# Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tools



## Cheshirechappie

There has recently been some comment in various parts of the woodworking interweb about the counterfeiting of tool designs - the deliberate copying and selling of someone else's design, usually made to a much lower standard and sold for much less. A thoroughly reprehensible practice, and possibly outright illegal (though enforcement may be difficult or in some cases impossible). The original post on this subject was by Kevin Glen-Drake, pointing out that an overseas manufacturer was making and selling poor copies of his design of hammer, and even using a photograph of a genuine Glen-Drake hammer on the box in which it was packed; the point was taken up by Chris Schwarz on the Lost Art Press blog, and discussion then developed in other parts of the web.

A comment on one of the American forums by Derek Cohen accuses some in the UK in particular of encouraging this practice, or at the very least turning something of a blind eye. So as not to paraphrase Derek's words and thus possibly twist them, here's his post;


"Piracy of designs has been rife for a long, long time. More obvious examples are power tools, where design patents expire and versions of a successful (for example) tablesaw are manufactured by various factories and badged under their own name. We become more aware of this area in handtools as a result of threads such as this one. I read recommendations for handtools on many forums, but is seems to me that the one ones more likely to suggest a knock off design are either the UK forums or forums that cater to beginner woodworkers. In both cases the interest lies in buying as cheaply as possible. The argument/justification is usually that the original tool is too expensive. 

Where lines of design ownership become blurred - and a "loop hole" for morality (or should that be immorality) creeps in - lies with those tools that have been around for many years, and the design changes are not always obvious (but enough to say that the design is "different"). Sometimes it is Trade Dress that is the issue. Examples being the Bailey handplane (LN vs early WoodRiver), ongoing knock offs of LN and LV spokeshaves, and ongoing knock offs of the Tite-Mark and LV wheel gauges. I have also seen the Chinese-version of the Tite-Mark hammers on sale at Woodshows and one local woodstore in Perth. I must add that this is not about Chinese factories, but about piracy of design. I know of sellers of look-a-like Blue Spruce marking knives in the UK, and the makers and buyers there do not see any issue in copying the design or buying the (cheaper) product.

The question is what can we do about this? The original makers could take legal action to protect themselves, but this is unlikely as most involved are small businesses that cannot afford the legal expenses. There are probably ways of taking out patents and enforcing them, but this is way outside my area of knowledge. What we can do is talk about this on the forums, to our mates, in discussions - just raise awareness. None of these people will thank you, however. 

Regards from Perth

Derek 

Last edited by Derek Cohen; Yesterday at 10:37 PM."

There are a number of things here on which I'm in no position to comment (knock-offs of LN and LV spokeshaves, for example), because I just haven't looked at the spokeshave market (outside UK Ebay) for many years. I'm also a little puzzled about the UK knock-offs of Blue Spruce marking knives (for much the same reason). 

However, I'm also somewhat puzzled by the Bailey plane reference; as far as I'm aware, the Bailey (and Bed Rock) design has been out of patent for the best part of a century - they were 'common knowledge' when Record started making them in the 1930s. I'm not aware of anybody making poor direct copies of premium planes and passing them off under the LN, LV or Clifton trade names, though there are plenty of manufacturers making Bailey and Bed Rock planes, to varying levels of quality and price, under their own trade names. As far as I'm aware, that's perfectly legitimate.

Perhaps, on behalf of the UK woodworking community, I might ask Derek to clarify and expand his remarks a little?


----------



## Jacob

Yes many things are out of copyright or patent so it's a free market. 
In any case there aren't any seriously original ideas or designs in the products Derek lists - they are more exercises in style and marketing ( see huge debate about the colour of Clifton planes :roll: :lol: ) . As long as they aren't being fobbed off under false brand names there would seem to be no real issue with the competition.



> ....the deliberate copying and selling of someone else's design, usually made to a much lower standard and sold for much less...


Certainly happens. The converse happens too - copying to a higher standard and price (LV, LN etc), what's the difference?


----------



## CStanford

If the issue is making copies_ per se_, (or products that are 90%++ copies) it really shouldn't matter whether patents are long expired or not. That they were once patent-able, and indeed patented, means somebody else thought of it and you did not. When the bulk of the work has already been done, one can't come along and claim something new and miraculous after a very large percentage of a design has simply been co-opted.

Tweaking an already extraordinarily effective mousetrap isn't a cause for self-congratulation.

That said, still love my Records!

The current crop of copyists is no worse than last year's copyists, last decade's copyists, or even last century's copyists. That one might be getting into the hip-pocket of your own, favourite copyist is no cause for a moral crusade.

By the way, Leonard Bailey died in 1905 not all that long ago in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Mr_P

Just had a quick look at the Glen Drake site, nothing unique or earth shattering. 

Using his name on a fake is obviously wrong and we should support him in stamping it out if we can.

Most tools available these days are copies of things and the usual guff is its ok for us to make a copy of classic but we have researched, improved yada yada yada and anyone else copying a classic doesn't have our ethics and they should not be supported yawnnn.


----------



## Jacob

Had to look up Kevin Glen-Drake hammers
Very nice too but there's nothing innovative or particularly original about any of them - just exercises in style. 
As long as you don't use his name (counterfeiting) copying seems perfectly OK to me. But why copy - you could just as easily style your own, with a few little different twists and flourishes?
You could style your own brand name - what about "Hammers by Malcolm Clough-Duck"? Or would that be too close?

cheers
M Clough-Duck


----------



## Mr_P

Well Jacob or do I mean Mr Duck you are now getting into moron in a hurry territory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Lie-Nielsen Boggs spokeshave:








Chinese copy:







Lee Valley spokeshave






Chinese copy:







Wood-is-Good mallet (USA):






Chinese copy:






Just a few ...

This topic has aired here many, many times. There are some that care and some that don't.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob

They are similar but nevertheless distinctly different. Certainly not replicas.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Derek - where are the Chinese copies you show in the photographs above sold or promoted in the UK?

why are you taking a side-swipe at UK woodworkers in particular? Do you think we condone or actively encourage the examples you give photographs of? That's not a generalisation I recognise, and on behalf of my fellow woodworkers in the UK, I'd like to give you the opportunity to defend your accusation.


----------



## CStanford

Thankfully distinctly different as to price if one doesn't have what amounts to a bottomless tool budget.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Just to clarify things a bit, here's Kevin Glen-Drake's original blog post:

http://www.glen-drake.com/blog/knockoffs/


----------



## swagman

Hi Derek. Guess who LN and LV copied their tool designs from.

STANLEY

regards Stewie;


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Cheshirechappie":3iweiaq4 said:


> Derek - where are the Chinese copies you show in the photographs above sold or promoted in the UK?
> 
> why are you taking a side-swipe at UK woodworkers in particular? Do you think we condone or actively encourage the examples you give photographs of? That's not a generalisation I recognise, and on behalf of my fellow woodworkers in the UK, I'd like to give you the opportunity to defend your accusation.



No, those pics are not from UK shops. I was simply illustrating some of the copies. Some pics come from just Googling, but go to Woodcraft (USA) or McJing (Australia) for other examples. I have not gone looking at UK shops - not really interested, but I have seen a few marking gauges that are pretty similar to LN and LV wheel gauges, plus a number of cheap-looking copies of the LN block plane, all on this forum.

Woodcraft: http://www.woodcraft.com

McJing: https://mcjing.com.au

I am not taking a swipe at UK woodworkers in particular, but noting that of the forums I visit, generally the members of the UK forums appear less concerned about the pedigree of a tool than the price. You are not alone. This is also apparent on the Australian forum, and on several US forums.

Keep in mind that I responded to a conversation on a US forum. I did not start it. This is a reoccurring topic. Some take notice and others go into denial.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Derek - quoting from your words in my original post,

"I read recommendations for handtools on many forums, but is seems to me that the one ones more likely to suggest a knock off design are either the UK forums or forums that cater to beginner woodworkers."

That seems a fairly direct accusation at UK woodworkers in particular.

A bit of googling suggests that your photographs show firstly a Quangsheng spokeshave (available in the UK, though it's hardly a cheap knock-off at about £50 - for that, it's probably a pretty decent tool); however, I have been unable to find any UK supplier of WoodRiver spokeshaves, or of the copy mallet (though Classic Hand Tools do stock the USA-made original).

Derek - it's bad enough having our cricket team regularly stuffed out of sight by Aussies without being unfairly accused by them of buying tools that aren't even available here! Give us a break, will you - and on behalf of UK woodworkers in general, a bit of a sorry for the slur would be appreciated!

(Edited to add the price of a Quangsheng spokeshave.)


----------



## doctor Bob

Look up seiko pepsi and rolex pepsi, the watches look nearly identical, yet the seiko would be called an "homage" to the Rolex watch and is loved by watch enthusiast.

As long as the design copyright has run out and they are putting their name to it, I can;t see a problem.


----------



## Job and Knock

There's a saying that plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, however.....

If you can't patent a design, and very few new ideas things in woodworking tools are innovative enough to be patentable these days, the only methods of protection you have are copyright and trade mark registration. To enforce copyright you need to join an organisation such as ACID who can give you the necessary muscle to fight blatant copying of your product, but only if your product has one or more unique design features. It doesn't work if you are copying an existing design yourself. Savvy manufacturers also come up with a trademark which can be legally protected - you'll see lots of them stamped on old chisels and plane irons - whilst trying to educate their (potential) customer base as to why their product is better (copying in tool making is hardly new). I have to ask whether Glenn Drake Tools has done either of these things.

To quote John Ruskin (allegedly), _"There is hardly anything in the world that someone cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price alone are that person's lawful prey. It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money – that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot – it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better."_


----------



## swagman

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Cheshirechappie":19h38n72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Derek - where are the Chinese copies you show in the photographs above sold or promoted in the UK?
> 
> why are you taking a side-swipe at UK woodworkers in particular? Do you think we condone or actively encourage the examples you give photographs of? That's not a generalisation I recognise, and on behalf of my fellow woodworkers in the UK, I'd like to give you the opportunity to defend your accusation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, those pics are not from UK shops. I was simply illustrating some of the copies. Some pics come from just Googling, but go to Woodcraft (USA) or McJing (Australia) for other examples. I have not gone looking at UK shops - not really interested, but I have seen a few marking gauges that are pretty similar to LN and LV wheel gauges, plus a number of cheap-looking copies of the LN block plane, all on this forum.
> 
> Woodcraft: http://www.woodcraft.com
> 
> McJing: https://mcjing.com.au
> 
> I am not taking a swipe at UK woodworkers in particular, but noting that of the forums I visit, generally the members of the UK forums appear less concerned about the pedigree of a tool than the price. You are not alone. This is also apparent on the Australian forum, and on several US forums.
> 
> Keep in mind that I responded to a conversation on a US forum. I did not start it. This is a reoccurring topic. Some take notice and others go into denial.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek
Click to expand...


Hi Derek. So now you want to implicate the Australian Forum into your argument as well. Your starting to dig a very deep hole for yourself. 

regards Stewie;


----------



## CStanford

The problem with the Ruskin post, these days, is that the Chinese "copies" are generally apparently quite good - at least the ones carried by reputable dealers like Woodcraft in the US and Workshop Heaven in the UK. This is probably what sticks in the craw the most. They're all copies, some are just double the price of others. Except for an additional fifteen to twenty minutes of buffing, polishing, and light filing there isn't a dime's worth of difference in the quality of a lot of these tools.

Any reasonably well-industrialized nation has firms quite capable of producing superb hand planes at a reasonable cost to the consumer.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

> Derek - it's bad enough having our cricket team regularly stuffed out of sight by Aussies without being unfairly accused by them of buying tools that aren't even available here! Give us a break, will you - and on behalf of UK woodworkers in general, a bit of a sorry for the slur would be appreciated!



Sorry - I didn't mean to start another body line war  (but you guys did initiate that one to stop Bradman). 

The important issue here is that we all sit up and take the situation seriously enough to avoid the pirates, even if the price is tempting. I do not mind anyone copying my designs as long as they make them for their own use. How would you feel if someone used one of your designs and profited from it, just because you designed it 15 years ago?

If you want to keep the small toolmakers in business, support them ... not those that take their designs and sell them more cheaply.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford

The problem with your argument is that you insist these are 'their' designs when they have kept intact 90% of somebody else's design. You don't seem to be able to get past this glaringly obvious fact.

The 'small toolmaker' had better consider offering something not obviously a copy if they intend to maintain profits where one presumes they have been up until now.

It is a very precarious business model that offers a product formerly produced at an industrial level (Stanley, Record, et al.) on a boutique basis. Ask any well-known professional furnituremaker and while you're at it ask him (or her) what their spouse does for a living, who provides insurances, etc.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Derek - it's bad enough having our cricket team regularly stuffed out of sight by Aussies without being unfairly accused by them of buying tools that aren't even available here! Give us a break, will you - and on behalf of UK woodworkers in general, a bit of a sorry for the slur would be appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry - I didn't mean to start another body line war  (but you guys did initiate that one to stop Bradman).
> 
> The important issue here is that we all sit up and take the situation seriously enough to avoid the pirates, even if the price is tempting. I do not mind anyone copying my designs as long as they make them for their own use. How would you feel if someone used one of your designs and profited from it, just because you designed it 15 years ago?
> 
> If you want to keep the small toolmakers in business, support them ... not those that take their designs and sell them more cheaply.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek
Click to expand...


As well you know, Derek, short-pitched bowling at the body with several men back behind square on the leg-side was a perfectly legal tactic at the time of Jardine's tour. It ain't now, but that's different! Still, there's always Headingly '83 and Ashes 2005 (cough...)

Look, your dislike of dodgy knock-offs is shared by many, including people in the UK. But do yourself (and your reputation for fairness) a favour and retract the allegation that the UK forums actively promote knock-offs more than forums in any other nation. That's an unwarranted slur, and you know it - you couldn't back it up except by citing exaples of tools not even available in the UK. Just hold your hand up, say sorry, and we can all shake virtual hands and move on.


----------



## Jacob

I'm promoting my hammers if anybody is interested.
Undegoing "moron in a hurry" trials as we speak.

cheers
Malcolm Clough-Duck

It's much like the fashion industry. Somebody decides beige is the new black and sooner or later everybody is at it. 
So the fashion for plane blades material becomes "kryptonite 911" for a season, and so on.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":1lfgktdc said:


> I'm promoting my hammers if anybody is interested.
> Undegoing "moron in a hurry" trials as we speak.
> 
> cheers
> Malcolm Clough-Duck



That wouldn't be a rock tied to a stick, by any chance, would it?


----------



## Jacob

Yebbut I thought of it first.


----------



## Mr_P

Excellent news Jacob any chance you could expand your range to include a Navy Conifer marking knife.

Similar handles after all and they say "Our Knives are based on original Sloyd Knife design"


----------



## JohnPW

Hammer with a short handle? 
Stanley bedrock planes, first made in the 19th C and whose patent has expired for more than 100 years? Does anyone accuse Clifton of making fakes or copies?
Marking gauges with a cutting wheel? I just saw one in the 1925 Melhuish catalogue.

BTW a product which is a copy or a near copy is not a counterfeit if it has a different brand name or no name at all.


----------



## CStanford

Look up spokeshave patents (or review old tool catalogs) while you're at it if anybody thinks the photos Derek posted aren't themselves copies of much, much older designs.

And this is the crux of the whole matter as JohnPW points out as well.

The insistence that these common designs are or have somehow become proprietary is a stretch, at best.

I agree that there is an element of one company sticking its thumb in the eye of another by selling their copy at half the price. Anybody who thinks this is new behavior is being naive.


----------



## MIGNAL

I once made a copy of a wheel. It worked!


----------



## CStanford

MIGNAL":1x4prl2e said:


> I once made a copy of a wheel. It worked!



You ba$tard, you insufferable ba$tard. How dare you!


----------



## MIGNAL

Sorry but I had to. It was the only way that I'd make it into 2,000 BC. There was a lot of competition in those days, not to mention some marauding violent types. Wheels were the in thing.


----------



## ali27

I want to make a copy of this product :lol: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB0MBGiX8TQ


----------



## CStanford

Good stuff...

I've certainly cursed my Starrett square more than once for being so damned square.

Chris Wong is a funny guy, good guy too: http://flairwoodworks.com/


----------



## lurker

I want one of those!


----------



## lurker

Getting back to the original gripe: I think some of us have been saying to new woodworkers its not essential to spend a fortune on kit. There must be lots of folks put off because people who amass expensive kit as a hobby tell them it's essential.

There are two hobbies collecting nice tools and woodwork nothing wrong with either and you can do both 
Many of us here are what 150 years ago would be termed gentlemen woodworkers and there have always been the likes of LV and LN to cater for such people


----------



## t8hants

This is true, a few years ago a guy wandered into my workshop and wanted to buy several lengths of 6mm wire to make something he had just invented, which he was sure was going to be the way to his fortune. Excited at being in at the birth of a new marvel I finally got him to tell me what it was. His brilliant idea was the S hook, and he was somewhat crestfallen when I showed him one I had bent out of an old welding-rod. There is very little that is new in the hand tools department, only improvements or modifications in design.


----------



## lurker

8) 
Reminds me when my lad was doing his engineering degree about 7 years ago
He invented a soft door closer all the design, costings and marketing and the profit he was going to make from this unique idea.
Showed him a virtual identical B&Q one I happened to have in my shed and then gently pointed out the Blum closers that had been on the kitchen cabinet doors since he was about 15 :lol:


----------



## Job and Knock

ali27":2bs0fwfj said:


> I want to make a copy of this product :lol:


Somebody is already making them - every bricky and plasterer I know of already has one. At least based on the right angle corners they do :roll: 



lurker":2bs0fwfj said:


> Many of us here are what 150 years ago would be termed gentlemen woodworkers and there have always been the likes of LV and LN to cater for such people


Speak for yourself - I'm one of the hairy-tongued sons of toil (it's a Sunday aftrernoon, think about it). To me it's all a bit of a non-argument because I look at L-N or Veritas planes, think how _much_ they cost and how _little_ (if anything) they'll add to my bottom line (i.e. nil or almost!) and then mostly turn away and buy a cheaper plane which may need to be fettled or modified. And here we have a "maker to the gentry" who apparently hasn't taken the basic steps to trademark protect his name and products or copyright his designs who is then complaining about other, presumably in his opinion less scrupulous manufacturers, stealing "his" designs. Sorry mate, but you are in _business_ and that's the way it works


----------



## ayuce

Having some knowledge on patent system (_name in inventor list of 13 patents, some more applications pending _) just read the discussions with a smile. Patent and utility model are two main concept of patent system. Not sure about industrial design issues, but woodworking tools are definitely in the patent system.

If you have one of them you can protect your designs. If you don't have a valid, fees paid patent/utility model either you didn't do anything new or just lazy to protect your intellectual property. So US guys should just talk in terms patent claims, not physical similarities. Thats the system they build and accept.


----------



## Jacob

t8hants":3tlm9zpz said:


> This is true, a few years ago a guy wandered into my workshop and wanted to buy several lengths of 6mm wire to make something he had just invented, which he was sure was going to be the way to his fortune. Excited at being in at the birth of a new marvel I finally got him to tell me what it was. His brilliant idea was the S hook, and he was somewhat crestfallen when I showed him one I had bent out of an old welding-rod. There is very little that is new in the hand tools department, only improvements or modifications in design.



I had a chap wander in with a photo of one of those pub benches which cleverly fold out into a table plus bench. He wanted me to design one and give him a price for a single prototype. I told him if it was me I'd just go and buy one the same and copy/improve it - they were only £100 ish. Then I wouldn't have to charge so much for R&D. He wouldn't have it.
But basically any good designer copies as far as possible. You wouldn't design a table without first having a good look at a few tables. Hands on if poss. 
"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants" is one way of looking at it. Not attempting to reinvent the wheel, is another. 
Originality isn't all it's cracked up to be.


----------



## Bod

Brought a pair of "Facom" knock off locking grips for £5 from a market stall (real ones at the time £35)
Taught me a lesson, never buy cheap tools, there is a catch! The Bl##d/ thing bent the first time used.
My rule now for buying tools, does the manufacture have enough confidence to put their name on it. Not just a sticky label, but cast/stamped/engraved.

Bod


----------



## custard

ali27":7u4633v4 said:


> I want to make a copy of this product :lol:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dB0MBGiX8TQ




Absolutely brilliant!


----------



## lurker

Job and Knock":g9ctaonq said:


> ali27":g9ctaonq said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to make a copy of this product :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody is already making them - every bricky and plasterer I know of already has one. At least based on the right angle corners they do :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> lurker":g9ctaonq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us here are what 150 years ago would be termed gentlemen woodworkers and there have always been the likes of LV and LN to cater for such people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speak for yourself - I'm one of the hairy-tongued sons of toil (it's a Sunday aftrernoon, think about it). To me it's all a bit of a non-argument because I look at L-N or Veritas planes, think how _much_ they cost and how _little_ (if anything) they'll add to my bottom line (i.e. nil or almost!) and then mostly turn away and buy a cheaper plane which may need to be fettled or modified. And here we have a "maker to the gentry" who apparently hasn't taken the basic steps to trademark protect his name and products or copyright his designs who is then complaining about other, presumably in his opinion less scrupulous manufacturers, stealing "his" designs. Sorry mate, but you are in _business_ and that's the way it works
Click to expand...



You prove my point exactly. As a real woodworker LV & LN are not going to get your custom so they "target " gentlemen woodworkers.


----------



## Job and Knock

lurker":z1k1w4ux said:


> As a real woodworker LV & LN are not going to get your custom so they "target " gentlemen woodworkers.


That's not to say I wouldn't like them. I do own ONE L-N plane (#62) and ONE Veritas block plane (I know quite a few trade guys who've bought one or two fancy bits of plane bling as well). They are good, but not really that much better than, say, a Quangsheng or Wood River with a bit of fettling, or even an old Stanley/Record with a decent modern blade


----------



## G S Haydon

If the tools are "Knock Off", i.e. dodgy, replica's likely to fail or inherently dangerous that is a very bad thing. If photos and marketing has been stolen from one maker and used by someone else that is also a bad thing. If trademarks and and patents are abused that is also wrong. And if there are tools like that in circulation that put people at risk let's hope trading standard or whoever deal with those situations.

If there are no patents or trademarks then sadly for the original designer it will be open season. If ownership of a design allows only one person to own a concept or a design forever then that will not help anyone and will stop innovation. If a large business or government did that it would be corrupt or called a monopoly.

Small "craft" makers such as Kevin will always be that. Putting care and attention to detail into unique items. That caters to a segment. Some things they make don't catch on http://www.glen-drake.com/Two-Handed-Joinery-Saw.html no matter how innovative.

Large scale makers can make volume products that are within the reach of most. Some things offered by large scale makers make a defining contribution https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stanl ... CAcQ_AUoAg .

It's a tough call that only we can make when we buy.


----------



## murdoch

I wonder how many woodworkers who take the high road when it comes to there tools, would then turn down a job when a customer walks in their workshop with a set of plain english kitchen plans which have taken them time and money and says ' they've quoted me 65k, if you'll do it for 50k I'll give you the job'


----------



## CStanford

Assuming the other firm collected a design fee up front, I wouldn't hesitate. At that point, the client owns the plans. Even if no fee was obtained, if the plans were so plain vanilla as to be essentially public domain (i.e. probably already 'ripped off' from another source) I wouldn't worry one bit.

Moral of the story: charge for the design like it's the only thing the client wants from you. After a while, you might just like it and give up building altogether.  It's in building that the money evaporates out the window.


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":2vz8emuv said:


> Originality isn't all it's cracked up to be.



And yet it's the only thing worth copying.  A beautiful contradiction (or paradox, as some people call it)

Ron Hickman had some useful opinions on the subject.

BugBear


----------



## heimlaga

In my oppinion nobody should be blamed for copying as long as they sell their product under their own brand which is distinctly different from the original. If we didn't copy ideas invented by others and sometimes tweak them a little or maybe use them as besis for further developments then we would still live in caves and be forced to buy our flint axes froim the heirs of the first flint knapper. Those who could not pay the high shelf prizes at the Flint Monopoly outlets would be forced to fell trees and hunt animals using round beach pebbles. Every pint of beer would be bought from the Grain Monopoly somewhere in Syria and transported in dugout canoes owned by the Seafaring Monopoly.
A society built on those premises would be forced into decline.

When someone makes locking pliers under the name Knipax or plane irons under the name Sheffeld Steel they have gone too far in my oppinion. However if I made an exact copy of a Lie Nielsen plane down to the smallest detail and branded it "Northern Tools" that would be all right.

The exception from this freedom to copy is valid patents within reasonable limits. The basic idea with patents is to give an inventor legally protected sole rights to exploit his invention for a certain period of time in exchange for publishing his invention for anyone to read and exploit once that period if sole rights has expired. 
In the era before patents inventors usually tried their best to keep their inventions secret which means that very important inventions were forgotten when the inventor died and had to be reinvented centuries later. That was a serious obstacle to progess.
Theese days certain big companies try to patent a whole field of research to keep it to themselves. That abuse of patents is just as bad as the old habit of hiding inventions. Unfair obstacles to progress.
However I think that patent laws are a good thing if responsibly used and not abused.

Just my oppinions...based on common sence.....


----------



## Jacob

bugbear":3a7bgara said:


> Jacob":3a7bgara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originality isn't all it's cracked up to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet it's the only thing worth copying. .....
Click to expand...

In the wonderful world of traditional crafts everything is copied: woodwork, food, music, fabrics, pottery, you name it.


> Ron Hickman had some useful opinions on the subject.


The archetypal gadget, the workmate is one of the most useless ever designed! It's such a good _idea_ - everybody buys one (including me) but it's only after years of struggle that you realise they are cr$p. They don't even pack away conveniently. As soon as I made up a pair of saw horses the work mate became redundant, except as an occasional clumsy table for supporting large workpieces. 
So he did a bit of styling on Lotus cars - no interest or use to anybody except Lotus car enthusiasts.
His contribution to the world of design? He showed that you could make millions from daft gadgets, and a lot of people have been trying to do the same.


----------



## KevM

As has been noted by several posters there's nothing new under the sun, and manufacturers who produced fettled versions of designs that have been effectively in the public domain for a century have little grounds for complaint when companies in emerging economies start producing their own variants. However, there are then decisions for the consumer to make on where they want to spend their money based on supporting quality manufacturing, local jobs, sound environmental policies, ... 

