# Quality Mid Range Hand Planes ?



## wizer (25 Nov 2008)

There is a thread over on the Wood Whisperer forum about the lack of mid-range planes. Something above the quality of Anant, etc but below LN, LV. Rob Lee said he tasked his designers to use 'new' materials when creating the new block planes. However, the purpose was clearly not to save the end user's money. The new offerings from Stanley are said to be aimed at the LN/LV market in terms of RRP.

So it's got me thinking. Is it possible to make such a 'mid range' plane? What materials could be used to make such a plane, other than wood? Rob said he'd never have the cheek to use injection moulding, but is there a good quality plastic/composite material that could be used to keep costs down?

Just a theoretical question, I assume these big companies have thought of this stuff already.


----------



## Screw Loose (25 Nov 2008)

What's wrong with Anant
my little block plane goes everywhere with me

True it doesn't hold a edge for eternity but its easily sharpened
It does not get nicked and I'm not paranoid about losing it :lol: 

How about http://www.rali-uk.com/


----------



## frugal (25 Nov 2008)

wizer":3esac3e5 said:


> There is a thread over on the Wood Whisperer forum about the lack of mid-range planes. Something above the quality of Anant, etc but below LN, LV. Rob Lee said he tasked his designers to use 'new' materials when creating the new block planes. However, the purpose was clearly not to save the end user's money. The new offerings from Stanley are said to be aimed at the LN/LV market in terms of RRP.
> 
> So it's got me thinking. Is it possible to make such a 'mid range' plane? What materials could be used to make such a plane, other than wood? Rob said he'd never have the cheek to use injection moulding, but is there a good quality plastic/composite material that could be used to keep costs down?
> 
> Just a theoretical question, I assume these big companies have thought of this stuff already.



I am not sure that there is much demand for a mid range hand plane. MY theory goes like this: 


An Axminster No4 bench plane is £22.

A Stanley No4 is about £40.

A Clifton No4 is £200

A L/N No4 is £280

So you would be looking for something in the £100-£150 price range. the problem is that the mass market of DIYers are only ever want to pay for the <£40 market. The site chippies might be willing to pay to £100-£150 price range. And the only people who are willing to pay £200+ for a bench plane are primarily going to be enthusiasts who are not in this for the money, but for the love.

I can not see the market that they would be trying to break into. They would constantly be derided be the enthusiasts for not being as good as Clifton/LN/LV from above and derided by the DIYers for being too expensive from below.

If you are going to break into that kind of market at that price point you are going to need to be automated (no hand polishing or lapping the base to 0.00001" tolerances  ). The problem with doing that is that you are then into the high R&D; high tooling costs and you will need to sell a large number of units in order to break even. The best way of doing this is too sell as many as you can as cheaply as you can.

There are a number of other barriers to entry to be considered: 

- Brand image: any new competitor has to overcome the brands of the competitors. Stanley may be mocked by the people here for low quality, but it is all that the average Joe in the street has ever heard of.
- Advertising: In order to get your market out there you will need to market them. The marketing budget will be quite limited, as will the number of places you could advertise into.
- Labour costs: Clifton, LV, L/N all spend a large number of man hours in creating each plane; which is one of the reasons that they are so expensive. Stnaley can knock out cheaper planes because they use cheap labour and do not have such high tolerances. I wonder how that graph of time vs accuracy would look? I imagine that there will be not much increase in accuracy as labour time increases (Stanley) until you get to a certain point,at which point it will go up and then plateau out (Cliton, LN, LV) and then only go up slowly again (LX60).


I wonder what the total plane sales are each year from Stanley, Clifton, L/N and LV (along with Anant, Faithful, Axminster etc). I would be surprised if there were many given the nature of woodworking to become a more industrialised process (time==money). I wonder just how big the enthusiast market actually is...


----------



## wizer (25 Nov 2008)

Yes I see your point Frugal. I guess these large companies came to this conclusion a long time ago. 

I do think that there should be a mid range. Whilst I'm not adverse to spending money, I'd be quite happy with a plane that just worked very well, without having to fettle it. It's taken years for me to get into hand planes because they were too expensive for me to take a risk on something I wasn't sure I'd ever be happy with. My initial assumption was that construction materials where a large part in the expense, but it's clear that there is a lot of R&D plus overheads.

Small scaler makers wouldn't explore this area because it's too much of a risk. 

I _am _interested in what other materials could make a plane other than wood and metal. The sole would have to be as slippy as metal.


----------



## Mr Ed (25 Nov 2008)

I wonder if the new so called 'premium' Stanleys might actually fall into this middle ground?

All depends on where they are priced, assuming the 3d renderings ever turn into actual products...

Cheers, Ed


----------



## tnimble (26 Nov 2008)

wizer":3mzj1jx6 said:


> What materials could be used to make such a plane, other than wood? Rob said he'd never have the cheek to use injection moulding, but is there a good quality plastic/composite material that could be used to keep costs down?


The tooling costs are fairly high for injection moulding. The number of products made can be 'relatively' low, as the quality slowly drops due to tooling wear. With casting metal a slow drop in cast quality is less dramtic. the bad castings (quite some percentage actually) can be recycled. Minor imperfections can be milled, ground or blasted away. Where as with a lot of plastics and composites the machining that can be done is limited and materials can't be recycled as easy if at all.

Also the raw material costs of the 'often' used ductile is relative low, also are th machine costs as ductile is easy to machine, requires less cutting oil and causes not a huge amount of wear on the end mills, boring tools and chisels. And ductile has been proven to be fairly stable and can take a knock in use. It rater distorts that cracks, with the distortions relatively easy to file or sand away.


----------



## bugbear (26 Nov 2008)

wizer":1vj267na said:


> I do think that there should be a mid range.



For this to be true, you need a viable market; I think frugal clearly outlined the reasons that no such market exists.

BugBear


----------



## wizer (26 Nov 2008)

ok, I just thought a theoretical discussion on alternative plane making materials might be relatively interesting. I stand corrected and informed.


