At the time it did function as a panel plane/jointer/jack as I mainly used power tools. As the migration to handtool preference progressed, the #5 1/2 was replaced by a succession of smoothers, as well as a jointer, and became a jack with a deeply curved blade. It certainly powered through hardwoods in this guise, but really was unsuited for the task as it was too wide a plane. This task subsequently was taken over by a wooden jack. A #5 is a better choice for a foreplane. 

My #5 1/2 has lived at the rear of a cabinet for several years. I did use it earlier this year for planing down doors I was hanging at a rental house I own. Together with a block plane this makes a good minimum tool kit. It was like the old days again. 

99% of the woodworking I do is in my workshop, and the great majority of this is building furniture. There is space for dedicated planes, and the years that have gone by have allowed me to accumulate a "few"  . The #5 1/2 has long been discarded. Jack of all trades and master of none. 

Your thoughts?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (22 Nov 2014)

5 1/2 was my first plane and still first choice for almost everything. It's good to have a few tools well used rather than the other way round, as you get to know the tool and how to get the best out of it.


----------



## David C (22 Nov 2014)

"Discarded"....oh woe !

If one was going to have one plane only, the 5 1/2 does a fantastic job.

I started my career with 4 1/2, 5 1/2 & 7, but this was 1970, the start of the decline of UK Stanley. The only one which worked at all was the 5 1/2, so I used it. 

Reading Fine Woodworking introduced me to the idea of tuning up a plane and it became virtually perfect and a pleasure to use, specially with the addition of modern replacement blades such as Hock.

I have a workshop full of planes now but rarely use anything else.

Best wishes,
David.


----------



## CStanford (22 Nov 2014)

mmmhhhhmmm... T10 steel, apparently popular with sword-makers. 

From a forum entry:

I finally got my hand on a Chinese scientific article written in English which mentions the composition of T-10 tool steel. The article is "Micro Structure of Laser Processed T10 Carbon Tool Steel." by Xianzhang Bu of the Technology Department, Changchun Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics.

The composition according to the article:

C = 1%
Si = .32%
Mn= .36
P = .031
S = .029


----------



## G S Haydon (22 Nov 2014)

Blooming hec Charles not sure what all those numbers add up to but the iron is just fine. On another point, David and Jacob in near agreement!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (22 Nov 2014)

Interestingly, that's almost exactly the same chemical analysis as CS95 spring steel (AISI/SAE 1095), the grade much beloved of the custom saw-makers.

Before anybody says, "Oh, goody, I can just buy a piece of hardened and tempered spring steel or suitable thickness and grind a plane iron out of it!" - no, you can't. Spring temper (at about 300 degrees centigrade) gives a hardness of about 50 - 52 Rockwell C; just right for saws, because it's fileable (just!) and if it bends it'll spring back to proper shape (unless you really kink it). Plane irons need to be harder, about 60 Rockwell C, which will come from a temper of about 200 centigrade.

What you could do is start with a billet of annealed CS95 steel, file it to shape (or forge it!), harden right out and quench in oil, then temper back at about 200C, and you'll have a virtual direct equivalent of the Chinese T10 steel plane-iron.

It has been said that the 'simpler' straight carbon steels - the ones with about 1.0% carbon but very little else by way of alloying elements - give the sharpest edges, compared to steels with more alloying elements. There may be some truth to that, though it's not the whole story. However, there are quite a few experienced craftsmen who swear that the older 'straight' cast steels give finer edges than the more modern alloys, and especially the fancier modern alloys. All I can say is that I have no proof of that, but my old I Sorby thin cast steel paring chisel takes the best edge I can get on any of my chisels, including post-WW1 vintage, modern Ashley Iles and 1980s Marples (none of which are any slouches on the edge front).

Consequently, I'm not surprised that T10 plane irons get the thumbs up from people who've used them a bit.


----------



## Peter Sefton (22 Nov 2014)

Jacob":7a7zj7r3 said:


> 5 1/2 was my first plane and still first choice for almost everything. It's good to have a few tools well used rather than the other way round, as you get to know the tool and how to get the best out of it.



When I get asked what one plane should I buy? My general answer is the 5 1/2.

My students tool kits all have a the WR 5 1/2 and a low Angle Block, I think this will cover a fair amount of general work. It's a good starting point then you can go up or down size wise as your work or the jobs in hand dictate.

This is the reason I put the 5 1/2 out for pass around rather than any others at this stage. 

I been talking all day today with woodworkers at Harrogate and advising that for box making or small bench work the Jack's may be to big. The no 3 has been getting a lot more interest than I would normally expect, a slightly smaller plane than standard but a great one at that.

Cheers Peter


----------



## Peter Sefton (22 Nov 2014)

CStanford":38iwkut1 said:


> mmmhhhhmmm... T10 steel, apparently popular with sword-makers.
> 
> From a forum entry:
> 
> ...



Charles I have know idea what you are talking about, but I do know it's a bloody good steel!

Cheers and thanks for your input Peter


----------



## CStanford (22 Nov 2014)

I guess the elements are, in order:

Carbon
Silicon
Manganese
Phosphorus
Sulfur

...at least according to the Periodic Table... I think CC knows.

Wasn't my blog post. I figured it would mean something to you guys.

I'd never heard of T10 but that doesn't mean much.

http://www.steel-grades.com/Steel-grade ... y/t10.html


----------



## G S Haydon (22 Nov 2014)

I got the first three and had to check the others. It's been a while since I did the periodic table .


----------



## Jacob (22 Nov 2014)

G S Haydon":n0txdr5y said:


> Blooming hec Charles not sure what all those numbers add up to but the iron is just fine. On another point, David and Jacob in near agreement!


Even Laurel and Hardy weren't at odds all the time! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ8D-bnwBK0


----------



## bugbear (23 Nov 2014)

I did some research when T10 first hit the headlines.

plane-blade-steel-t45815.html

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (23 Nov 2014)

At this link, for what it's worth, the hardening medium is air.

http://www.steel-grades.com/Steel-grade ... y/t10.html

Then at another source, this:

T10 Tool Steel

T10 is a Chinese designation for a water hardening high carbon tool steel with about 1% carbon content. The US designation of this steel is W1. The W series of tool steels are a very simple alloy group, low cost, and responsive to simple heating and water quenching for hardening. The alloy does undergo considerable distortion during quenching. This alloy is one of the common Water Hardening tool steel grades available. W1 is basically a simple high carbon steel and is easily hardened by heating and quenching in water, just as with plain carbon steel alloys.

Applications: W1 is commonly used for hand operated metal cutting tools, cold heading, embossing taps and reamers as well as cutlery.
Heat treatment is somewhat dependent upon section size, or intricacy of the part. For large sections, or intricate shapes, slowly preheat to 1100 F and then slowly increase temperature to 1500 F. Hold for 10 to 30 minutes and then quench in water or brine.
Forge at 1900 F down to 1550 F. Do not forge below 1500 F.
Anneal at 1400 F and slow cool in the furnace at 40 F per hour or less.
Temper at 350 to 650 F for Rockwell C of 64 to 50.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Nov 2014)

CStanford":32aiokvr said:


> T10 is a Chinese designation for a water hardening high carbon tool steel with about 1% carbon content. The US designation of this steel is W1.



I'm not sure this is quite the place for an abstruse metallurgical argument, but in strict terms that's not quite correct. W1 has a lower silicon and manganese content. In practical terms, both W1 and T10 (and CS95) will behave in similar (but not absolutely identical) ways if quenched in water (or brine) on hardening, but the slight difference in alloying element content allows CS95/T10 to respond positively to oil quenching, which whilst it will give very slightly different results, can be an advantage for some applications (springs, for example).