What's disturbing is when companies re-brand products with their house brand to give a veneer of quality, effectively misleading the consumer. In some cases this may be justified because of a higher standard of materials, quality control and warranty support (e.g. Supermarket own brand products - don't mention the horse-meat!), but in many cases it is just branding as a marketing tool. This re-branding is at the heart of the sometimes questionable badge engineering racket where a factory pumps out a dozen versions of essentially the same product which is tarted up with different logos, mouldings and buttons and called a Woodstar, Record, Challenge, Craftsman, .... This is why companies frequently can't sell you spares and consumables for equipment that carries their brand-name.

What's clearly wrong is 'passing off' or counterfeiting where shonky knock-offs are sold as genuine goods, e.g. the sunglasses, jeans, handbags available at markets up and down the land. This is a growing problem for industry where counterfeits are inserted at the component level, e.g. contractor X builds their design, buying in components from suppliers Y & Z as required only to find that the finished product fails. Surprisingly maybe, this is a major issue in the defence, avionics and medical industries where supply chain management is critical (all part of your ISO certification, up to a point...) and yet counterfeit components are still creeping into production through apparently legitimate channels.

Of course there's also the legitimate OEM/OES industry of car components, plumbing components, home appliance components, generic pharmaceuticals... in which counterfeits are also an issue - it's endless.

Personally I wouldn't buy a Chinese hand-plane - I'd rather buy an old Record or a new Clifton/Veritas/Lie-Nielsen; but I happily use a Record bandsaw manufactured somewhere east of Suez which while exploiting a legacy brand offers reasonable UK support, and I use a Japanese Makita thicknesser, which is made in China but is sound as a pound (OK it's actually sound as a Chinese Yuan Renminbi).


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":2g0izl45 said:


> bugbear":2g0izl45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":2g0izl45 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originality isn't all it's cracked up to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet it's the only thing worth copying. .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the wonderful world of traditional crafts everything is copied: woodwork, food, music, fabrics, pottery, you name it.
Click to expand...


IIRC, when some unoriginal information you posted about sash windows was copied for a magazine article, you felt affronted.

Why was that?

BugBear


----------



## Jacob

bugbear":3d8q5ig1 said:


> Jacob":3d8q5ig1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bugbear":3d8q5ig1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> And yet it's the only thing worth copying. .....
> 
> 
> 
> In the wonderful world of traditional crafts everything is copied: woodwork, food, music, fabrics, pottery, you name it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IIRC, when some unoriginal information you posted about sash windows was copied for a magazine article, you felt affronted.
> 
> Why was that?
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...

You've been in the archive again! Well done! Let me know when you have completed the index.


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":3lcs75ks said:


> bugbear":3lcs75ks said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> And yet it's the only thing worth copying. .....
> 
> 
> 
> In the wonderful world of traditional crafts everything is copied: woodwork, food, music, fabrics, pottery, you name it.
Click to expand...


IIRC, when some unoriginal information you posted about sash windows was copied for a magazine article, you felt affronted.

Why was that? The data wasn't even original, yet you still objected to the copying.

BugBear


----------



## KevM

bugbear":1v1vdy13 said:


> Jacob":1v1vdy13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bugbear":1v1vdy13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> And yet it's the only thing worth copying. .....
> 
> 
> 
> In the wonderful world of traditional crafts everything is copied: woodwork, food, music, fabrics, pottery, you name it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IIRC, when some unoriginal information you posted about sash windows was copied for a magazine article, you felt affronted.
> 
> Why was that? The data wasn't even original, yet you still objected to the copying.
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...



Stone-me! It's like deja-vu all over again!


----------



## Biliphuster

A question asked during many copyright disputes is: If someone is not going to buy your film anyway, do you lose anything by them downloading a pirate copy for their personal use?

A similar question can be posed about the luxury tool market. I am never never going to buy a Tite-mark gauge (I am too wedded to pin and knife types), if I knowingly buy a Chinese knock off for 1/4 the price just to try it out, has Glenn drake lost money? What if I knock up a facsimile on a lathe to the same design, have I stolen from him then? What if a friend lends me Tite-mark to sate my curiosity without having to buy one?

Maybe if I buy the Chinese one and get on with it I may be tempted to buy the Glenn Drake original.

I hope my hypothetical questions don't contribute to the further decline of our reputation as tool buyers and woodworkers on the world stage. For what it's worth I frequently try and support UK tool makers whom I think make a quality product.


----------



## Jacob

bugbear":26t4fhez said:


> Jacob":26t4fhez said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bugbear":26t4fhez said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> And yet it's the only thing worth copying. .....
> 
> 
> 
> In the wonderful world of traditional crafts everything is copied: woodwork, food, music, fabrics, pottery, you name it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IIRC, when some unoriginal information you posted about sash windows was copied for a magazine article, you felt affronted.
> 
> Why was that? The data wasn't even original, yet you still objected to the copying.
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...

The piece of writing was original. To copy it without credits is the same as counterfeiting, or passing off as one's own. The information itself was freely available and there's nothing to stop anyone from reproducing it - but in their own words.

Similarly the design of mallets is very well known and there are millions just like these below - they are all copies of one another with small variations and nobody could claim the design as their own. The Chinese have also copied the nice shade of green, but it's still not counterfeit or passing-off unless they also copy the label, names and all, but even the words "The World's best mallets" would not be copyright.

Wood-is-Good mallet (USA):







Chinese copy:


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

I was asked why I mentioned the UK forums in a reply on Sawmill Creek. Many of you should go and read the original thread there:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread. ... koff-Tools

Then return and re-read this thread. 

What you will find here (if you retain an objective mind) is a large number of rationalisations and justifications why one may use pirated designs. The responses on SMC are different - consideration is instead given to the financial plight of the manufacturer. No one is seeking a reason to bend the "rules".

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I was asked why I mentioned the UK forums in a reply on Sawmill Creek. Many of you should go and read the original thread there:
> 
> http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread. ... koff-Tools
> 
> Then return and re-read this thread.
> 
> What you will find here (if you retain an objective mind) is a large number of rationalisations and justifications why one may use pirated designs. The responses on SMC are different - consideration is instead given to the financial plight of the manufacturer. No one is seeking a reason to bend the "rules".
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



In your view, were bargain hunters ever the target market of a firm like Lie-Nielsen? Do Rolls Royce concern themselves that some people have to drive Toyotas rather than one of their cars?

There is no financial plight, but if there is and they are attributing it to Woodriver, for instance, they're likely barking up the wrong tree. Despite what you seem to believe, there is NOT a bottomless market for premium hand planes that is somehow being encroached upon by the Chinese. People who want a premium plane will buy it. If sales are drying up, there is a reason other than "Chinese knockoffs." One wonders if the manufacturers you seem bent on protecting appreciate you running around yelling about the sky falling. 

The thread you linked to is so full of drivel it's hard to read. Psychology of the moment, that's about it. Half the people in the thread don't own L-N and would probably never buy one or if they do it'll be up for sale as soon as wifey discovers it and the phone bill is past-due. "It's an investment, honey." What a crock.

Lie-Nielsen's biggest problem is Lee Valley not the Chinese. Lie-Nielsen planes are likely no longer premium "enough" to differentiate themselves from Lee Valley offerings priced just lower enough to steal real market share on price and for some planes on outright functionality.


----------



## Jacob

But there's nothing particularly original in any of the designs mentioned to be "pirated" - they are all old, well known, commonplace items. Somebody notices that wheel marking gauges sell, so he makes some wheel marking gauges. It'd be the same with burgers, or anything. 
Counterfeiting or passing off is a different matter altogether.


----------



## marcros

CStanford":7364q6dw said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was asked why I mentioned the UK forums in a reply on Sawmill Creek. Many of you should go and read the original thread there:
> 
> http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread. ... koff-Tools
> 
> Then return and re-read this thread.
> 
> What you will find here (if you retain an objective mind) is a large number of rationalisations and justifications why one may use pirated designs. The responses on SMC are different - consideration is instead given to the financial plight of the manufacturer. No one is seeking a reason to bend the "rules".
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your view, were bargain hunters ever the target market of a firm like Lie-Nielsen? Do Rolls Royce concern themselves that some people have to drive Toyotas rather than one of their cars?
> 
> There is no financial plight, but if there is and they are attributing it to Woodriver, for instance, they're likely barking up the wrong tree. Despite what you seem to believe, there is NOT a bottomless market for premium hand planes that is somehow being encroached upon by the Chinese. People who want a premium plane will buy it. If sales are drying up, there is reason other than "Chinese knockoffs."
> 
> The thread you linked to is so full of drivel it's hard to read.
Click to expand...


I have to agree, there is more shortsighted generalisation about foreign manufacture than anything useful, and most of the posters seem to fail to differentiate between passing off and marketing a similar item.


----------



## iNewbie

Jacob":3a6u7wd4 said:


> The archetypal gadget, the workmate is one of the most useless ever designed! It's such a good _idea_ - everybody buys one (including me) but it's only after years of struggle that you realise they are cr$p. They don't even pack away conveniently. As soon as I made up a pair of saw horses the work mate became redundant, except as an occasional clumsy table for supporting large workpieces.
> So he did a bit of styling on Lotus cars - no interest or use to anybody except Lotus car enthusiasts.
> His contribution to the world of design? He showed that you could make millions from daft gadgets, and a lot of people have been trying to do the same.




Somewhat ironic that Hickman's cr$p idea to _you_ was copied by so many others and had him winning his infringement cases - and here you are arguing over infringement... Not so cr$p then, eh... 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituar ... ckman.html


----------



## CStanford

Perhaps Lie-Nielsen should hire the same attorneys that Mr. Hickman used. Oh wait, they have no patents. You were aware of this, right?


----------



## Sheffield Tony

Derek Cohen quoted by Cheshirechappie":128plc7f said:


> Where lines of design ownership become blurred - and a "loop hole" for morality (or should that be immorality) creeps in - lies with those tools that have been around for many years, and the design changes are not always obvious (but enough to say that the design is "different").
> [snip]
> The question is what can we do about this? The original makers could take legal action to protect themselves, but this is unlikely as most involved are small businesses that cannot afford the legal expenses. There are probably ways of taking out patents and enforcing them, but this is way outside my area of knowledge.



Are we worrying here about morality, or legality ?

Applicable legal protection might include patents, design rights, trademark or "passing off" legislation. Patent is probably the most robust protection, but as has already been widely discussed, the patents relevant have long expired. Unless any of the new manufacturers have patented their own innovative features - I can only imagine LV as having introduced any significant innovations (and not all of those are good ideas). It is worth remembering that _patent_ means _open_, and *heimlaga* has given a pretty good summary of the ethos behind the patent system - the idea being that in return for a period of exclusivity, you make your invention open to all after that period.

Copyright does not cover 3D designs. Design rights do, but are short lived (10-15 years) and don't offer great protection internationally. Trademark and passing off protection probably aren't relevant because the copies are not pretending to be the genuine article.

So there's probably no scope for a legal case, what of morals ? As far as I am aware, there is no uniformly agreed set of morals, and no legal requirement on businesses to conform to a moral code. This always puzzles me when politicians, press etc accuse a company of behaving imorally by minimising their tax payments. Morals have nothing to do with it. If it is within the law, it is within the law. If it is morally "wrong" but within the law, the law is faulty. It is a company's duty to stay within the law and make profit for shareholders - not to abide by someone's view of what good moral conduct is - except, perhaps, their customers if they might be driven away by it. 

So there it is. It is a very democratic system - if you as the customer, think that ripping off designs is immoral, don't buy the copies. If enough people agree with you, the copiers will lose out.


----------



## KevM

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I was asked why I mentioned the UK forums in a reply on Sawmill Creek. Many of you should go and read the original thread there:
> 
> http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread. ... koff-Tools
> 
> Then return and re-read this thread.
> 
> What you will find here (if you retain an objective mind) is a large number of rationalisations and justifications why one may use pirated designs. The responses on SMC are different - consideration is instead given to the financial plight of the manufacturer. No one is seeking a reason to bend the "rules".
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



OK - just read part of the thread you reference and got as far as tl;dr it's just the usual spittle-flecked rubbish you'll find on all forums. Can you explain a) Your argument and b) how this thread strengthens it?


----------



## iNewbie

CStanford":1ycrhb8s said:


> Perhaps Lie-Nielsen should hire the same attorneys that Mr. Hickman used. Oh wait, they have no patents. You were aware of this, right?



You are aware I never even mentioned LN's lack of patents, right? /- I'm ribbing Jacob for one of his usual colonic-episodes. The lad can't help himself.


----------



## CStanford

Thanks... yes I see now.


----------



## Jacob

iNewbie":2hbqukp3 said:



> Jacob":2hbqukp3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The archetypal gadget, the workmate is one of the most useless ever designed! It's such a good _idea_ - everybody buys one (including me) but it's only after years of struggle that you realise they are cr$p. They don't even pack away conveniently. As soon as I made up a pair of saw horses the work mate became redundant, except as an occasional clumsy table for supporting large workpieces.
> So he did a bit of styling on Lotus cars - no interest or use to anybody except Lotus car enthusiasts.
> His contribution to the world of design? He showed that you could make millions from daft gadgets, and a lot of people have been trying to do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhat ironic that Hickman's cr$p idea to _you_ was copied by so many others and had him winning his infringement cases - and here you are arguing over infringement... Not so cr$p then, eh...
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituar ... ckman.html
Click to expand...

It was a good and original idea as I said, so he was entitled to protect it Didn't stop it being a rubbish product though! That's the irony.
Whereas the trad saw horse is a good idea and an excellent product with no rights owned by anybody.


----------



## Paul Chapman

The original Workmate designed and manufactured by Ron Hickman was a brilliant design. I bought one in 1970 and I'm still using it. Unfortunately, Black & Decker, who bought the manufacturing rights, and other manufacturers of so-called Workmates, subsequently left out most of the original design features which made the original so good. That's why the present-day Workmates are rubbish.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## bugbear

Paul Chapman":1rmoc88i said:


> The original Workmate designed and manufactured by Ron Hickman was a brilliant design. I bought one in 1970 and I'm still using it. Unfortunately, Black & Decker, who bought the manufacturing rights, and other manufacturers of so-called Workmates, subsequently left out most of the original design features which made the original so good. That's why the present-day Workmates are rubbish.
> 
> Cheers :wink:
> 
> Paul



I think the decline was a little more gradual than that!

BugBear (owner and user of a mkII B&D)


----------



## Jacob

They are excellent except too bouncy for planing or sawing, which makes them fairly useless except for very small stuff.
I hardly ever used mine except for odd holding jobs or as a step-up so it never paid it's way.


----------



## Paul Chapman

Jacob":1v9kdc32 said:


> too bouncy for planing or sawing



Not the original one. That's the trouble with Black & Decker - every time they take over the manufacture of a product, they keep tinkering with it and reducing the quality to such an extent that it's no longer fit for purpose. They are the kiss of death to everything they touch.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## bugbear

To avoid repetition:

black-decker-workmate-do-you-t30007-15.html

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Some interesting, informed and thoughtful discussion.

I'd like to add a couple of thoughts. 

Firstly, I give you the example of Disston saws. Widely regarded as a fine manufacturer of very good saws. However, consider how Henry Disston started - he copied the Sheffield-made saws that were available at the time. When he started making his own steel, he imported Sheffield steelmakers to set up his factory. He marketed very aggressively (for example, by putting on his 'second quality' saws the 'Warranted Superior' mark used by Sheffield makers on their best saws), and bought out his competitors wherever he could. He ended up making a lot of very good saws, and his products keep many an American woodworker happy to this day. But.....he started by copying.

Secondly - A2 steel. Now, I've been kicking around the woodworking world (as a bumbling amateur) for about three decades. I can remember back in the late 1980s or early 1990s when A2 first came on the scene. I'm pretty sure it was first used by Karl Holtey (Perhape David Charlesworth or somebody of like ilk would confirm or correct my recollection, please. Since then, it had become the default steel choice for quite a few manufacturers. Should they be paying Karl a royalty for using his idea?

When I started woodworking in the mid 1980s, the tool choices were limited. There was no high end stuff at all (except Karl Holtey and Bill Carter), and the decent quality of the old stagers was being eroded (think Stanley and Record). The variety of tools they offered was being slowly reduced, as well. There were grumbles in the magazine letter pages about the difficulty of finding good tools. Then along came Thomas Lie-nielsen, then Clifton and Lee Valley, and a variety of boutique makers. That left a gap in the middle, especially for people who couldn't afford to kit themselves out with high-end stuff. A few enterprising sould spotted the gap in the market, and developed ranges of good quality but reasonably priced tools, in some cases taking advantage of low manufacturing costs in the Far East - Quangsheng, for example.

Finally, just a thought for Derek Cohen. Derek, you do a lot for the woodworking world by posting reviews of new tools (such as your current enthusiasm for CBN grinding wheels, for example). That's great - we're all better informed for it. However, you are in the very fortunate position of having the disposable income to indulge your passion for high-end woodworking. I'm quite sure you've worked long and hard to get yourself to that position, so you've every right to enjoy your money as you see fit. But - and here's the rub - please be aware that there are many who wish to work wood who do not have the luxury of a high income. They must acquire their tools as they can, and however much they may admire or aspire to things like Tite-Mark marking gauges, the household budget just won't stretch. It's a thoroughly good thing that there are options for them to put together a kit of decent tools, and not to forced away from woodworking because it's an activity outside their financial reach. Do have some consideration for them. 

Rigid scruples about only buying from high-end makers are great if you can afford them. Not so good when there's a lot of month left over at the end of the money.

We should be very grateful that we have choice. It's up to the individual and their particular circumstances how they exercise that choice, and it should not be for anybody else to tell them what they should and shouldn't do.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

> Finally, just a thought for Derek Cohen ...



CC, firstly, none of my comments were aimed at individuals here. I'm sorry if feelings were hurt. That was not - and never would be - my intention. Very clearly we view the world a little differently, and perhaps we had best leave it at that. Usually at this point we all head for the pub for a beer or two.

Secondly, I do not have any "high end" tools. High end to me is Karl Holtey, Konrad Sauer, a fleet of NOS Spier or Norris planes (see - there has always been high end stuff around. It did not just appear in the last few decades). In planes I own Stanley, LV and LN, but also have built many of my own tools: saws, planes, knives, even chisels. High end is all relative. And what I earn and how I spend my money has nothing to do with anyone, and I do not ask to justify how anyone spends theirs. The basis of the original issue has had less to do with what one can afford, but what one coverts. 

Cheers.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford

You're a little out of touch on this one Derek. Laying in a kit of Lie-Nielsen tools would leave a huge swath of craftsmen with no money for wood, finishing supplies, a decent place to work, etc. if they could even buy the tools in the first place. 

One can impose one's ethic all day long with regard to tools but if the money isn't there it just isn't there. People have to look elsewhere. They they look in places that irritate you is your problem, not theirs.

And trust me, you have high-end tools (your specially ordered Japanese chisel set comes immediately to mind) and you do look at the world differently.

For some unknown reason you do have some Stanley and Record lying around, that's true, though one is hard-pressed to come to a rational conclusion as to why given the composition of the rest of your kit. Maybe it makes you feel better about something, maybe it's just plain old tool hoarding, or as handy foils du jour in some tool comparison/review. Seems wasteful to me. There is somebody in the world for whom they would be a Godsend, the difference between making a living or perhaps not.


----------



## GLFaria

Jacob":25rjiu80 said:


> bugbear":25rjiu80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":25rjiu80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originality isn't all it's cracked up to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The archetypal gadget, the workmate is one of the most useless ever designed! It's such a good _idea_ - everybody buys one (including me) but it's only after years of struggle that you realise they are cr$p. They don't even pack away conveniently. As soon as I made up a pair of saw horses the work mate became redundant, except as an occasional clumsy table for supporting large workpieces.
> So he did a bit of styling on Lotus cars - no interest or use to anybody except Lotus car enthusiasts.
> His contribution to the world of design? He showed that you could make millions from daft gadgets, and a lot of people have been trying to do the same.
Click to expand...


Fully disagree. It all depends on what you want it for. If you put it to a use it was never intended to - like trying to use the thing as a professional woodworker's bench - that doesn't mean the product is rubbish, it only means you are exceeding its intended capabilities, and I would dare say also exceeding Hickman's purpose.
As a full amateur and an appartment dweller, I use mine almost daily - for small work, as you noted in a later post, but that includes planing. I would never manage to place a "real" workbench there, I don't have the floor space required - so, as far as my present requirements are concerned, a full-fledged workbench is an inconvenient gadget (not that I wouldn't like to have one, though, but in the circumstances one of us wold have to go - either the bench or me! A typical case of too small a world for the two of us)
End of rant!
Cheers
G.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Finally, just a thought for Derek Cohen ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CC, firstly, none of my comments were aimed at individuals here. I'm sorry if feelings were hurt. That was not - and never would be - my intention. Very clearly we view the world a little differently, and perhaps we had best leave it at that. Usually at this point we all head for the pub for a beer or two.
> 
> Secondly, I do not have any "high end" tools. High end to me is Karl Holtey, Konrad Sauer, a fleet of NOS Spier or Norris planes (see - there has always been high end stuff around. It did not just appear in the last few decades). In planes I own Stanley, LV and LN, but also have built many of my own tools: saws, planes, knives, even chisels. High end is all relative. And what I earn and how I spend my money has nothing to do with anyone, and I do not ask to justify how anyone spends theirs. The basis of the original issue has had less to do with what one can afford, but what one coverts.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek
Click to expand...


"I read recommendations for handtools on many forums, but is seems to me that the one ones more likely to suggest a knock off design are either the UK forums or forums that cater to beginner woodworkers." (quoting from Derek's words in the original post)

Derek, I'm well aware that you didn't aim any comments at individuals. That's not the issue. You did take a public side-swipe at UK woodworkers in general, and so far you haven't retracted the comment or apologised to UK woodworkers generally for it. I'm not really inclined to 'head for the pub' yet. I do think we deserve a retraction of the public slur.

I do regard LN, LV, Clifton etc as 'high end', and so, I suspect, do most other people. They are high quality tools, aspirational for many, and bearing in mind that they are made in relatively small volumes in a high-cost manufacturing environment, they are inevitably expensive to the final consumer. In that sense, I concur with Charles (though I might phrase my points a little differently).

We've had a thoughtful debate about the relative merits and history of copying of tool designs, and I suspect most of us have learned a bit. One thing that has come across is that nobody condones outright counterfeiting, and nobody would knowingly support counterfeiters. After that, it's all a bit less black and white. Conequently, the somewhat insulting accusation that UK woodworkers are "the ones most likely to suggest a knock off design" don't really stand up, do they?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Mmm ... Cheshirechappie ... you started this thread, did you not? Sounds like this is more about you than me.

We shall have to agree to disagree. To repeat what I said earlier, no malice was intended from my side. Re-read the two threads. Try and be objective.

I'm out of here.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Cheshirechappie

No, Derek - you posted the comment insulting UK woodworkers on an American forum.

I note that no malice was intended, and I'm sure most woodworkers reading this forum regularly will take that at face value. However, the original comment remains, and it was unwarranted.

You won't retract or apologise. So be it. We all know where we stand.

If you take nothing else from this exchange, please be aware that there are plenty of people around who are not in a position to 'splash the cash' as you are fortunate enough to be able to. Consequently, their priorities may be somewhat different to yours; don't condemn them for not doing what they can't afford. (There have been times in my life when I have had very little discretionary money. There have also been times when I could afford what I wanted, and from that I know how easy it is to assume that just because you can afford something, everybody else can too. However, in my case, I remember the hard times, too.)


----------



## bugbear

Cheshirechappie":2m3jgkdv said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, just a thought for Derek Cohen ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CC, firstly, none of my comments were aimed at individuals here. I'm sorry if feelings were hurt. That was not - and never would be - my intention. Very clearly we view the world a little differently, and perhaps we had best leave it at that. Usually at this point we all head for the pub for a beer or two.
> 
> Secondly, I do not have any "high end" tools. High end to me is Karl Holtey, Konrad Sauer, a fleet of NOS Spier or Norris planes (see - there has always been high end stuff around. It did not just appear in the last few decades). In planes I own Stanley, LV and LN, but also have built many of my own tools: saws, planes, knives, even chisels. High end is all relative. And what I earn and how I spend my money has nothing to do with anyone, and I do not ask to justify how anyone spends theirs. The basis of the original issue has had less to do with what one can afford, but what one coverts.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I read recommendations for handtools on many forums, but is seems to me that the one ones more likely to suggest a knock off design are either the UK forums or forums that cater to beginner woodworkers." (quoting from Derek's words in the original post)
> 
> Derek, I'm well aware that you didn't aim any comments at individuals. That's not the issue. You did take a public side-swipe at UK woodworkers in general, and so far you haven't retracted the comment or apologised to UK woodworkers generally for it. I'm not really inclined to 'head for the pub' yet. I do think we deserve a retraction of the public slur.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid (and there are threads extant to prove it, including this one) that there is evidence of a greater degree 
of unconcern at this kind of copying on UK forums. (*)
I don't see why Derek should retract or apologise for an observation
which is based on fact.

Indeed, this thread seems more concerned with justification or defense of buying knockoffs, rather than denials.

BugBear

(*) this is a relative statement. If 2% of people seem unconcerned on 1 forum, and 5% seem unconcerned on another forum, the second forum has over twice as many unconcerned people as the former, despite the proportion still being only 5%


----------



## JohnPW

> I'm afraid (and there are threads extant to prove it, including this one) that there is evidence of a greater degree
> of unconcern at this kind of copying on UK forums. (*)
> I don't see why Derek should retract or apologise for an observation
> which is based on fact.
> 
> Indeed, this thread seems more concerned with justification or defense of buying knockoffs, rather than denials.
> 
> BugBear
> 
> (*) this is a relative statement. If 2% of people seem unconcerned on 1 forum, and 5% seem unconcerned on another forum, the second forum has over twice as many unconcerned people as the former, despite the proportion still being only 5%



I had a quick look at that US forum thread linked to earlier, I get the sense it's a case of "it's OK if we copy, but if others do it then it's fakes, piracy etc". I guess in the UK there's less of that attitude in regards to woodworking tools, given that most of Record's planes were exact copies of Stanley planes and I don't think anybody's ever regarded a Record plane as a fake or counterfeit!