----------



## ByronBlack (26 Nov 2008)

there is a mid-range of beautiful and well performing planes, it's a small company in the UK by an interesting fella in the south-west. They are all hand-made, comes with superb blades, flattened and sharpened before delivery.

It's called 'Philly Planes'


----------



## ByronBlack (26 Nov 2008)

bugbear":2hx2czbz said:


> wizer":2hx2czbz said:
> 
> 
> > I do think that there should be a mid range.
> ...



The points although valid, are just theoretical, the fact that there are people talking about this mid-range and poeple who want them, proves there is a market - how big or small is a different point.

There is the assumption that the hobbyist is happy to pay LN, LV, Clifton prices just because of the love. That is not true for all hobbyists, I certainly don't want to pay all that money for a plane. I for one would love a decent mid-range plane, something that can get me near the performance of the higher-end without endless amount of tuning/fettling an old stanley/record require.

Take a look at the new veritas saw for example. This is aimed at the mid-range. It's not a nasty cheap hardpoint, neither is it a highpriced LN or Wenzloff etc.. It's a good quality mid-range saw that has the same performance for less costs (check out philly's review).

I think veritas will do well with it, and I hope they contiue to extend their range of affordable high performance tools.

Getting back to Wizers questions about material. Something that hasn't been explored yet is graphites and plastics. I see no reason why they couldn't be used. They are flat, relatively easy to manufacture, cheap, and could be lapped/flattened with relative ease.


----------



## neilyweely (26 Nov 2008)

I am clearly not in he same league as some of the woodworkers on the forum; most of my work is structural rather than joinery. However I would've thought that there WAS a market for quality mid-range planes. The theory over the derision being aimed at the brand from above and below is a valid point, but surely there are some sacrifices can be made without compromising the performance of the plane to a large degree.
I personally am not so concerned with how my tools LOOK, as to how they perform. Whilst I do appreciate the workmanship involved with LN etc I buy the tool to do a job, rather than as an enthusiast who has a concern with appearance too.
I thought the new stanley range was going to revive the brand AND be aimed at the 100quid mark, am I wrong?

Surely I am not alone in this opinion? I know for a fact there are six or seven lads on site who would agree with me, as they have expressed an interest in the stanley range when I explained them (incorrectly?)

Just my 2p.

Neil


----------



## ike (26 Nov 2008)

All Stanley have to do is apply quality control and specify quality materials. Maybe bring production back to American soil. Not really much required in the design department. Lo and behold the humble Stanley No. 4 can transform to a decent 'mid-range' plane... Actually, isn't that what they used to do :? :wink:

No need to re-invent the wheel - just get to it with the spoke wrench.

A premium plastic plane...with a bubinga handle - hmm, that'd be irony for you!


----------



## JohnCee (26 Nov 2008)

Hello, everyone.
First post. be gentle.

I think older Stanleys/records fill the midrange slot nicely. I also think people overestimate the amount of fettling required.

Buy nice old stanley for £30 or so, have the sole reground for £20 by Ray Iles, add a new thicker blade and back iron ~£40 (Ray will even file the mouth for you if required) and voila! you have the perfect sub-£100 midrange plane.


----------



## ike (26 Nov 2008)

Another way too it - couldn't agree more.


----------



## frugal (26 Nov 2008)

I was trying to explain to SWMBO about the NX60 and where it fits into the market place and why people would pay £220 for one rather than £60 for a very simliar looking block plane.

Eventually between us we extended the car analogy that occured in the NX60 thread: Anant and Stanley are Fiestas, Clifton and LN are Bentleys and the NX60 would be a Ferarri.

When discussing this thread she stated that the lack of a mid range plane was then like not having a BMW in the car range.

It got me thinking, there is a demand for all of the above cars, Fiestas, BMWs, Bentleys and Ferraris, so why do I think that there is not a demand for a mid priced plan. I think it is to do with volume more than anything else. There are millions of cars sold every year, so it is cost effective to have a car for every niche, but I reckon that there are only a few thousand hand planes sold each year, and unlike the car market there does not seem to be the need or desire to change the model every 3 years. (I know that a lot of people here have dozens of planes, but my dad has still just got the same Record No4 that he had when I was a kid 20 years ago).

I think that the ultimate reason that there is not a mid range plane at the moment is that the total market is too small to have larger number of models.

There are some mid range specialists like Philly, but I suspect that his production volume is too low to affect the global market (no offence meant Philly to your product, but as I understand it you make all of the planes yourself, and there are only so many that a single person can produce in a year).

As someone else pointed out that the mid range market is also satisfied by the refurbished second hand market which also reduces the market space for a manufacturer of new planes to fit into.

I am trying to remember all of the micro-economic theory I did at A-Level 20 years ago  Other things would be economies of scale (at what volumes do they kick in); retail (just how many diferent brands of handplanes do you want in your shop) and over-choice (too many products that all look and function the same at a macro level, and only differ in cosmetics, or quality which is difficult to determine on a shelf edge).

Not that I am against a mid range plane. I would certainly have more of a chance of getting one past SWMBO than I do a Clifton ("but you already have two that look just like that one!") 

Although given that over the weekend: The telly broke; my glasses broke; we discovered Nursery have not taken any money for two months; and both sets of parents have arranged to spend Christmas with us... I think that new tools of any description are way down the priority list


----------



## custard (26 Nov 2008)

JohnCee":3a7p72bn said:


> Hello, everyone.
> First post. be gentle.
> 
> I think older Stanleys/records fill the midrange slot nicely. I also think people overestimate the amount of fettling required.
> ...



Good point, well put!


----------



## bugbear (26 Nov 2008)

frugal":3kxou88x said:


> but I reckon that there are only a few thousand hand planes sold each year



It would be rather interesting to know the combined annual sales of LN, Clifton and LV, who I guess would constitute mass market (in our market).

(I suspect that Philly, Steve Knight, S&S, Wayne Anderson etc form a tiny percentage compared to those three).

