Clifton plane sale!

[MIGNAL]

What exactly are the bad design issues? I've been using my Stanley No.4 today and I have to say that what you have just stated is utter nonsense. There is no way on earth that an old original Stanley (or Record) was made as well as the new Stanley premium plane. Not a hope. I should know, over the years I've had well over a dozen old Stanleys/Records. I have fettled a few old Stanleys, to a pretty high level even if I do say so myself. My old Stanley No. 4 has a Ray Iles blade and 2 piece Clifton cap iron. The new Stanley premium is at least as good, actually I think it is superior.
As for 'fettling', there really is very little to do. I've relieved the edges of my new Stanley with some 180G wet/dry - took all of 1 minute!!! No need to seat the frog, no need to true the frog face, no need to flatten the sole, no need to square the sides, no need to flatten the (thick!!) blade, no need to mate blade and chipbreaker. The adjustable mouth is a perfect fit - no gaps, no steps, perfectly level with the sole. Backlash is just over half turn on the Premium Stanley's: what is it on a vintage Stanley? Actually there wasn't much need to sharpen the blade! Something that can't be said of the Veritas that I bought.
All from someone who has actually bought and used one. I say all this from a position of strength. If I really thought that the new Stanley was poor, I would send the thing back for a full refund.
I'm not going to though.

 

[woodbrains]

What exactly are the bad design issues? I've been using my Stanley No.4 today and I have to say that what you have just stated is utter nonsense. There is no way on earth that an old original Stanley (or Record) was made as well as the new a Stanley premium plane. Not a hope. I should know, over the years I've had well over a dozen old Stanleys/Records. Actually I have fettled a few old Stanleys, to a pretty high level even if I do say so myself. My old Stanley No. 4 has a Ray Iles blade and 2 piece Clifton cap iron. The new Stanley premium is at least as good, perhaps superior.
As for 'fettling', there really is very little to do. I've relieved the edges of my new Stanley with some 180G wet/dry - took all of 1 minute!!! No need to seat the frog, no need to flatten the sole, no need to square the sides, no need to flatten the (thick!!) blade, no need to mate blade and chipbreaker. The adjustable mouth is a perfect fit - no gaps, no steps, perfectly level with the sole. Actually there wasn't much need to sharpen the blade! Something that can't be said of the Veritas that I bought.
All from someone who has actually bought and used one. I say all this from a position of strength. If I really thought that the new Stanley was poor, I would send the thing back for a full refund.
I'm not going to though.

OK if you like them, fine. But you are missing the point. For Clifton to reduce the price of thsir planes to the level of these Stanley's, they would have to outsource production to the far East or similar, with all the QC problems that Stanley obviously had, and lack of control to do anything about it without difficulty. Clifton would not be British anymore just as Stanley isn't American. It is the 'advice' that Clifon should adopt Stanley's model that is the issue.

As for design issues of the modern Stanley's; the block plane is too heavy and no amount of customer care or QC checks will change that, it is inhearently badly designed. So is the alloy cap. As is the design of the shoulder plane. The handles on the smoother needs changing. There are other issues. The blades are good and made in Sheffield, I believe. I have Sheffield blades (Clifton) in my vintage Records and they are a match for any high premium production plane and cost less by a wide margin. Each to their own, of course, but the premim Stanleys are just as foreign as Quiangsheng and probably not as good. Definately not as good as LN or Veritas, aside the cost.

Mike.

 

[Peter Sefton]

It’s a real shame that some of the reviews online of Clifton are old and poor - when Fine Woodworking did its Smoothing plane review in April 2011 the Clifton came out joint winner with the more expensive LN, but this review does not seem so readily available. It’s a shame that an English plane maker has a very hard ride in the UK yet the USA are very supportive (and rightly so) of their own tool makers. Trying to break the US market is critical - that’s why one of my Canadian students told me all the Veritas products are in imperial not for the Canadians but to satisfy the American market. I am not sure how big the North American tool market is but I do know the readership of one of the top US woodworking publications is 25 times bigger than the equivalent UK magazine, that’s why they have the budgets to do such in-depth work and articles. When manufacturing for such a big home grown market LN and Veritas have indeed be able to produce, innovate and grow very well notwithstanding the general (but not always) very good quality products they produce. I have not had any more quality issues with Clifton (not including the excellent lapped Veritas blades)in my workshop than I have with other brands but I have seen a few students buying imported tools they just don’t need or fully understand. I do hope that Clifton do continue making world class planes and don’t get squeezed out by the big boys, but it is true, British tool makers marketing is very poor in relation to that of the US - we do have a lot to learn …

 

[MIGNAL]

