Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tools

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Trafalgar]

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

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]

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?

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)]

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