I also suspect that even the "big three" are selling tiny numbers compared to Record/Stanley in their heyday.

BugBear


----------



## wizer (26 Nov 2008)

When I started out, I steered well clear from hand tools because you basically have three options. 

Buy the cheap rubbish and learn the hard way
Buy an old tool and fettle it 
Buy top of the range planes. 

I was intelligent enough to know I wouldn't stick it with a sub-standard plane, I was unintelligent enough to be able to fettle a plane to get it working well and, at that time, I could not afford the top range. For me (and I think many like me) powered hand tools and cheap machinery was a better bet than buying rubbish or unfettled hand tools. If there was a good quality block plane available for around £80 max, I'd have been more likely to invest in hand tools earlier. It wasn't until I bought a fettled block plane on here and was shown other hand tools, that my interest in hand tools flourished.


----------



## Chems (26 Nov 2008)

I'd be intrested in a mid price plane range for sure.

I've taken the old router of getting a Record off ebay and fettling it. Took me ages, cost me loads of time, but at the end I have a well performing plane and have learned something. I couldn't ever see myself paying triple figures for a plane. Just couldn't.


----------



## matthewwh (26 Nov 2008)

The latest from Stanley is that the US launch of the Sweetheart range has been pushed back to the new year. I haven't received any notification that the UK launch date has changed from April 09, which should mean that we still get a chance to see some feedback from the forums and mags over there before the UK launch. 

Having a browse through their catalogue, they still do quite a few other premium tools - the Rabone range of class 1 rules and squares and the new Bailey hand clamps look very acceptable.


----------



## neilyweely (27 Nov 2008)

OK, I did make a long entry, but the laptop is playing up a bit.

I have some old record planes that could do with 'tuning up', which I fear is beyond me (I could test run the stanley ones and see how I go!!). I think I remember MatthewH doing some work with planes, is this correct?

Is there anyone else I could use? Am I correct Matthew? (Yeah mate, thats right, send me all your planes and a coupla hundred quid.......byeeee) :wink: 


I think the problem is no-one knows exactly what a midrange plane will be, eh? Difficult to say, I suppose. I still think there is a market for them though. But I suppose their research teams would know more about it than I.

Neil


----------



## bugbear (27 Nov 2008)

It appears by "mid range" that people mean LN/Clifton/LV performance, but for a 60 % of the price.

I suspect this may prove optimistic, apart from second hand.

In particular, given his clearly stated priorities, if this price/performance point could be hit, Rob Lee would have hit it.

BugBear


----------



## ByronBlack (27 Nov 2008)

bugbear":2tyrcpmm said:


> It appears by "mid range" that people mean LN/Clifton/LV performance, but for a 60 % of the price.
> 
> I suspect this may prove optimistic, apart from second hand.
> 
> ...



I don't believe many people have said they expect the premium performance, I for one would happy to be near the performance which shouldn't be that hard to do seeing as you can near the performance with a well tuned stanley/record (pre-war), I think what people are basically saying is that want that level of performance without all the hassle and trouble and time consumption of fettling an old beater.

I certainly think that the premium companies could if they really wanted to compromise on certain aspects of their construction to produce a sub £100 plane of very good performance out of the box. The finish isn't so important, and neither are some of the other things like accessories, shiny brass knobs etc.. the only that needs to happen is that the sole is flat and square to the sides, the frog if there is one is sturdy and the blade/chipbreaker arrangement are in good order, all the other stuff can be compromised/economised to bring down the price. 

Thats exactly how I see the new veritas saw - they have made compromises on things that don't matter aesthetically and materially, and concentrated on a tool that performs excellently out of the box.


----------



## lurker (27 Nov 2008)

I've banged this particular drum quite a few times but here goes again:

I can't see how you can become a proficient plane user without going down the route of learning how to fettle a plane.
Easiest, cheapest way of doing that is a sub- 10 quid stanley car booter.
How do you learn a skill without making mistakes?

After that, I can see the natural step up to a decent plane

Anyone here who says they have gone straight to LV or LN or cliftons is either a liar or a very rich man.


----------



## wizer (27 Nov 2008)

As I said, my first plane was a pre-fettled Block plane (bought here) and then a pre-fettled No.4 from Mark. I then went on to the Veritas BUS and the LN No.9. I have no intention of fettling planes personally. I want to get on with the job. I don't mind paying for the privilege. However, when I first started, I couldn't afford the luxury and wasn't remotely interested in toiling for hours trying to get something to work which I had no idea how to use. Chicken Egg springs to mind. Had there been a plane in the mid range which I could have learned to hand plane and get average-to-good results, I'd have got into hand tools a lot earlier, to my benefit. Fettling in some respects is an engineering/metalworking skill, some of us are just into making wooden furniture (albeit slowly).


----------



## Mikey R (27 Nov 2008)

lurker":1v6gjw38 said:


> I can't see how you can become a proficient plane user without going down the route of learning how to fettle a plane.
> Easiest, cheapest way of doing that is a sub- 10 quid stanley car booter.
> How do you learn a skill without making mistakes?



Hi Lurker,

It would seem to me that fettling a plane is a different skill that using one. 

Also, until you have used a well set up plane, either a LN / LV or a pre-fettled Stanley, you will have no idea what a good plane is supposed to feel like, so you wont know what to shoot for.

Ive had a go at fettling a (brand new) Record 04, until I bought a decent Stanley 4 from Racers I didnt know even if I was close ideal. 

Now Ive got an old stanley 6 to fettle, I still would like a Clifton 7 next.


----------



## frugal (27 Nov 2008)

lurker":1k9yqvcl said:


> I can't see how you can become a proficient plane user without going down the route of learning how to fettle a plane.
> Easiest, cheapest way of doing that is a sub- 10 quid stanley car booter.
> How do you learn a skill without making mistakes?
> 
> After that, I can see the natural step up to a decent plane



That is a bit like saying: I can't see how you can become a decent car driver without going down the route of rebuilding a car engine.