I think there's an accusation that the UK sellers of the cheaper tools participate in forums and engage with customers and that's why the so-called fakes are accepted here.

I don't think anyone needs justification in buying cheaper tools, because the expensive version are in themselves copies!


----------



## Cheshirechappie

BB - I think that rather depends on how you define a 'knock-off' design. The original blog post by Kevin Glen-Drake drew attention to a straight copy of his hammer design, sold in a box with a photo of his original hammer on the lid. I think we all agree, on this forum and others, that is unacceptable (and possibly illegal) practice.

After that, it's not so clear. It is legal to sell a copy of something (provided it's out of patent, or unpatented), so lang as you don't use the original manufacturer's trade mark, or try to 'pass of' the copy as an original. In the world of handtools, where designs have been around for (in some cases) centuries, it can be rather difficult to determine what is a 'copy' and what is an 'original'. Thomas Lie-Nielsen, for example, never claimed his plane designs were original - he (quite openly and honestly) always described them as copies of classic Stanley designs. Was he guilty of selling 'knock-off' tools?

Derek's definition of 'knock-off' seems to include legitimate, legal copies. If he's accusing us of recommending legal copies and similar designs, he's probably right. However, the words 'knock-off' also includes the illegal 'passing off' of somebody else's trademark or design - and I have never seen that recommended or condoned on this forum. Consequently, I did feel he needed to retract his accusation, or at least clarify it. He has chosen not to. So be it.


----------



## KevM

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Mmm ... Cheshirechappie ... you started this thread, did you not? Sounds like this is more about you than me.
> 
> We shall have to agree to disagree. To repeat what I said earlier, no malice was intended from my side. Re-read the two threads. Try and be objective.
> 
> I'm out of here.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



What rubbish, what offal - you just weren't expecting to be called out on your unwarranted, unsubstantiated and unjustified accusations.


----------



## Noel

CStanford":2385akh4 said:


> You're a little out of touch on this one Derek. Laying in a kit of Lie-Nielsen tools would leave a huge swath of craftsmen with no money for wood, finishing supplies, a decent place to work, etc. if they could even buy the tools in the first place.
> 
> One can impose one's ethic all day long with regard to tools but if the money isn't there it just isn't there. People have to look elsewhere. They they look in places that irritate you is your problem, not theirs.
> 
> And trust me, you have high-end tools (your specially ordered Japanese chisel set comes immediately to mind) and you do look at the world differently.
> 
> For some unknown reason you do have some Stanley and Record lying around, that's true, though one is hard-pressed to come to a rational conclusion as to why given the rest of your kit. Maybe it makes you feel better about something, maybe it's just plain old tool hoarding, or as handy foils du jour in some tool comparison/review. Seems wasteful to me. There is somebody in the world for whom they would be a Godsend, the difference between making a living or perhaps not.



Hard not to agree.


----------



## artie

*If 2% of people seem unconcerned on 1 forum, and 5% seem unconcerned on another forum, the second forum has over twice as many unconcerned people as the former, despite the proportion still being only 5%*

So here I go, seizing an opportunity to jump in and say, even my basic knowledge of mathematics tells me that you didn't think that one through.


----------



## t8hants

It funny how similar all my 19th C molding planes look to each other, no wonder we Brits buy cheap copies, just look what our Victorian ancestors got up to. Oh sorry I forgot - they were just generic!!


----------



## KevM

bugbear":zs2j0wqj said:


> I'm afraid (and there are threads extant to prove it, including this one) that there is evidence of a greater degree
> of unconcern at this kind of copying on UK forums. (*)
> I don't see why Derek should retract or apologise for an observation
> which is based on fact.
> 
> Indeed, this thread seems more concerned with justification or defense of buying knockoffs, rather than denials.
> 
> BugBear
> 
> (*) this is a relative statement. If 2% of people seem unconcerned on 1 forum, and 5% seem unconcerned on another forum, the second forum has over twice as many unconcerned people as the former, despite the proportion still being only 5%



Have you checked your computer security settings? Your account appears to have been hacked - by a goldfish.


----------



## n0legs

I've read the SMC thread. 
Not impressed with the UK comments at all, but pleased to see that it was limited to only a few lines.
The SMC thread is 3 pages long now and it seems to be doing okay going on about copyright, cost of tools, premium tools, etc. Seems to me it would have done fine without the UK comments. Shame it was mentioned really.
Funny how you go off people :lol:


----------



## Mr T

Derek said


> No, those pics are not from UK shops. I was simply illustrating some of the copies. Some pics come from just Googling, but go to Woodcraft (USA) or McJing (Australia) for other examples. I have not gone looking at UK shops - not really interested, but I have seen a few marking gauges that are pretty similar to LN and LV wheel gauges, plus a number of cheap-looking copies of the LN block plane, all on this forum.



I recently bought the quang sheng knock off of the LN knock off of the Stanley low angle block plane for my student tool kits. I find it is a superior plane to the LN and use it in preference to my own LN. I can see that those trying to innovate tool design may be miffed by copies, but those copying tools from makers long dead or out of business cannot complain.The implication that the Chinese tools are automatically of lesser quality also often does not hold water as my block plane example shows. It is not necessarily the case that because they are cheaper they are of lesser quality. Perhaps it would be worth asking about the working conditions and remunertion of the makers rather than the quality of their output.

Chris


----------



## Jacob

Cheapo chinese copy of a Tite-Mark gadget could be branded "Tite-Wad" or would this be too near the bone? Personally I'm very happy with old Mrs. Marples.

"Generic" - now there's a word (thank you t8hants). All the above mentioned tools are "generic" there is not a single innovation or development in any of them. How much R&D at "Wood-is-Good" went in to making the big decision to make "The World's best Mallet" a nice shade of green? It doesn't seem to have any other distinguishing characteristics.

NB to all my friends who I told we would be in Reykjavik this week; guess what, Pamela lost her passport :roll: It's a first - in all those years of travelling :shock: She's gone to Lytham St Annes instead. Not the same.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

A brief update, folks.

The original offensive post on Sawmillcreek made by Derek Cohen has been edited to remove the offending line. A small step in the right direction, and one which I'm sure will be appreciated by all.

Unfortunately, the offending line still appears on page 2 of the thread, in a post made by another contributor quoting Derek, and I don't suppose Derek can do much about that.


----------



## Vann

KevM":ol17grye said:


> What rubbish, what offal - you just weren't expecting to be called out on your unwarranted, unsubstantiated and unjustified accusations.


I think that's a bit unjustified - and far more insulting than Derek's original comment (an offal [awful] thing to say :roll:  ). And I'm not so sure his original comment is untrue. I've been dismayed to see people talked out of Clifton planes, and into buying Quangsheng planes instead, on this forum.

Maybe Derek is right. The only two forums I regularly visit are this, and the Aussie forum. The Aussies are always posting support of their local manufacturers. Over here people are always recommending Quangseng and Narex over Clifton and Ashley Isles. Only a small sampling - but it's all I have.

Maybe a small part of the reason people say they can't afford mid-range planes like Clifton is because if you won't buy your local product, then there's less employment and therefore less money in your local economy?

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Mr_P

Think its just a case of American knock offs GOOD and anything else BAD.

I'm also guilty of endorsing my Rider block plane, tried and sold my LN 102&3 too small for me. My Rider was perfect out of the box (I've heard some aren't) and like the weight, some find it too heavy.

Think the UK forums are usually known for promoting second hand as opposed to cheap knock offs but that's probably down to us having arguably the best second hand tools available in the world.

Just because I defend anyone's right to make and sell a bailey plane, dumpy brass hammer, marking knife doesn't mean I endorse them or think they are all great/terrible.

Would I be happy to make and sell a dumpy brass hammer with my name on it, YES.

Would I be happy to make an exact copy of LN or a mallet with some green plastic, NO.

Had my own personal experience of the patent clinic and was disappointed with the outcome (not tool related).

"Even if you do get it granted (highly unlikely) you can't afford to defend it".


----------



## lurker

I had never heard of glen drake before so had a look at his site today
Some nice engineering, but all I can see is a solution looking for a problem.

Am I right that part of the argument is about the dumpy handled brass headed mallet being copied?.
Cos I made something nearly identical when I was about 19 .......... I have just turned 61 
Should I sue ??

And I in turn had copied it from my old engineering tutor ( ex jones and shipman engineer) who had made one when he was an apprentice.


----------



## Vann

Mr_P":2xndy65e said:


> Think its just a case of American knock offs GOOD and anything else BAD.


The Lie-Nielsen knockoffs of Bedrock planes are, without doubt, an improvement over the Stanley Bedrock (I'm amazed at what people pay for a battleworn Stanley Bedrock when they could buy two, three or four brand new L-N Bedrocks for the same money :roll: ). The Quangsheng/Wood River knockoffs were fairly obvious copies of the Lie-Nielsen, rather than the Stanley. And initially at least they weren't as good as the L-N they copied.

I don't know if the Clifton counts as a knockoff of the Stanley Bedrock. The principle is the same, but the styling is very different. Maybe if Quangsheng/Wood River hadn't copied the Lie-Nielsen so closely, it wouldn't raise my hackles so much.

Of course Record knockedoff the Stanley Bailey design, back in 1930, with copies identical down to the (by then) non-standard threads, and also Millers Falls breast drills - so it's nothing new.



Mr_P":2xndy65e said:


> Had my own personal experience of the patent clinic and was disappointed with the outcome (not tool related).
> 
> "Even if you do get it granted (highly unlikely) you can't afford to defend it".


Robin Lee (of Lee Valley/Veritas) has said that they can't afford to fight every patent breach - it just cost too much to do so.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## CStanford

Mr T":3hynf184 said:


> Derek said
> 
> 
> 
> No, those pics are not from UK shops. I was simply illustrating some of the copies. Some pics come from just Googling, but go to Woodcraft (USA) or McJing (Australia) for other examples. I have not gone looking at UK shops - not really interested, but I have seen a few marking gauges that are pretty similar to LN and LV wheel gauges, plus a number of cheap-looking copies of the LN block plane, all on this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recently bought the quang sheng knock off of the LN knock off of the Stanley low angle block plane for my student tool kits. I find it is a superior plane to the LN and use it in preference to my own LN. I can see that those trying to innovate tool design may be miffed by copies, but those copying tools from makers long dead or out of business cannot complain.The implication that the Chinese tools are automatically of lesser quality also often does not hold water as my block plane example shows. It is not necessarily the case that because they are cheaper they are of lesser quality. Perhaps it would be worth asking about the working conditions and remunertion of the makers rather than the quality of their output.
> 
> Chris
Click to expand...


Well said, especially the "knock off of a knock off" part. Sums the whole thing up quite nicely.


----------



## Mr_P

Lurker,

The original original blog post was Glen Drake complaining about his products being faked and as you point out not much to stop anyone. However his complaint was very justified since they also copied his name and packaging and EVERYONE agrees that this is wrong. 

Edited:
Life's too short.


----------



## iNewbie

I wasn't offended by Derek's comment and he has no need to apologise to me. 

I find it all a bit Catherine Tate, personally...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaFxIwSmyxE


----------



## Job and Knock

JohnPW":2xiz7743 said:


> I had a quick look at that US forum thread linked to earlier, I get the sense it's a case of "it's OK if we copy, but if others do it then it's fakes, piracy etc". I guess in the UK there's less of that attitude in regards to woodworking tools, given that most of Record's planes were exact copies of Stanley planes and I don't think anybody's ever regarded a Record plane as a fake or counterfeit!


Why would an American be in a position to be holier than thpu on the topic. Stanley wasn't the only firm making "Bailey" type planes - there were others such as Union, Sargent, Ohio and Millers Falls to name a few and they were in the business of patent circumvention from the 1800s until the 1930s, as at times were Stanley. I don't hear the term "knock-off" being used to describe their products, yet by the standards being adopted by some in thie discussion that's exactly what they were

All this was before Record came into the market (in 1930 or 31 was it?). And by the time Record entered the market Preston had already had TWO stabs at the Bailey market, Spiers one whilst GTL/Chapman also tried their hand before WWI (with a genuinely different frog design - pity the quality was so poor). Are they knock-offs, too?



Mr_P":2xiz7743 said:


> The original original blog post was Glen Drake complaining about his products being faked and as you point out not much to stop anyone. However his complaint was very justified since they also copied his name and packaging and EVERYONE agrees that this is wrong.


On that I think we'd pretty much all agree..

On the subject of American forums there are some where a policy of tolerating "bash the bloody Brits" is acceptible. Some of our colonial cousins really don't like us too much


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Cheshirechappie":1gpnzpny said:


> A brief update, folks.
> 
> The original offensive post on Sawmillcreek made by Derek Cohen has been edited to remove the offending line. A small step in the right direction, and one which I'm sure will be appreciated by all.
> 
> Unfortunately, the offending line still appears on page 2 of the thread, in a post made by another contributor quoting Derek, and I don't suppose Derek can do much about that.



I really wonder why you have been building up this thread along these lines, CC? Either you are misinterpreting what I write, or misreporting facts. Firstly, nothing has been removed from SMC. Secondly, let's go back to what I wrote originally ..

"I read recommendations for handtools on many forums, but is seems to me that the one ones more likely to suggest a knock off design are either the UK forums or forums that cater to beginner woodworkers. In both cases the interest lies in buying as cheaply as possible. The argument/justification is usually that the original tool is too expensive."

This reflects my observations. I am not "accusing" anyone here (to use your term in your opening post ("Derek Cohen accuses some in the UK in particular of encouraging this practice, or at the very least turning something of a blind eye"). 

Second observation is that few here (some have) actually asked the question, "Is he right?" That is what I expect from someone who is mature and self-responsible - to try and approach things with some objectivity. Instead there is a tirade of denials and justifications - the very point that influenced my comment on SMC. 

I was wrong to mention the UK forum on SMC. It was not meant with any maliciousness, just an observation that reflected identifying different views that I see as culturally based (read how differently the SMC members discussed this area). Still, I apologise for mentioning the UK forum. Hopefully some here will have gained from reflecting on the issue. Others here just enjoy a schoolyard gang up. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear

Job and Knock":2dc6vj8v said:


> On the subject of American forums there are some where a policy of tolerating "bash the bloody Brits" is acceptible. Some of our colonial cousins really don't like us too much



Yeah. Dâmn those Yankees.  

BugBear


----------



## Carl P

bugbear":2ltncbhw said:


> Job and Knock":2ltncbhw said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the subject of American forums there are some where a policy of tolerating "bash the bloody Brits" is acceptible. Some of our colonial cousins really don't like us too much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. Dâmn those Yankees.
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...



Even the screwdrivers are against us! Turnscrews, tournevis, Schraubendreher - Archimedes should sue!

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## Vann

bugbear":13thhb6z said:


> Yeah. Dâmn those Yankees.


Whats wrong with those damned Yankees...?











Yankees are really great tools (hammer) 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## ali27

Slightly off-topic, but can anybody explain to me how Qiansheng(not Quangsheng) planes are 
LN rip offs when the LN planes are like 99,9% stanley copies. 

Ali


----------



## Mr_P

ali27":33f83o1r said:


> Slightly off-topic, but can anybody explain to me how Qiansheng(not Quangsheng) planes are
> LN rip offs when the LN planes are like 99,9% stanley copies.
> 
> Ali




Once upon time LN picked up a Bedrock plane and thought how do I make this and how can I make it better ?

A few years later the Chinese firms thought, cool lets rip these off and in the early days that's exactly what they did. EXACT but cheaper and poorer copies of LN planes and in some cases you could see the LN wording in the castings.

No patents to worry about but most on here would agree it was pretty shoddy.


----------



## bugbear

Mr_P":uxq330kq said:


> A few years later the Chinese firms thought, cool lets rip these off and in the early days that's exactly what they did. EXACT but cheaper and poorer copies of LN planes and in some cases you could see the LN wording in the castings.



It would be interesting to see if the Chinese copies are between 1.05-2.1 % smaller  

http://www.calculatoredge.com/charts/mshrinka.htm

http://www.nonesuchtools.com/recast.html

BugBear


----------



## Vann

Looks like MrP has beaten me to it, but...


ali27":1j63ll2o said:


> Slightly off-topic, but can anybody explain to me how Qiansheng(not Quangsheng) planes are
> LN rip offs when the LN planes are like 99,9% stanley copies.


Yes...



Vann":1j63ll2o said:


> The Lie-Nielsen knockoffs of Bedrock planes are, without doubt, an improvement over the Stanley Bedrock (I'm amazed at what people pay for a battleworn Stanley Bedrock when they could buy two, three or four brand new L-N Bedrocks for the same money :roll: ). The Quangsheng/Wood River knockoffs were fairly obvious copies of the Lie-Nielsen, rather than the Stanley. And initially at least they weren't as good as the L-N they copied.


The Lie-Nielsens aren't exact copies of the Stanley Bedrocks (there are some improvements, including thicker irons). The Quangsheng/Qiansheng/Wood River Bedrocks are almost exact copies of the Lie-Nielsen. The Cliftons are not.

The only ones not showing any innovation are the Quangsheng/Wood River planes. Hence the accusation that they're knock-offs.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Sheffield Tony

I suppose there are a range of levels of copying, ranging from what might be put kindly as "drawing inspiration from" through to grinding off the manufacturer's marks, and using it directly as a pattern for casting. This has been done by some in the past, and can sometimes be recognised by the slightly undersized copies it produces. Sometimes the grinding off of the original manufacturer's name can even be discerned !

Editied to add - oops, must have failed to spot we had spilled over to page 8 - sorry to repeat what was said already.


----------



## Jacob

Mr_P":2oy4cxv6 said:


> ali27":2oy4cxv6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slightly off-topic, but can anybody explain to me how Qiansheng(not Quangsheng) planes are
> LN rip offs when the LN planes are like 99,9% stanley copies.
> 
> Ali
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once upon time LN picked up a Bedrock plane and thought how do I make this and how can I make it better ?
> 
> A few years later the Chinese firms thought, cool lets rip these off and in the early days that's exactly what they did. EXACT but cheaper and poorer copies of LN planes and in some cases you could see the LN wording in the castings.
> 
> No patents to worry about but most on here would agree it was pretty shoddy.
Click to expand...

Yebbut you have to start somewhere and the quality has shot up. Anyway it's about marketing not design innovation - thicker blades sell (to unsuspecting amateur woodworkers who know no better).

What will be interesting is when far eastern (or other) makers go the next step and start producing their own designs. Remember the first post-war Jap motorbikes imported?

I find the moralistic tone on this thread slightly comical. Copying is OK - in fact is common sense - everybody should start by copying. But "passing off" is fraudulent and ignoring patents and copyrights is illegal. Seems pretty clear cut to me.


----------



## CStanford

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Cheshirechappie":1msosepp said:
> 
> 
> 
> A brief update, folks.
> 
> The original offensive post on Sawmillcreek made by Derek Cohen has been edited to remove the offending line. A small step in the right direction, and one which I'm sure will be appreciated by all.
> 
> Unfortunately, the offending line still appears on page 2 of the thread, in a post made by another contributor quoting Derek, and I don't suppose Derek can do much about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really wonder why you have been building up this thread along these lines, CC? Either you are misinterpreting what I write, or misreporting facts. Firstly, nothing has been removed from SMC. Secondly, let's go back to what I wrote originally ..
> 
> "I read recommendations for handtools on many forums, but is seems to me that the one ones more likely to suggest a knock off design are either the UK forums or forums that cater to beginner woodworkers. In both cases the interest lies in buying as cheaply as possible. The argument/justification is usually that the original tool is too expensive."
> 
> This reflects my observations. I am not "accusing" anyone here (to use your term in your opening post ("Derek Cohen accuses some in the UK in particular of encouraging this practice, or at the very least turning something of a blind eye").
> 
> Second observation is that few here (some have) actually asked the question, "Is he right?" That is what I expect from someone who is mature and self-responsible - to try and approach things with some objectivity. Instead there is a tirade of denials and justifications - the very point that influenced my comment on SMC.
> 
> I was wrong to mention the UK forum on SMC. It was not meant with any maliciousness, just an observation that reflected identifying different views that I see as culturally based (read how differently the SMC members discussed this area). Still, I apologise for mentioning the UK forum. Hopefully some here will have gained from reflecting on the issue. Others here just enjoy a schoolyard gang up.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek
Click to expand...


Why apologize? Your feelings about Quangseng/Woodriver, etc. are well on-record at this point and of those who would own them. I actually seem to have a memory of you saying something very similar on the WoodCentral forum some time ago -- about the popularity of Quangsheng in Britain but in a disparaging tone. Nobody begrudges you your opinion. Stick to it if that's the way you feel, just be ready to accept the consequences. It's hard to unring a bell and sad watching somebody try.

I have even joked on this very forum about the "Quangshengification" of England (but on THIS forum, not elsewhere). Relax. It isn't that big a deal. It all comes down to what people can afford and buying best-quality within a budget. We all want to work wood. Why should we give a damn whose tools somebody uses to do it? 

This is a silly crusade you're on. I'd love to know who is making good tools in Australia and New Zealand and why we don't hear more about them FROM YOU.


----------



## iNewbie

Jacob":a22khcj1 said:


> Yebbut you have to start somewhere and the quality has shot up. Anyway it's about marketing not design innovation - thicker blades sell (to unsuspecting amateur woodworkers who know no better).



You must be forgetting LN was making Manganese Bronze bodies before Ductile Iron so a thicker blade was a small part of the equation... Maybe you mean Ron Hock. :ho2 





> I find the moralistic tone on this thread slightly comical. Copying is OK - in fact is common sense - everybody should start by copying. But "passing off" is fraudulent and ignoring patents and copyrights is illegal. Seems pretty clear cut to me.




Where everyone stands is entirely up to them - its their choice. Personally I find the whole woe-ful-rat/Quack-a-duck saga to be somewhat distasteful. Probably because one lone-guy worked his butt off putting his savings into his business where he improved on an out of patent design to have his *own* work allegedly, copied. 

I understand why most don't gives a toss, because its not their business or money. If the boot was on the other foot it'd be a different matter.


----------



## Jacob

Anybody remember the Velocette LE? Ahead of it's time (cheap, clean and reliable) so the Japs got there instead, a bit later.


----------



## Mr_P

> Yebbut you have to start somewhere



aaaggghh but if they had started with an old bedrock know one could have complained.

Round like a circle, like a wheel with in a wheel, never ending or beginning. This thread could go on for ever.

Copies of copies must be ok if the American sit coms are anything to go by.

Smart kid, naughty kid, much younger one.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Tom Begnal examined samples of Stanley, LN and WoodRiver and concluded that the WR was copied from the LN and not the Stanley ...

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

Charles, do not mistake my words as an apology for my opinion. That it is not. Do not twist words - you love to do that. It was an apology for airing it elsewhere. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford

So what? The QS is a copy of L-N which is a copy of Stanley. Why do you give a rat's patootie?

Many, many firms copied Stanley and every single one of them would tell you that they 'improved' the design. And they probably did, in some marginal way if in nothing more than an overall better execution of the exact, same design down to the threads. 

It means... nothing. It has nothing to do with... anything. Whatsoever. It informs no issue of any import. None of the firms that copied Stanley went out of business because they copied Stanley, nor did Stanley go out of business because these firms copied their products.

What, exactly, do you think the problem is?


----------



## bugbear

CStanford":1rp423vp said:


> So what? The QS is a copy of L-N which is a copy of Stanley. Why do you give a rat's patootie?
> 
> Many, many firms copied Stanley and every single one of them would tell you that they 'improved' the design. And they probably did, in some marginal way if in nothing more than an overall better execution of the exact, same design down to the threads.
> 
> It means... nothing. It has nothing to do with... anything. Whatsoever. It informs no issue of any import. None of the firms that copied Stanley went out of business because they copied Stanley, nor did Stanley go out of business because these firms copied their products.
> 
> What, exactly, do you think the problem is?



Well, like they say elsewhere:

_*if I have to explain you wouldn't understand*_

BugBear


----------



## Job and Knock

Jacob":xxitcw54 said:


> Anybody remember the Velocette LE? Ahead of it's time (cheap, clean and reliable) so the Japs got there instead, a bit later.


Yep. Kept yer legs warm in winter, too! Don't think there was ever a Japanese equivalent at the time - or for many years after the demise of the hall Green wizards


----------



## MIGNAL

But there are enough differences between the Quangsheng and the LN for it not to be a counterfeit. The weight, the length, the handle thickness, the Steel frog and lever cap. So the body is thicker and the blade too. Big sh*t, so is the Clifton. . . and the modern Stanley for that matter!! 
It's obvious that LN copied Stanley.
What's the problem?


----------



## iNewbie

The Clifton problem is its not Green, now... :mrgreen: (hammer)


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

MIGNAL":3m191iux said:


> But there are enough differences between the Quangsheng and the LN for it not to be a counterfeit. The weight, the length, the handle thickness, the Steel frog and lever cap. So the body is thicker and the blade too. Big sh*t, so is the Clifton. . . and the modern Stanley for that matter!!
> It's obvious that LN copied Stanley.
> What's the problem?



Thanks for clearing that up. 

The fact that the LN and the WR (series #1) were different from the Stanley but similar to each other in so many ways had many of us fooled ... :lol: 

Actually, the LN and WR frog and the lever cap were seen to be similar ...

_'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.

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.

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

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## MIGNAL

Big deal. So the Woodriver is a little closer to the LN than the LN is to the Stanley. Each is a 'copy'. 
At what point does it become OK to copy? What exactly are these parameters?

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTo ... Gauge.html

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTo ... Cheap.html


----------



## Jacob

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> ............
> 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.
> 
> Also, when it comes to the frogs, the one on the Wood River is closer to the Lie-Nielsen version than to the Bedrock.'[/i]
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek


Makes sense - if you are going to copy an old design you might as well incorporate any improvements that others have made in the meantime - it'd be crazy not to.
Nice to know that the Chinese are working away so diligently to make us ever better and cheaper tools. Keep it up lads, I might even buy one if the price is low enough!