What exactly are the bad design issues? I've been using my Stanley No.4 today and I have to say that what you have just stated is utter nonsense. There is no way on earth that an old original Stanley (or Record) was made as well as the new a Stanley premium plane. Not a hope. I should know, over the years I've had well over a dozen old Stanleys/Records. Actually I have fettled a few old Stanleys, to a pretty high level even if I do say so myself. My old Stanley No. 4 has a Ray Iles blade and 2 piece Clifton cap iron. The new Stanley premium is at least as good, perhaps superior.
As for 'fettling', there really is very little to do. I've relieved the edges of my new Stanley with some 180G wet/dry - took all of 1 minute!!! No need to seat the frog, no need to flatten the sole, no need to square the sides, no need to flatten the (thick!!) blade, no need to mate blade and chipbreaker. The adjustable mouth is a perfect fit - no gaps, no steps, perfectly level with the sole. Actually there wasn't much need to sharpen the blade! Something that can't be said of the Veritas that I bought.
All from someone who has actually bought and used one. I say all this from a position of strength. If I really thought that the new Stanley was poor, I would send the thing back for a full refund.
I'm not going to though.

OK if you like them, fine. But you are missing the point. For Clifton to reduce the price of thsir planes to the level of these Stanley's, they would have to outsource production to the far East or similar, with all the QC problems that Stanley obviously had, and lack of control to do anything about it without difficulty. Clifton would not be British anymore just as Stanley isn't American. It is the 'advice' that Clifon should adopt Stanley's model that is the issue.

As for design issues of the modern Stanley's; the block plane is too heavy and no amount of customer care or QC checks will change that, it is inhearently badly designed. So is the alloy cap. As is the design of the shoulder plane. The handles on the smoother needs changing. There are other issues. The blades are good and made in Sheffield, I believe. I have Sheffield blades (Clifton) in my vintage Records and they are a match for any high premium production plane and cost less by a wide margin. Each to their own, of course, but the premim Stanleys are just as foreign as Quiangsheng and probably not as good. Definately not as good as LN or Veritas, aside the cost.

Mike.

I don't think I am missing the point at all. I haven't made a comment on Clifton. I don't expect Clifton to compete (on price) with Stanley. I don't expect them to compete with Quangsheng either. I strongly suspect that Clifton are competing for the LN/Veritas market. Those woodworkers who have disposable income will likely buy the aforementioned Planes. Those who have to watch their budget a little more closely will likely buy Quangsheng/Premium Stanley.
I own a mixture of Planes (far too many!). Veritas, Quangsheng, Premium Stanley and old Stanley/Records. In terms of function I would rate the Premium Stanley on a par with Veritas and my Quangsheng. The wood surface doesn't look any worse after I've used my Stanley premium than it does after I've used my Veritas. I haven't tried it on the wood from hell but I have tried it on Bubinga, Indian Rosewood, Ebony and the more 'friendly' Cherry and Walnut.
I don't have any experience of the Premium block plane, so I won't comment on that.
Regarding the alloy lever cap. It can only be a problem if you overtighten it. Providing you use it as it should be I don't see an issue and it really isn't difficult to use it as intended.

 

[Jacob]

Right. I've ordered the Stanley premium 4 to give it a go and compare it with my LV la bu smoother (wossit called- it's the one with parallel sides).
If it's no good I'll blame MIGNAL and put it on ebay. I've tested quite a few tools this way and not kept them. I usually get most of the money back, even make a small profit occasionally.
Wouldn't do that with a Clifton at three times the price and bad write ups. I wouldn't want to be stuck with it.

 

[MIGNAL]

You should be able to return it if distance selling rules apply. Not sure about the postage costs.
I'd be very surprised if you found it to be poor in terms of it's function. You will probably find the rear tote less than ideal. That's the only real issue I had with mine. I removed the tote and rounded the transition into the rather flat sides. Took me around 30 minutes. It feels perfectly fine now.

 

[Sawyer]

It's certainly the case that Clifton could do a better job of marketing themselves.
I have 3, (a 4.1/2, a 7 and a 420). All absolutely superb, straight out of the box.

Do they need to develop a 'modern' plane? Probably not: innovation wise, Veritas are a tough act to follow, whereas most traditionalists probably don't like their style anyway. Then, there's uber trad. Lie Nielson, with Clifton somewhere in between, perhaps?
Yet Clifton planes seem to perform equally well as Veritas or LN, but are cheaper and British. They have a niche, but could market themselves better.

I'm glad to say that they are sold in France, eg. by http://www.gaignard-millon.com/categori ... ie=Clifton
... who give them a very good write up and sell them cheaper than Veritas or LN.

Yes, the US is a big and patriotic market, but Europe is also large and for those seeking quality European tools, Sheffield is the place to look.

So, marketing...

 

[Fromey]

Perhaps we could help by writing accurate, up to date reviews of Clifton planes and then submitting them to woodworking magazines, especially the big 2 American ones.

 

[mark w]

Brilliant idea Fromey.

