Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tools

[bugbear]

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]

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

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

Cheerio,

Carl

 

[Vann]

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]

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]

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...

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...

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]

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.

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.

 

[Trafalgar]

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

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]

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

 

[Trafalgar]

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]

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]

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)]

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