----------



## lurker (27 Nov 2008)

I'd agree wholeheartedly until you see/use a well set up plane you will never see the light. This has to be the reason why planes are abandoned by Joe Average & there are so many available cheap to the rest of us.

Ok maybe full fettle can be avoided but adjustment you learn by fettling & blade honeing is essential.

I think the main reason some people here spend a fortune "chasing" a magic sharpening methods is that they have not learned the fundamentals. Skills can't be substituted for wads of cash.

Equally even a Hotley isn't going to make a rubbish plane user any better.


----------



## David Cockey (27 Nov 2008)

My understanding is that before Record went out of production, LV sold many more Record planes than Veritas planes.


----------



## neilyweely (27 Nov 2008)

So, doesn't that kinda prove the argument? Sorry, discussion.

I would love to be at the level some of you folk are at where you can justify spending that sort of money on a plane, even a collection of them!!

Truth is I am 'Mr Average.' (In some ways, but some men are more 'average' than others!! In other ways.) Sorry, don't usually do innuendo.

Incidentally, I wonder if "They" are taking notice of this discussion? Praps we should go on about it a bit longer, and "They" will begin production!!??!!
:wink: :wink: :wink: 

Again, 2p.

Neil


----------



## Derek Willis. (28 Nov 2008)

About a year ago, after reading all that is said about fettling planes I decided to have a look at two of my planes, both more than 40 years old and in constant use all the time, a jack and a smoother, both Record, I couldn't fettle the sole on either one on a sheet of wet and dry attached to a 6mm plate glass sheet , no change in the surface whatsoever, the whole surface of the sole was in contact. (Probably because it had been fettled by the constant use over 40 or so years).
Derek.


----------



## ivan (28 Nov 2008)

Bought just before the accountants took over the engineering department. In the old days castings were left to age so they did not distort on machining. Tying up stock in heaps, usually outdoors, cost money and was done away with. The technical solution of heat cycling used today also costs, and is now limited to the top of the market. Today's "everyday" plane is only flat at the moment it leaves the grinder ( or more likely, linisher (belt sander))

The best standard planes were made pre war, as they had a bit more metal in them. Wouldn't one of these and the relevant Charlesworth DVD be the most economical way of doing it?


----------



## Handworkfan (3 Dec 2008)

I'm not particularly in the market for a mid-range plane, but I know what I'd be looking for if I were.
Blades can be changed, soles can be flattened, adjusters can be tweaked, but the one thing that I won't now do without on a plane is an easily-adjustable mouth. With the standard Stanleys and Records, adjusting the mouth was such a faff that I found myself tempted to soldier on with the wrong setting rather than go to the trouble of changing it. With my current planes the mouth is adjusted either by moving the frog with the blade assembly in place or by closing up the sole plate - a few moments' work. This means I can easily have the mouth setting right for whatever I'm doing, and the difference it makes is dramatic.
A mid-range plane for me - were I in the market - would be one that probably needed some lapping work on the sole, and possibly could use a better cutter, and perhaps had a tad more backlash than I like, but had had the extra R&D money invested in an easy mouth-adjustment system.
Now whether there's a market waiting for that plane is another and very dubious question, it seems to me - but it would clearly and specifically distance the 'mid-range' plane from the current offerings.


----------



## Benchwayze (3 Dec 2008)

JohnCee":31kl9fzb said:


> Hello, everyone.
> First post. be gentle.
> 
> I think older Stanleys/records fill the midrange slot nicely. I also think people overestimate the amount of fettling required.
> ...



Definitely. Ike seems to agree too. 

I would never part with my 1950's Stanley No. 4. Cost £8.00 if I recall! A week's wages then. (Though the thicker blades won't fit without filing) 
One improvement I would make on all metal bench planes, is an accurate, adjustable mouth (via the front sole). The humble Jack would then be useful for much finer work; maybe keep aside a special blade for it too?


----------



## ike (5 Dec 2008)

Just seen the Grant planes in the Tilgear catalogue. Anyone have any of these? What sort of quality are they? Possibly fit the bill as mid-range planes?

A Bedrock pattern No.5 for £69.50 seems very good value!

Ike


----------



## Routermonster (5 Dec 2008)

My Tilgear catalogue arrived this morning. For a moment I thought they were doing a sale on LN planes! Duh! :roll: 
Those Grant planes look like a copy of the LNs - probably made in India or China as usual  
As for the rest of the stuff on offer ....
Les


----------



## wizer (5 Dec 2008)

Yes I just saw that. No way of knowing the quality until they are put to the test. They certainly _look _bling bling


----------



## Philly (5 Dec 2008)

Hah! Just seen the Grant planes myself - L-N knock offs!!! My first thought was "there's a mid-range plane for ya!".
Be interested to see how they perform - although not that interested that I'd buy one :lol: 
Philly


----------



## ivan (5 Dec 2008)

Be a good place to start, provided theyre not _too_ cheaply put together. Plenty of warped surfaces to flatten, but probably no worse than any other modern lower priced offering. I wonder if the block plane has a 'proper' bed like the LN and a cap long enough to press the blade onto it?


----------



## bugbear (5 Dec 2008)

ivan":1enhggb7 said:


> Be a good place to start, provided theyre not _too_ cheaply put together. Plenty of warped surfaces to flatten, but probably no worse than any other modern lower priced offering. I wonder if the block plane has a 'proper' bed like the LN and a cap long enough to press the blade onto it?



It's difficult to fettle out porous castings, loose fitting threads, and soft blades.

BugBear


----------



## ike (6 Dec 2008)

> It's difficult to fettle out porous castings, loose fitting threads, and soft blades.



Indeed, but let's not get carried away before someone gets hold of one - they _could_ be OK.


----------



## Rob Lee (6 Dec 2008)

Hi -

While the planes you're discussing bear a striking resemblance to LN - I do have a dog in this fight...