(For all practical woodworking purposes, the resulting plane iron/chisel/saw will be perfectly fit for service whether made of appropriately heat-treated W1, T10, CS95 or many other alloys. There may be slight differences in performance, but all will work quite acceptably.)

Here's a quote from 'Engineering Metallurgy' Vol.1 by R.A.Higgins (fifth edition 1983, page 339)- "Silicon dissolves in ferrite thus increasing it's strength and hardness. Low alloy steels containing silicon as the principal addition are relatively inexpensive, but because silicon has a graphitising effect these steels also contain up to 1% manganese as a carbide stabiliser. Both elements combine in strenghening the ferrite and in increasing hardenability, so that silicon-manganese steels repond to oil quenching. Subsequent tempering provides a good combination of strength and impact toughness. These steels have been widely used for coil and leaf-type springs, as well as for a variety of tools such as punches and chisels where shock-resistance is necessary."

Having had to dabble in metallurgy for professional and amateur reasons, one thing that I've become aware of is the horrendous complexity of steel metallurgy. Very small changes in the percentage of an alloying element can make significant differences to the resulting steel, and there are about ten commonly used alloying elements in addition to carbon. One reference book we had in the drawing office listed 4000 grades of commercially-available steel, of which several hundred were 'tool steels'. The result is that there are many 'quite similar' grades that have differences just enough to suit them to particular applications, but which will answer perfectly acceptably in many others. Hence the variety of steels used over the years for making woodworking tools. There are quite a number of other grades that would make good woodworking tools, too.

Edit to add - 

T10 - Carbon 0.95%
Manganese 0.36%
Silicon 0.32%
Phosphorus 0.031%
Sulphur 0.029%
The balance - Iron.

CS95/En44 - Carbon 0.95 - 1.05%
Manganese 0.3 -0.7%
Silicon 0.35% max.
Phosphorus and Sulphur 0.05% max each
 The balance - Iron.

W1 - Carbon - 1.05%
Manganese - 0.25%
Silicon - 0.2%
(Phosphorus ans Sulphur - not specified, but will be limited as the above alloys.)
The balance - Iron.

Conclusion - T10 will make a very good plane iron. So will CS95/En44 and W1, given suitable heat treatment of each.


----------



## Jacob (23 Nov 2014)

Cheshirechappie":2jmufse7 said:


> .....
> 
> Conclusion - T10 will make a very good plane iron. So will CS95/En44 and W1,.....


I guessed that would be the case! :lol: 
Is there any significant difference between all the common plane blade materials on offer? They all seem the same to me except for thickness. 
Except laminated ones feel different sharpening i.e. slightly faster and you can feel the drag of the soft backing steel. I've got a jap "Smoothcut" and one or two Stanley or Record laminated


----------



## David C (23 Nov 2014)

A2 (a high speed steel) seems to me, to remain workable for significantly longer.

I have observed this many times.

David Charlesworth


----------



## Jacob (23 Nov 2014)

Yes I suppose it does. But then it takes longer to sharpen. So perhaps not a significant advantage.


----------



## G S Haydon (23 Nov 2014)

Normal service resumed


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Nov 2014)

=D> :lol:


----------



## David C (23 Nov 2014)

Have to disagree.

Using my methods and Japanese waterstones, sharpening takes no longer.

I think it may be the oilstone user who struggles.

David


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Nov 2014)

I'm not getting into any arguments about sharpening, or the relative merits of A2, D2, PMV11, Z47 1/2 or any other grades you can think of or invent. 

The only purpose to all the technical guff above was to demonstrate that T10 is very similar to other long-established 'simple' carbon steels, and whilst not quite the same as 'cast steel' of old (which itself can be quite variable in exact composition and quality), it is sufficiently similar to lend credence to the findings of those who suggest that T10 has similar working characteristics when used for plane blades. If anyone were to make plane blades out of CS95, they would be virtually identical to T10 (CS95 is used as knife blade stock for some non-woodworking applications, and for high grade woodworking handsaw blades; it's main use is for springs). 

Blades made of W1 would be pretty damn close to T10, too. One slight problem with this plan is that, as far as I can determine, W1 (or similar 1%-ish straight carbon steels with no alloying elements except perhaps a bit of manganese) are unobtainable, in the UK at any rate. The reason for this is that industrially, there are grades of steel that have all the advantages of W1 without it's disadvantages, consequently, there is virtually no market for it outside a few custom knife and edge-tool makers, and their total consumption does not amount to a viable steelworks melt quantity.


----------



## CStanford (24 Nov 2014)

Now that I know what T10 is  I applaud the decision to use a plain carbon steel which can be sharpened efficiently with any relevant media. That decision seems congruent with the planes as well-executed reproductions of an obviously classic design (Bailey/Bedrock) -- good for the more or less purists among us that appreciate the imprimatur of history with respect to these kinds of planes. They need not be tricked-up or festooned in any way just reasonably well made, which based on Graham's review certainly seems to be the case.


----------



## David C (24 Nov 2014)

Just to be pedantic, I believe they took castings or patterns directly from L-N planes.

In the beginning the block plane lever cap showed traces of the place where the L-N name had been ground off.

So they are direct copies of L-N which are often improvements on the original Stanley model.

Best wishes,
David


----------



## CStanford (24 Nov 2014)

Assuming this is the case I don't think anybody cares at this point, Woodcraft doesn't care nor do UK stockists -- ethics, legality, etc. 

There have been at least a dozen manufacturers (probably more) of Bailey-pattern and other Stanley planes through history some with slight and not-so-slight twists ('improvements') some just absolute knock-offs. L-N is but one amongst an unbroken continuum of copyists going back decades, no more, no less. Any conclusion otherwise ignores the history of iron hand planes.

If one finds these things distasteful then Record was probably the most egregious offender, and I would imagine at their peak that one year's worth of production exceeded L-N's from inception to date.

That said, there are some so delusional as to believe that L-N hasn't essentially been making copies all these years and that a copy of their copy (yep, it's a copy) all of a sudden isn't fair game when all of these copies have been fair game for over a hundred years. It would be quite an exercise, frankly, to sort all of the copies and copyists given the length of time, depth, breadth, and scope of the whole thing.


----------



## woodbrains (24 Nov 2014)

CStanford":26djwsfu said:


> Assuming this is the case I don't think anybody cares at this point, Woodcraft doesn't care nor do UK stockists.
> 
> There have been at least a dozen manufacturers (probably more) of Bailey-pattern and other Stanley planes through history some with slight and not-so-slight twists ('improvements') some just absolute knock-offs. L-N is but one amongst an unbroken continuum of copyists going back decades, no more, no less. Any conclusion otherwise ignores the history of iron hand planes.
> 
> ...



Hello,

Except that LN did all the hard work in developing the improvements along with the associated high costs, whereas Woodriver just knocked the finished products off. Investing in designing or remodelling a tool has to be paid for by actually selling enough of them, which has to be harder when the market is pulled from under you by a counterfeiter. Be careful that buying the cheaper option will not eventually lead to the innovator ceasing trading and then even the copyist will no longer have a source to make too tools from and we will be back in the sorry state of no one making good tools anymore.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (24 Nov 2014)

It's like a bank robber calling the cops when somebody steals the results of his ingenuity in robbing banks.