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

MIGNAL":2ine4wxf said:


> Big deal. So the Woodriver is a little closer to the LN than the LN is to the Stanley. Each is a 'copy'.
> At what point does it become OK to copy? What exactly are these parameters?
> 
> http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTo ... Gauge.html
> 
> http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTo ... Cheap.html



Ahh .. those are not for sale. They are also not copies. I simply stated where my inspiration came from - I always make a point of stating sources and crediting others with the part they play in anything I build. 

There is a message on my website that offers all my designs freely to anyone who wishes to built one for their own use. I do not permit anyone to manufacture them for sale.

Mignal, what is your problem? You are trying so hard ...

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Cheshirechappie":2pbmw0v3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A brief update, folks.
> 
> The original offensive post on Sawmillcreek made by Derek Cohen has been edited to remove the offending line. A small step in the right direction, and one which I'm sure will be appreciated by all.
> 
> Unfortunately, the offending line still appears on page 2 of the thread, in a post made by another contributor quoting Derek, and I don't suppose Derek can do much about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really wonder why you have been building up this thread along these lines, CC? Either you are misinterpreting what I write, or misreporting facts. Firstly, nothing has been removed from SMC. Secondly, let's go back to what I wrote originally ..
> 
> "I read recommendations for handtools on many forums, but is seems to me that the one ones more likely to suggest a knock off design are either the UK forums or forums that cater to beginner woodworkers. In both cases the interest lies in buying as cheaply as possible. The argument/justification is usually that the original tool is too expensive."
> 
> This reflects my observations. I am not "accusing" anyone here (to use your term in your opening post ("Derek Cohen accuses some in the UK in particular of encouraging this practice, or at the very least turning something of a blind eye").
> 
> Second observation is that few here (some have) actually asked the question, "Is he right?" That is what I expect from someone who is mature and self-responsible - to try and approach things with some objectivity. Instead there is a tirade of denials and justifications - the very point that influenced my comment on SMC.
> 
> I was wrong to mention the UK forum on SMC. It was not meant with any maliciousness, just an observation that reflected identifying different views that I see as culturally based (read how differently the SMC members discussed this area). Still, I apologise for mentioning the UK forum. Hopefully some here will have gained from reflecting on the issue. Others here just enjoy a schoolyard gang up.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek
Click to expand...


Hmm. Interesting. When I checked last night, the original post on SMC had been altered. I checked twice to be sure, and wouldn't have made the post Derek quoted unless that were the case. It's now reverted to it's original wording. Is something going on in the background?

Anyway - whatever.

The original blog post that gave rise to the discussion was by Kevin Glen-Drake noting the conterfeiting of his hammer, or at any rate the misuse of a photograph of his hammer. The matter was raised by a thread on SMC, to which Derek posted a comment in which he suggested that the UK woodworking forums were the most likely to recommend the purchase of knock-off tools. It wasn't clear in my mind whether Derek meant legitimate copies or counterfeits, so I posted a comment here inviting him to clarify his position, as the implication was that UK woodworkers condoned couterfeiting or passing off (subsequent comments in this thread make it very clear that UK woodworkers do not condone counterfeiting or passing off). After some polite cajoling and discussion, it seems clear that Derek did not mean that he thinks UK woodworkers condone counterfeiting or passing off, did not mean his comment in any way maliciously, or aim it at any individuals. Derek has posted a public apology for mentioning the UK forums. Fair enough. 

That, as far as I am concerned, should be that.

One good thing to come out of the matter is the discussion about copying, counterfeiting, passing off, abuse of trademarks and so on. I suspect we're all a bit wiser on the ins and outs of these matters, and on what's legal and what's not, and that's one of the things forums are for. There has also been discussion about what people regard as 'right' or 'morally acceptable' or not, and here there is some divergence of opinion. That's a perfectly legitimate subject for discussion, I think. Derek has his opinion on what he regards as 'right', some broadly agree with him, and some have other opinions. Some feel it's easy to have rigid opinions if you can afford them, and some feel it's less clear-cut if that makes decent tools unaffordable for many.


----------



## MIGNAL

Derek. I noticed that you haven't even tried to answer my questions.
Must try harder Derek.

'This design is taken from a Woodjoy Tools gauge I have admired. I guess imitation is a sincere form of flattery.'
Derek Cohen.

You offer your designs 'free' to anyone who wishes to use them. . . but they aren't your designs are they Derek. You've taken someone else's idea and altered them (often in a very small way). You even admit it. The originals are commercial designs. 

In the musical instrument making world there is a long tradition of copying/sharing designs. Hardly anyone gets upset about it. We take instruments and copy them directly, some to the point that the copies are so good that you would have to be a considerable expert to tell the difference. Even then those experts have been fooled. Providing they aren't sold as the originals everything is fair game. Virtually everyone shares designs/knowledge quite freely, even when that design is fresh off the press.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Just a thought about Stanley/Lie-Nielsen/Qiansheng/Woodriver (early ones).

At the time Thomas Lie-Nielsen started making Stanley copies, the originals had been out of production for some years, and Stanley showed no signs of re-introducing them. The originals were in some demand on the secondhand market, and commanded quite high prices. Stanley probably thought that the investment in a production line to make a couple of thousand or so units a year wouldn't generate a worthwhile return, but by using less capital-intensive methods, T L-N was able to fill the demand and make a living supplying something others didn't want to. He pinched business from nobody, but to cover his costs and make a return, had to pitch the price quite high.

That left a market niche for anybody able to supply similar goods at a lower price. Qiangsheng tried by directly copying L-N planes, and probably ended up losing money on the venture because nobody (well, very few) would buy poorer quality rip-offs once they knew that was what they were. Woodriver used the same design, but their own trade-mark, and built some market share. Since then, they've developed their planes a bit to be slightly different, and still sell under their own trade-mark. That's legally legitimate, and the savvy purchaser can make their own decision whether to buy LN or Woodriver depending on their point of view as to whether Woodriver's approach is 'right' or not.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Mignal, Blind Freddy can see that you are trying so hard to discredit me. Why? 

In answer to your point, there are a great number of tools I have design and built on my website. The closest that you will find to a copy is the Woodjoy homage. But mine quite different from the Woodjoy ... it is only inspired by the Woodjoy ...

Here is mine ....







.. and here is the Woodjoy ...






And the "Kinshiro on the Cheap" is about modifying a cheap Japanese gauge into a descent user. It is not about copying a Kinshiro, which are no longer made. I have a real Kinshiro, and they the Holtey of cutting gauges.

I took this cheap gauge (which has decent "bones" but is otherwise not a nice user) ..






... and modified it until it looked like this (improved ergonomics and features), with my own design ...






Here it is with a real Kinshiro ...






So, what is _your_ problem?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":1oqj5vdl said:


> Makes sense - if you are going to copy an old design you might as well incorporate any improvements that others have made in the meantime - it'd be crazy not to.
> Nice to know that the Chinese are working away so diligently to make us ever better and cheaper tools. Keep it up lads, I might even buy one if the price is low enough!



It's almost as if you're being deliberately provocative...

BugBear


----------



## Jacob

As if!


----------



## CStanford

Perhaps lost in all of this is Chris Tribe's statement that he PREFERS his Quangsheng over its L-N counterpart.

"I recently bought the quang sheng knock off of the LN knock off of the Stanley low angle block plane for my student tool kits. I find it is a superior plane to the LN and use it in preference to my own LN."

If a copy is better is it no longer a copy? Derek seems to think this applies to L-N, that it is such a better copy that it's no longer really a copy. 

Have Quangsheng upped their game to a point where the same could be said? I bet Millers Falls thought so back in the day ("Buck Rogers" plane, anyone?) Record, too? Keen Kutter? Winchester? The list of course is a long one.

Something must account for the difference in performance in Chris Tribe's hands.


----------



## MIGNAL

Derek. That gauge looks like a copy with some small modifications!
You still haven't answered my questions. At what point does it become OK to 'copy' a design? How much does one need to change?


----------



## t8hants

Non of this would have happened if Nixon had not gone to China!!


----------



## MIGNAL

Yes it would. The Europeans have been nicking design for centuries, the Americans as well.


----------



## Scouse

MIGNAL":167zxw2h said:


> In the musical instrument making world there is a long tradition of copying/sharing designs. Hardly anyone gets upset about it...



Really? 

Are you sure?

I seem to remember Gibson feeling somewhat aggrieved at Paul Reed Smith a year or two ago, prior to that Ibanez had some legal difficulties with Gibson and Fender I think, as did Tokai among others. Takamine and Martin?

They weren't sold as originals, and certainly were not fair game. 

I'm not sure what rosy-tinted instrument making world you live in...


----------



## Jacob

Stradivarius, Guarneri, Amati et al have been copied minutely in every detail by most makers, for 400 years


----------



## CStanford

Jacob":3k7bnevl said:


> Stradivarius, Guarneri, Amati et al have been copied minutely in every detail by most makers, for 400 years



True. In the minutest of detail. Breathtakingly minute.


----------



## iNewbie

MIGNAL":1mrrggm9 said:


> In the musical instrument making world there is a long tradition of copying/sharing designs. Hardly anyone gets upset about it. We take instruments and copy them directly, some to the point that the copies are so good that you would have to be a considerable expert to tell the difference. Even then those experts have been fooled. Providing they aren't sold as the originals everything is fair game. Virtually everyone shares designs/knowledge quite freely, even when that design is fresh off the press.



What part of the world is that, Mignal. Gibson love sending out Cease & Desists to copiers. 

Fenders court case against a bunch of cloners: Here Then there was Gibson against PRS for the Single-Cut Design.

Dimarzio Pick-ups have the rights on the color cream for Plastic Bobbins fcs. 

Here's DW Drums Patents & Trademarks

You must be talking about the violin & Recorder world.


----------



## MIGNAL

Martin copied Stauffer. Everyone copied Martin. X brace wasn't Martins design (everyone seems to think it was), there was prior 'art'. Same with Torres fan bracing, it predated Torres by around 80 years.
Let's move on to the modern world: Smallman does absolutely nothing to defend his carbon fibre lattice bracing, Wagner/Dammann openly let everyone 'copy' their Nomex double tops. I don't think they are the slightest bit interested in patents or anything else like that. In the instrument making world it tends to be the individuals who do the real research and the innovative designs. That's why double tops and lattice (throw in falcate bracing), sound ports (a very old design) are the stuff that's being copied. 
I could go on. It's a very long tradition.


----------



## bugbear

CStanford":7sib2ytw said:


> Jacob":7sib2ytw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stradivarius, Guarneri, Amati et al have been copied minutely in every detail by most makers, for 400 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. In the minutest of detail. Breathtakingly minute.
Click to expand...


They should sue.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford

Like hand planes, there are more than a few companies making essentially the same instrument(s).

If all the instrument makers are actively in litigation with each other at any given point in time then maybe L-N needs to take a page out of their book. L-N don't need to sue a Chinese company. They could sue Woodcraft, a U.S. corporation that markets the tools under their own badge and currently have the product manufactured on their behalf in China (could be Bangladesh next year, who knows, wherever you get the best deal right?). Yet, they haven't. Maybe they're counting on Derek's crusade.


----------



## iNewbie

MIGNAL":1b9sq4gd said:


> Martin copied Stauffer. Everyone copied Martin. X brace wasn't Martins design (everyone seems to think it was), there was prior 'art'. Same with Torres fan bracing, it predated Torres by around 80 years.
> Let's move on to the modern world: Smallman does absolutely nothing to defend his carbon fibre lattice bracing, Wagner/Dammann openly let everyone 'copy' their Nomex double tops. I don't think they are the slightest bit interested in patents or anything else like that. In the instrument making world it tends to be the individuals who do the real research and the innovative designs. That's why double tops and lattice (throw in falcate bracing), sound ports (a very old design) are the stuff that's being copied.
> I could go on. It's a very long tradition.



I think there are companies who steal (or borrow from non patented goods) others work and companies who license their goods. To suggest theres a long tradition of sharing in the MI industry isn't quite accurate across the board imho.


----------



## MIGNAL

Well OK, not across the entire musical instrument world but certainly across acoustic Guitars and Violins. Of course there are going to be exceptions but the general feature is that of 'passing on' design, ideas and experimental results.
It's more to do with individual/small workshops rather than large companies like Gibson. Large companies are always going to try and maximise their profits. Doesn't stop them 'stealing' or using the designs of others.


----------



## iNewbie

I think thats the sad thing. The good small guys are at the larger companies mercy - thats why I have some sympathy for Lie Neilsen when his altered work (even from goods out of patent) is mutilated by a larger company.


----------



## CStanford

iNewbie":12blwxtk said:


> I think thats the sad thing. The good small guys are at the larger companies mercy - thats why I have some sympathy for Lie Neilsen when his altered work (even from goods out of patent) is mutilated by a larger company.



Goodness, you guys must think Woodcraft is General Electric and ExxonMobil combined. Remember, over here the plaintiff-loser does not have to pay the other side's legal expenses. Mr. L-N ought to sue if he feels he has been wronged. Derek could start a fund to cover legal expenses, if TLN is a little short at the moment.

Mr. L-N's beef, if he actually has one, is not with China. It is with Woodcraft. China is merely the place where they have currently placed production. That can change, as it is Woodcraft's prerogative to do so. This has never been about suing a Chinese company through the Chinese legal system or attempting to sue a Chinese corporation in a U.S. court.


----------



## iNewbie

CStanford":2ytox1u0 said:


> iNewbie":2ytox1u0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think thats the sad thing. The good small guys are at the larger companies mercy - thats why I have some sympathy for Lie Neilsen when his altered work (even from goods out of patent) is mutilated by a larger company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Goodness, you guys must think Woodcraft is General Electric and ExxonMobil combined. Remember, over here the plaintiff-loser does not have to pay the other side's legal expenses. Mr. L-N ought to sue if he feels he has been wronged. Derek could start a fund to cover legal expenses, if TLN is a little short at the moment.
> 
> Mr. L-N's beef, if he actually has one, is not with China. It is with Woodcraft. China is merely the place where they have currently placed production. That can change, as it is Woodcraft's prerogative to do so. This has never been about suing a Chinese company through the Chinese legal system or attempting to sue a Chinese corporation in a U.S. court.
Click to expand...


Please point out where I said LN's beef is with China?

Goodness you must think some of can't think. Maybe its a 'merikan thing...


----------



## CStanford

It isn't a David vs. Goliath thing or anything close is the point I'm making. Certainly not a situation that has anything to do with accessing the Chinese legal system - though you're right you said nothing directly about that.


----------



## Mr_P

Vann you said,



> The Lie-Nielsen knockoffs of Bedrock planes are, without doubt, an improvement over the Stanley Bedrock (I'm amazed at what people pay for a battleworn Stanley Bedrock when they could buy two, three or four brand new L-N Bedrocks for the same money :roll: ).



Just had a look at past prices in the UK only and amazed at the low prices Bedrocks have been fetching. Think if I wasn't in a rush I could get myself 3 or 4 for the price of one LN. OK the LN's are better and won't need fettling or 
new handles etc.. but def not worth 10 times the price I paid for my most expensive no.4 

http://www.axminster.co.uk/lie-nielsen- ... hing-plane

Why is the 4 1/2 £22 cheaper ?

Never tried a Bedrock old, new or Chinese is the difference that noticeable ?


----------



## CStanford

iNewbie":35e5ayvt said:


> MIGNAL":35e5ayvt said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the musical instrument making world there is a long tradition of copying/sharing designs. Hardly anyone gets upset about it. We take instruments and copy them directly, some to the point that the copies are so good that you would have to be a considerable expert to tell the difference. Even then those experts have been fooled. Providing they aren't sold as the originals everything is fair game. Virtually everyone shares designs/knowledge quite freely, even when that design is fresh off the press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the world is that, Mignal. Gibson love sending out Cease & Desists to copiers.
> 
> Fenders court case against a bunch of cloners: Here Then there was Gibson against PRS for the Single-Cut Design.
> 
> Dimarzio Pick-ups have the rights on the color cream for Plastic Bobbins fcs.
> 
> Here's DW Drums Patents & Trademarks
> 
> You must be talking about the violin & Recorder world.
Click to expand...


Fender lost the case (in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board) you linked to. The Supreme Court refused to hear Gibson's appeal.

Here's an interesting quote from the decision on the Fender case:

In a 75-page precedent-setting decision, the Board ruled that the body shapes were generic and that consumers do not solely associate these shapes with FMIC. All three applications were denied.

Gibson's case:

On June 5, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Gibson Guitar’s petition for certiorari in the case Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP, 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. ___ (2006). The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari leaves undisturbed the Sixth Circuit’s dismissal of Gibson’s suit, which reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Gibson and entry of injunction against Paul Reed Smith (PRS), as reported in the INTA Bulletin Vol. 61 No. 1, January 1, 2006.

And DW drums have patented their products but that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot until tested at trial. It's better than nothing, though.

The makers do get upset, but they don't tend to get anywhere with it.

Courts and regulatory agencies have apparently not agreed with your characterization "copiers and cloners."

Gibson was in a bit of hot water itself (a criminal indictment) over the sources of the wood it uses in its guitars:

http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/08/gib ... lacey-act/

It cost them $300K in cash and the forfeiture of about $260K in exotic wood.


----------



## Jacob

Mr_P":1vd4u44z said:


> ....
> Never tried a Bedrock old, new or Chinese is the difference that noticeable ?


Bedrock is basically not a good design. You have to adjust 3 screws and reset the plane blade. That hasn't stopped it being a popular retro style - it's all about fashion.
Much better design is the adjustable mouth found on various brands. LV probably best, with the little stop screw.


----------



## iNewbie

CStanford":3rx7qaad said:


> iNewbie":3rx7qaad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MIGNAL":3rx7qaad said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the musical instrument making world there is a long tradition of copying/sharing designs. Hardly anyone gets upset about it. We take instruments and copy them directly, some to the point that the copies are so good that you would have to be a considerable expert to tell the difference. Even then those experts have been fooled. Providing they aren't sold as the originals everything is fair game. Virtually everyone shares designs/knowledge quite freely, even when that design is fresh off the press.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of the world is that, Mignal. Gibson love sending out Cease & Desists to copiers.
> 
> Fenders court case against a bunch of cloners: Here Then there was Gibson against PRS for the Single-Cut Design.
> 
> Dimarzio Pick-ups have the rights on the color cream for Plastic Bobbins fcs.
> 
> Here's DW Drums Patents & Trademarks
> 
> You must be talking about the violin & Recorder world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fender lost the case (in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board) you linked to. The Supreme Court refused to hear Gibson's appeal.
> 
> Here's an interesting quote from the decision on the Fender case:
> 
> In a 75-page precedent-setting decision, the Board ruled that the body shapes were generic and that consumers do not solely associate these shapes with FMIC. All three applications were denied.
> 
> Gibson's case:
> 
> On June 5, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Gibson Guitar’s petition for certiorari in the case Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP, 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. ___ (2006). The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari leaves undisturbed the Sixth Circuit’s dismissal of Gibson’s suit, which reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Gibson and entry of injunction against Paul Reed Smith (PRS), as reported in the INTA Bulletin Vol. 61 No. 1, January 1, 2006.
> 
> And DW drums have patented their products but that doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot until tested at trial. It's better than nothing, though.
> 
> The makers do get upset, but they don't tend to get anywhere with it.
> 
> Courts and regulatory agencies have apparently not agreed with your characterization "copiers and cloners."
> 
> Gibson was in a bit of hot water itself over the sources of the wood it uses in its guitars:
> 
> http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/08/gib ... lacey-act/
> 
> It cost them $300K in cash and the forfeiture of about $260K in exotic wood.
Click to expand...


I know who won and lost what. Fender lost the body shape, not the headstock shape(s). Fender got somewhere though you see it as a loss. Name companies previously using that HS quit using it. 

Gibson wanted to stop PRS from making a Single-cut body shape and the headstock of a guitar is an identifiable thing. Gibson own that Open Book shape. They're still sending cease and decist letters to small builders who know Gibson's lawyers will drain 'em dry. Do't tell me they don't get anywhere. Both these high-profile cases got this **** sorted out. 

This guy was making a small LP model and had his back-side slapped. Here So they DO get somewhere. He's one of many told to NOT copy - and his are miniature!

My point was they DO care. The court cases prove they care. 

The wood is nothing to do with this. And there was two cases...


----------



## CStanford

And your point(s) are reasonably well taken, though nobody has apparently gone out of business or is even close to doing so -- certainly not Gibson and Fender. You referred to small makers: one would hope custom makers wouldn't need to copy current model mass-produced guitars or even key features. What's the point in being a custom maker and doing that? The logic of this eludes me a bit I must say, though we have an example of it in woodworking with Mr. Lie-Nielsen who set up shop essentially making copies, though he had the decency to choose a design that nobody produced any longer.


----------



## iNewbie

You want irony. 

Having sold Fender, Leo Fender later licensed his own body design for the G&L Legacy model! Fender later losing the body shape case! LOL!

Ask Tom, Charles. 

I'll say this - and importantly for Derek in this going no-where argument: If Tom doesn't care - and he doesn't by his silence, why should you. Because thats the bottom-line. Ker-ching!


----------



## CStanford

iNewbie":1igb1jn9 said:


> You want irony.
> 
> Having sold Fender, Leo Fender later licensed his own body design for the G&L Legacy model! Fender later losing the body shape case! LOL!
> 
> Ask Tom, Charles.
> 
> I'll say this - and importantly for Derek in this going no-where argument: If Tom doesn't care - and he doesn't by his silence, why should you. Because thats the bottom-line. Ker-ching!



That is indeed the bottom line.

Wouldn't it have been hilarious if L-N set up shop making copies of the ECE Primus range? Why not? They're pretty good planes. I'm sure there must be a tweak or two somebody could make that would make them better. I'd better get on the phone to Woodcraft. Maybe the adjustable mouth could be made of manganese-bronze.

Come to think of it, ECE look a lot like Ulmia and vice-versa. Is there some sort of common ownership of these companies? Wonder if Derek could put on the scent?


----------



## Cheshirechappie

I'm a tad surprised nobody's mentioned the Stanley Sweetheart planes yet. After all, the Stanley 62 low-angle jack is a knock-off of the Lie-Nielsen low-angle jack, which is a knock-off of the .... oh, hang on...

Joking aside, I wonder what the sales figures are like for the Sweetheart range? Must be reasonable, since Stanley haven't dropped the line. The few reviews I've seen of them are quite positive. They may well be doing more damage to the LN/LV/Clifton premium market than the Far East copies.


----------



## G S Haydon

I had to rewind a bit and find the original point of this. That's not a bad thing, interesting thoughts etc so far.

I'm not sure we even all agree on what a "knock off" is. I see a "knock off" as something of inherently poor quality, perhaps including theft of trademark, passed off as something appearing to look like a better quality original, used for showing off, vanity or the like. 

Derek, perhaps, uses the term "knock off" to cover very "similar to another" but without patent or trademark theft. So perhaps by those terms we do on UKWS promote "knock offs" in Derek's mind?

The law seems very clear on this. Original ideas need to be protected for a period of time to allow the original maker time to profit from their creation. The branding and trademarks are unique and take time to build and should never be used by others unless there is an agreed sale of a trademark to another business.

If this was not the agreement progression of ideas would just not happen. The world would be a monopoly. This is a tough place to be if like tool makers you operate in a world where your contribution can not be protected as it offers nothing truly unique. I think beyond all this the biggest contribution people like Mr L-N have made is raising the bar for quality that being honest had slid so far as to make some tools fit for only basic DIY. 

Personally I don't see any tools from a design and function perspective that are a revolution. At best an evolution and even then sometimes a sideways step and sometimes a step back.

What I would not be surprised about is seeing new offerings from QS > WR that are not currently made by others. The basic templates are out there, plough, rebate, honing guide spring to mind that need a tweak to make them even better. Sound familiar? Perhaps this has already happened with the shoulder planes? 

From the perspective of "fettling" QS > WR products, I found the QS #4 I had to be excellent and the WR 5 1/2 I tried to be equally good. When I have personally said they are well worth considering it's because I know they are well made and don't need fettling. I feel to say they do, in my experience at least is simply not fair and misleading to any one considering them. In addition I personally dislike A2 and think the T10 in QS WR is better suited to me. That is a huge factor when I weigh up what's right for me. If QS could, as I mentioned, offer a couple of things that know one else has gotten around to yet, be the first to reintroduce something with a tweak, then hopefully we might review their contribution.

Then the choice is not about quality, how it works, or how the maker has contributed to the wider narrative? I can totally understand why people would choose to support LV & LN. It's just a shame that if you think QS WR are good you are labeled as someone who recommends "knock off" goods (in the way I view the term "knock off").

CC, on the SW's, if they have got their QC right they could be an option. The chisels are very nice. I have grown so unfond on A2 plane irons that alone would prevent me from going there as a long term user.


----------



## CStanford

I think it was your thoughtful review of these tools that made a lot of people stand up and take notice. That's a good thing. I suspect others would not agree.

Carry on!

Ditto on the A2... don't see the appeal at all.


----------



## CStanford

Cheshirechappie":hu3wixuy said:


> I'm a tad surprised nobody's mentioned the Stanley Sweetheart planes yet. After all, the Stanley 62 low-angle jack is a knock-off of the Lie-Nielsen low-angle jack, which is a knock-off of the .... oh, hang on...
> 
> Joking aside, I wonder what the sales figures are like for the Sweetheart range? Must be reasonable, since Stanley haven't dropped the line. The few reviews I've seen of them are quite positive. They may well be doing more damage to the LN/LV/Clifton premium market than the Far East copies.



I wish they had committed to bringing back the classic designs with some slight updating, starting with the entire bench plane line from No. 3 through 8. Wouldn't have been practical I suppose.


----------



## G S Haydon

I agree on the Stanley approach. Stanley's range would of been perfect with decent Bailey planes, 5001 chisels, plough plane etc and would of suited the perception of what Stanley meant. Make great tools available to a wide audience.

Had a quick look to see what else QS have done, bought back a preston style side rebate plane http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html, preston style shoulder planes http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html. , good quality plane irons http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Irons.html and avoided the trend of A2, revised the Y lever design to a "dog bone" style http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html and "Every Quangsheng plane we sell is warranted against material and manufacturing defects for the rest of the customer's life". Not bad for a very new company, learning the ropes of western style tool making.