I'm pretty sure that these are made by a Taiwanese firm, whose engineers have been trained by an American mail-order firm on how to reproduce tools made by others. You will note, that the edge trimming block plane is a direct copy of ours, and not LN's. They have, and continue, to copy tools indiscriminately - patented, or not. The products, by and large, are all made in China. 

I can understand the attraction of the low price. I cannot understand rewarding the practise. I rarely have anything negative to say about anyone in this industry - but these people are just scum.

At some point - we, as consumers, have to understand that supporting this kind of activity puts your friends and neighbors out of work. I can point to dozens of firms in the UK whose products have been widely reproduced in Asia - and that's cost jobs. 

Copying isn't competition - it's basically theft. That it's not strictly illegal, does not make it moral.

Sincerely - 

Rob Lee


----------



## ByronBlack (6 Dec 2008)

Rob, since when has there been morals in business? Look at the fashion industy, the far-easten factories have copies of catwalk products within days of being shown, and there is a large network of shops that will happily sell these copies, and even magazines that will highlight them. And yet, the big fashion houses still seem to do ok - it might be interesting to find out why that is.

Are your planes designs protected? If so, why can't you sue them and get a stop to the cheap knock-offs from being produced?


----------



## Rob Lee (6 Dec 2008)

ByronBlack":1krpim79 said:


> (snip)
> Are your planes designs protected? If so, why can't you sue them and get a stop to the cheap knock-offs from being produced?



Hi - 

Patents (which we do) take years, and cost $20K-$100K in legal fees . Then - you have to file in multiple jurisdictions. Then - you have have to be willing to defend them. Our last successful patent defense cost $600,000 in legal fees, and also took years.

Life's just too short for much of that. 

Tilgear (who probably know no better) say in their flyer that the the planes are based on British designs... well - that edge plane is a direct copy of ours - unique body size and shape, side set screws, and floating blade lever.... it's a copy - plain and simple. 

Copying is very cost effective... designing is not.

Rob


----------



## wizer (6 Dec 2008)

When I started this thread I was not remotely thinking about copying designs at all. It hadn't even crossed my mind. So I'm completely behind you Rob, when you say that these people are scum. The _only _reason they have done this is to 'earn' money and probably don't care one bit about the end product. 

In fact my original idea was completely the opposite to what these people are doing. I imagined a company making a quality product that the maker cared about in a similar way to Rob Lee and TLN. But using materials and tooling to cut costs but maintain quality. I have no idea if this is feasible and I think I have learned from this thread that it probably is not. I don't object to premium planes at all. I own some. This was not meant to attack either the big hitters or the small bespoke quality makers. I do think that if these Grant planes are indeed shoddily made, then the customers will eventually end up with a Veritas or a LN in their toolbox. Much like us power tool users that started with Ferm or NuTool and now have Jet and Festool (  ).


----------



## ike (6 Dec 2008)

Rob,

Just for the record, I wasn't condoning buying knockoffs. The only point I was trying to get across was it would be interesting to find exactly how good (or bad) they are. Out of curiosity. I am fully behind you with respect to intellectual property theft et al, the Chinese just don't think the same way Westerners do. I have first hand experience of the problem, being a designer myself, and working with Chinese suppliers.

BTW, I have only Veritas planes in my cupboard! :wink:, and only respect for your efforts.

Ike


----------



## ByronBlack (6 Dec 2008)

I'm not sure this is such a massive problem for veritas - how many sales are there really going to be lost to a cheap product when your own products are in the upper-end (not talking about boutique stuff). I don't think the same person who was going to be buying that veritas bevel-up smoother is the same one that would be happy with a cheap chinese copy.


----------



## Hatherton_wood (6 Dec 2008)

Had to happen sooner or later - I'm surprised chinese bedrock copies for example have not appeared a lot sooner. The LN's in particular after all are enhanced copies of the old Stanley's so I guess anybody can copy them. Its different with stuff still in patent. Really this is a problem because firms like Record and Stanley no longer what they used to of sufficient quality in this cheaper price range. I don't think it will affect the market the quality stuff from LN and Veritas - I certainly would not buy them.


----------



## Handworkfan (6 Dec 2008)

intellectual property theft is a menace - and it is just what it says - theft. For a few years, I worked half-time for an employer adn half-time as a self-employed freelance writer, and found myself constantly having to explain to very nice, respectable adn not in the least criminally-minded people that they couldn't just run off copies of my work to send to their friends for free.
For writers, it's even more diffcult in some ways because people don't just produce a poor copy - they reproduce the real thing without paying a dime for it!
The damage caused by this was seen in music education in the 70s, when many of the best composers stopped writing music for schools because there wasn't any money in it as the schools just bought one legal copy and then illegally photocopied it.
Obviously, things are a little different in the case of engineering products, but the principle is the same: when someone has invested time adn skill in producing something excellent others should not be able just to freeload on the back of that.
I suspect that any copies of LV planes will be massively inferior - like counterfiet Levis - and probably won't be that much of a threat since LV's customer base is among discerning craftspeople who won't be taken in. but it's still reprehensible.


----------



## Dave S (6 Dec 2008)

ByronBlack":2u1ojqx8 said:


> I'm not sure this is such a massive problem for veritas - how many sales are there really going to be lost to a cheap product when your own products are in the upper-end (not talking about boutique stuff). I don't think the same person who was going to be buying that veritas bevel-up smoother is the same one that would be happy with a cheap chinese copy.



The manufacturers and importers are still making money out of someone else's intellectual property, though.

Dave


----------



## Rob Lee (6 Dec 2008)

Hi Ike - 

Just realised I quoted your post when I replied... mine didn't really have anything to do with yours... so will pop back and edit it out! Sorry 'bout that!

Cheers - 

Rob
(just back from a 3-2 win...)


----------



## Jake (6 Dec 2008)

Rob Lee":3q8sx60i said:
 

> Patents (which we do) take years, and cost $20K-$100K in legal fees . Then - you have to file in multiple jurisdictions. Then - you have have to be willing to defend them. Our last successful patent defense cost $600,000 in legal fees, and also took years.