Your conclusion that L-N represents such a departure as to rise to something other than essentially a copy is simply wrong. Thomas Lie-Nielsen would tell you that himself. Hence, no lawsuits. He owns no patents on hand planes. None.

Mr. Holtey would tell you the same thing about his exquisitely made copies of Norris designs which themselves are derivative to an extent.


----------



## David C (24 Nov 2014)

The patents had long expired and UK Stanley had gone very far down the cost cutting route, which left us with planes that did not work. 

Many specialist planes had also been discontinued.

You may have noticed that I wrote not one word of moral judgement.

David


----------



## bugbear (24 Nov 2014)

CStanford":2eh1qiz3 said:


> Mr. Holtey would tell you the same thing about his exquisitely made copies of Norris designs which themselves are derivative to an extent.



Except for his carefully thought out and tested refinements and improvements of course, including the not minor
matter of a completely different blade bedding system. Look it up.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (24 Nov 2014)

No David you just made a statement that they were direct copies. The moral judgment in your statement is implicit and supported especially by you having made the explicit case on other forums (if memory serves).


----------



## CStanford (24 Nov 2014)

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/141 ... nd-stanley

Lie-Nielsen does make their planes thicker, though one wonders how much thicker if they were compared to WWII-era Stanley which strangely enough are now routinely panned for having been 'too thick and clumsy' because of a lack of quality machinist labor during the war. Thin was (is?) in at least with the vintage set...


----------



## David C (24 Nov 2014)

But Charles, you must know that they are direct copies!!


----------



## CStanford (24 Nov 2014)

90+% of the L-N design is copied, after that does it really make any difference?

When 90% of the design work is already done for you it's damned easy to make 'improvements.' But, at the end of the day all one has done is made an improved copy. Can't get upset when somebody else says to himself 'wow, good idea, I'm totally using that.'

I'm sure you've done it in your own furniture-making. You've made your share of reproductions but built the drawers to a higher standard than the original, or you made some other overall improvement in the joinery or stock selection (ductile iron instead of a brittle version of cast iron would be a corollary, no?). How many times have you read, for instance, that "so and so has built a reproduction in cherry of the mahogany original" substitute other species as you may. Same thing.

It's still a reproduction. If another woodworker (perhaps a former student) comes along and builds the same, historic piece and also makes his (or her) drawers to a higher standard have they somehow ripped you off? Building drawers to a very high standard is just a plain, good idea. You've invented nothing new. You've simply brought commonsense to the equation and perhaps a little extra time to build the piece that the original designer/maker did not have or did not care to allocate to the project or to ongoing production.


----------



## G S Haydon (24 Nov 2014)

I stayed away from this topic as I felt it would detract from finding out if the WR is a solid performer or not (and in my opinion it is very good)

On differences. The LN uses A2 the WR uses T10 High Carbon - The WR has and alternative depth adjuster detail, as I mentioned I'm not sure how much better that is but it is an "innovation" applied by WR. i think sticking with a high quality high carbon steel is also to WR's credit. It's not all about edge retention and I personally don't want to but a new sharpening medium to go with my new plane.

On the copying issue, to the best of my knowledge the LN design is not covered by a patent. Rightly or wrongly it's a competitive world. Even if products are protected by patent law the patent does expire to allow competition. If this were not the case the only automobiles we would be driving would be a version of the Karl Benz Motowaggen. LN did not break huge new ground, the best thing above all details and innovations is they made a tool that worked and worked well and surprise surprise there was a market for it.

The fact it is produced in China should not really raise alarm bells. Making is down to quality control, attention to detail, the right process and a focus on quality rather than one human being better at it than another human. The WR displays those facts. Many, many businesses make in China and I have no problem with that. Trade is a global thing. 

I don't think that LN is due to go out of business, they have brilliant customer care and perhaps the target market is different than WR.

Charles reference on Record is valid. The government of the day applied an import tariff on foreign goods that allow Record to get a foothold. And as an extra hurdle Stanley had to deal with was that Record were making excellent planes using the patent they had bought from Leonard Bailey.

On actually making these things don't underestimate how difficult it is to set up a consistent, reliable factory aimed at quality anywhere in the world. If the LN was a direct copy then the easy part was having a template! The hard part came after.


----------



## CStanford (24 Nov 2014)

The reason all the competently manufactured copies are so good, with or without improvements and tweaks that run the gamut, is because the original design was so incredibly good.

This is the essential point that seems too easily lost in these threads.

Not only did the design have to be good in a vacuum it had to be susceptible to being manufactured in quantity and therein lies its real genius. This is the inextricable essence of all the copies that have followed -- they can actually be made -- in large quantity or in small quantity to a higher or normal standard as you wish. I GUARANTEE that this is not lost on the Lie-Nielsen group. They know to whom they owe a debt of gratitude. The wheel, quite simply, did not have to be reinvented perhaps just made a touch smoother.


----------



## woodbrains (25 Nov 2014)

Hello,

No one is denying LN copied and improved Bedrock planes. If no one thinks improvement takes no research, testing, scrapping and trying again with investment, then they are naive to say the least. So the are no patents involved. There aren't on windsor chairs, but if I make one, with my own nuanced design refinements (developed over many years of making adjustments and changes) and it becomes popular, should I not be annoyed if someone copies directly my chairs, sells them off the back of the market I made for them, and then undercuts me so I have a smaller (or no) market left. It has nothing to do with patents, it is underhand and loathesome. But the people who want my chairs will justify buying the cheap knock offs with arguments such as you are offering, and ease there guilt, so I suppose it is hard luck on me.

Mike.


----------



## Corneel (25 Nov 2014)

But is LN anoyed? I don't know, they never said they were. It's only an idea from the LN fans. Mayby they are more anoyed then LN themselves because an equally fine product is now available for half the price. In the meantime LN is doing fine with a strong brandname and a loyal customer base.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (25 Nov 2014)

Corneel":rim5bd0b said:


> But is LN anoyed? I don't know, they never said they were. It's only an idea from the LN fans. Mayby they are more anoyed then LN themselves because an equally fine product is now available for half the price. In the meantime LN is doing fine with a strong brandname and a loyal customer base.



This issue goes back several years now, when the WoodRiver planes were originally marketed by Woodcraft in the USA. It did cause an uproar. FWW magazine published an investigation in which they compared castings of Stanley, Lie-Nielsen and WoodRiver, and proved that the WR planes were made from LN castings. LN removed all their planes from Woodcraft shops. I believe they took Woodcraft to court as well. Yes, I think that you could say that LN were peeved, and that it was not just their fans. I find it amazing how some want to minimise what is unethical behaviour. Lee Valley were also affected as Woodcraft and The Japanese Woodworker sold copies of LV and LN tools. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## iNewbie (25 Nov 2014)

Corneel":2x12pszg said:


> But is LN anoyed? I don't know, they never said they were. It's only an idea from the LN fans. Mayby they are more anoyed then LN themselves because an equally fine product is now available for half the price. In the meantime LN is doing fine with a strong brandname and a loyal customer base.



Why do you have to turn it in "Fans" thing, Corneel. You don't have to be a fan to realise something stinks, even if some WR fans (joke) might want to justify buying a copy of a supposed copy - thats not an equal btw...

Things can be legal but still shady - I'm thinking guilty people getting off of crimes via a good lawyer. 

But hey people are entitled to their opinion(s) and we all know what people say about opinions.


----------



## Corneel (25 Nov 2014)

Ok, then I was off base.


