My block plane arrived today, seems like a nicely made item. Even came reasonably sharp which was unexpected!
Luban Chinese Block Plane
- Thread starter Devmeister
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
AJB Temple
Finely figured
I bought a Luban bronze plane a few years ago. I had no idea it was a LN copy at the time. I tend to the view that planes have been around for a very long time and they are all pretty much the same really: a sharp bit of steel held at an angle to cut or scrape wood. That's it. Anyway, the Luban is a fine little plane, very well made and useful. I recommend them.
Devmeister
Established Member
Yah all block planes tend to look alike, some more than others.
The Clifton block plane does have its unique features. The body is vacuum cast bronze. The adjuster is based on the Norris design. The cap iron is a two piece design made from wood and bronze.
Just ordered one and will collect when I am over there on business on a couple of months.
The Clifton block plane does have its unique features. The body is vacuum cast bronze. The adjuster is based on the Norris design. The cap iron is a two piece design made from wood and bronze.
Just ordered one and will collect when I am over there on business on a couple of months.
Last edited:
The reason for the mention of the luban block planes being copies of LN isn't because there's something functionally different about LN (maybe the adjusters are slightly better), but more that they copied pretty much every aesthetic on the LN when there'd be no great reason to. I'm guessing someone was given an LN block plane and asked if they'd copy it and copy it they did.
Woodcraft didn't sell the block plane because it was too much of an overt copy of every aesthetic thing on an LN plane and later came out with a knuckle cap plane for the US. I'm not guessing that's why - they told me that.
It's not my business if someone else buys a copy, though. I wouldn't be surprised if an enterprising individual one in a while doesn't ship a box of 100 of those planes over to amazon and use amazon to sell them through the fulfillment services (just as chosera and atoma stones show up now, and the US distributor of the former doesn't appear to carry them any longer. In my opinion, distribution doesn't add value when it's not needed and the price doubles, anyway).
Interestingly, when you search for Luban planes on google, the F.o.g. forum has a thread comparing the LN and luban version, loudly decrying the price of the LN plane making it a "bad value". While that would normally be humorous, the fact that it's on a festool forum is doubly so.
Woodcraft didn't sell the block plane because it was too much of an overt copy of every aesthetic thing on an LN plane and later came out with a knuckle cap plane for the US. I'm not guessing that's why - they told me that.
It's not my business if someone else buys a copy, though. I wouldn't be surprised if an enterprising individual one in a while doesn't ship a box of 100 of those planes over to amazon and use amazon to sell them through the fulfillment services (just as chosera and atoma stones show up now, and the US distributor of the former doesn't appear to carry them any longer. In my opinion, distribution doesn't add value when it's not needed and the price doubles, anyway).
Interestingly, when you search for Luban planes on google, the F.o.g. forum has a thread comparing the LN and luban version, loudly decrying the price of the LN plane making it a "bad value". While that would normally be humorous, the fact that it's on a festool forum is doubly so.
mark w
Established Member
Right back at you, "intern" you've lost me.
I didn't say the stolen money is funding the war, I said tax money is embezzled and is used to fund the war.
Please try reading my post properly.
TIA.
For me it's about good enough for the price, the Luban cost me £55 whereas the LN seems to go for £185, just over three times the price is pretty hard to justify for what I imagine amounts to a fairly small improvement in quality. For the same reason I don't own any Festool gear, while I have no doubt it's excellent, I can good enough for less than half the price by buying a different brand.
When it comes down to it they're all pretty much Stanley copies anyway.
When it comes down to it they're all pretty much Stanley copies anyway.
AJB Temple
Finely figured
I am not convinced DW. There are a lot of block planes about that have a very similar shape. Some rather old. Even if Luban is a direct copy, and that is potentially open to question, it is not harming LN's sales, because LN deliberately restricts its output.
I think all the stuff about this that and the other method for making the castings is of no interest at all to 99% of buyers. They just want a plane that works well, is easy to adjust and easy to sharpen.
As it happens I do have some LN planes, and Veritas, and Clifton and old Records and Stanleys. By and large the are much of a muchness, though I think the Veritas shooting board plane is the best on the market by miles, and the Veritas block plane is superb (better than the LN in my hands). However, the LN, Veritas and the small Luban all work very well. I think the tool aficionados and collectors tell themselves that they can discern metallurgy differenced etc, but really we are at the extremes of functionality there for most of us.
I think all the stuff about this that and the other method for making the castings is of no interest at all to 99% of buyers. They just want a plane that works well, is easy to adjust and easy to sharpen.