Design rights ...

Not my area, but drop me a pm.


----------



## Routermonster (7 Dec 2008)

Rob

FWIW I wouldn't buy any one of these planes on principle, just as I haven't bought one of the cheap copies of Stanley planes that seem to be in all the catalogues these days.

When I started buying ‘proper’ hand tools a few years ago, I went down the e-bay route, hoping for good vintage Stanley or Record bargains. I managed to find a couple of decent ones, which I tuned up. The rest of the time it was a waste of money. Nowadays, if I want a new plane, I will save up for one. I have a couple of Veritas planes (and, I confess, one or two by LN and Clifton) and quite a few of Veritas’ other products. The LA Jack is a favourite. They're never cheap, but they're always a pleasure to use, because they’re functional, well-made, quality tools. It's funny how you forget how much they cost after a while!

I think your firm's reputation for innovation and quality is well-deserved.

Sorry if this is a bit long-winded; I guess what I am trying to say is - keep up the good work! 

Les


----------



## Handworkfan (7 Dec 2008)

Routermonster":1o2660gm said:


> Rob
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...


I agree - and I'm interested to see a number of people for whom the low-angle jack has become a favourite. Although it's not my only plane, it' sthe one I reach for automaticall. I've got a second cutter honed to the steepest angle I can get on the mk2 guide - 56 degrees, giving me a 68 deg EP - and I got a mirror finish on African Blackwood with that blade adn a close mouth setting - sanding would have been sacrilege!
It's a great tool - long may LV continue innovating and developing serious hand kit.


----------



## tnimble (7 Dec 2008)

While the copyright, pattetns, etcetera, in their current form, are misused to to withhold information and knowledge that should be open to the public to monopolize and markets and exploit mankind, what happens with these Grant planes and others (inclusing the mentioning of the illegal photocopying of materials by schools and snatching recent works for ones own profit) is wrong. 

Copying recent works and innovations, in a degraded form or not, is a extremely bad thing. (and has nothing to do with claiming intellectual ownership of the works of people contracted by a large companies, legally condoned to span about a century and more)

The sad thing is, people are buying these knockoffs, I know a few people who could be potential buyers, you will most probably know one or two or even be one of them. These companies know that there are people buying cheap knockoff products. It's not just a couple of people, its a large market that is willing to buy anything if the price is low. With tools this is no different. Just how many times have you heard somebody on one of the forums state they are in for a tool and on a budget, or state that they can't justify the costs of something that is expensive? (not implying that anybody that have ever typed this or something alike is supporting these copy cat companies)


----------



## Hatherton_wood (7 Dec 2008)

Are other Grant planes than the four in the Tilgear catalogue made I wonder or are these the first? For these are all old Stanley designs really - they should not have made them to look just like LN's and the Veritas copy of the 95! 

Copying out of patent items has always gone on. Record made exact copies of the Stanley Bench planes as they were in the early 1930's - so close you can exchange the frogs for example - all the features Stanley had on their planes at the time were copied. Looking back was this a bad thing? Even Stanley seem to be introducing new premium planes with somewhat similar styling to Veritas. In other cases e.g. drugs and agrochemicals other manufacturer's will produce their own cheaper versions as soon as they are out of patent. The original manufacturer has to move on and produce another new product to stay in business. 

Like it or not its a jungle out there but nobody wants to see LN and Veritas not profit from their innovations otherwise we would not have the tools from them which we benefit from them today. I wonder though if having a cheaper alternative may even be good for the high end manufacturers if it brings more people into the use of hand tools and if they then realise there is better and more varied stuff out there which they can get if they can afford it? You have to realise too that the dramatic price rises here of LN and Veritas tools this year have sadly priced many people out of the high end and thus is opening up an opportunity which somebody somewhere is going to try and fill. I know a lot of people who would have bought this year if the prices here had not gone up the way they have - a lot of this due to the way the pound has fallen of course.


----------



## bugbear (8 Dec 2008)

Hatherton_wood":1qg8s378 said:


> Like it or not its a jungle out there but nobody wants to see LN and Veritas not profit from their innovations otherwise we would not have the tools from them which we benefit from them today. I wonder though if having a cheaper alternative may even be good for the high end manufacturers if it brings more people into the use of hand tools and if they then realise there is better and more varied stuff out there which they can get if they can afford it?



No; it is feasible (the jury is still out in this particular case) to make an "identical" copy with similar materials and QC, and _still_ under cut the original, since the knock off company has saved a HUGE amount in R&D costs.

This scenario represents a _massive_ disincentive to be the first, and to incur R&D costs, so (long ago) the notion of copyrights, patents etc was introduced.

Freely granted "the mouse" has tried to take this idea too far, but the idea *is* sound.

BugBear


----------



## tnimble (8 Dec 2008)

Hatherton_wood":1155qd02 said:


> Copying out of patent items has always gone on. Record made exact copies of the Stanley Bench planes as they were in the early 1930's - so close you can exchange the frogs for example - all the features Stanley had on their planes at the time were copied. Looking back was this a bad thing?



Let also not forget that multiple manufactures can legally mae the same product although one has a current pattents on a product or a feature of that product.

Also the instance of saying or implying Record copying Stanley designs is the same as what's going on with voiding patents and intellectual property theft is kind of incorrect. The relation between Record, Stanley Tool Works, Stanley Rule and Lever Company, The Stanley Works, Union Tool Company, Millers Falls and Sargent and their main designers Bailey, Miller and Traut is complex to say te least.


----------



## frugal (8 Dec 2008)

There has been a lot of talk of copy-catting designs and patent infringement. I am curious to see exactly which patents LN, Veritas and Clifton currently hold. After all the basic design of the planes is almost identical to planes made in the 1930's.