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2014)

It isn't unethical to copy something which isn't copyright or patent - in fact it's a good idea (if the original is any good to start with) and is the whole basis of traditional vernacular production worldwide.
If LN had innovated something (they haven't particularly have they?) they could protect their rights.
Copy copy copy - it's the basis of good design everywhere!

Would it make sense for LN/LV to do their manufacturing in China? It seems a good idea - so much far eastern stuff nowadays is astonishingly good quality/value.


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Corneel":3c9hh7qz said:
> 
> 
> > But is LN anoyed? I don't know, they never said they were. It's only an idea from the LN fans. Mayby they are more anoyed then LN themselves because an equally fine product is now available for half the price. In the meantime LN is doing fine with a strong brandname and a loyal customer base.
> ...



I posted a link to the FW article you mentioned in an earlier post. I wouldn't necessarily call the article 'an investigation.' The conclusions drawn were much milder than that term would suggest. 

Otherwise, these names sort of ring in one's head: Sargent, Millers Falls, Record, Craftsman, Winchester, Carter (an old Australian Stanley knock-off!), Dunlap, Marples (iron planes), Shelton, Fulton, Keen Kutter, Vaughan and Bushnell, Goldenberg, Ohio Tool Co (iron planes) good Lord the list goes on and on and on. All copies, and pretty strict copies at that. 

If LN (LV?) went to court they got no redress -- apparently not as obvious an infringement as many would assert. One has to remember that there was really nothing to infringe - there were (are) no L-N patents on bench planes. Some have mentioned the issue of 'trade dress' and if that was the basis of the litigation then it didn't get very far.

At this point it's like ripping off somebody else's design for a toilet brush. Ubiquitousness trumps all. Stanley copies are flippin' everywhere. At any given point in time there are probably as many Stanley planes and copies in the used market than the combined production of Lee Valley and Lie Nielsen will have in the entire lifecycle of their respective companies -- auction sites, used tool dealers, swap meets, thousands of planes!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (25 Nov 2014)

> I posted a link to the FW article you mentioned in an earlier post. I wouldn't necessarily call the article 'an investigation.' The conclusions drawn were much milder than that term would suggest. These names sort of ring in one's head: Sargent, Millers Falls, Record, Craftsman, Winchester, Carter (an old Australian Stanley knock-off!), Dunlap, Marples (iron planes), Shelton, Fulton, Keen Kutter, Vaughan and Bushnell, Goldenberg, Ohio Tool Co (iron planes) good Lord the list goes on and on and on. All copies, and pretty strict copies at that.
> 
> If LN (LV?) went to court they got no redress -- apparently not as obvious an infringement as many would assert. One has to remember that there was really nothing to infringe - there were (are) no L-N patents on bench planes. Some have mentioned the issue of 'trade dress' and if that was the basis of the litigation then it didn't get very far.
> 
> At this point it's like ripping off somebody else's design for a toilet brush. Ubiquitousness trumps all. Stanley copies are flippin' everywhere. At any given point in time there are probably as many Stanley planes and copies in the used market than the combined production of Lee Valley and Lie Nielsen will have in the entire lifecycle of their respective companies -- auction sites, used tool dealers, swap meets, thousands of planes!



This is the link (however I think that you have to be a member of FWW to read it):

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/141 ... nd-stanley

Here is an extract:

"With the measuring tools in hand, it became obvious that Lie-Nielsen made several improvements to the old Bedrock. For example, a look at the No. 5 shows that the sole and side walls are thicker than the Bedrock. Also, Lie-Nielsen introduced some current technology by using stress-relieved ductile-iron for the casting, with manganese-bronze as an option. The blade is thicker and made from tool steel, with an A-2 steel blade as an upgrade.

Then, too, a few years ago, he improved the chipbreaker, making it thicker to help reduce blade-chatter. And, he added a shallow lip on the business end, ground to a 1º angle, to help ensure gap-free contact.
Interestingly, the Wood River plane also has a thick sole and side walls. And, it has a thick blade like the Lie-Nielsen, and a similar stepped chipbreaker.

The body-castings show some other differences between the Lie-Nielsen and the Bedrock. On the Lie-Nielsen, the wood knob mounts to a double boss; the Bedrock has a single boss surrounded by a raised ring. Wood River has a double boss much like the Lie-Nielsen.







_Knob bosses. Bedrock (left), Lie-Nielsen (center), Wood River (right) _

At the back of the body casting, the Lie-Nielsen wood handle mounts to an elongated boss. On the Bedrock, that same detail is somewhat different. But, on the Wood River, the boss nearly matches the Lie-Nielsen.






_Handle bosses. Bedrock (left), Lie-Nielsen (center), Wood River (right)_

Also, when it comes to the frogs, the one on the Wood River is closer to the Lie-Nielsen version than to the Bedrock.






_Frogs. Bedrock (left), Lie-Nielsen, (center), Wood river (right)_

So who begot who? For sure, we know there’s Bedrock DNA in both Lie-Nielsen and Wood River. And, based on my side-by-side look, it appears there are Lie-Nielsen genes in Wood River.

Copying is not new or unique to the tool trade, nor is having tools made in China to reduce cost. It’s up to each of us to decide just how comfortable we are with those facts of life."

*Tom Begnal, associate editor, retired*



I consider it relevant to point out that this was about the original (Mk1) Wood River. There have been two further revisions to the plane that I know of, the last one a result of the input from Rob Cosman. One could argue that the current model(s) is no longer derived from the LN. This will empower some to invest (?) in these planes. For others the memory continues to leave a bad taste in the mouth, and Wood River (and Woodcraft) remain persona non grata.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

Tom Begnal: *Copying is not new or unique to the tool trade...*

No, it certainly isn't. Especially in light of the litany of the companies who've been copying Stanley planes continuously for over 100 years. There hasn't been a point in time in any of our lifetimes that at least a handful of companies weren't copying Stanley planes.

Picking a company to defend is about as arbitrary a thing as I can imagine.

.. on another note, didn't the L-N 'improvement' (per the Begnal article) to the chipbreaker turn out to be a bust, can't be set really close?

... and as I mentioned in an earlier post the thicker Stanley castings during the War years have always been roundly panned and explained as being the result of a shortage of skilled machinists and grinder operators during the War. Is thicker really better? Just because 'somebody' says so? Who says? Stanley ground them thinner when the labor was available. Why? Wouldn't leaving them thick have been the easier path?

My takeaway from the Begnal article is that there was plenty of cross-pollination going on between L-N, Stanley, Chinese brands, etc. and to the extent that the matter has (?) been recently litigated then a court must have agreed.


----------



## iNewbie (25 Nov 2014)

Jacob":gy6mfkbd said:


> It isn't unethical to copy something which isn't copyright or patent - in fact it's a good idea (if the original is any good to start with) and is the whole basis of traditional vernacular production worldwide.



Oh please...

The basis of the (tedious) web argument is that WR used a LN for its casting. LN apparently didn't make a direct copy and improved on the design making their own Wooden moulds, then into plastic, before casting. So not a direct copy of the Stanley!




> Would it make sense for LN/LV to do their manufacturing in China? It seems a good idea - so much far eastern stuff nowadays is astonishingly good quality/value.



Not when their intent is to keep manufacturing local thereby employing local people, no. And their aim is High Quality...


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

I sort of laughed when I read this post on another forum:

"...WoodRiver planes are designed in the USA, made in China, and sold and serviced in the USA. Lie Nielson planes are made in the USA using machine tools made in China..."

Well, Taiwan to be exact. L-N uses Supertec stuff for a lot of critical operations on castings. You can see this equipment in one of L-N's videos. One wonders if this sticks in Mr. Lie-Nielsen's craw just a bit.