 

[deserter]

I bought a LN low angle 71/2 from Axminster, the brass cap iron clamped down on the blade just over the bevel making it impossible to retract the blade without loosening the cap iron (very fiddly)

Not wanting to stir up too much, I feel you've missed something. The low angle planes need the iron loosening by 1/2 a turn to adjust them. It is clearly stated on both their website and in the enclosed instructions.


~Nil carborundum illegitemi~

 

[iNewbie]

You should be able to return it if distance selling rules apply.

Don'y you have to send the item back unused for that?

 

[matthewwh]

Just a thought to throw into the hat regarding marketing.

Effective marketing campaigns are not cheap and eventually have to be factored into the price you pay for the item.

The ethos of Clifton's business has always been to make the best products possible utilising some very special skills and techniques that are only available in Sheffield and a very few other metalworking centres around the world. Fully annealed castings, hand forged cutting irons, forged auger bits, skilled lathe work, hand finishing and polishing of components etc. You just can't do that anywhere and to the best of my knowledge none of the other manufacturers even come close to matching their production methods, regardless of price.

The whole point of a Clifton is that the money you pay for it ends up in the tool, rather than disappearing in a flurry of glossy leaflets.

 

[jimi43]

Just a thought to throw into the hat regarding marketing.

Effective marketing campaigns are not cheap and eventually have to be factored into the price you pay for the item.

The ethos of Clifton's business has always been to make the best products possible utilising some very special skills and techniques that are only available in Sheffield and a very few other metalworking centres around the world. Fully annealed castings, hand forged cutting irons, forged auger bits, skilled lathe work, hand finishing and polishing of components etc. You just can't do that anywhere and to the best of my knowledge none of the other manufacturers even come close to matching their production methods, regardless of price.

The whole point of a Clifton is that the money you pay for it ends up in the tool, rather than disappearing in a flurry of glossy leaflets.

It is sad Matthew that very few companies nowadays can afford to ignore the Internet as a channel. I'm also sure that viral marketing can be very effective...indeed I am certain this thread alone will serve as a talking point in a positive way to Clifton.

You support Clifton because of your company ethos...but answer this...if they ultimately became so unpopular that you had no sales....would you still be able to afford to support them?

I salute companies like yours...Classic Hand Tools and Peter Sefton for supporting British industry and note that you also pioneered QS...and quality QS to allow your customers the option of a more economical solution.

I truly hope that Clifton will survive for many more decades but surely the Axminster channel was a major one for them in getting their product out to a wider audience and they I suspect they now need to look seriously into the causes of the dropping of their product.

Thanks for your views mate.

Jim

 

[iNewbie]

Just a thought to throw into the hat regarding marketing.

Effective marketing campaigns are not cheap and eventually have to be factored into the price you pay for the item.

The ethos of Clifton's business has always been to make the best products possible utilising some very special skills and techniques that are only available in Sheffield and a very few other metalworking centres around the world. Fully annealed castings, hand forged cutting irons, forged auger bits, skilled lathe work, hand finishing and polishing of components etc. You just can't do that anywhere and to the best of my knowledge none of the other manufacturers even come close to matching their production methods, regardless of price.

The whole point of a Clifton is that the money you pay for it ends up in the tool, rather than disappearing in a flurry of glossy leaflets.

No need for any "disappearing flurry of glossy leaflets" when a decent website promoting your product (to sell-yourself) serves the same purpose in this cyber day-and-age.

 

[Jacob]

......
It is sad Matthew that very few companies nowadays can afford to ignore the Internet as a channel. ......

Why sad?
Surely it's good that such a cheap and accessible medium is so available. Clifton are just being lazy with their website. They could get a school kid to do a better one.

 

[jimi43]

......
It is sad Matthew that very few companies nowadays can afford to ignore the Internet as a channel. ......

Why sad?
Surely it's good that such a cheap and accessible medium is so available. Clifton are just being lazy with their website. They could get a school kid to do a better one.

Well I'm weeping! :mrgreen:

What I meant was it is sad that they aren't apparently aware.....and what you said.

Jim

 

[matthewwh]

Better than yours though, isn't it Jacob. :wink:

 

[Jacob]

Better than yours though, isn't it Jacob. :wink:

Well you'd hope so. I guess their business is probably bigger than mine! Most businesses are.
And my site is all DIM (did it myself). Also mine is in suspended animation pending completion of current projects and a restart later this year I hope. You aint seen nothing yet. :shock:

PS if they need a few school kids to do them a site they could ask a Sheffield school? Could be a good project.

 

[MIGNAL]

Clifton really need some decent photographs of their Planes. Not just a group shot but BIG, professionally shot images of each individual Plane. Small images on websites don't cut it (oops). You have to get those woodworkers drooling, as though they can't function without owning a Clifton plane.
Not a lot wrong with the product. In terms of aesthetics they are the most attractive looking of the 3 higher end Plane makers, IMO.

 

[MIGNAL]

This is a better example, although (I'm guessing) the images look a little over exposed. It would be better if the images could be enlarged.

http://www.fine-tools.com/G303774.htm