Does anyone know of a way to search for a specific patent online. I have tried free-patents, but I can not find the right combination of search keywords


----------



## Rob Lee (8 Dec 2008)

frugal":36pe8u17 said:


> There has been a lot of talk of copy-catting designs and patent infringement. I am curious to see exactly which patents LN, Veritas and Clifton currently hold. After all the basic design of the planes is almost identical to planes made in the 1930's.
> 
> 
> (snip)



Hi - 

You are missing the point... it's about copying - not patent infringement.

If we were talking about music - your statment would be akin to saying that are are no new notes... so how would a different arrangement of old notes possibly be protected?

There is an expenditure of time and expertise (and tremendous expense) to develop a new design - and virtually no expertise or expense to copy it. 

In the case of the edge trimming block plane - It's a size and shape never made before (by Stanley, or anyone else) with an adjuster that's new, and the pivot side set-screws... even the exact shape of the lever cap is copied. 

In any event - the firm that produced this plane, has also produced exact copies of our (and other's) patented product....tools that never existed before each of them were made by the original inventors. In addition - the firm also uses our photographs and text to market the copies.

Like I said - it's morally indefensibe. If consumers choose to reward the behaviour - there's little that can be done to stop it... at least, not at the volumes and scale of this industry.

Rob Lee


----------



## Paul Chapman (8 Dec 2008)

But one thing these cheapo firms never copy is customer service - which is why most of us will always stick with LV, LN and Clifton :wink: 

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## frugal (8 Dec 2008)

Rob Lee":9ud98ess said:


> frugal":9ud98ess said:
> 
> 
> > There has been a lot of talk of copy-catting designs and patent infringement. I am curious to see exactly which patents LN, Veritas and Clifton currently hold. After all the basic design of the planes is almost identical to planes made in the 1930's.
> ...




Rob, 

I did not mean to imply that the only problem was patent infringement. I fully understand that the act of copying your designs so closely is also protected under other laws. I have no knowledge of if/how copyright affects copy-cats of physical products, I only have experience with written work and music which are exact copies, so I am staying well away from that area for fear of muddying the waters.

As a side effect the conversation brought up a couple of times comments about patents. As the humble plane has been around for a long time I was wondering what innovations the modern plane making companies have been able to come up with. However my google-fu is not strong enough to work the online patents websites to get a decent response (I either get 10,000 responses or none), so I wondered if anyone else knew. It was probably not the best idea to bring it up in this thread, and in hindsight I probably should have started a new thread for the question.

I apologise for any confision or misunderstanding.


----------



## Rob Lee (8 Dec 2008)

Hi Frugal - 

Patent searching can be a bit tricky... and reading them is even worse, due to the construction of the claims... one has to be well versed in sorting through dependent and independent claims, and the entire nesting of salient bits...

I would recommend that you start by looking at a subset of patents - using a website like DATAMP :

http://www.datamp.org/

You can also use the USPTO at :

http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/acadres.htm

There's a section on how to search there...

It's not always easy to find the ones you want though - you have to develop a feel for how the database fields are used, and pay attention to the classes that the products may be in...

Cheers - 

Rob


----------



## ydb1md (8 Dec 2008)

wizer":353imud8 said:


> Rob said he'd never have the cheek to use injection moulding, but is there a good quality plastic/composite material that could be used to keep costs down?



If Rob Lee made a set of "utility" planes made out of the same stuff as his new dovetail saw, I'd buy em. 

As long as the sole is wear resistant and the bed is well machined what else does a good hand plane need? Even though ductile iron planes won't break, I'm still afraid of dropping them. If I had a polymer plane I'd be more apt to use it on outside jobs.


----------



## Martin Brown (8 Dec 2008)

I could not post my comments here. 

If you want me to tell you how I feel about copying then please stop by at a show, out of selling time. Bring a bed.

Martin

I know I may have a vested interest here, however I am also someone who thinks fairness is not a hair colour.


----------



## Vann (8 Dec 2008)

Martin Brown":19kj0k8q said:


> If there is something we should be selling then please PM me. No promises but we always look at everything.


Grant planes.... :shock: 

_ducks for cover and runs for the door... :roll: _

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Martin Brown (8 Dec 2008)

Made me laugh, mind you we won 3.0 tonight so it is quite easy.


----------



## bugbear (9 Dec 2008)

ydb1md":3opa17hy said:


> wizer":3opa17hy said:
> 
> 
> > Rob said he'd never have the cheek to use injection moulding, but is there a good quality plastic/composite material that could be used to keep costs down?
> ...



Decent blade?

BTW, something has occurred to me; aren't Tilgear run by some people with deep religious beliefs? If so, perhaps an appeal to their moral sense might influence their stocking decisions w.r.t. these design knock-offs.

BugBear


----------



## lurker (9 Dec 2008)

BB,

I had exactly the same thought & then decided I'd mixed them up with someone else.


----------



## Pekka Huhta (9 Dec 2008)

If someone really knows about the religious beliefs of Tilgear people, it might (just might) make a difference to write up a petition which would, sort of combine their beliefs and the fact that they are acting against their own values. Well heck, it should be enough that they are acting against _our_ values for all that matters. Religion does not have to be mixed up with the whole thing at all. 

How about opening a petition on any of the free net petition pages. I think that if we could get the message around the woodworking forums, we could get a few thousand names from the forums easily. I don't know wether it would be enough to make them stop, but it would make them think at least. 

Two risks: First would be that we could actually be promoting the cheap LN and LV ripoffs (happens anyway) and second would be that those planes will be sold somewhere anyway. 

Pekka


----------



## ydb1md (9 Dec 2008)

bugbear":duy40kjd said:


> ydb1md":duy40kjd said:
> 
> 
> > wizer":duy40kjd said:
> ...



Sorry, didn't know Rob would sell anything else. :roll: :lol:


----------



## Handworkfan (9 Dec 2008)

ydb1md":2vky0tub said:


> As long as the sole is wear resistant and the bed is well machined what else does a good hand plane need?