Can't get China out of the equation apparently. If Chinese machine tools are good enough for the L-N production floor, then....??? draw your own conclusions. 

I would imagine the same is true of Lee Valley facilities and those of its subcontractors.

The Chinese are capable of working to spec. Give them specifications (tolerances are totally up to you), they'll give you a price, you give them an order if you like the price. If the product is out of spec, they'll fix it. If your design is a rip off of somebody's valid, enforceable patent that's your problem. They're job is to provide a quote on the job and produce it based on your design and specifications. Period.

China can sell you the tools to make the tool or just make it for you in the first place. Your choice.


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2014)

it's seems to more about fashion and fan bases rather than innovation/improvement. Thick castings/blades are fashionable for no apparent reason. No science involved here. The bedrock design isn't that good to start with - the adjustable mouth as per Stanley and Veritas is much better, particularly the Veritas.


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

I think they ripped off the adjustable mouth from ECE.... :wink:


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2014)

CStanford":2zth54mw said:


> I think they ripped off the adjustable mouth from ECE.... :wink:


Really? That's shocking, I'm utterly disgusted and enraged!! :roll:


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

Jacob":1ftdjeyz said:


> CStanford":1ftdjeyz said:
> 
> 
> > I think they ripped off the adjustable mouth from ECE.... :wink:
> ...



Me too. Somebody ought to file a lawsuit.... (hammer)

ECE have been in business since 1852 (Stanley 1843). Slavery was still legal in the United States and our civil war was about a decade away. Long time ago, in US terms.


----------



## David C (25 Nov 2014)

The chipbreaker design is excellent. I have quite a number and they work very well.

It has been almost universally copied by IBC, Veritas and of course Quangsheng, Wood River and the other european manifestations.


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

edited....


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

David C":2n9xqecm said:


> The chipbreaker design is excellent. I have quite a number and they work very well.
> 
> It has been almost universally copied by IBC, Veritas and of course Quangsheng, Wood River and the other european manifestations.



... and the idea of a chipbreaker in the first place....???

As mentioned in a previous post, when 90+% of the design work is already done for you improvements become much easier.


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2014)

CStanford":34vpjndx said:


> David C":34vpjndx said:
> 
> 
> > The chipbreaker design is excellent. I have quite a number and they work very well.
> ...


And the Record SS was copied by Clifton. Unscrupulous pirates!


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

Should be hung by their thumbs I say...


----------



## bugbear (25 Nov 2014)

CStanford":qtncgjxw said:


> Should be hung by their thumbs I say...



Can't.

Tomás de Torquemada has a patent.

 

BugBear


----------



## iNewbie (25 Nov 2014)

CStanford":2fs89q37 said:


> If LN (LV?) went to court they got no redress -- apparently not as obvious an infringement as many would assert. One has to remember that there was really nothing to infringe - there were (are) no L-N patents on bench planes. Some have mentioned the issue of 'trade dress' and if that was the basis of the litigation then it didn't get very far.



If there wasn't anything to infringe then why did said company then change its copy - and what LN describes as certain details as "Propriety".

You should get a laugh as he's been exporting to China for near two years. :roll: 

LN to China


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Nov 2014)

Jacob":2plh54ax said:


> And the Record SS was copied by Clifton. Unscrupulous pirates!



Not quite the same scenario. Record had ceased production of the SS cap-iron many years (three decades?) before Clifton made them available again. Clifton were not competing against an existing product in the market with the two-piece cap-iron.

Edit to add - Also, given that the original parent company of the Clifton brand, Clico, were formed by a management buy-out of the Record Tools aircraft tooling business and part of the Record planes business, Clico were probably the rightful inheritors and owners of the former Record intellecual property, and for all we know the MBO purchace price may have reflected that; if anybody had the right to recommence sales of the Clifton-branded two-piece cap-iron (and the Preston-inspired shoulder planes), then it was Clico.


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

bugbear":21z1imz9 said:


> CStanford":21z1imz9 said:
> 
> 
> > Should be hung by their thumbs I say...
> ...




Spewed coffee... thanks!


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

iNewbie":2xwsjlim said:


> CStanford":2xwsjlim said:
> 
> 
> > If LN (LV?) went to court they got no redress -- apparently not as obvious an infringement as many would assert. One has to remember that there was really nothing to infringe - there were (are) no L-N patents on bench planes. Some have mentioned the issue of 'trade dress' and if that was the basis of the litigation then it didn't get very far.
> ...



I think it's wonderful, and I think it's wonderful that he bears no grudge against the Taiwanese or at least is too smart to get mad at his own money. They sell TLN the Supertec machinery he needs, he makes products with said machinery and sells products back to them which are then marketed as a status brand. Somebody else dispenses with the pretense and just has the whole thing done in China and sells end product over here not marketed as a status brand. Consumers in both countries are the beneficiaries. You can pay Mr. Lie-Nielsen for running castings through a very fine sieve in between poetry readings and cream tea in his New England idyll, or you can pay Woodcraft for slightly less fit and finish (both are possible on the same Taiwanese machinery; indeed both are made by Taiwanese machinery). The choice is yours.

Stanley (Disston and others, too!) made various house and hardware store brands to varying degrees of fit and finish as well as homeowner/entry-level brands to a very basic level of fit and finish, and all of this out of the same production facilities. It's all about business!

And rabid nationalists on both sides of The Pond can have their needs satisfied through the market for vintage, all-Anglo tools and a wide brand selection at that.


----------



## Fromey (25 Nov 2014)

Who remembers when Apple patented the rectangle with rounded corners? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... 92439.html

The fact that an American company resorted to legal action over anything should not be used as any sort of proof of the culpability of the defendant. It's just business as usual. So sue me! (hammer)


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

True, it's easy over here because if you lose you don't have to pay the defendant's legal costs.


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2014)

Cheshirechappie":2mfv4o27 said:


> Jacob":2mfv4o27 said:
> 
> 
> > And the Record SS was copied by Clifton. Unscrupulous pirates!
> ...


Hmm dunno. What about Mr & Mrs Record and all the little Records? Has anybody given them a thought? 
Where they now - probably stacking shelves in Tesco, having been deprived of their birthright by the evil Clifton Empire. :roll:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Nov 2014)

Jacob":19egxtg9 said:


> Cheshirechappie":19egxtg9 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":19egxtg9 said:
> ...



At some point in the 1960s, Ridgway and William Marples amalgamated. At some point in the 1980s (I think), Marples Ridgway amalgamated with Record tools, forming Record Ridgway (hence the use of the Marples brand name on Record planes during the 1980s an early 1990s). Then, the whole group was bought by Bahco tools, who sold the whole shebang on the the American company Irwin Tools, who were later absorbed into Newell Rubbermaid (I think). At some point during this sequence of events, The management of the (then) subsidiary of Record tools that made specialist tooling for the aircraft industry bought out that subsidiary - it became Clico Tools. They also took some of the Record handplane intellectual property, and started making Clifton planes in the late 1990s, first the multi-plane, then shoulder planes, and latterly (some time in the early 2000s) the bedrock-type bench planes.

So - at some point in this sequence, the intellectual property of Record handplanes was split, some of the older designs then out of production going to Clico, and the current production of Bailey-type bench planes remaining with Bahco/Irwin/Newell Rubbermaid (where it currently remains).

Some of the details and dates may not be absolutely accurate, but that's the basic picture. The original Record handplane business became split in two directions, part of the intellectual property remaining with the current parent company, and some going with the Clico MBO. Hope that clears things up for you.