----------



## Jacob

It's a pity Stanley didn't do a bit more copying with their new SW planes. The quality is really good but they should have lifted some design details from LV et al particularly re the adjustment


----------



## CStanford

G S Haydon":2yyn5ojp said:


> I agree on the Stanley approach. Stanley's range would of been perfect with decent Bailey planes, 5001 chisels, plough plane etc and would of suited the perception of what Stanley meant. Make great tools available to a wide audience.
> 
> Had a quick look to see what else QS have done, bought back a preston style side rebate plane http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html, preston style shoulder planes http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html. , good quality plane irons http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Irons.html and avoided the trend of A2, revised the Y lever design to a "dog bone" style http://www.workshopheaven.com/tools/Qua ... Plane.html and "Every Quangsheng plane we sell is warranted against material and manufacturing defects for the rest of the customer's life". Not bad for a very new company, learning the ropes of western style tool making.



The WSH link to the No. 4 ---- wow, that's a beautifully executed plane at a stupendously affordable price point. Very, very crisp execution.

The photography is better on the WSH site than at Woodcraft.


----------



## Terry - Somerset

There seem to be a number of different issues which are confused within the thread above. Here is my attempt to add some clarity:

*Money*

Except for those blessed with deep pockets through hard work or good fortune, money (or lack of it) is an issue. High quality tools manufactured in the UK, Germany, US etc are expensive if only because labour rates are several times that of China - although the difference is narrowing. Shipping costs (Shanghai - Felixstowe) for a 40 ft container are less than £1 per cu ft!. To criticise those who need/prefer to save money rather than contribute towards top end UK/European manufacturers is not reasonable, any more than being critical of Ikea customers for undermining traditional woodcraft. 

*Morality*

Misuse of a trademark or deliberately misleading buyers into believing they are buying a particular brand is clearly unacceptable. Copying designs that are out of patent is not illegal and evidences only the strategy of the manufacturer - probably seeking to win market share through minimising costs and maximising sales volumes. Manufacturing lookalikes may suggest a lack of innovative and design capability, but the key issue is the extent to which cost efficiencies compromise quality and function. Historically many now developed countries first copied or licensed, and now innovate. The Japanese car industry owes much of its success to the Austin A40!

*Quality*

Copies of proven designs can be poorly executed but again this is not always the case. Even as an fairly inexperienced hobbyist I realise that poor quality tools, whatever the price, are not worth buying. A real benefit to people like me would be an objective comparison of lower spec common lookalikes (bandsaw, lathe, thicknesser etc) to understand whether differences are more than skin deep and extend further than a different paint job and badge. 

*Branding*

For some branding is an important consideration. For woodworking tools this is no different to other items - cars, watches, suits, trainers, deodorant etc. People chose brands because of perceptions (status, quality, ego, fulfilment etc) and promise (not always fulfilled). Brands are generally more expensive than lookalikes and occupy a premium market segment which needs to be maintained through service, spares back-up, promotion and can make innovation affordable. This does not make brand an irrational choice, but neither is it wholly rational where alternatives of equal quality and function may be much cheaper.


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":249brs7a said:


> It's a pity Stanley didn't do a bit more copying with their new SW planes. The quality is really good but they should have lifted some design details from LV et al particularly re the adjustment




It's almost as if you're being deliberately provocative...

NB Again.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob

bugbear":37q10ctf said:


> Jacob":37q10ctf said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pity Stanley didn't do a bit more copying with their new SW planes. The quality is really good but they should have lifted some design details from LV et al particularly re the adjustment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's almost as if you're being deliberately provocative...
> 
> NB Again.
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...

Not really. I meant it. Stanley made a low price but good quality tool and copied some of the (dubious) fashions (thick irons, heavy construction etc) but slipped up with the adjustment; a version of Norris, which works but is clumsy. Sensibly they avoided the clumsy "bedrock" design and had adjustable mouth instead. Clifton should drop it too.
LN and LV adjustment; also clumsy except where they have stuck to the Bailey pattern, paradoxically. You actually need a little plane adjusting hammer!

PS the trap of the Norris adjuster is that it _looks_ good, is cheaper to make (simpler design) but in fact it doesn't work nearly so well as the Stanley/Bailey. But unfortunately it's all about fashion and appearance is first. Pity that Stanley got caught out with the new SW planes - following fashions is for losers!


----------



## ali27

I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to have any knowledge expertise about this matter. The LN and QS plane things just doesn't make sense to me.

LN copies the Bedrock design, which is no problem. The argument is that at that moment Stanley wasn't making any bedrock planes and woodworkers needed good quality planes. The LN bench planes are still a complete copy of the bedrock plane no matter what the reason was.

Then QS copies the Bedrock design and some people start to complain. QS is copying LN is what is put forward. No, it's not! It's a copy of the original Bedrock plane. A thicker blade does not mean anything. Clifton is also making bedrock planes with thicker blades. So is Clifton copying LN?

''The QS plane looks more like a LN plane that it looks like a Stanley Bedrock plane'' is a weird argument. The LN looks like 99% like a bedrock plane with some minor improvements. Even if a QS plane looks somewhat the same as a LN plane, it's still 99% a bedrock plane. 

Here is what I found another site:



> He compared the planes on several points, including physical measurements, blade, chipbreaker, amongst others. Here is one example ...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Tom concluded that the similarities between the LN and Wood River were notable, so much so that it was much more likely that the Wood River eminated from the LN than the Stanley.
> 
> 
> LN isn't jumping up and down and making a scene in the forums, or the courts, because he doesn't need too. He isn't sending out his legal dogs because he doesn't need too. Why fight a legal battle to try and prove he has been wronged when you can get your loyal customers to boycott suppliers and shame buyers instead.



Can you believe that last sentence! ''Shame buyers instead''. WOW.

So it's no problem when LN copies the Bedrock design, but when QS copies the same thing with an improvements/modificiation that LN has made, it becomes a problem. Please somebody explain to me why LN can xerox the Bedrock plane, but QS cannot. I guess it's ok for some people to copy, but not for others.

When I look at a LN plane, I see a LN plane, when I look at a QS plane I see a QS plane. 

Ali


----------



## CStanford

Repugnant. "Shame buyers." That's as stupid a thing as I have read in a long time. I suspect that's Derek's own hyperbole but I'll happily impute it to Mr. Lie-Nielsen. Maybe he'll send his "legal dogs" to silence Derek since he certainly is doing him no favors at this point. Quite the contrary.

It takes a train-load of chutzpah to believe that stuff like this would have actual influence.


----------



## Jacob

:lol: :lol: 

What about shaming sellers into reducing their prices? I've found them pretty thick skinned on the whole.


----------



## t8hants

I can't really afford LS or QS planes new so dabble in the 2nd hand market, with an illogical preference for Record. Guess I'm attempting to put both companies out of business by insisting on buying dodgy Stanley knockoffs instead of consigning them to the scrap bin.

P.S anyone got a handle/tote for a Record 4 1/2 spare?

G


----------



## iNewbie

ali27":33whsctb said:


> I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to have any knowledge expertise about this matter. The LN and QS plane things just doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> LN copies the Bedrock design, which is no problem. The argument is that at that moment Stanley wasn't making any bedrock planes and woodworkers needed good quality planes. The LN bench planes are still a complete copy of the bedrock plane no matter what the reason was.
> 
> Then QS copies the Bedrock design and some people start to complain. QS is copying LN is what is put forward. No, it's not! It's a copy of the original Bedrock plane. A thicker blade does not mean anything. Clifton is also making bedrock planes with thicker blades. So is Clifton copying LN?
> 
> ''The QS plane looks more like a LN plane that it looks like a Stanley Bedrock plane'' is a weird argument. The LN looks like 99% like a bedrock plane with some minor improvements. Even if a QS plane looks somewhat the same as a LN plane, it's still 99% a bedrock plane.
> 
> 
> So it's no problem when LN copies the Bedrock design, but when QS copies the same thing with an improvements/modificiation that LN has made, it becomes a problem. Please somebody explain to me why LN can xerox the Bedrock plane, but QS cannot. I guess it's ok for some people to copy, but not for others.
> 
> When I look at a LN plane, I see a LN plane, when I look at a QS plane I see a QS plane.
> 
> Ali



People can do -and will- what they like. Thats their prerogative.

For me the thing isn't that its an out of Patent thing. LN worked his ass off and put his life/savings into building a quality tool, tools that some people wanted to buy but couldn't because they were collectors items. He didn't make a direct copy as such, he made improvements from his perspective. 

He had a USA company selling his wares who _allegedly_ decide to say: you know what, we could sell a bunch of these at a lower price. Next thing his plane has a Fu manchu dopple-ganger. Sure its not illegal. Its still kind of distasteful to me. 

I couldn't give a rats about its being Chinese - thats the way of the world these days. 

Life ain't fair but there sure are some s***s out there...


----------



## bugbear

If they could see your £2k version side by side with the cheapo one there's just a chance that they might recognise the difference. But if price is all, then it's a customer you don't want!
BTW where "marketing" come in is in trying to explain the difference; why they should buy yours instead of a cheapo. Have a go, educate them a bit!


----------



## bertikus_maximus

I've found this topic pretty interesting to read so thought I'd throw in my opinion.

There is a big difference between counterfeit and 'knock offs' than with imitation products. A counterfeit/knock off is a fake product that is being presented as having been made by a well known manufacturers. For example, cheap trainers sold at the local market with the Nike logo on are examples of a counterfeit. In terms of woodworking tools, this would be equivalent to somebody presenting a plane they'd knocked together in their own garage as having been made by LN. That is morally wrong and we do have a duty, I feel, to avoid dealing with pirated and fake goods. 

That said, imitation products are similar in nature to the branded/high end product but are presented as their own product. For example, cereals in the shop: you can buy the real deal Kelloggs cornflakes or you can buy Sainsbury own. The Sainsburys cornflakes are imitating the Kelloggs ones but the consumer is under no illusion that the product was made by Kelloggs. It seems that quite a lot of the tools highlighted by Derek on page 1 are, in my opinion, in the imitation camp.

Arguably, it is a shame that products that have taken a long time by somebody to develop and retail are shamelessly ripped off and copied but it is reflective of the consumer driven world we live in. People want things cheaper all the time. (Also, one should not discount that branding can also unnecessarily drive prices up: painkillers are a prime example of this. They're all the same product but the branded version will cost you at least £3 more than bog standard own branded). 

Additionally, one should not discount the difficulties that patenting present to property holder. Whilst I am not a patent expert, I gather it can be pretty difficult to get something patented and once you have this, you need to pay each year to retain this patent. Just ask James Dyson: product documentation that comes with his vacuum cleaners make it very clear that his engineering is protected, at great cost, by patents. 

For Dyson, in the early years, it was pretty difficult to afford these patent. With something like a reasonably niche woodworking product, shelling out on patents could well be an additional overhead that sinks the business. So businessess run the gauntlet of having their designs copied by imitators. The way to distinguish themselves - as LN have done - is to operate to a high level of quality. Consumers then know that whilst it'll cost more, they'll be getting a far superior product to the cheaper imitation.


----------



## ali27

iNewbie":18wpz3cm said:


> ali27":18wpz3cm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to have any knowledge expertise about this matter. The LN and QS plane things just doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> LN copies the Bedrock design, which is no problem. The argument is that at that moment Stanley wasn't making any bedrock planes and woodworkers needed good quality planes. The LN bench planes are still a complete copy of the bedrock plane no matter what the reason was.
> 
> Then QS copies the Bedrock design and some people start to complain. QS is copying LN is what is put forward. No, it's not! It's a copy of the original Bedrock plane. A thicker blade does not mean anything. Clifton is also making bedrock planes with thicker blades. So is Clifton copying LN?
> 
> ''The QS plane looks more like a LN plane that it looks like a Stanley Bedrock plane'' is a weird argument. The LN looks like 99% like a bedrock plane with some minor improvements. Even if a QS plane looks somewhat the same as a LN plane, it's still 99% a bedrock plane.
> 
> 
> So it's no problem when LN copies the Bedrock design, but when QS copies the same thing with an improvements/modificiation that LN has made, it becomes a problem. Please somebody explain to me why LN can xerox the Bedrock plane, but QS cannot. I guess it's ok for some people to copy, but not for others.
> 
> When I look at a LN plane, I see a LN plane, when I look at a QS plane I see a QS plane.
> 
> Ali
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People can do -and will- what they like. Thats their prerogative.
> 
> For me the thing isn't that its an out of Patent thing. LN worked his ass off and put his life/savings into building a quality tool, tools that some people wanted to buy but couldn't because they were collectors items. He didn't make a direct copy as such, he made improvements from his perspective.
> 
> He had a USA company selling his wares who _allegedly_ decide to say: you know what, we could sell a bunch of these at a lower price. Next thing his plane has a Fu manchu dopple-ganger. Sure its not illegal. Its still kind of distasteful to me.
> 
> I couldn't give a rats about its being Chinese - thats the way of the world these days.
> 
> Life ain't fair but there sure are some s***s out there...
Click to expand...

 
The issue was that QS was supposedly copying LN and that it was wrong and maybe even against the law. Both points make no sense at all since the original design is from Stanley. LN xeroxed the Bedrock design period. Sure he made some tiny changes, but it's still a copy. And QS did the same thing. If LN can do it, so can do it, so can QS.

If we are being honest, then maybe Stanley should sue LN, Clifton and QS. That at least would make some sense.LN has nothing to say at all.

If QS started making these planes with the same cherry handles, the same look as LN(in which it differs from the original Stanley) then it would make sense. But when I see a Clifton, LN or QS/WR plane I see which is which without a second of doubt. And the original is Stanley.


----------



## G S Haydon

I would like to suggest we remove price from the equation as it becomes distraction. Think more in terms as durable and fit for purpose. I don't think there was a demand as such for cheapo because there are already plenty of products that cover that. Marketing is important but it can also be abused. Marketing can also confuse people into thinking they need something when they don't. Convincing them to buying brand x version 3 somehow everything will fall into place is the danger.

I know I have fallen into the trap of being critical of the approach of others or products before and regret doing so, no doubt I'll make the same mistake again. It's a mark of strength that LN etc get on with the job of making good stuff and not being drawn on these issues. They don't need to be bothered with lowering themselves to take cheap shots at other suppliers. Keep positive, promote your strengths and work on your weaknesses. 

I'll mention it one more time, I cant speak for all the products mentioned but the QS/WR V3 is not a cheap imitation. You have to see one for yourselves to judge that.

On another note, anyone fancy doing an LN pass around? I'll pay postage.


----------



## Mr_P

G S Haydon":3t2n6lc2 said:


> I would like to suggest we remove price from the equation



If price was removed from the equation I wouldn't be wasting my time on second hand, I'd have a full set of Cliftons, Hotley's etc.... and the Chinese firms would be out of business.


----------



## G S Haydon

Sure, but I was referring to the fact that because something is cheaper it is not inherently bad or not fit for purpose.


----------



## Mr_P

G S Haydon":27vyc5ti said:


> Sure, but I was referring to the fact that because something is cheaper it is not inherently bad or not fit for purpose.




Agreed think we have all bought cheap/expensive and regretted it/patted ourselves on the back.

Eventually the collectors and rust will win the day and we might be forced to buy new.

Too expensive

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/231487553109? ... 1435.l2649

too cheap ? (but very tempting).
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/291380339173? ... EBIDX%3AIT

arrived today  

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181673294285? ... EBIDX%3AIT

Sadly at the moment LN & Holteys are out of my reach, I could stretch to WR/Q but choose not to.


----------



## iNewbie

ali27":3e45q3rw said:


> The issue was that QS was supposedly copying LN and that it was wrong and maybe even against the law. Both points make no sense at all since the original design is from Stanley. LN xeroxed the Bedrock design period. Sure he made some tiny changes, but it's still a copy. And QS did the same thing. If LN can do it, so can do it, so can QS.
> 
> If we are being honest, then maybe Stanley should sue LN, Clifton and QS. That at least would make some sense.LN has nothing to say at all.
> 
> If QS started making these planes with the same cherry handles, the same look as LN(in which it differs from the original Stanley) then it would make sense. But when I see a Clifton, LN or QS/WR plane I see which is which without a second of doubt. And the original is Stanley.



My understanding is: the plane wasn't called a QS it was a Wood***** - because a LN seller requested they be built for them. LN got the s-end of the stick. Thats business I know. Doesn't make it right. 

If the changes were so small/unimportant why didn't Wood***** just xerox the the Stanley plane? 

Not much LN can say but suck-it-up.


----------



## ali27

iNewbie":3dzbuliy said:


> ali27":3dzbuliy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue was that QS was supposedly copying LN and that it was wrong and maybe even against the law. Both points make no sense at all since the original design is from Stanley. LN xeroxed the Bedrock design period. Sure he made some tiny changes, but it's still a copy. And QS did the same thing. If LN can do it, so can do it, so can QS.
> 
> If we are being honest, then maybe Stanley should sue LN, Clifton and QS. That at least would make some sense.LN has nothing to say at all.
> 
> If QS started making these planes with the same cherry handles, the same look as LN(in which it differs from the original Stanley) then it would make sense. But when I see a Clifton, LN or QS/WR plane I see which is which without a second of doubt. And the original is Stanley.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is: the plane wasn't called a QS it was a Wood***** - because a LN seller requested they be built for them. LN got the s-end of the stick. Thats business I know. Doesn't make it right.
> 
> If the changes were so small/unimportant why didn't Wood***** just xerox the the Stanley plane?
> 
> Not much LN can say but suck-it-up.
Click to expand...


I can understand that it's not nice when you are selling your planes to a company and this company starts having them made
by another company for cheaper prices. But that's not the point. It's business and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If LN
had an original product/design and the WR was a copy, that would change the whole game. However that's not what happened.

So according to you it's ok for LN to copy the Bedrock design which is from Stanley and add some minor improvements, but it's not 
ok for others to make a copyof that. You have no point at all, I am sorry to say. 

Did Lie Nielsen copy the Bedrock designs? Yes he did.Do you agree? Did he make some minor changes/modifications. Yes he did. 
Did he add something that changed the design radically or did he do anything else which makes the products considerably different 
from the Bedrock design? My opinion is no he did not. A thicker blade is not a change in design or function. It's just improving
(which some people contest) the product.

TLN is keeping quiet on the matter because he knows there is nothing he can say about it since he himself has made loads of money
by copying the Bedrock design. 

Ali


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

Ali

Sorry, but that is a load of nonsense (I'd write "[email protected]" but I might get into trouble for that), especially this part ...



> TLN is keeping quiet on the matter because he knows there is nothing he can say about it since he himself has made loads of money by copying the Bedrock design.



LN responded by pulling all their tools out of Woodcraft (I seem to recall that LV did as well). Further, we will never know the full story, because it was kept quiet. But that does not mean it was quiet.

Keep in mind that that was WoodRiver version #1. It appeared not just to be copied from the shell of a LN, but it also used the exact trade dress. Planes such as Record, Clifton and Stanley Bedrock are distinctive in their own ways. But WR version #1 sort to copy the dress of LN. 

Version #2 was an attempt to create their own identity. It was criticised for poor design choices. Interesting that - firstly, that they needed to change, and secondly that they could not get it right on their own.

Version #3 was designed by Rob Cosman. The result is the current bench plane, and this one looks good. 

Similarly, the original WR block plane copied the LN design (noticeable in their distinct lever cap). There were other copies from the factory that were re-badged. Since then they have developed a different version that is based on the Stanley #65 (has a knuckle cap lever cap).

Clearly, WR are trying to form their own identity. This is no doubt in reaction to bad press and pressure. It is a good move since there is a market for a good quality plane that is cheaper than the LN and LV. To some extent, as a result of the changes, the conflict is now water under the bridge. For others it left a bad taste in the mouth that remains.

One might argue that all spring from the Bailey design. That is clearly and obviously so. However, LN was not a "copy" of the Stanley insofar as it created a model that markedly improved in so many areas, and it was not in competition - Stanley had left the room. When WR entered the market it was specifically to compete with LN, but did so "borrowing" the construction and trade dress of LN - and it was that which was criticised, not that they entered the market to compete, per se.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## G S Haydon

Mr_P":53by4j1m said:


> G S Haydon":53by4j1m said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but I was referring to the fact that because something is cheaper it is not inherently bad or not fit for purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed think we have all bought cheap/expensive and regretted it/patted ourselves on the back.
> 
> Eventually the collectors and rust will win the day and we might be forced to buy new.
> 
> Too expensive
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/231487553109? ... 1435.l2649
> 
> too cheap ? (but very tempting).
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/291380339173? ... EBIDX%3AIT
> 
> arrived today
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/181673294285? ... EBIDX%3AIT
> 
> Sadly at the moment LN & Holteys are out of my reach, I could stretch to WR/Q but choose not to.
Click to expand...


 wow, shows how the secondhand market has evolved! Wooden planes, still seem great value though, hope that continues! I'm finding making one quite a test!


----------



## G S Haydon

Just to play Devils advocate,

If Stanley were still making a Bedrock and then someone copied them with a few tweaks would that someone who copied be in the wrong?

If the concept of original ideas being retained by the owner forever is being put forward, is it deemed wrong for another person to make them at any time. On the basis the original maker, their business, their children might want to make them again in 10 > 20 > 40 > 100 years time.

This is part of the reason why ideas must, after a period of time, come into the public domain. Good ideas can't be owned by someone. They have to be open to copy. That applies to everything. The job of people who can't protect something unique is to explain clearly why they are a good choice.

Although it does seem brutal to have a casting copied, especially when it's from hardworking people making great stuff to protect that would not help anyone. Even though it seems it would.


----------



## iNewbie

ali27":2y5elxcp said:


> I can understand that it's not nice when you are selling your planes to a company and this company starts having them made
> by another company for cheaper prices. But that's not the point. It's business and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If LN
> had an original product/design and the WR was a copy, that would change the whole game. However that's not what happened.
> 
> So according to you it's ok for LN to copy the Bedrock design which is from Stanley and add some minor improvements, but it's not
> ok for others to make a copyof that. You have no point at all, I am sorry to say.
> 
> Did Lie Nielsen copy the Bedrock designs? Yes he did.Do you agree? Did he make some minor changes/modifications. Yes he did.
> Did he add something that changed the design radically or did he do anything else which makes the products considerably different
> from the Bedrock design? My opinion is no he did not. A thicker blade is not a change in design or function. It's just improving
> (which some people contest) the product.
> 
> TLN is keeping quiet on the matter because he knows there is nothing he can say about it since he himself has made loads of money
> by copying the Bedrock design.
> 
> Ali



I think Derek summed it up.


----------



## CStanford

Here's my summary:

Some prima donnas have their shorts in a knot. The rest of the world mostly doesn't care which is usually what happens when prima donnas do what they do.


----------



## Mr_P

G S Haydon":1lym4lpi said:


> Just to play Devils advocate,
> 
> If Stanley were still making a Bedrock and then someone copied them with a few tweaks would that someone who copied be in the wrong?.



That experiment has already happened in the 1930's when the Bailey patents expired.

Nearly every British company who could make a No.4 , did just that.

Record, Acorn, Spiers, Mathieson, I.Sorby/Marples and within 15 years the infill makers were gone.

Didn't Stanley buy Acorn to make the Made in England Stanleys and let the quality of the Acorns drop of a cliff.

My crackpot theory is it wasn't Stanley that killed the infill trade it was the expiry of the patents that drove prices down on the Bailey types and made infills look even more expensive.

Once the patents have expired you are fair game, guess its how you do it and the passage of time that counts.

Clifton and LN started with a blank page and Bedrock , the early Chinese firms were lazy and just started with a LN.

Ethically wrong YES, against the law NO. 

knock off of a knock off


----------



## KevM

Crikey, still going strong! Well done all.

I was reminded of the ads from the '80s Sekonda, beware of expensive imitations, were they apeing Seiko designs?


----------



## Cheshirechappie

In the end, 'the market' often decides whether a product sells or not. 

Stanley gave up selling Bedrock planes because they judged that the market had shrunk too much to make production worthwhile. Tom Lie-Nielsen judged that there was a market for the same type of plane, made in smaller quantities - and he was right. When the first low-quality straight copies of the LN planes were offered, the market decided that it wasn't going to waste it's money on cheap 'knock-off' rubbish. When a better quality version of the bedrock plane became available, the market decided that quality was good enough to justify the price, though the market also still recognised that the slightly better quality, higher-priced LN planes still had their place.

Currently, 'the market' is scratching it's collective head, discussing the options, and influencing the future of LN (probably secure, but with a slightly reduced market share), Quangsheng/WoodRiver (probably also secure), and any cheaper direct copies (the market doesn't like them, so they'll bomb). Given that there seems to be a bit of an upsurge in enthusiasm for handtool woodworking, the market might well be getting bigger, thus giving all suppliers a better chance than Stanley thought it had.

That's how it's been for generations, and not just with woodworking handtools. No doubt that's how it will remain for a goodly while yet.


----------



## G S Haydon

Seems very logical Mr P, once Stanley's patent was gone it got cheaper for end users to get hold of a good Bailey.

On a side note, I wonder how long LN etc had been making bedrock planes before they were copied? LN was established in 1981 (same year I was born). I'd guess 1995ish, first WR 2009ish. 14 years is not so bad using tweaked designs before being copied.

The double edged sword for firms like LN is the more popular they become, the more likely it is there will be competition. And what of LN exporting into China and the wider world. That's what our system promotes! Container shipment arrives in USA full of WoodRivers. Container goes back to China full of LN's .


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":313yfiw6 said:


> In the end, 'the market' often decides whether a product sells or not.


Always, not just "often"


> Stanley gave up selling Bedrock planes because they judged that the market had shrunk too much to make production worthwhile.


i.e. people gave up buying them. Dud design over hyped according to Patrick and superceded by the ordinary frog with adjusting screw.


----------



## Mr_P

G S Haydon":2sdhz5fs said:


> That's what our system promotes! Container shipment arrives in USA full of WoodRivers. Container goes back to China full of LN's .



I'd wager it would be boxes/pallets one way and containers the other.