Easy mouth adjustment. if it's there, I'll use it, but if I've got to go through a lot of fiddle and faffle I'm likely to try and soldier on with the wrong setting.
No matter how good value, I wouldn't now buy a plane wihtout an easy way of adjusting th emouth.


----------



## tnimble (9 Dec 2008)

If one constantly has to need to change the mouth opening on a bench plane, one is trying to use one plane for multiple distinctive tasks, one is in need for a second or third plane. That is the reason why historical plane makers generally only have a adjustable mouth on their block, shoulder and bull nose planes. As these speciality planes have to be used both on end grain and face grain and tweak joints by varying amounts. Bench planes have their dedicated task, leveling, jointing or smoothing.


----------



## kygaloot (18 Dec 2008)

It is clear that this company is violating intellectual property laws and thus their practices are clearly unethical. It is also true that it is very expensive to combat patent violations, particularly in an international setting.

However, as long as a company is not violating intellectual property laws, I see no moral argument against a company copying any given product. That is the purpose of patent and copyright law. It gives the original creator a monopoly for a number of given years. After that, they should be subject to the competitive market. Cheap knockoffs will not seriously damage the original quality supplier and another high quality knock-off is completely welcome. What is immoral is to suggest that employees in Canada, the UK, or the US are somehow more deserving of those manufacturing jobs than those in China or India.


----------



## Vann (19 Dec 2008)

kygaloot":1y8c3dxv said:


> What is immoral is to suggest that employees in Canada, the UK, or the US are somehow more deserving of those manufacturing jobs than those in China or India.


I don't believe there's anything wrong with fighting to keep jobs in our own country. Most of us have kids and would prefer that they are able to find jobs rather than be unemployed. When we start suggesting that employees in another country such as Canada might be more deserving than employees in China, then I guess your point applies.


kygaloot":1y8c3dxv said:


> It is clear that this company is violating intellectual property laws and thus their practices are clearly unethical.


I've never before considered owning an edge-trimming plane. However when I saw the introductory price for that Grant knock-off of the Veritas I seriously considered buying one and a Veritas blade to fit (then my LAJ arrived in the post and I'm too busy justifying it's cost to SWMBO to consider another purchase...... :roll: )
I do have a problem with the violation of Veritas's intellectual property rights, but I thought my dilemma might put another perspective on the issue, as in this case it would add to, not detract from, Veritas sales.

Cheers, Vann


----------



## jorgoz (30 Dec 2008)

_*Martin wrote :*_*



If there is something we should be selling then please PM me. No promises but we always look at everything.

Click to expand...


In Germany i found these interesting Anants, it's an improved version of their planes, 'fineley lapped sole, thicker blade, more steel in the plane...

Only 2 planes though, the nr. 4 and 5. It's the AA's, marked new on the following page.

http://www.dick-gmbh.de

Check under the tools/planes/anant categorie*


----------



## speed (30 Dec 2008)

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/New-Pro-Irwin-Rec ... 240%3A1318

midrange maybe?


----------



## wizer (30 Dec 2008)

Generally not regarded so, speed


----------



## Vann (3 Jan 2009)

jorgoz":2ynszuvu said:


> In Germany i found these interesting Anants, it's an improved version of their planes, 'fineley lapped sole, thicker blade, more steel in the plane...
> 
> Only 2 planes though, the nr. 4 and 5....


I visited Highland Hardware's website (USA) and I see they have an extensive range of improved Anant planes, including a multiplane, which are called Anant _Kamal_ planes. The standard Anant No.4 sells for $US35 while the 'Kamal" sells for $US50. Similarly the No.5 sells for $US50 while the 'Kamal' sells for $US75. They have a 1/8" thick iron and a 3/16" cap iron, and claim to have a higher standard of machining.

It would be interesting to see some reviewed (until then I'll stay well clear).

Cheers, Vann


----------



## Mikey R (5 Jan 2009)

I think its a real shame that even budget manufacturers describe their cheap hand planes as "Quality" or "Pro" - its really misleading for us newbies


----------



## bugbear (5 Jan 2009)

Mikey R":2l6j1x62 said:


> I think its a real shame that even budget manufacturers describe their cheap hand planes as "Quality" or "Pro" - its really misleading for us newbies



It's normally fairly simple; any name that has "professional" or "pro" in it...

... isn't  

BugBear


----------



## ivan (5 Jan 2009)

It seems there's a few rather overprotective uncapitalist viewpoints out there!

Once patents have lapsed, as they have many years ago for the standard and bedrock designs, anyone is free to make and sell a similar item. And existing makers take this into account when deciding to enter the market. (They too have done a bit of copying) I don't think Tilgear's new planes have any of the patented modifiactions developed by today's top makers.

In the UK we are also free to copy patented designs for our own use - it is only sales for profit that is illegal. (I believe this is not legal in the USA). I could for eg. legally knock up my own Woodrat or Routerboss for my own use, but not sell it for profit.


----------



## Green (5 Jan 2009)

No one seems to get upset when other tools are copied, look at the various Kity 419 clones out there. Whats the big deal with planes? 

Im off to give Tilgear a call... :lol:


----------



## bugbear (6 Jan 2009)

Green":1klx79t5 said:


> No one seems to get upset when other tools are copied, look at the various Kity 419 clones out there. Whats the big deal with planes?
> 
> Im off to give Tilgear a call... :lol:



We look forward to a review!

BugBear


----------



## Jake (6 Jan 2009)

ivan":3arjuf34 said:


> Once patents have lapsed, as they have many years ago for the standard and bedrock designs, anyone is free to make and sell a similar item.



I think the point was that at least one of the planes copied design tweaks specific to one manufacturer (not necessarily patented ones).


----------



## ivan (6 Jan 2009)

Well, although still legal, that is a bit immoral - I hadn't spotted that. Fortunaltely I shan't be tempted as some LV Cliftons and LN already on the shelf, and then there's the Rolls Royce back up service. (Hmmm. Can I still say that? Isn't it really a VW or a Beemer or whatever?)


----------