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

Funny how a very, very close copy can somehow become 'intellectual property' of the copyist. But it doesn't, and didn't. It may have been referred to in that manner in legal documents but there were more than a dozen companies making essentially the same planes as Record during the shank of its existence. The Stay-Set was an innovation and a few other things but the majority of the rest was not. Trade protection in the end didn't help Record.


----------



## Paul Chapman (25 Nov 2014)

I'm just glad that Clico had the foresight to re-introduce the Stay Set cap iron with their Clifton planes. The best cap iron design ever, IMHO. I have them fitted to all my bench planes.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## iNewbie (25 Nov 2014)

CStanford":2027isja said:


> I think it's wonderful, and I think it's wonderful that he bears no grudge against the Taiwanese or at least is too smart to get mad at his own money. They sell TLN Supertec machinery, he makes products with said machinery and sells products back to them which are then marketed as a status brand. Somebody else dispenses with the pretense and just has the whole thing done in China and sells end product over here not marketed as a status brand. Consumers in both countries are the beneficiaries. You can pay Mr. Lie-Nielsen for running castings through the finest sieve in between poetry readings and cream tea in his New England idyll, or you can pay Woodcraft for slightly less fit and finish (both are possible on the same Taiwanese machinery; indeed both are made by Taiwanese machinery). The choice is yours.
> 
> Stanley (Disston and others, too!) made various house and hardware store brands to varying degrees of fit and finish as well as homeowner/entry-level brands to a very basic level of fit and finish, and all of this out of the same production facilities. It's all about business!
> 
> And rabid nationalists on both sides of The Pond can have their needs satisfied through the market for vintage, all-Anglo tools and a wide brand selection at that.



I'm not sure what your argument is over Nielsen using Taiwanese machinery - he paid for it with no shadiness, theres no copy involved... 

The old rabid nationalist gem as the cherry on top for a cream-tea - not my cup-of-tea, mind.


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

The Taiwanese machines are essentially copies of machines originally conceived, designed, and proven in Western countries.

Besides that, it addresses the undercurrent that the Chinese hand planes are substandard when all the while the premium plane brands we know and love are in fact made with Chinese machines most of which, again, are copies of Western designs. See the irony?


----------



## G S Haydon (25 Nov 2014)

Very pleased to see LN selling in China. People making good stuff and trading with other people around the world. I'm equally happy to see good things made all over the world with no patent law broken and giving us options.

On the machines and country or origin the bottom line is the right quality for the task at hand. People all over the world are more than able to make great stuff. Made in UK/US/China has little meaning. The ability to deliver the right quality over time and the reputation earned is what is most important.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Nov 2014)

CStanford":2m3psi45 said:


> Funny how a very, very close copy can somehow become 'intellectual property' of the copyist. But it doesn't, and didn't. It may have been referred to in that manner in legal documents but there were more than a dozen companies making essentially the same planes as Record during the shank of its existence. The Stay-Set was an innovation and a few other things but the majority of the rest was not. Trade protection in the end didn't help Record.



If we're not careful, we're going to end up dancing on the head of a pin, here. However, just a couple of facts that may or may not inform the debate. The Record benchplane business did not go to Clico Tools, but the stayset cap-iron (which at the time of Clico's formation had been out of production at Record for at least a couple of decades) did. Also going to Clico at the same time, and also out of production at Record for many years, were the multi-plane and the Preston style shoulder planes that Record (C & J Hampton) had acquired in 1932 when they bought out Preston's plane business, selling on Preston's rule-making business to (I think) Chesterman. Record never made a bedrock-style benchplane, but as the design had been around for a century and more, it was classed as 'common knowledge' - well out of copyright or patent, so Clico's use of that design was perfectly legitimate.

The whole field of design copyright, patent, intellectual property and entitlement is legally complex, but in general, if something has been around for a long period of time, it becomes 'common knowledge', and fair game for anyone to commercially exploit. Both the Bailey-type and Bedrock-type bechplane designs fall in that category - they've been around for a century or more. Some more recent minor improvements may not be 'common knowledge', so copying them may be naughtier if covered by patent or design copyright. If a design is destinctive enough to be associated with one manufacturer, then it may be covered by design copyright, and copying that exact design may be a legal infringement; the (distinctive) Preston design of shoulder planes may fall in this category (I suspect that's dabateable, though!), even though it's a century old.

Another factor is that what may be a legal infringement under one legal jurisdiction may be allowable under another. Thus, it may be fine to copy a recent, distinctive design fro America or Europe in China, but selling it in America or Europe may be a problem (Myford won a suit against a UK-based supplier of Myford 7-series lathe knock-offs made in the Far East some years ago, for example).

Working out excactly who is legally 'right' or 'wrong' with specific plane designs in specific countries could be a prolonged battle. The individual may make their own personal decisions, however.


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

"Both the Bailey-type and Bedrock-type bechplane designs fall in that category - they've been around for a century or more. Some more recent minor improvements may not be 'common knowledge', so copying them may be naughtier if covered by patent or design copyright."

Any firm in possession of such patents and copyrights should enforce them with as much vigor as the law allows. If these protections cannot be gotten (lack of uniqueness, unpatentable, etc.), or a decision was made not to get them, then too bad. Try again when the product is differentiated enough to be patented. Otherwise, it's a race to see who can strike the right balance between cost and performance.

Positioning as a premium brand is a great place to be. It is. But is has its own set of unique risks too. You'd better know your market. Intimately.


----------



## n0legs (25 Nov 2014)

Copying is not new or unique to the tool trade, nor is having tools made in China to reduce cost. It’s up to each of us to decide just how comfortable we are with those facts of life."

Tom Begnal, associate editor, retired


Well guys since reading that I've been in bits.
So I went to the shed, coffee cup and fag in hand to come to terms with the fact that none of my tools are original.
How dare they, how very dare they ???
Stanley, Draper, Marples, Record, Dewalt, all of them have, every single one, has left me in utter turmoil.
They've lied I cried, they've all bloody lied. Not a gentleman among them, they are all fake. I can barely bring myself to say it, they are copies , there is not one among them that is original. 
Who are these people ? What gives them the right to make me feel this way ? Is there no honor ?
I, like many of you other members, have worked tirelessly to build a toolkit, to own all there is to own. But let me tell you, we are on a path to ruin. For we have become party to this terrible crime. Why has no one told us until now ?
We have sinned. There will be no heaven for you and I.
Tom Begnal, thank you. You have opened my eyes, for I am not comfortable with this fact of life. I must now beg forgiveness for my failings.










































*Yea right !!!* 
What a pompous ass, ****ing richardhead.


----------



## CStanford (25 Nov 2014)

Well the Stanleys are more original than the rest of those you mentioned, take comfort in that. Time to thin the herd?


----------



## iNewbie (26 Nov 2014)

CStanford":28ua7jzc said:


> The Taiwanese machines are essentially copies of machines originally conceived, designed, and proven in Western countries.
> 
> Besides that, it addresses the undercurrent that the Chinese hand planes are substandard when all the while the premium plane brands we know and love are in fact made with Chinese machines most of which, again, are copies of Western designs. See the irony?



I thought the irony was you pulling LN for using what you describe as copy machines while saying its ok to copy...

BTW - TLN is a Grinding machine. He uses "a" John Ford (Taiwanese) CNC. The factory isn't outfitted with a ton of CNC by any stretch of the imagination, its more Bridgeport and other american machines.