The good news/ bad news is as American/British standards of living decline/stagnate the Chinese worker is on the up and in 20-30 years times we might have a level playing field. Or perhaps the titanium 3d printer will take over the world and we can print our own


----------



## G S Haydon

An interesting write up from Patrick.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":ffc9nnjn said:


> Cheshirechappie":ffc9nnjn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, 'the market' often decides whether a product sells or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Always, not just "often"
Click to expand...


I'll stick with 'often'. When cartels, monopolies or government control are involved, the market can't decide. Fortunately in the woodworking handtool market, those evils are minimal.


----------



## CStanford

Re Patrick:... and completely consistent with the notion that a fine shaving is a fine shaving (if that's the metric) and a Bailey is perfectly capable of taking a fine shaving. It doesn't even require all that much skill. An adolescent could do it, and indeed they did.

Interesting that he used the Bedrock logo on his 601 copy, though I guess it wasn't a copy since one was never made.

Here we go again...


----------



## Cheshirechappie

G S Haydon":q0c6jk8k said:


> An interesting write up from Patrick.



Indeed! But that's only his opinion - quite a lot of the market (rightly or wrongly) doesn't agree with him!


----------



## Mr_P

CStanford":9micpffi said:


> ... and completely consistent with the notion that a fine shaving is a fine shaving (if that's the metric) and a Bailey is perfectly capable of taking a fine shaving. It doesn't even require all that much skill. An adolescent could do it, and indeed they did.



Nothing wrong with a good old Bailey and the Americans / Chinese will have to do something very special to get my cash when things like available for the newbie.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Two-Vintage-w ... 3cf48990f9

Go on grab a bargain and put the £100 / £300 towards some wood.


----------



## Mr Ed

G S Haydon":3oe205e8 said:


> On a side note, I wonder how long LN etc had been making bedrock planes before they were copied? LN was established in 1981 (same year I was born). I'd guess 1995ish, first WR 2009ish. 14 years is not so bad using tweaked designs before being copied.



The interesting thing is that whilst everyone is getting hung up on bedrocks, L-N didn't even start up doing them, in fact (as the link below shows) there is an interesting tale relating to someone else 'copying' Stanley 95's which Tom L-N then took up, so there is a pre-LN precedent for copying copiers (if that makes sense)

I should say I own a considerable number of L-N planes and find them excellent and also have no dog in the fight about who is copying what, I just thought this was interesting in the context of the discussions.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... bronze-age

Ed


----------



## G S Haydon

Indeed, very interesting.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":a8tirb2z said:


> Jacob":a8tirb2z said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshirechappie":a8tirb2z said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, 'the market' often decides whether a product sells or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Always, not just "often"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll stick with 'often'. When cartels, monopolies or government control are involved, the market can't decide. Fortunately in the woodworking handtool market, those evils are minimal.
Click to expand...

 If "cartels, monopolies or government control" are in the market then they are in the market. Govt orders keep/kept a lot of tool makers busy - there used to be some very classy stuff in Govt surplus shops. Old stuff still turns up with the War Dept mark.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

I said 'government control', not 'government purchasing'. Two entirely different things. For the avoidance of doubt, that's 'government control OF the market' and not 'government purchasing IN the market'.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Wow, this is a long thread. I'm going to add some observations. The first is that there seems to be some truth that the american forum users have a much lower opinion of the copying of LN planes by QS/WR than many of the people on this forum. It is my opinion that a large factor in this is economic protectionism in the US. Japanese bikes are not copies of Harleys but plenty of American bikers would tut at a Honda or Kawasaki. Indeed I have some sympathy with this position. We in the UK have seen our manufacturing industry decline so much that buying british is not really an option. There are some British tool makers left and if I could afford shiny new tools I would like to help Clifton and Ashley Iles. Someone mentioned narex a few pages ago, as far as I am aware they have been making tools alot longer than Clifton, AI or for that matter LN. Personally I would feel happier supporting another EU business than an American one, more to the point they are at a price I can afford.
So if your position is you would not buy Chinese products then fair play, a difficult decision, but fair play. However I am strongly in the camp that there is no harm in copying a copied design. The earlier example of violins is a good one. Nearly all modern violins are copies of Guarnerius' or Stradavaius'. However since the height of the Cremona violin making days of the 16 and 1700s there have been some important changes in violins, one of the main ones is the necks are now longer to facilitate changes in classical music. Nearly all the great Cremona instruments have had longer necks grafted on. If you decide to make a violin you will most likely copy a guarnrius or strad but, just as with QS LN an Stanley, you will make one more similar to modern copies than the original design. Indeed the grafting of longer necks onto a strad has some parallels with retro fitting old Baileys with modern thick irons and chip breakers. 
Another observation is that I do own a QS block plane and it is the first chinese made thing I've had that is any good. It's not a model of a block plane , it actually is one. If the chinese are starting to make things that work and don't fall apart within a week (like all those christmas presents my daughter gets) this has to be a good thing for the world
One more thing, I think there is a gap in the market for good quality Baileys. Especially if the chinese could make them for around £100-£150. I would see no issues morally with that and the only ones that get made now are rubbish.

Cheers, Paddy


----------



## ali27

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Ali
> 
> Sorry, but that is a load of nonsense (I'd write "[email protected]" but I might get into trouble for that), especially this part ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TLN is keeping quiet on the matter because he knows there is nothing he can say about it since he himself has made loads of money by copying the Bedrock design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LN responded by pulling all their tools out of Woodcraft (I seem to recall that LV did as well). Further, we will never know the full story, because it was kept quiet. But that does not mean it was quiet.
> 
> Keep in mind that that was WoodRiver version #1. It appeared not just to be copied from the shell of a LN, but it also used the exact trade dress. Planes such as Record, Clifton and Stanley Bedrock are distinctive in their own ways. But WR version #1 sort to copy the dress of LN.
> 
> Version #2 was an attempt to create their own identity. It was criticised for poor design choices. Interesting that - firstly, that they needed to change, and secondly that they could not get it right on their own.
> 
> Version #3 was designed by Rob Cosman. The result is the current bench plane, and this one looks good.
> 
> Similarly, the original WR block plane copied the LN design (noticeable in their distinct lever cap). There were other copies from the factory that were re-badged. Since then they have developed a different version that is based on the Stanley #65 (has a knuckle cap lever cap).
> 
> Clearly, WR are trying to form their own identity. This is no doubt in reaction to bad press and pressure. It is a good move since there is a market for a good quality plane that is cheaper than the LN and LV. To some extent, as a result of the changes, the conflict is now water under the bridge. For others it left a bad taste in the mouth that remains.
> 
> One might argue that all spring from the Bailey design. That is clearly and obviously so. However, LN was not a "copy" of the Stanley insofar as it created a model that markedly improved in so many areas, and it was not in competition - Stanley had left the room. When WR entered the market it was specifically to compete with LN, but did so "borrowing" the construction and trade dress of LN - and it was that which was criticised, not that they entered the market to compete, per se.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek
Click to expand...


I have seen the first QS planes and there was never a moment I thought that looks like a LN plane. If I recall correctly
some of the QS planes were made with a bronze lever cap, but the difference was still very clear(to me).

The LN was a copy of the Bedrock design no matter how many times you say it wasn't. It isn't a 100% copy,but neither is the QS a 100% copy of the Bedrock or LN. The fact that there wasn't any competition makes no difference. It's still a copy.

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

My eyes see two planes that are copies of the Stanley Bedrock planes. 

LN made a lot of money by copying the bedrock planes and selling them. Good for him and more power to him. QS is doing the same thing and more power to them. 

There is no moral high ground here, stop pretending there is.

I have a QS plane from the first version. It absolutely does not look like a LN. It works great now, but it had many problems that I had to solve/tune for it work very well. In fact the hole/pin of lateral adjuster was clearly of centre by about 2-3mm which made the blade slightly skewed I think. I removed the lateral adjuster. The handles were coated with some kind of paint, ugly!! In hindsight I wish I had just bought a LN plane.

Lie Nielsen should keep producing his great planes. The WR are getting better, but are still not the same quality. Many feel the finish is less, there is more backlash, the handle is too small(I AGREE!!!) and the precision is less. Anybody who can tune a plane well, can make it work as well and even better than a non tuned LN. 

Ali


----------



## Andy Kev.

This is an interesting thread which seems to be covering several issues simultaneously.

The original issue is the plight of “cottage industry” makers and whether or not one “supports” them in preference to buying cheaper and sometimes inferior copies. Should they be supported? IMO yes but of course not everyone can afford their prices. The small makers have to make no compromises on quality if they are to survive at all and I think we have to include Clifton, Veritas and LN in this category along with all the one man bands. Mass manufacturers seem to be committed to put in as much quality as is minimally necessary while combining that with a low enough price. If they get that combination right, then they will be financially content.

So why are the cottage industry types to be supported? The simple answer is that they illustrate what is possible and they seem more likely to be looking for and implementing improvements which enhance basic designs. If you leave industry to its devices – and industry doesn’t seem to care about anything at all other than profit as big firms are run by accountants who almost certainly have no (costly) love for their firms’ products – then quality goes down the drain and we all end up buying junk or the minimum quality standard which the market will bear and then we’ll all be saying, yet again, “Ah but they don’t make ‘em like they used to”.

I suspect that Clifton, Veritas and LN are run by people who are emotionally as well as financially committed to what they do while operating within the constraints of hard economic reality. I also suspect that QS etc. have emerged not because of a burning desire to manufacture good tools but rather because some market analyst has noticed that there is a resurgent market for hand tools and that there is money to be made with people who can’t afford Clifton, Veritas and LN. If the latter companies weren’t setting the benchmarks in terms of quality, the newcomers would flood the market with junk.

Then there is the issue of price. C, V and LN products are for many, if not most people, expensive things. It’s easy to forget that. Compared to the likes of Holtey they are dirt cheap. However, 100 – 300+ quid for a plane is a serious amount of dosh. Ideally, one would save until one could afford what one wanted. Some people will realistically never be able to afford such things. So they either have to go second hand (great idea if you know what you are about) or buy QS etc.

There is a third issue which as far as I can see no-one has mentioned yet and that is the matter of wider morality. Personally I avoid as far as I possibly can buying things made in China. There’s the small matter of human rights along with working conditions (remember reports of suicides amongst people working on iphones etc.?) and the general nastiness of the Chinese regime. I appreciate that it’s almost impossible to avoid buying Chinese if you are buying machines, electrical goods etc. but that might be a factor worth remembering. And I also appreciate that although I am not wealthy by any means, I do have enough disposable to be able to refuse to buy Chinese (except at the local takeaway).

One upshot of this is that I had a look at the Glenn-Drake website and I think I’m going to order a titemark because of the handy gadgets for marking mortices which he makes in the commonest sizes. And of course, to support one of the one man bands.


----------



## G S Haydon

Very good points Andy Kev.

On your point we know companies like LN & LV very well. We can put a face to a name and we are even shown how they make things and the people making them. This is a strong position and this is why being clear on how you do business is a wonderful asset and should be underlined by any business. What seems apparent is that LN and I am sure others are doing everything within their power to operate very responsibly. 

However I don't think I would venture into even mentioning how other people do things as we don't know the circumstances. The fact we don't know might be enough to stop us buying. What can be dangerous is using terms like "China" as a generic likely hood for exploitation. It seems the wood used on the Chinese planes is FSC certified. As someone who has been in a chain of custody for FSC I know it's not an easy process to be involved with and requires robust audits. Also people in many western countries are subject to things like zero hours contracts, heath care not available free at the point of need and the like. The only way we would know is if we found out about the factory making the tools in China rather than assuming the term China means poor conditions.

On what we know we can say I want to support a business where I feel I understand and almost know the team behind it and I feel assured of their ethical position. That is very logical.

However just because we don't know the circumstances behind another business does not mean they are exploiting, to do so would draw a conclusion with no evidence. We could only say I don't know therefore I wont buy from them rather than using generic terms that could be seen as negative or proved to be wrong. 

If you wanted to be ultra ethical you could even say it is a waste of resource to buy and produce most of the new tools. There are still thousands of perfectly good tools available. By making new versions that offer little or no significant improvement we are needlessly consuming and polluting instead of using what we have.


----------



## CStanford

And it's always worth remembering that the old boys didn't seem too hindered by what they had to work with in the mid-1700s:

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/G ... TID=536521

As far as I'm concerned the tools used to build this desk were nothing short of magical. I couldn't coax that kind of work out of mine if I had three lifetimes in which to try.


----------



## bugbear

CStanford":twkgwrt7 said:


> And it's always worth remembering that the old boys didn't seem too hindered by what they had to work with in the mid-1700s:



That's an interesting and novel observation. Do you have any other examples?

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Andy Kev and Graham Haydon - two very thoughtful and informed posts there. (Shame about the silliness since.)

On the subject of morality and buying Far Eastern products, I agree that the ethics of the business you're buying from might well be a consideration for many. However, given a choice between a locally-made tool and a Far Eastern one, both of which are well-made and fit for purpose, I think it's wrong (bordering on outright bigotry) to reject the Far East product just because it's Chinese or whatever. It's a bit more acceptable to make the conscious choice to support a local manufacturer. It would also be fair enough to reject a product that wasn't of acceptable quality or clearly didn't comply with the law with regard to respecting others trademarks.

More competition in the market is a good thing. It keeps prices lower for consumers, and makes the high-price suppliers look to their laurels. If those suppliers are providing a good product and offering something more than the competition, then they'll survive. 

The business environment keeps changing; if it didn't, the rise of power tools and manufactured furniture would not have eroded the hand-tool market, and we'd still be buying well-made Stanley and Record planes, Ridgway brace bits, Tyzack Sons and Turner saws, Stormont chisels and Griffiths of Norwich moulding planes amongst many, many others. Who knows where the market will go next?

Edit to add - It seems the mods have been busy - the silliness has been deleted. The thread reads better now.


----------



## G S Haydon

Cheers CC. I think it's essential to only refer to what is known. Applying stereotypes without evidence is Dangerous. As I said, I'm happy to use the term "I don't know, therefore I wont" rather than "I don't know, therefore I will assume and speculate and potentially be wrong".

The one thing that all this speculation has made me reflect on the most is how unique woodworking hand tools are. Quality trade style tools made for the past 250 years were made to be durable, high quality and fit for purpose. That now also covers tools made for enthusiast and trade users. There is, in theory, so many tools out there that from an environmental and resource based approach production could be reduced and all the existing stock used.

And how efficient the Bailey concept. A thin iron using less resource to make. A simple pressed cap iron that works like a dream using the very minimum of material. They last and last and last too! For those with a holistic view on resources, environment, effective use of human time the vintage market seems a very sensible choice.


----------



## Mr_P

Moral high ground is a bit tricky when I'm typing away on a Microsoft Made in China keyboard.

I change my computer about every 5 years, most of my tools will last me a lifetime and a few more after that.

I chose 2nd hand tools mainly down to price, even decent Chinese ones would cost considerably more.

Yipppeeee just bought a stunning Victorian dovetail saw on BIN for £20.


----------



## G S Haydon

Same here!

I think that is what is so reassuring about hand tools. So long lasting, "heirloom quality" is the phrase I think .

My point exactly with wooden planes etc. Seriously good stuff ready to be enjoyed for another lifetime. Enjoy the saw!


----------



## Carl P

A little off-topic but...

Just wondered if the rejection of free market capitalism that has obviously now taken place will lead to other changes, maybe robust union representation for the very low paid, healthcare free at the point of delivery or training policemen to differentiate between black children and legitimate targets?

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## Job and Knock

Mr_P":3liwgwgw said:


> I change my computer about every 5 years, most of my tools will last me a lifetime and a few more after that.


Yes, but I've yet to come across a jointer plane which won't work because the the installed version of WoodShavingApp (version 1.0) is too old to be compatible with Timber v7.0


----------



## Job and Knock

Mr_P":1gs8x8ad said:


> Didn't Stanley buy Acorn to make the Made in England Stanleys and let the quality of the Acorns drop of a cliff.


Ermmm. Stanley actually bought J A Chapman (in 1937) who made Acorn and whio were well known brace makers - they in turn appear to have taken over the name from GTL (or was it that GTL bought them in and sold them, anyone know?). I can assure that the quality started off over the cliff - at least based on the pre-Stanley examples that I own or have seen. It's far more likely that Stanley bought Chapman's and started manufacture in the UK to circumvent import tarriffs which all countries introduced after the 1929 crash. They also started up in Canada and Australia at the same time, didn't they? Also from examples of older Stanleys I have acquired I'd say that Stanley weren't ready for full production until the war got going at which time the MoS rook over and told them what to make (not planes - that was Record's job). That's judging from the number of mid to late 1930s American planes with early British Stanley irons I've seen in recent years. I've yet to see a British-made Stanley with original rosewood handles, either.

It is more likely that the 10 year recession of the 1930s combined with the move towards much simpler, machine made furniture, and the general move to powered machinery in even smaller shops in the 1930s which presaged that demise. The introduction of the #4-1/2H or #5-1/2H late in the day probably made little difference. I actually have two early post-war UK-made Stanleys, #4-1/2 and #5-1/2. The castings sides are far thicker on those than on the "lesser" planes, or even the #6, 7 and 8 planes. I wonder if these were made as "spoilers"


----------



## Andy Kev.

Graham Haydon and Cheshire Chappie,

I'd like to make it clear that I'm not indulging in some sort of wild anti-Chinese bigotry. You are both implying the concept of innocent until proven guilty, something to which I wholeheartedly subscribe. However, the People's Republic of China has had and continues to have an abysmal record on human rights and it is also well documented as being the world's worst offender in terms of blatant ripping off of brands etc. (which practice is not indulged in by QS). There have also been a number of cases of Chinese (and other nations') firms doing out sourced work for western companies and treating their employees at worst abysmally and at best nowhere near as well as we expect in the west. So my personal stance on anything coming out of China has changed to "unfortunately probably guilty until demonstrated to be innocent" because I think the accumulated evidence justifies that. The evidence seems to me to demand caution.

However, I agree that it is infinitely more pleasant and preferable to make a conscious choice to support more local firms and their are enough quality tools coming out of the UK and then Canada and the US to happily justify that.

Oh ... and I'm pretty sure my laptop was made in China too ... what can you do?


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":2s853lc5 said:


> I said 'government control', not 'government purchasing'. Two entirely different things. For the avoidance of doubt, that's 'government control OF the market' and not 'government purchasing IN the market'.


Sorry still puzzled. When has the woodwork tool market been affected by "government control, cartels, monopolies"?


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Sure, the Chinese have an appalling human rights record, but the US lead the way in violent invasions to bring about regime change (backed by the uk), which seems to end in regimes 10x worse than the ones they invaded and the US lock up a higher proportion of their own population than any other country, but it would be a little unfair to blame LN for this. Are LN more local than QS, both seem far away?


----------



## n0legs

Where's page 16 gone ???????

I suspect dark and mysterious forces are at work :lol:


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

n0legs":62l9uujx said:


> Where's page 16 gone ???????
> 
> I suspect dark and mysterious forces are at work :lol:




Probably been stolen by a chinese forum who will bring out an inferior version of it


----------



## n0legs

Christ !!!!

There's loads of posts being era...







:lol:


----------



## n0legs

Paddy Roxburgh":2il0xp85 said:


> Probably been stolen by a chinese forum who will bring out an inferior version of it





BEST F****** post of the thread :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>


MODS please keep Paddy's post.


----------



## Jacob

They don't allow discussion of you know what in case women and children are looking in. And it's OK to knock China but not America.


----------



## G S Haydon

Hey Andy, I knew you weren't . And honestly, it's been a fun discussion. 

Meanwhile in China.......http://www.cjjj.org/xm/images/image/20090409-7.jpg http://www.cjjj.org/Eng/Projects/Carpen ... 090526.asp

And we have some work to do http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 71045.html 

And to think the main thing in world strife is if a Bedrock plane is made in Location X or Location Y


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Andy Kev - just in case anybody is in doubt, I was not aiming the 'bigotry' charge at you. You've quite clearly researched and thought about your position, and allow your findings to influence your purchasing decisions. That's fair enough. I was thinking more about comments I've seen in other places (not on this forum) which did border on the outright bigotted.

On the wider question of politics and woodworking tools, perhaps in a very small way we can influence things by insisting that what we buy is of good quality and fit for purpose. I suspect that if it came to light that a supplier of Far East tools was using sweatshops, their business would decline, and perhaps that's a good thing - it would send the message that sweatshop goods were not welcome. That said, I wonder how many people are using Far Eastern assembled mobile phones, kettles, underpants....

As to the Chinese regime - well, yes, I'd agree it's not the world's most wholesome. That said, we have dealings with all sorts of 'iffy' regimes around the world. We can't just ignore China, they're the largest (or second largest, depending which set of economic data you use) economy on the planet. I suppose it's one of those areas in which each individual must make their own decisions. 

My personal view is that the UK suppliers of decent quality tools of Far Eastern manufacture would not knowingly support sweatshops, a view based on the manner in which they treat their customers in this country. I've no proof of that, though. Of those traders supplying tools of lesser quality - well, who knows what their suppliers are like?


----------



## Mr_P

Mr_P":e766tvmq said:


> Yipppeeee just bought a stunning Victorian dovetail saw on BIN for £20.



LMAO just doing some research on my new purchase and it turns out that it's possibly a
genuine Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tool.

Good chance that the firm never even made saws and they just had them stamped.

Will start a new thread when it arrives.


----------



## Scouse

It's misleading to not buy Chinese because of bad labour laws and human rights violations. The trouble with knocking China is that you need to apply it to all or none. By which I mean more or less every country, including the UK and USA, employ, directly or indirectly, workers in appalling conditions for little money, or outsourced work on the same terms. Have a read of 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein, then apply the boycot China logic to India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc and you won't be able to wear clothes, shoes or aftershave again, and you may need to think twice before you eat or drink as well.


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":13oh4ipa said:


> Cheshirechappie":13oh4ipa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said 'government control', not 'government purchasing'. Two entirely different things. For the avoidance of doubt, that's 'government control OF the market' and not 'government purchasing IN the market'.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry still puzzled. When has the woodwork tool market been affected by "government control, cartels, monopolies"?
Click to expand...


It hasn't.

And nobody said it had. Strawman.

The statement was a general one about markets, followed by a specific statement about wood work tools.

_I'll stick with 'often'. When cartels, monopolies or government control are involved, the market can't decide. Fortunately in the woodworking handtool market, those evils are minimal._

BugBear


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Scouse":3md7qlko said:


> It's misleading to not buy Chinese because of bad labour laws and human rights violations. The trouble with knocking China is that you need to apply it to all or none. By which I mean more or less every country, including the UK and USA, employ, directly or indirectly, workers in appalling conditions for little money, or outsourced work on the same terms. Have a read of 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein, then apply the boycot China logic to India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc and you won't be able to wear clothes, shoes or aftershave again, and you may need to think twice before you eat or drink as well.




It is unfortunate truth that the height of industrial production in this country, the days of the sheffield steel/tool making, times which many of us hark back too (me included) was also the time of the most awful exploitation of the British working class. Consumer boycotts are all very well but it was the unionisation and organisation of the working class that tempered this. I once did a benefit gig for "No Sweat" an anti sweatshop pressure group. I was a bit worried about turning up in my £3 tesco jeans (I've always been a snappy dresser). A quick read of their literature however informed me that they believe that consumer boycotts mean very little and are more about making privileged westerners feel good about themselves. Their energies are put in to helping exploited third world workers organise at a local level to improve wages and conditions. After all if you have to work for a dollar a day you don't want the factory to shut down, you want to get 3 dollars or ten dollars a day. Western markets can absorb such small increases in the price of production. 
As far as companies like LN, Clifton, or for that matter festool, who have to compete with chinese production, their only chance is to make better tools than the far eastern competition.


----------



## Craigus

Scouse":3ds9oqp2 said:


> It's misleading to not buy Chinese because of bad labour laws and human rights violations. The trouble with knocking China is that you need to apply it to all or none. By which I mean more or less every country, including the UK and USA, employ, directly or indirectly, workers in appalling conditions for little money, or outsourced work on the same terms. Have a read of 'No Logo' by Naomi Klein, then apply the boycot China logic to India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, etc and you won't be able to wear clothes, shoes or aftershave again, and you may need to think twice before you eat or drink as well.



This is what I was thinking from the outset. Well put.

It seems odd to me that people would not buy tools because they are made in China based on the fact that they might be made by workers in poor conditions. If you wouldn't buy them for quality reasons, fair enough. But to try and take the moral high ground on buying tools seems frankly ridiculous to me unless you apply that logic to every purchase you make.

Presumably these people still shop in the big supermarkets? Buy clothes from John Lewis, Next, Primark et al? Have iPhones? What make is your computer?


----------



## bugbear

Craigus":3dcugwil said:


> But to try and take the moral high ground on buying tools seems frankly ridiculous to me unless you apply that logic to every purchase you make.



You appear to be saying that if you can't be 100% moral, you shouldn't try to be moral at all.

I beg to disagree. Us fallible types will just have to try to be as moral as we can.

BugBear


----------



## Job and Knock

Scouse":1ilfe5ln said:


> It's misleading to not buy Chinese because of bad labour laws and human rights violations. The trouble with knocking China is that you need to apply it to all or none.


So would you like to add to the list those firms operating here who keep the majority of their hourly paid staff on temporary zero hours agency contracts? All so they can reduced their employers NI payments and get away with allowing no workers rights. It's rife in sectors from food production to the construction industry


----------



## Jacob

It would be difficult to make every buying decision a moral decision. But you could for instance choose not to buy anything American (as a protest against the death penalty, or their terrible international warmongering, etc. etc.), or Chinese, or you could boycott Boots et al (tax dodgers). 
Simpler to separate the moral issue from the problem of what to buy, by contributing to, say, Amnesty International, The Red Cross, or any of the many human rights organisations - and/or argue for humanitarian agendas politically and personally, such as on forums such as this.

I'm truly appalled the political chat is prohibited here - it's infantile and anti democratic. It's only by having ideas kicked about that people might change or develop them. Not voting, or not talking about issues isn't constructive - it's abject surrender.


----------



## Carl P

I find myself in the weird position of agreeing with both Jacob and Bugbear :shock: 

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## Jacob

Carl P":3ebeoyey said:


> I find myself in the weird position of agreeing with both Jacob and Bugbear :shock:
> 
> Cheerio,
> 
> Carl


Ooops yes sorry I see what you mean. I'll try to not let it happen again!