And FTR nobody is mentioning the quality of the chinese made goods, here - in the sense that they're the real rubbish made ones. Its the way the original cloner cloned them. Bad form old-boy! :mrgreen:


----------



## Jacob (26 Nov 2014)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> .....
> Also, when it comes to the frogs, the one on the Wood River is closer to the Lie-Nielsen version than to the Bedrock.
> 
> 
> ...


These frogs are to all intents and purposes identical. Would it have made the slightest difference if WR had copied the original instead? Obviously not. 
All this bar-room moralising is very entertaining though. There used to be a poster who regularly suggested that thin blades in Stanley/Bailey planes were an evil plot* to sell inferior goods to an unsuspecting public.
Keep it up chaps! :lol:

PS were Chinese triads involved - the plot thickens!


----------



## Rhossydd (26 Nov 2014)

iNewbie":17424jja said:


> And FTR nobody is mentioning the quality of the chinese made goods, here


Actually that's what this thread is all about, how good the WR 5½ is. 


> they're the real rubbish made ones.


Not according to all the reports from people that have actually used them. The clear concensus is that the current models of Wood River/Quansheng/Jumma hand planes is that they are very good indeed.


----------



## iNewbie (26 Nov 2014)

Rhossydd":25qwv7x8 said:


> iNewbie":25qwv7x8 said:
> 
> 
> > And FTR nobody is mentioning the quality of the chinese made goods, here
> ...



I think you've misunderstood me in your excitement... - and left out part of my quote: Theres been some comments about "chinese" made tools as if implying them as _all_ being rubbish and as if people on here have made remarks against the quality of the WoodRiver when, they haven't. Where as some other chinese made tools have been of inferior quality. The quality isn't in doubt - though some might want to twist it that way into an 'if its made in china it must be sh*te' scenario. For those they'll have to have-at-it...


----------



## CStanford (26 Nov 2014)

Prices in USD:

Woodriver No. 4 from Woodcraft website (w/o shipping): $115.99
apparently on sale now, regularly $145.

http://www.woodcraft.com/Product/150874 ... ne-V3.aspx

Woodcraft has been in business since 1928.

Rob Cosman Woodriver videos: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... woodriver+

Lie-Nielsen No. 4 (ductile iron body) Highland Woodworking (w/o shipping): $300.00

http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/lie- ... plane.aspx

Choice is yours.

I'm extremely doubtful that there would be a nickel's worth of difference in performance-on-wood between these two planes.


----------



## CStanford (26 Nov 2014)

Jacob":1takx90l said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## iNewbie (26 Nov 2014)

CStanford":329tkht2 said:


> Prices in USD:
> 
> Woodriver No. 4 from Woodcraft website (w/o shipping): $115.99
> apparently on sale now, regularly $145.
> ...



You're looking desperate now, Charles. 

I think the games over - it was a draw as it ever was going to be, so you didn't lose. :mrgreen:


----------



## CStanford (26 Nov 2014)

Just rattling cages.... I'd have to have another shop fire to actually be in the market for a new hand plane, that or grow three more arms so I could use several simultaneously. Three or four bench planes is quite enough for a run-of-the-mill woodworker with two arms. Bench planes are pretty boring outside the context of these fun little debates, comparisons, and contrasts.

I have to admit that I did not realize how inexpensive the Woodriver planes were until I checked prices today. I didn't know the price differential was that great -- honestly. Even if they require a half-hour or so of fettling they appear to be an astonishing value in a Stanley Bedrock copy. It's like finding a great little $8 bottle of wine from a relatively unknown maker the equal of bottles $50 or more. Don't fight it, enjoy it!


----------



## Peter Sefton (26 Nov 2014)

Wow little did I know that putting a WoodRiver plane out for a pass around would cause controversy.

I thought I would tell a small part about the development of WoodRiver as I understand it.

Woodcraft were the biggest reseller of LN planes in the past. They have around 80 stores in the US and I am their UK and European dealer. I believe Woodcraft had some supply issues with LN keeping up with ever growing demand. When Woodcraft decided to launch their own planes based on the bedrock design ,I assume LN were a little peeved (who wouldn't be, losing their biggest customer) and I would think that as the quality has improved, this may have turned to worry.

The guys at Woodcraft have worked very hard in China since around 2007 specifying and developing a new brand. I am sure it was a rocky road and many design and quality hurdles had to be overcome. But 7 years on we have the V3 planes which have been tweaked and redesigned with the help of Rob Cosman and more latterly with input from myself.

The good work that has been done has been duly noted by other retailers who have bought out other brands based on the development that WoodRiver have done. There are now a variety of planes on the market with similar designs and heritage, but they are not WoodRivers as their designs are different.

I was asked earlier in the year if I would be interested in looking at the WoodRivers, so I played with them for a few months in the Furniture School before committing. I am very pleased that Woodcraft asked me to work with them and to be associated with the history behind both them and the WoodRiver brand. 

Woodcraft started in education and tool supply in the 1920's so we have shared values, including providing quality tools that are available at reasonable prices. I do not feel this steps on the toes of LN, Veritas or Clifton , it just gives the customer more choice. Woodcraft and Lee Valley have a very good working relationship and supply many of their products to compliment the WoodRiver and Pinnacle range.

I know that we now have a very reasonably priced set of quality planes being designed and manufactured by a large US company that make regular visits to the factories in China and they have quality inspectors based in the factory. This gives me confidence in the products that now have my name associated with them.

Please feel free to have the plane on the pass around and make you own opinions on the quality and associated value.

Cheers Peter


----------



## matt_southward (26 Nov 2014)

I became interested in the WoodRivers after watching a few of Rob Cosman's videos where he detailed some of the _innovations_ that had been developed. I was particularly keen to compare these innovations with my Clifton, partly out of interest to see if there was an actual improvement and partly for comparison of quality/value etc

When I bought my Clifton I couldn't really afford it. I looked at the QS planes (I don't think Peter had the WoodRiver over here then - about a year and a bit ago) and was sorely tempted. However, after thinking about the various merits/ethics of buying local etc (plus Clifton have 2 USPs - the StaySet and the forged iron (though ironically the latter seems to be endangered now)) - I decided that supporting British business and other craftsmen was what I wanted to do. Did I make the right decision? That's a tough call as I'm not 100% happy with the Clifton and think there are areas where it's poorly finished (another reason for the comparison), and there is also a nagging doubt as to what I might have been able to buy with the money otherwise! I certainly cannot afford to buy any more, but would if I could.

Those that argue that WoodRiver have 'cloned' the LN are pretty much right, and as has been highlighted here - it wasn't illegal. Whether it was unethical or immoral is a whole other can of worms as ethics is a slippery customer and is prone to rather different view points and no absolute truth. If your ethics don't have a problem with the WoodRiver, then fine, if they do then don't buy one. I very much doubt that LN are about to run out of customers looking for some more shiny bronze any time soon. My only reservation about the Chinese manufacturing is with regards to the lack of environment control/protection over there. I'm also not keen on sweat shop labour (though I don't know the working conditions in the WR factories). But should we deprive the Chinese of the market to sell their products - and presumably their employees of wages? That's another can of worms and not easily answered. We all have to make up our own minds don't we?


----------



## John15 (26 Nov 2014)

Good luck to WoodRiver, their planes look excellent as seen in Rob Cosman's workshop, but I would worry about relying on local inspectors to tick the boxes on the Quality Assurance sheet for each plane. In my experience (civil engineering) it was not unusual for the QA inspector to be employed by the contractor - and compromises were sometimes uncovered.

John


----------



## CStanford (27 Nov 2014)

matt_southward":2wzo02nn said:


> I became interested in the WoodRivers after watching a few of Rob Cosman's videos where he detailed some of the _innovations_ that had been developed. I was particularly keen to compare these innovations with my Clifton, partly out of interest to see if there was an actual improvement and partly for comparison of quality/value etc
> 
> When I bought my Clifton I couldn't really afford it. I looked at the QS planes (I don't think Peter had the WoodRiver over here then - about a year and a bit ago) and was sorely tempted. However, after thinking about the various merits/ethics of buying local etc (plus Clifton have 2 USPs - the StaySet and the forged iron (though ironically the latter seems to be endangered now)) - I decided that supporting British business and other craftsmen was what I wanted to do. Did I make the right decision? That's a tough call as I'm not 100% happy with the Clifton and think there are areas where it's poorly finished (another reason for the comparison), and there is also a nagging doubt as to what I might have been able to buy with the money otherwise! I certainly cannot afford to buy any more, but would if I could.
> 
> Those that argue that WoodRiver have 'cloned' the LN are pretty much right, and as has been highlighted here - it wasn't illegal. Whether it was unethical or immoral is a whole other can of worms as ethics is a slippery customer and is prone to rather different view points and no absolute truth. If your ethics don't have a problem with the WoodRiver, then fine, if they do then don't buy one. I very much doubt that LN are about to run out of customers looking for some more shiny bronze any time soon. My only reservation about the Chinese manufacturing is with regards to the lack of environment control/protection over there. I'm also not keen on sweat shop labour (though I don't know the working conditions in the WR factories). But should we deprive the Chinese of the market to sell their products - and presumably their employees of wages? That's another can of worms and not easily answered. We all have to make up our own minds don't we?



Lie-Nielsen (likely Lee Valley et al. as well) use Chinese machine tools to make their planes. Were these machine tools made under sweatshop conditions? I don't know, but if they were then L-N and L-V planes are only one step removed from same. If there is an objection to the planes themselves then ethics would dictate an objection to the machine tools as well. It becomes an exercise in absurdity very quickly for all except those whose ethics run very deeply and consistently.

The whole 'ethics of copies issue' is a total nonstarter. Everybody on this board uses some tool in their shop that is a copy of an original maker's tool, several of these makers still very much in business -- utility knives, craft knives, screwdrivers, wrenches (spanners), etc.

It's possible to eliminate China and non-Chinese tool copies from the equation but one would have to go completely vintage (probably no later than early 1930s) to do so.


----------



## woodbrains (27 Nov 2014)

Hello,

Charles, wouldn't a more correct argument go along the lines of, because people want to buy cheap, regardless of ethical reasoning, machinery from North America became unavailable, so LN are forced to use the Imported option. So keep on buying cheap imported planes and the same fate will befall Western woodwork tool makers also. You are actually arguing agains yourself. We either buy at the lowest cost and have no morals or we help our neighbours keep their jobs in the countries we live. Otherwise, if we use Chinese planes built in sweatshops (your contention) then our furniture business, hobby, whatever, is in the same moral pit you have just accused LN et al being in using imported machines, all as a result of buying cheap imported things, that you are telling us we are being foolish if we don't take the opportunity to buy.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (27 Nov 2014)

How many times a day do you make this noble ethical decision Mike, bearing in mind that a very large proportion of everything you could buy is imported?


----------



## Ed Bray (27 Nov 2014)

Well I took the plunge and bought two Woodriver Planes (#3 & #6) today and a Woodriver Plane Screwdriver. I wouldn't have bough Lie Nielsen anyway so they have lost nothing from my purchase.


----------



## iNewbie (27 Nov 2014)

I'm buying British - lovingly glances at Bulldog with a Union Jack tattoo...


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 Nov 2014)

Anybody know what the relationship is between Wood River and Quangsheng? Do they come from the same manufacturer, or just same part of the globe?


----------



## Doug B (27 Nov 2014)

Cheshirechappie":10y37rib said:


> Anybody know what the relationship is between Wood River and Quangsheng? Do they come from the same manufacturer, or just same part of the globe?




Half sister & turnip brother I think :-k :-k


----------



## Ed Bray (27 Nov 2014)

Cheshirechappie":3fgsh7qb said:


> Anybody know what the relationship is between Wood River and Quangsheng? Do they come from the same manufacturer, or just same part of the globe?


Same factory apparently, but slightly different specifications.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (27 Nov 2014)

Ah - thank you. That explains the thicker T10 iron common to both marques.


----------



## bugbear (27 Nov 2014)

Ed Bray":300efid4 said:


> Cheshirechappie":300efid4 said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody know what the relationship is between Wood River and Quangsheng? Do they come from the same manufacturer, or just same part of the globe?
> ...



A friend (long ago) worked in a bacon factory near me. They made bacon for pretty much every supermarket
chain in the UK.

He said the difference in the quality of the bacon supplied varied DRAMATICALLY on a per-supermarket basis,
as cost/quality choices in both raw materials and the various processing stages were taken.

But it all came from the same factory.

BugBear.


----------



## CStanford (27 Nov 2014)

woodbrains":2q92w5hv said:


> Hello,
> 
> Charles, wouldn't a more correct argument go along the lines of, because people want to buy cheap, regardless of ethical reasoning, machinery from North America became unavailable, so LN are forced to use the Imported option. So keep on buying cheap imported planes and the same fate will befall Western woodwork tool makers also. You are actually arguing agains yourself. We either buy at the lowest cost and have no morals or we help our neighbours keep their jobs in the countries we live. Otherwise, if we use Chinese planes built in sweatshops (your contention) then our furniture business, hobby, whatever, is in the same moral pit you have just accused LN et al being in using imported machines, all as a result of buying cheap imported things, that you are telling us we are being foolish if we don't take the opportunity to buy.
> 
> Mike.



I personally couldn't care less about Chinese sweatshops (if they even in fact exist). Let 'em sweat. I'd buy Chinese planes with utter impunity if I needed more hand planes and/or the mood struck me.

Lie-Nielsen makes/made the same value decision when they bought Chinese machine tools. They're available from other places -- Italy immediately comes to mind, but at two or three times the price would be my guess.

There's enough sweat to go 'round, boys.

I'm going to need a change of shirts. I'm sweating.


----------



## iNewbie (27 Nov 2014)

I'm drowning in drivel here and it ain't me own!


----------



## bugbear (28 Nov 2014)

CStanford":ejko31cw said:


> I personally couldn't care less about Chinese sweatshops (if they even in fact exist). Let 'em sweat. I'd buy Chinese planes with utter impunity if I needed more hand planes and/or the mood struck me.



Spoken like a true, pure, capitalist.  

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (28 Nov 2014)

I have a whisky problem - they don't make it locally so it has to come from somewhere up north made by foreign scotch people apparently, whoever they are. But that's not all - many of the makers are actually owned by multinationals.
Maybe I should stick to cocoa. Hmm dunno where the local fields of cocoa plants are - must be in sheds or something.


----------



## iNewbie (28 Nov 2014)

Jacob":1rjw5vy0 said:


> I have a whisky problem



That figures. :mrgreen:


----------



## Dusty Chippy (27 Feb 2016)

I have a Woodriver no 5 1/2 and a Woodriver no 3 amongst my plane collection and they are up their with my lie neilsen
Planes. These planes once honed perform exceptionally well. The blades hold an edge very well.


----------