----------



## CStanford

I suspect it is less about ethics and more like a teenager who gets outed by his or her friends for not wearing a genuine brand of clothing. It speaks to your general inferiority to use one of these tools and by extension to not be able to afford what others believe is the 'real thing.' My pocketbook, amongst other things, is bigger than yours, etc., etc.

That's all any of this is about when you get down to it. Those that criticize along these lines are thrilled these tools exist, otherwise they'd have to go searching for similar fodder which they no doubt would find eventually -- and get a thrill up their leg rubbing virtual noses in it.


----------



## G S Haydon

It's not surprising this has moved as quickly as it has. It reminds me about an analogy about a hypothetical egg and spoon race. A group of parents find out the eggs being used are not free range. Shocked and wanting to to the right thing they all rush to their SUV's > Sportscars, race to the supermarket breaking the speed limit, run over an old granny in the process and dart into the local supermarket and buy a load of organic!

Jacob has it pretty much there. If you stray into labeling others decisions as not moral while uploading images from your I phone version 78, surrounded by copious other goods made in circumstances of dubious origin you look rather lame. Nothing wrong with promoting good stuff and good people but thinking a well made woodworking tool purchase from a good team of people makes you fit to judge the choices of others it not a position I would want to put myself in.


----------



## lurker

Are you lot still bickering about this!
Dear god! 16 pages!! 
I'm going to start a thread about sharpening if you don't talk about something else


----------



## iNewbie

Is this a game of sanctimonious buttocks slating supposed sanctimonious buttocks?


----------



## Carl P

lurker":3nkfp5az said:


> Are you lot still bickering about this!
> Dear god! 16 pages!!
> I'm going to start a thread about sharpening if you don't talk about something else



I'll only contribute if your sharpening medium is ethically sourced - otherwise you're boycotted!

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## Cheshirechappie

lurker":28k7utl4 said:


> Are you lot still bickering about this!
> Dear god! 16 pages!!
> I'm going to start a thread about sharpening if you don't talk about something else



The thread has rather taken on a life of it's own. When I made the original post, I thought there might be some discussion about what constitutes a 'knock-off' and the ethics of tool-buying, but the depth of information forthcoming and the quality of debate around the issues has pleasantly surprised me. (OK, there's been a bit of silliness too, but we always get that.) I think we're all a little wiser and better informed about the current situation, so as well as resolving a bit of a slight against UK woodworkers in general, it's been a very worthwhile and thought-provoking thread from my point of view. Thanks to all who contributed positively.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

I've loved this thread. Hand tool woodworking and the failings of international capitalism and neo colonialism, can't think of a better combination. I was terribly disappointed when I discovered Chris Schwartz's anarchist tool chest wasn't about anarchism, just about a box to put expensive (all be it genuine) tools in. 
If you really want an ethical tool kit buy second hand and make your own. However, partly under the influence of you lot I already annoy the other people at my dry dock by chopping mortices with chisels and sawing wood with hand saws. "Why don't you use a router/table saw for that?" , I just tell that they are too noisy and besides it only takes me about 10x as long with hand tools. If I insisted on making all my tools I think we'd go bust.


----------



## n0legs

Do the LN, Veritas, LV, Gramercy, or other high end/boutique hand tools make you a better woodworker ?
It's a very simple question. I don't want to hear lines like 'it's reassuringly expensive', 'it's a pleasure to hold and look at'. 
Don't even want to hear about build quality.

If I loaned my grandfathers Stanley No4 to, let's just say Tom Fidgen, let him sharpen it in his preferred manner would it have hindered him in any way when he is building one of his pieces ? 
Or would he have done better with one of his Veritas planes ?


----------



## iNewbie

n0legs":icmcxmu6 said:


> Do the LN, Veritas, LV, Gramercy, or other high end/boutique hand tools make you a better woodworker ?
> It's a very simple question.



It is a simple question and maybe for some it does - maybe it releases their muse. Who knows...

But who really gives a **** if it does or not. I sometimes pick up my potatoes with the knife-end cuz I couldn't give a fork.


----------



## CStanford

n0legs":3d05ozuz said:


> Do the LN, Veritas, LV, Gramercy, or other high end/boutique hand tools make you a better woodworker ?
> It's a very simple question. I don't want to hear lines like 'it's reassuringly expensive', 'it's a pleasure to hold and look at'.
> Don't even want to hear about build quality.
> 
> If I loaned my grandfathers Stanley No4 to, let's just say Tom Fidgen, let him sharpen it in his preferred manner would it have hindered him in any way when he is building one of his pieces ?
> Or would he have done better with one of his Veritas planes ?



Record worked fine for Alan Peters. None of his work ever seemed to lack for fit and finish.


----------



## n0legs

iNewbie":3rhl330t said:


> It is a simple question and maybe for some it does - maybe it releases their muse. Who knows...
> 
> But who really gives a **** if it does or not. I sometimes pick up my potatoes with the knife-end cuz I couldn't give a fork.



Thank you for your input.


----------



## n0legs

CStanford":rrzi8c4a said:


> Record worked fine for Alan Peters. None of his work ever seemed to lack for fit and finish.



Thanks CS, I'll look him up


----------



## CStanford

One of my favorite Fine Woodworking articles of all time is Peters' article on making and fitting drawers. A real masterpiece for sure. The article of course includes photos and drawings -- one of the best photos is 'ole Alan shooting a drawer side (to a perfect fit no doubt) with his trusty Record No. 7. IMO, spoke volumes then and even more so now.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

CStanford":13jyyc56 said:


> n0legs":13jyyc56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do the LN, Veritas, LV, Gramercy, or other high end/boutique hand tools make you a better woodworker ?
> It's a very simple question. I don't want to hear lines like 'it's reassuringly expensive', 'it's a pleasure to hold and look at'.
> Don't even want to hear about build quality.
> 
> If I loaned my grandfathers Stanley No4 to, let's just say Tom Fidgen, let him sharpen it in his preferred manner would it have hindered him in any way when he is building one of his pieces ?
> Or would he have done better with one of his Veritas planes ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Record worked fine for Alan Peters. None of his work ever seemed to lack for fit and finish.
Click to expand...


He didn't have to work with the 1980s Record 04 I bought new. About 10 thou hollow in length, a handle of very nearly square section, and a bed casting with a finish straight from an angle-grinder. (Oddly, the Record 07 bought a year or so later was an excellent tool, well finished (handles excepted), and entirely functional. It now has a Cliffie iron, and works even better.) That was the all there was, unless you bought mail-order from one of the very few decent secondhand dealers about at the time.

That's the point - tools by the late '70s and early '80s were either of indifferent or unpredictable quality. Hence the growing demand, fulfilled eventually by Lie-Nielsen and others, for something of better, consistent quality. Maybe they were too good, thus allowing others to fill the market niche between modern Record/Stanley et al, and the high-end makers. Gives us a good range of choice, today, though.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Paddy Roxburgh":33ypnqlu said:


> I've loved this thread. Hand tool woodworking and the failings of international capitalism and neo colonialism, can't think of a better combination. I was terribly disappointed when I discovered Chris Schwartz's anarchist tool chest wasn't about anarchism, just about a box to put expensive (all be it genuine) tools in.
> If you really want an ethical tool kit buy second hand and make your own. However, partly under the influence of you lot I already annoy the other people at my dry dock by chopping mortices with chisels and sawing wood with hand saws. "Why don't you use a router/table saw for that?" , I just tell that they are too noisy and besides it only takes me about 10x as long with hand tools. If I insisted on making all my tools I think we'd go bust.




Well, this is the Hand Tool Forum! Somebody could always start a thread about the ethics of buying Chinese-made routers on the General Woodworking forum if they prefer power tool woodwork, or the ethics of wearing knock-off Chinese Y-fronts on the General Forum (bearing in mind that most people prefer to cover their ah-so in public).


----------



## CStanford

I've been happy with the Record tools I've bought; ignorance is bliss. I have no idea whether the No. 7 Peters bought was his first or if he fettled hell out of it. I just know that's what he used. I'm sure there was a point at which he could have afforded a much 'better' plane - vintage Norris or Spiers, maybe, but stuck with the one he had. I guess it worked ok.


----------



## Mr_P

Guess the joy of the more expensive planes is they work out of the box.

Great for the professional woodworker or cash rich, time poor gentleman woodworker.

In the days of the internet and solo woodworking guess the wealthy beginner can benefit from knowing its not the tools its the technique used.


----------



## Jacob

n0legs":2qoa9po4 said:


> Do the LN, Veritas, LV, Gramercy, or other high end/boutique hand tools make you a better woodworker ?...


Of course not. 
In fact for many they reveal the awful truth that they must be cr&p at it, as they can no longer blame the tools.


----------



## iNewbie

_Its not about the tools_, though...


Lovely chum in the water there, Jacob.


----------



## Jacob

er - what does that mean then? (If anything)


----------



## G S Haydon

I'd agree on this being a good thread. It's been enlightening to find out what peoples thoughts have been on the topic.

If you gave anyone a good #4 Bailey it'd do a fine job and pretty much equal others. The issue with the Bailey was pretty much lack of quality control in later (ie 1980ish) years. Rob Stoakley was kind enough to pimp out the "Wood From Hell" west-dean-pics-t24308.html (must return it soon). I used a regular #4. As a side the much repeated (by me also) fact that Bailey needs to be pre WW2 is not the case. I would go as far as saying I have come to like post war and would not consider buying pre WW2 based on a notion of "better". Larger adjustment wheel, Beech instead of the needless use of rosewood, all tight and tidy really makes post WW2 ideal.
Anyway back on topic. Rob's WFH was provided sawn, I then took it from sawn to planed. The main factors in doing this were the cap iron and yes the cheap pressed steel cap iron from Stanley and others is truly perfect, a sharp iron and a decent tool.






















There is always a balance, it's simply no good selling stuff that does not work. But the top trumps game of honing media, steel types, tool weight etc is an esoteric dream land most of the time that distracts from real knowledge and getting real results. There is nothing wrong with appreciating tool making as an art, seeing attention to detail and enjoying it. I love seeing expression of skill in that way but then saying that is really required for day to day making is misleading. The reason I have recommended and would recommend a QS or the like is because they are very well made and work very well.

Paddy, I think you have a really neat concept. If you want to be the true Anarchist then making your own stuff and using stuff that already out in the wild makes so much sense.


----------



## iNewbie

Jacob":2dgodo6t said:


> er - what does that mean then? (If anything)



You bang on about it not being the tools, but always mention tools - and tools you have a price issue with. 

And it was your usual bait style. Chum...


----------



## Jacob

OK then. As long as it keeps you cheerful!


----------



## iNewbie

Always good fer-a-larf...


----------



## Job and Knock

n0legs":1lg8rfxc said:


> Do the LN, Veritas, LV, Gramercy, or other high end/boutique hand tools make you a better woodworker ?


No. But the number of times I read a review which implies that....... Including on UKWS where it often takes reviewers a lot of waffle about the colour of the paint, the handles, etc, etc _before_ getting to the point at which a tool is actually being used. Then many reviewers simply don't answer enough questions IMHO. I don't give a fig about what it looks like - I'm far more concerned with how well it works



n0legs":1lg8rfxc said:


> CStanford":1lg8rfxc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Record worked fine for Alan Peters. None of his work ever seemed to lack for fit and finish.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks CS, I'll look him up
Click to expand...

 :shock: :roll: 



CStanford":1lg8rfxc said:


> I'm sure there was a point at which he could have afforded a much 'better' plane - vintage Norris or Spiers


Perhaps he didn't go down that path because he already knew that they weren't all they are cracked up to be?


----------



## n0legs

CStanford":17gfako6 said:


> One of my favorite Fine Woodworking articles of all time is Peters' article on making and fitting drawers. A real masterpiece for sure. The article of course includes photos and drawings -- one of the best photos is 'ole Alan shooting a drawer side (to a perfect fit no doubt) with his trusty Record No. 7. IMO, spoke volumes then and even more so now.



I found Mr Peters, seemed to be quite a guy. I liked the moniker he was given "The Makers' Maker" , interesting half hour I've had. Thanks for the tip  



Jacob":17gfako6 said:


> In fact for many they reveal the awful truth that they must be cr&p at it, as they can no longer blame the tools.



That's a good one Jacob :lol:



Job and Knock":17gfako6 said:


> No. But the number of times I read a review which implies that....... Including on UKWS where it often takes reviewers a lot of waffle about the colour of the paint, the handles, etc, etc _before_ getting to the point at which a tool is actually being used. Then many reviewers simply don't answer enough questions IMHO. I don't give a fig about what it looks like - I'm far more concerned with how well it works



Yes, I very much agree. 
Form over function isn't really the issue with a tool, it's nice to have a well finished almost attractive looking tool , but as you said it's how it works


----------



## Mr_P

Job and Knock":3w1u54uo said:


> CStanford":3w1u54uo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there was a point at which he could have afforded a much 'better' plane - vintage Norris or Spiers
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps he didn't go down that path because he already knew that they weren't all they are cracked up to be?
Click to expand...


Have you tried one ? Guess like any old tool their are good and bad ones about.

Interesting what Patrick at blood n gore says:-
http://www.supertool.com/StanleyBG/stan15.htm#num604.5



> Bed Rock #604 1/2 Smooth plane, 10"L, 2 3/8"W, 4 3/4lbs. 1898-1935.
> 
> While many users fancy this plane as a fine worker due to its heft, they aren't especially enamoured with the price tag that usually accompanies the tool. If it's heft you want, and you have the money to buy this guy, save your lunch money for a few months more, and buy a real killer smoothing plane, an English infill. You'll never regret it as they far out-perform any Bed Rock plane.



Never tried a Bed Rock so can't comment.


----------



## CStanford

Glad you found him NoLegs. He is *rather* famous.


----------



## Job and Knock

Mr_P":238gpsr4 said:


> Job and Knock":238gpsr4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CStanford":238gpsr4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there was a point at which he could have afforded a much 'better' plane - vintage Norris or Spiers
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps he didn't go down that path because he already knew that they weren't all they are cracked up to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you tried one ? Guess like any old tool their are good and bad ones about.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm old enough to have bought and sold more than a few of them over the last 40 odd years (over 80 by my last reckoning, including pre-war and post-war 22-1/2in models). The adjusters aren't all they are cracked up to be and are frequently in poor condition after 50 or more years of use. My feeling is that some of the postwar ones had the best adjusters, but they still aren't a patch on a Lie-Nielsen in that respect, although they _look_ a lot nicer. If you get a good one it's different - but very few these days are what you'd call good users TBH

And as it happens, you'd hardly expect a working joiner to take the word of a tool dealer as gospel, would you? :roll:


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Cheshirechappie":1o16382n said:


> Paddy Roxburgh":1o16382n said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've loved this thread. Hand tool woodworking and the failings of international capitalism and neo colonialism, can't think of a better combination. I was terribly disappointed when I discovered Chris Schwartz's anarchist tool chest wasn't about anarchism, just about a box to put expensive (all be it genuine) tools in.
> If you really want an ethical tool kit buy second hand and make your own. However, partly under the influence of you lot I already annoy the other people at my dry dock by chopping mortices with chisels and sawing wood with hand saws. "Why don't you use a router/table saw for that?" , I just tell that they are too noisy and besides it only takes me about 10x as long with hand tools. If I insisted on making all my tools I think we'd go bust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the Hand Tool Forum! Somebody could always start a thread about the ethics of buying Chinese-made routers on the General Woodworking forum if they prefer power tool woodwork, or the ethics of wearing knock-off Chinese Y-fronts on the General Forum (bearing in mind that most people prefer to cover their ah-so in public).
Click to expand...



Cheshirechappie, for what it's worth I think you may have misunderstood me (probably my fault for not explaining myself clearly). In the last 2 years I have almost completely stopped using power tools for everything except wood preparation and drilling (for wood work, I still use power for metal). I have found it has probably slowed me down (not really by a factor of ten) but has made me enjoy my days much more and too my surprise has not negatively effected accuracy (if anything the other way round) and has definitely reduced waste. It is the other two people that work at my dock that keep trying to get me back on the machines. 
In my "dream workshop" all the tools are homemade. All I was saying is right now we have boats to fix and making all my own tools would be a step too far in galootishness. Slowly though I will get there. 
I have been browsing this forum for a lot longer than I have been posting and it has been an inspiration to me.
In the winter I wear long johns (the docks not heated), probably not ethical, but in the summer I go commando.

Paddy


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Paddy Roxburgh":1opj3338 said:


> Cheshirechappie":1opj3338 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paddy Roxburgh":1opj3338 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've loved this thread. Hand tool woodworking and the failings of international capitalism and neo colonialism, can't think of a better combination. I was terribly disappointed when I discovered Chris Schwartz's anarchist tool chest wasn't about anarchism, just about a box to put expensive (all be it genuine) tools in.
> If you really want an ethical tool kit buy second hand and make your own. However, partly under the influence of you lot I already annoy the other people at my dry dock by chopping mortices with chisels and sawing wood with hand saws. "Why don't you use a router/table saw for that?" , I just tell that they are too noisy and besides it only takes me about 10x as long with hand tools. If I insisted on making all my tools I think we'd go bust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, this is the Hand Tool Forum! Somebody could always start a thread about the ethics of buying Chinese-made routers on the General Woodworking forum if they prefer power tool woodwork, or the ethics of wearing knock-off Chinese Y-fronts on the General Forum (bearing in mind that most people prefer to cover their ah-so in public).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Cheshirechappie, for what it's worth I think you may have misunderstood me (probably my fault for not explaining myself clearly). In the last 2 years I have almost completely stopped using power tools for everything except wood preparation and drilling (for wood work, I still use power for metal). I have found it has probably slowed me down (not really by a factor of ten) but has made me enjoy my days much more and too my surprise has not negatively effected accuracy (if anything the other way round) and has definitely reduced waste. It is the other two people that work at my dock that keep trying to get me back on the machines.
> In my "dream workshop" all the tools are homemade. All I was saying is right now we have boats to fix and making all my own tools would be a step too far in galootishness. Slowly though I will get there.
> I have been browsing this forum for a lot longer than I have been posting and it has been an inspiration to me.
> In the winter I wear long johns (the docks not heated), probably not ethical, but in the summer I go commando.
> 
> Paddy
Click to expand...



I'm sorry, Paddy. I think I did get the wrong end of the stick, there. For what it's worth, I think the finest wood craftsmen are competent with handtools, hand power tools and fixed machines, and are able to decide which is most appropriate in any given situation to get the job done quickly, economically and to the required standard. It can sometimes be quicker to chop a mortice by hand than to faff around running extension leads for the router, for example; but hand-planing a deck's worth of planking to thickness would be daft if there's a thicknesser to hand.

As to politics and anarchy - well, it's up to each to find their own position, I think!


----------



## n0legs

Cheshirechappie":11xid39g said:


> As to politics and anarchy - well, it's up to each to find their own position, I think!




That's a cracking line, can't be disputed by many.
Nice one CC =D>


----------



## CStanford

Let's start a list of those who have copied Stanley-Bailey and/or Stanley-Bedrock planes:

Lie-Nielsen, Quiangsheng, Record, Marples, Millers Falls, Fulton, Siegley, Shelton, Winchester, Dunlap, Union, Sargent, Ohio Tool Co., Keen Kutter, a few Russian brands seen here (http://russianhandplanecentral.blogspot.com/), 

Can anybody add to the list? That's all I can think of at the moment.


----------



## KevM

n0legs":2ef8399c said:


> Cheshirechappie":2ef8399c said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to politics and anarchy - well, it's up to each to find their own position, I think!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a cracking line, can't be disputed by many.
> Nice one CC =D>
Click to expand...



Well, except perhaps some of those happy Chinese factory workers...


----------



## Jacob

CStanford":1b19wfpv said:


> Let's start a list of those who have copied Stanley-Bailey and/or Stanley-Bedrock planes:
> 
> Lie-Nielsen, Quiangsheng, Record, Marples, Millers Falls, Fulton, Siegley, Shelton, Winchester, Dunlap, Union, Sargent, Ohio Tool Co., Keen Kutter, a few Russian brands seen here (http://russianhandplanecentral.blogspot.com/),
> 
> Can anybody add to the list? That's all I can think of at the moment.


Stanley copied part of the bedrock design from Sargent.


----------



## iNewbie

CStanford":2v84bsdh said:


> Let's start a list of those who have copied Stanley-Bailey and/or Stanley-Bedrock planes:



Why?

Whats the point in making a post about how many copied Stanley if you've _no issue_ about others copying. Something else you'd like to argue about charles? At 18 pages we're down to crumbs, now...


----------



## Jacob

iNewbie":3v3ukzje said:


> CStanford":3v3ukzje said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start a list of those who have copied Stanley-Bailey and/or Stanley-Bedrock planes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Whats the point in making a post about how many copied Stanley if you've _no issue_ about others copying. .......
Click to expand...

The point is there are a lot of dedicated fans of LN LV who think they can do no wrong and that all the other makers, past and present, are dodgy counterfeiters and guilty of all sorts of immoral practices.
Comical really!


----------



## n0legs

KevM":26sa0ycd said:


> Well, except perhaps some of those happy Chinese factory workers...



No comment 8) 
Some posts have gone missing, where's Mulder and Scully :lol:


----------



## n0legs

iNewbie":10yfgtui said:


> Why?




Don't read if you don't want to.
But some people can't help themselves, that's why others are here.... remember :wink:


----------



## iNewbie

Jacob":2tltenlw said:


> iNewbie":2tltenlw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CStanford":2tltenlw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start a list of those who have copied Stanley-Bailey and/or Stanley-Bedrock planes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Whats the point in making a post about how many copied Stanley if you've _no issue_ about others copying. .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is* there are a lot of dedicated fans* of LN LV who think they can do no wrong and that all the other makers, past and present, are dodgy counterfeiters and guilty of all sorts of immoral practices.
> Comical really!
Click to expand...


Are there really a-lot Jacob? I'd like to know who they are. Do you have names, too?

I'm thinking this is your baseless assumption - as usual.

I think (note, think,.... not objective) theres are a couple of people on here with a distorted view of others views - that'll have you believe their distorted views if you are comical enough to follow those blind lepers... 

There's not been one person on here who has said LV or LN can do no-wrong. Period.


----------



## iNewbie

n0legs":32fdw2uf said:


> iNewbie":32fdw2uf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't read if you don't want to.
> But some people can't help themselves, that's why others are here.... remember :wink:
Click to expand...


I can't help myself though.


----------



## n0legs

iNewbie":y58l3wtj said:


> I can't help myself though.




Then my friend you need the assistance of a Doughnut Rescue Centre I've seen advertised :lol:


----------



## iNewbie

Don't you try and sugar me up - I ain't biting'...


----------



## CStanford

What exactly make Quiangsheng more despicable than Record? Or Ohio Tool Co.? Or Fulton, Sargent, et al.? Maybe they were called low-life scum back when they were in business copying Stanley (or copying each other's copy of Stanley). If so, did they deserve to be?


----------



## iNewbie

CStanford":3tg6hh51 said:


> What exactly make Quiangsheng more despicable than Record? Or Ohio Tool Co.? Or Fulton, Sargent, et al.? Maybe they were called low-life scum back when they were in business copying Stanley (or copying each other's copy of Stanley). If so, did they deserve to be?



Only you've bought the words despicable and low-life scum into it. You seem enraged over your assumptions. 

I can't speak for anyone else but, I don't have an issue with QS, never said I have. I don't like how Wood**** conducted their part in their LN dealings. Nothing wrong with that either.


----------



## Job and Knock

CStanford":i2a4g0p5 said:


> Let's start a list of those who have copied Stanley-Bailey and/or Stanley-Bedrock planes:
> Lie-Nielsen, Quiangsheng, Record, Marples, Millers Falls, Fulton, Siegley, Shelton, Winchester, Dunlap, Union, Sargent, Ohio Tool Co., Keen Kutter, a few Russian brands seen here (http://russianhandplanecentral.blogspot.com/),
> Can anybody add to the list?


In the UK add: Chapman (Acorn), Footprint, GTL (not the brass ones, they sold Acorns as GTL for a short while), Mathieson, Preston, J. Sorby, Spear & Jackson, Spiers, WS, Woden and Whitemore - some of which were actually pretty good

In Germany: Kunz
In the Netherlands: Nooitgedagt
In India: Anant, Soba and a galaxy of others
In China (branded): Am-Tek, Blackspur, Draper, Faithfull, Rolson, Silverline (these are ones I've seen with the name cast into the lever cap)

In America: Craftsman, Winchester (Sargent) and possibly you might want to add Gage (later bought by Stanley)

.... I'm sure that more will come to me in due course. Fundamentally half the British tool industry took a pop at it after the patents ended (although Qualcast at Chesterfield? seem to have done a lot of the castings) - are the naysayers going to start calling them?


----------



## CStanford

iNewbie":2814jxn5 said:


> CStanford":2814jxn5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly make Quiangsheng more despicable than Record? Or Ohio Tool Co.? Or Fulton, Sargent, et al.? Maybe they were called low-life scum back when they were in business copying Stanley (or copying each other's copy of Stanley). If so, did they deserve to be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only you've bought the words despicable and low-life scum into it. You seem enraged over your assumptions.
> 
> I can't speak for anyone else but, I don't have an issue with QS, never said I have. I don't like how Wood**** conducted their part in their LN dealings. Nothing wrong with that either.
Click to expand...


Tongue-in-cheek for me -- 95% of my kit is Record, Marples, S&J, etc. Not engraged a bit -- enjoying the fruits.


----------



## G S Haydon

The tool lists illustrate the point very well that if you come up with a good design it must be anticipated that you will be copied. That does not mean the copied products are necessary examples of "knock off" and "Piracy". Who came up with the first ratchet brace? Who copied them? Everyone did!

Sadly I don't know about patent laws but I would assume you'd have to come up with something pretty unique to make it worthwhile. In normal circumstances 5 years of trading with something unique before the copying starts would be reasonable. At least by discussing this, on forums we can raise awareness of what happens. 

I took a look at the tite mark gauge on Kevin's site and seeing how much it is I would most likely buy it from him, if I wanted a gauge like that and if I lived in the US. It looks nicely finished. Looking at some of the tools there and on other similar websites I am struck how easily they lend themselves to factory production. Since the industrial revolution all manner of things can be made to very high standards at relatively low cost. It's funny how sometimes it can be seen that making things in mass volume means less quality, after all, the machines have no free will, we only impose our standards upon them. This is perhaps why I see no issue buying the cheaper option if that is the viable choice, potentially someone else can make them more efficiently. 

I would speculate that would be why we'll see no one try and offer products from Old Street Tools or Philly. A set of hollows and rounds are now very popular and are a significant outlay but there is no option but to go to those crafts people. I'm sure machines get used in those businesses but they would not be production machines so to speak and getting the right kind of beech is not going to be easy.

Oh yes, and Rapier for another Bailey copy.


----------



## Jacob

Job and Knock":1rqnvyjd said:


> .....
> .... I'm sure that more will come to me in due course. Fundamentally half the British tool industry took a pop at it after the patents ended (although Qualcast at Chesterfield? seem to have doone a lot of the castings) - are the naysayers going to start calling them?


Qualcast Derby did castings for Record. I seem to recall they have a letter "Q" in the casting somewhere. I don't think they did a Qualcast brand plane but they could have done.
Which is another point - the actual brand names and the actual makers have a very fluid relationship like musical chairs, often not in the same place together for very long.


----------



## Job and Knock

Jacob":1kmtkwkc said:


> Qualcast Derby did castings for Record. I seem to recall they have a letter "Q" in the casting somewhere.


So do my Chapman Acorns for that matter



Jacob":1kmtkwkc said:


> Which is another point - the actual brand names and the actual makers have a very fluid relationship like musical chairs, often not in the same place together for very long.


Yes, the "little mesters" in Sheffield were all self-employed subbies who traditionally made a lot of stuff on sub-contract the the bigger names. That even includes firms which later became well known in their own right such as Footprint, but who made stuff for many others in the past. The same sort of thing happens today with mechanical and electronic products from washing machines to power tools to computers.


----------



## CStanford

Just thought of another one -- Vaughan and Bushnell.

Look at the way the frog beds -- sort of a Bedrock clone I guess:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Old-Used-Tools- ... 2c971bd7af


----------



## Keith 66

A few years ago i had some experience of the copying issue, a boat that i had built some years before was copied by others without so much as a by your leave. In the boat trade this is known as "splashing a mould" & the practice has plagued the trade for years. In my case the boat was a generic type & there were no plans it having been built by eye. I did some research & the longest a set of plans could reasonably be protected was either 10 or 25 years depending on where you were USA or UK. A generic type or shape cant be protected anyway & tools would fall under this.
What is equally true is that to protect your design you have to be prepared to legal action & in that situation Right & wrong have very little to do with it. 
It will turn into a peeing contest between lawyers & he with the most money will win.
In my case i had no way of winning so had to let it go. However i do believe there is such a thing as karma.


----------



## Carl P

Jacob":1e6xt5zp said:


> Which is another point - the actual brand names and the actual makers have a very fluid relationship like musical chairs, often not in the same place together for very long.



Does that mean they could find somewhere cheaper, but let the quality slip to undercut the opposition, possibly resulting in a downward spiral until someone notices there's a gap in the market for new good quality hand tools, they open up the market and then someone else decides they want a piece of that, but get their's made to a lower standard to undercut the opposition....?

I can't imagine that our fine upstanding toolmakers could stoop so low!

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## Carl P

By the way anyone wishing to explore the rammifications of what we buy should read 'The Ethics of What We Eat' by Peter Singer, not directly helpful in the QS/Clifton/knackered boot fair find choice, but certainly makes you think about the consequences of what we spend our money on are,

Cheerio,

Carl


----------



## CStanford

Carl P":2vvmn0yk said:


> Jacob":2vvmn0yk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is another point - the actual brand names and the actual makers have a very fluid relationship like musical chairs, often not in the same place together for very long.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean they could find somewhere cheaper, but let the quality slip to undercut the opposition, possibly resulting in a downward spiral until someone notices there's a gap in the market for new good quality hand tools, they open up the market and then someone else decides they want a piece of that, but get their's made to a lower standard to undercut the opposition....?
> 
> I can't imagine that our fine upstanding toolmakers could stoop so low!
> 
> Cheerio,
> 
> Carl
Click to expand...


Probably worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F189JB2MOBM


----------



## CStanford

V&B flat-top jack plane:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VB-705-Vaughn-B ... 43d263aa4a


----------



## Mr T

> Probably worth watching:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F189JB2MOBM



Like showing candy to a kindergarten  

Chris


----------



## Jacob

I'd give Woodriver a miss - currently they are being heavily promoted and without any price competition i.e. price fixing. Just say no and wave 2 fingers, unless you can get say 20% off.


----------



## Rob Lee

Hi - 

Interesting thread (well - the first few pages anyway) with a complete round-up of all the usual suspects.... 8) 

I will offer a slightly different perspective (a personal one) on offensive copies. When company A takes a product made by company B, and asks company C to make it for a lower price - I find that to be offensive - no matter what the product, or industry (some call that pure Capitalism). It is equally offensive at the individual level (but usually much less harmful commercially).

The individual (or firm) that did all of the work to design and refine the product has costs that no copying firm or individual will have, and cannot complete with a copy. That's the basic pricinciple behind intellectual property rights - limited protection for the people that do original work. We all benefit from original work - and it is in all of our interest for original work to continue (no matter what the field). 

Legal does not always equate with right, or moral - just as illegal does not always equate with wrong, or immoral ..... so citing either extreme as justification for an action is somewhat lazy, in my opinion. 

Cheers - 

Rob
(headed back to the sidelines)


----------



## Shrubby

Plagarius awards were announced in January - a power tool won
Plagarius have a good website for anyone interested in design/IP issues
Matt


----------



## G S Haydon

Thanks for the response Mr Lee. Is there a time beyond where you feel a copy can be made? Reviewing information online European & US patents seem to be 20 years. Would that be an acceptable time frame to recoup development costs? Or do you feel a design should remain property of the originator for a longer period or indefinitely?


----------



## CStanford

Rob Lee":3l4i7zzs said:


> Hi -
> 
> Interesting thread (well - the first few pages anyway) with a complete round-up of all the usual suspects.... 8)
> 
> I will offer a slightly different perspective (a personal one) on offensive copies. When company A takes a product made by company B, and asks company C to make it for a lower price - I find that to be offensive - no matter what the product, or industry (some call that pure Capitalism). It is equally offensive at the individual level (but usually much less harmful commercially).
> 
> The individual (or firm) that did all of the work to design and refine the product has costs that no copying firm or individual will have, and cannot complete with a copy. That's the basic pricinciple behind intellectual property rights - limited protection for the people that do original work. We all benefit from original work - and it is in all of our interest for original work to continue (no matter what the field).
> 
> Legal does not always equate with right, or moral - just as illegal does not always equate with wrong, or immoral ..... so citing either extreme as justification for an action is somewhat lazy, in my opinion.
> 
> Cheers -
> 
> Rob
> (headed back to the sidelines)



One issue, maybe the only real issue, seems to be how much "originality" is ascribed to Company B's copy (in your example). Many reasonable people see Company B's product as almost entirely a copy, though executed in a boutique environment with tighter tolerances. It's possible to make a copy of a Goddard/Townsend piece and improve the joinery here or there (or put a nicer finish on tertiary surfaces) but it's still a copy. Nobody could reasonably claim otherwise -- Company B or anybody else. One might even add inlay, a little marquetry, or otherwise perk up the piece but to anybody with even a superficial knowledge of G&T, it's still 90%++ a copy.

Company B is obviously free to strain gnats through a much finer sieve but the result is not necessarily something 'original.'

The other issue is that this is nothing new. There is an ongoing list of at least two dozen companies in this thread who have copied Stanley products (not just planes!) with impunity (or copied each others copy) with impunity. And strangely, Stanley is about the only one of these companies still standing if that's any consolation.


----------



## Rob Lee

G S Haydon":24m8xsld said:


> Thanks for the response Mr Lee. Is there a time beyond where you feel a copy can be made? Reviewing information online European & US patents seem to be 20 years. Would that be an acceptable time frame to recoup development costs? Or do you feel a design should remain property of the originator for a longer period or indefinitely?



Hi - 

Yes - I believe it is fair to use ideas or products that have been "discarded" by others. At the same time - there is always an opportunity to improve (create) ....

Another instance is for the greater public good (which does not mean self-interest)...

I also believe that that many current patents/methods of IP protection are misused - being filed to squat on the property - not develop it. The patent system is basically broken now.... almost unworkable for a large proportion of the entities it was intended to protect. In the US - large firms like Disney have more influence on legislation than public policy does.

Cheers - 

Rob


----------



## G S Haydon

Thanks for the response Mr Lee

It is a shame to hear patent laws have become misused. Without a respected structure the balance to reward innovation and yet let others replicate/improve within a set period clearly becomes a bun fight.


----------



## Jacob

But surely the "innovation" in all the new makers is not in the sorts of design or manufacturing which would be patentable or copyrightable (they are all copyists) but is in the marketing idea of "engineering up".
So a baker maker makes a better class of loaf - is it not inevitable and acceptable that others might follow? I think it is - and to the advantage of us all, whether buying tools or bakery. Not quite the same of course - you can't get a good quality 2nd-hand 50 year-old loaf anywhere nowadays!

We used to get copied a lot years ago when selling "boutique" toys, but they were never quite the same. Usually not as good, sometimes a lot better but pricier. Didn't bother us at all. Non of our _ideas_ were wildly original but our products were - and this was difficult to emulate.


----------



## CStanford

These clamps sure look a whole lot like the original Bessey K-Body clamps:

http://www.leevalley.com/US/wood/page.a ... at=51&ap=1


----------



## G S Haydon

Interesting Charles, I don't use that pattern so I'm not familiar but after a google it is quite similar to the http://www.leevalley.com/en/wood/page.a ... at=1,43838


----------



## RobinBHM

I was interested to read the comments about the workmate (about what seems like 200 pages back) I can remember all the diy sheds having big displays of them back in the 1980s, I dont know if they are still available, but Ive not noticed any for sale in years.


----------



## Rob Lee

Jacob":1io04fch said:


> (snip)
> So a baker maker makes a better class of loaf - is it not inevitable and acceptable that others might follow? I think it is - and to the advantage of us all, whether buying tools or bakery. (snip)



Sorry Jacob - your bread analogy falls flat - and is not really representative of the typical examples being discussed here...

Try making your arguments using Mickey Mouse as an example...

Why should Disney lose exclusive rights to Mickey? (for the record, I don't believe they should) How would that benefit society? 

Congress appears to agree with Disney - having changed US copyright law at Disney's behest for just that purpose, which just goes to illustrate some of the problems with trying to codify what's "right".....there are always examples that don't fit the intent. 

Cheers - 

Rob


----------



## Cheshirechappie

I'm not sure Disney have exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse products. Quite a few manufacturers and retailers have been accused of supplying those.


----------



## Rob Lee

Cheshirechappie":1qug2vun said:


> I'm not sure Disney have exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse products. Quite a few manufacturers and retailers have been accused of supplying those.



Not that Wikipedia is the be-all and end-all of sources.... and noting that reproduction of a partial listing falls under "fair use" provisions of copyright legislation, I submit the following excerpt:



> Legal issues
> 
> It is sometimes erroneously stated that the Mickey Mouse character is only copyrighted. In fact, the character, like all major Disney characters, is also trademarked, which lasts in perpetuity as long as it continues to be used commercially by its owner. So, whether or not a particular Disney cartoon goes into the public domain, the characters themselves may not be used as trademarks without authorization.
> 
> Because of the Copyright Term Extension Act of the United States (sometimes called the 'Mickey Mouse Protection Act' because of extensive lobbying by the Disney corporation) and similar legislation within the European Union and other jurisdictions where copyright terms have been extended, works such as the early Mickey Mouse cartoons will remain under copyright until at least 2023. However, some copyright scholars argue that Disney's copyright on the earliest version of the character may be invalid due to ambiguity in the copyright notice for Steamboat Willie.[65]
> 
> The Walt Disney Company has become well known for protecting its trademark on the Mickey Mouse character, whose likeness is closely associated with the company, with particular zeal. In 1989, Disney threatened legal action against three daycare centers in Florida for having Mickey Mouse and other Disney characters painted on their walls. The characters were removed, and rival Universal Studios replaced them with Universal cartoon characters.[66]



Cheers - 

Rob


----------



## G S Haydon

CC, I think they have to buy the rights from Disney and make under license (could be wrong). For the creative industries it seems the work is viewed as truly unique. An interesting example.

"Oddly enough, the most popular Bowie creation of late has been Bowie Bonds, financial securities the artist himself backed with royalties from his pre-1990 work. Bowie issued the bonds in 1997 and earned $55 million from the sale. The rights to his back catalog were returned to him when the bonds matured in 2007."

And just today the ruling against Pharell Williams & Robin Thicke shows how even when someone passes what they created can still be unique and a commodity. Best thing about that headline was finding Mr Gayes original "Got to give it up" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fp7Q1OAzITM&t=100.

However, I still feel that "if" patent laws were respected, even as a gents agreement, 20 years should be a fair period for manufactured goods before copying or very similar versions become available.

Very interesting and some of the attitudes to the similar sounds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQyl1hcB1mA


----------



## Cheshirechappie

The first car I owned was a Morris Ital (anybody remember those?). That was a bit Mickey Mouse.....wouldn't accelerate, wouldn't brake, wouldn't go round corners. Never let me down, though.


----------



## G S Haydon

Ha, when you look into it seems like we should avoid Led Zep https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GWMvCXdsG4


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Blimey - even a suggestion that 'Stairway to Heaven' might have been a rip-off!

Nobody ever did a rip-off Morris Ital, though....


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh

Cheshirechappie":3m3267bb said:


> I'm not sure Disney have exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse products. Quite a few manufacturers and retailers have been accused of supplying those.




Bit worried Disney might sue me for a repair I did today, mind you the thing was Donald Ducked


----------



## Jacob

Rob Lee":38vb6nmx said:


> Jacob":38vb6nmx said:
> 
> 
> 
> (snip)
> So a baker maker makes a better class of loaf - is it not inevitable and acceptable that others might follow? I think it is - and to the advantage of us all, whether buying tools or bakery. (snip)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Jacob - your bread analogy falls flat - and is not really representative of the typical examples being discussed here...
> 
> Try making your arguments using Mickey Mouse as an example...
> 
> Why should Disney lose exclusive rights to Mickey? (for the record, I don't believe they should) How would that benefit society? .........
Click to expand...

Disney makes a better (or more profitable) class of cartoon - others follow. Disney doesn't have any monopoly over mice or mouse cartoon characters but he does have the trade mark - and you have the Veritas trademark. Same sorta thing pretty well!


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":1utirb6k said:


> Disney doesn't have any monopoly over mice or mouse cartoon characters but he does have the trade mark



One hates (*) to bring fact to an internet thread, but:

Mickey Mouse is mainly protected by _copyright_, although Disney have a _trademark_ in the character too.

BugBear

(*) I lied


----------



## Ed Bray

There must still be some commercial protection of innovative products as I have been quite amazed that there hasn't been a plethora of Festool Domino copies (especially taking into account the price point of the original). The original machine was released on 30th March 2007 almost 8 years ago.

By this I mean, after the Lamello Biscuit Jointer (handheld version was first released in 1968) was copied by just about every other tool manufacturer after a few years. The only one that made any changes/improvements were Porter Cable who also offered a smaller cutter and minute biscuits especially for making picture frames, but it was still essentially the same machine.


----------



## bugbear

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31832108

BugBear


----------



## CStanford

There are still protections in place Ed. They aren't perfect as the existence of patent and trademark law as a very brisk specialty probably proves.

One thing is for sure - if one doesn't bother to apply for the various protection(s), or the product cannot be patented for whatever reason, then you aren't going to have any protection.


----------



## JohnPW

Rob Lee":2wvnebws said:


> Hi -
> 
> Yes - I believe it is fair to use ideas or products that have been "discarded" by others.
> Rob



Example: looks like to me a straight copy of the Stanley 702 aluminium clamp on vice.
http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.a ... 41665&ap=1












Rob Lee":2wvnebws said:


> Hi -
> ...
> I will offer a slightly different perspective (a personal one) on offensive copies. When company A takes a product made by company B, and asks company C to make it for a lower price - I find that to be offensive - no matter what the product, or industry (some call that pure Capitalism). It is equally offensive at the individual level (but usually much less harmful commercially).
> ...
> Rob
> (headed back to the sidelines)



Does that apply when it's a copy of a copy? What if another company makes another copy of the Stanley 702 vice?

Seems to me some people are saying it's OK to copy something that's no longer being produced but only if you're the first to do it.


----------



## JohnPW

Lie Nielson makes copies of the Preston/Record shoulder planes, do they complain about Clifton or Woodriver making them?


----------



## CStanford

Could have been cast right off the original...(the vice, that is) =D>


----------



## Jacob

CStanford":2zt6einy said:


> Could have been cast right off the original... =D>


They haven't even put brass knobs on it!
Wait til you see the Malcolm Clough-Duck MkII :?


----------



## CStanford

Wonder where the Stanley knock-off vice is made.... wouldn't it be the most ironic thing if it were some Asian country?


----------



## matthewwh

Cheshirechappie":213om1jx said:


> Nobody ever did a rip-off Morris Ital, though....



Wasn't the Ital itself a copy of the Morris Marina? Good old BL - so confused they even copied their own products!

They were also produced in China in the late nineties under the Huandu brand, so even that design icon didn't escape homage.


----------



## CStanford

..."escape homage...." priceless!


----------



## Cheshirechappie

matthewwh":7n7xvsa7 said:


> Cheshirechappie":7n7xvsa7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody ever did a rip-off Morris Ital, though....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't the Ital itself a copy of the Morris Marina? Good old BL - so confused they even copied their own products!
> 
> They were also produced in China in the late nineties under the Huandu brand, so even that design icon didn't escape homage.
Click to expand...


Indeed so! From Wikipedia;

"After UK production ceased, the Ital's production tooling was sold to the Chengdu Auto Works, a company belonging to the First Auto Works Group in Sichuan province, China. In 1998, the Ital estate (utilising a locally-made chassis) reappeared there, under the name Huandu CAC6430. Van and pick-up variants were also produced. Chengdu Auto Works is thought to have closed down in May 1999."

:shock: - that didn't last long, did it! Even the Chinese wouldn't buy their own knock-offs! :lol:


----------



## matthewwh

I can just imagine the conversation:

"I said E-TYPE, you've sent me ITAL!!!!!"


----------



## Cheshirechappie

matthewwh":2qw8vfxz said:


> I can just imagine the conversation:
> 
> "I said E-TYPE, you've sent me ITAL!!!!!"



:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## rafezetter

Cheshirechappie":17cr6mya said:


> Derek - quoting from your words in my original post,
> 
> "I read recommendations for handtools on many forums, but is seems to me that the one ones more likely to suggest a knock off design are either the UK forums or forums that cater to beginner woodworkers."
> 
> That seems a fairly direct accusation at UK woodworkers in particular.
> 
> A bit of googling suggests that your photographs show firstly a Quangsheng spokeshave (available in the UK, though it's hardly a cheap knock-off at about £50 - for that, it's probably a pretty decent tool); however, I have been unable to find any UK supplier of WoodRiver spokeshaves, or of the copy mallet (though Classic Hand Tools do stock the USA-made original).
> 
> Derek - it's bad enough having our cricket team regularly stuffed out of sight by Aussies without being unfairly accused by them of buying tools that aren't even available here! Give us a break, will you - and on behalf of UK woodworkers in general, a bit of a sorry for the slur would be appreciated!
> 
> (Edited to add the price of a Quangsheng spokeshave.)



Going by your own words Derek the only country mentioned is UK, neither the USA or Australia are, yet you now say the example pictures you posted later are not from UK retailers.

If you are going to air your views thus, please at least have the fortitude of not favorably editing them according to the country hosting that forum. Either they are your views or they are not, in entirety.

I have to agree your post is unfairly slanted against the UK (as it's the only country you mention), yet the USA has just as bad a record of importing cheap knock offs - some might say significantly greater than UK by simple measure of buying power - and as such would be much better positioned to counteract those manufacturers; yet that quite obvious fact was glaringly, "overlooked" (USA pop 320mill, UK pop 64mill).

I have not been in the tool acquisition game for long but I can also say that newer woodworkers may not even know to look for the "proper" brand names you mention, and so buy the cheapest tool they can so as not to waste money on a new hobby.

HOWEVER, almost invariably they either learn and buy an old tool secondhand or gravitate towards the LN's and their ilk ANYWAY, so they do not lose out at all, bought now or later, to them makes no difference.

It seems to me what you are really saying is to stamp out these "gateway" manufacturers, some of whom do actually produce something that works, to favor LN, Veritas et al, all of whom are simply more established companies selling, in most cases, their versions of even older designs by someone else.

Sure I'll go along with that, just give me the money to bridge the gap and I'll happily swap all my tools for a LN equivalent; however I won't get any more wood work done, or be any more accurate than before, I'll simply have more expensive versions.

Edit:I'd also like to point out that sometimes this happens because the legitimate producer of something does not make it easily available outside the country of origin: to whit - the "spider sander" designed by an Aussie and not available far as I can tell outside of Australia, even though it looks like a pretty good gadget; leaving them wide open to being ripped off, because of their own shortsightedness.

I too feel that either a retraction of your post, or both an edit AND a later subpost to clarify what you actually meant ideally including the post you made her with those examples from countries OTHER than UK, would be fitting.

Edit: Why are you even banging on about it anyway? If there is a breach of current copyright it's not your job or place or anything else to fight that fight - you make a conscious choice to buy "original" (whatever _that_ means in the tool world) - fair enough; you can ask other woodworkers to do the same, also fair enough - good of you to take the time; but until LN or Blue Spruce or any of the other favored names you mentioned make a plane that makes me as good as Chris Schwarz right off the bat, I'll buy other cheaper brands that perform the same function because I have no choice.


----------



## Jacob

Funny I was thinking of this thread.
Looking at my other toys: 

Music instruments; guitars, banjos and other bits n bobs. Mostly made in either Japan, China, Korea, very good, very cheap, absolute replicas of the originals involving no innovation of any sort at all. One Spanish made guitar which is OK but not brilliant, and bouzouki, balalaika similar (Greece and Russia.).

Bikes; Gears brakes transmission all Shimano. Not copies at all, all extremely innovative and a great improvement on their predecessors (Cyclo Beneluz, Simplex, Campagnolo etc). Frames probably far eastern too - copies with small improvements but very good quality.
NB modern western makers (SRAM, Campag) have had to copy far eastern innovations.

So bike bits and musical instruments couldn't be more different except for being very good quality.

Where does LN / LV fit into this scheme of things? 
Nowhere really: "engineered up" yes but they are neither accurate copies nor innovatory. Quite the opposite; stepping backwards in many ways (thick blades, Norris adjusters). More of a pointless steam punk marketing exercise.

What about Quansheng et al? Copying in the good old fashioned way (including copying LN/LV), keeping up the quality. Will they go the Shimano way and eventually capture the whole market by innovating?


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Gentlemen - I think it's only fair to point out that earlier in the thread (about page 7, I think) Derek Cohen did state that he shouldn't have singled out UK woodworkers in making his comment. He also pointed out that he hadn't named any individual, or intended offence. As far as I was concerned, that drew a line under the matter; the point has been made, and rather than re-open old arguments, I think it's best that we accept that hands have been metaphorically shaken, the matter is closed, and we've moved on.

There was a long conversation about what constitutes a 'knock-off', what constitutes a legitimate copy, and a counterfeit. There was information presented about trademark infringement, patent law, 'common knowledge', and the morality or otherwise of purchasing tools that constitute any of the above. I don't think any firm conclusion was reached, but I did form the strong impression that woodworkers everywhere condemn the practice of counterfeiting and trademark infringement. After that, it's really down to personal opinion and preference. Even concerning the Morris Ital.


----------



## Owl

[quote
Edit: Why are you even banging on about it anyway? If there is a breach of current copyright it's not your job or place or anything else to fight that fight - you make a conscious choice to buy "original" (whatever _that_ means in the tool world) - fair enough; you can ask other woodworkers to do the same, also fair enough - good of you to take the time; but until LN or Blue Spruce or any of the other favored names you mentioned make a plane that makes me as good as Chris Schwarz right off the bat, I'll buy other cheaper brands that perform the same function because I have no choice.[/quote]


I have been wading through this thread (plus the USA linked one) until I got dizzy.

I'm confused by it all so if I seem thick you'll just have to overlook it, but here's my thoughts.

SOMEONE in the distant past invented a wood plane... note ONE person did this .... 
SOMEONE long ago invented a wood saw ... again ONE person did it .....
etc, etc, etc etc, for all tools
Therefore to my way of thinking ALL planes, saws etc since the original ones are COPIES.


----------



## Sheffield Tony

Owl":2kovl64j said:


> SOMEONE in the distant past invented a wood plane... note ONE person did this ....
> SOMEONE long ago invented a wood saw ... again ONE person did it .....
> etc, etc, etc etc, for all tools



Do we even know that ? There seems to be a great human tendency to incorrectly attribute inventions to single inspired individuals - like Marconi and wireless (which might better be attributed to Prof. D. E Hughes) or Edison and electric lamps (might be better attributed to Humphry Davy or Joseph Swan) , but in reality lots of things were independently invented more then once, or arose from an evolution like process. Patents are supposed to encorage this evolution, by giving those who make a significant new contribution a fair period of exclusivity to reap the rewards of it, whilst ensuring disclosure so that after this period further development is not suppressed. I often wonder if in some fields, the rate of progress has not increased enough that the duration of patents ought to be revised downward.


----------



## MIGNAL

From what little that I've read it seems awfully difficult to pin the invention of the electric light on to one single person. 
Wireless much the same. Certainly not Marconi. Even the invention of the Bell labs transistor is contested.


----------



## RogerP

Seems almost as if there is a time for some things to be discovered or invented and they surface concurrently from different sources.


----------



## Owl

The point I was trying to make was that since a specific tool was first produced to do a certain job and now there are umpteen similarities, doesn't this imply that the originals were copied ?


----------