As it happens I do have some LN planes, and Veritas, and Clifton and old Records and Stanleys. By and large the are much of a muchness, though I think the Veritas shooting board plane is the best on the market by miles, and the Veritas block plane is superb (better than the LN in my hands). However, the LN, Veritas and the small Luban all work very well. I think the tool aficionados and collectors tell themselves that they can discern metallurgy differenced etc, but really we are at the extremes of functionality there for most of us.
As a woodworker the only metallurgy I care about on a plane is the steel for the iron. Whether the brass casting for the handle is this alloy or that is of no bearing whatsoever on my use of the plane.
Devmeister
Established Member
Microsoft and Apple waged wars with each other over the look and feel of their interface. My old computer company had an ASIC with a logic error. We fixed it in software. A Chinese copy shows up in which the same logic error was found!
Autodesk uses an online license manager. You have to renew each year. In my case Autocad LT. I just found a link selling a lifetime license of LT for 60 bucks. Pay up and get a download key. The IP address traces to China.
LN had developed a unique look and feel to their tools as had Veritas. It theirs and it should be protected. I am sure LN could bring legal claims against LUBAN if they sell within the US market.
Protection of intellectual property is a major issue with China. In England, guys building Stuart steam engines on YouTube are not allowed to show the Stuart drawings as it’s a copyright infringement. Rolex has major issues with clone watches.
But it is perfectly ethical for Luban to clone LN tools and sell them? I guess we do have double standards.
Autodesk uses an online license manager. You have to renew each year. In my case Autocad LT. I just found a link selling a lifetime license of LT for 60 bucks. Pay up and get a download key. The IP address traces to China.
LN had developed a unique look and feel to their tools as had Veritas. It theirs and it should be protected. I am sure LN could bring legal claims against LUBAN if they sell within the US market.
Protection of intellectual property is a major issue with China. In England, guys building Stuart steam engines on YouTube are not allowed to show the Stuart drawings as it’s a copyright infringement. Rolex has major issues with clone watches.
But it is perfectly ethical for Luban to clone LN tools and sell them? I guess we do have double standards.
Devmeister
Established Member
The Veritas shooting plane is unique to their credit. But it’s a low angle design.
My use of a shooting plane like the Stanley 51 is unique. While folks use the lateral adjuster to adjust the blade to cut a perfect 90 degree cut, I use it to do the opposite. As a tool maker I need to make patterns which involve draft angles on small parts. The 51 works wonders to this end.
At the end of the day, everyone needs to make their own decisions. Do you honor the CITES treaty or not? Do you honor the use of FSC certified materials? Do you honor intellectual property that it is not your own? Do you support repressive regimes who take advantage of labor and deny basic civil liberties you take for granted. As consumers we do have some choice in the matter.
My use of a shooting plane like the Stanley 51 is unique. While folks use the lateral adjuster to adjust the blade to cut a perfect 90 degree cut, I use it to do the opposite. As a tool maker I need to make patterns which involve draft angles on small parts. The 51 works wonders to this end.
At the end of the day, everyone needs to make their own decisions. Do you honor the CITES treaty or not? Do you honor the use of FSC certified materials? Do you honor intellectual property that it is not your own? Do you support repressive regimes who take advantage of labor and deny basic civil liberties you take for granted. As consumers we do have some choice in the matter.
AJB Temple
Finely figured
I think if LN have an issue, then they can address it. Did the appoint you as their spokesperson or moral arbiter for the rest of us? Thought not. The horse you are on is rather high. A plane is a plane is a plane. They've been around a long time and the detail differences are pretty trivial. If you don't want to be copied, then you need to be a) innovative, b) patented and c) willing to defend. Much as I like LN I think they too have copied long standing designs.
Devmeister
Established Member
As a tool maker, the devil is in the details. As a basic woodworker it’s much less so. LN never truly copied an old design. They have numerous improvements to the old designs and provided access to tools that were no longer available to the average craftsman. The LN plane is superior to the old Bedrocks. I have some old bedrocks and can compare.
Secondly Stanley ceased all production of these planes decades ago and allowed legal protection to these designs to expire. Never mind the legal battles between Stanley and Bailey which is an entire subject in itself.
The major issue of any legal protection of intellectual property ultimately boils down to one of venue. Violate a patent in the USA and you will have some lovely discussions with US attorneys!
But China is NOT the USA or England. It’s laws are different and they view intellectual property protection with distain.
Many folks do product reviews. Some do it on YouTube. They are neither appointed nor sponsors. Some may be sponsored but many are not. So anyone can review a product on their own accord with their own opinions. As a consumer you can agree or disagree with these opinions. It’s the magic of free speech and the privilege of not being censored.
I personally would never buy a Luban for a variety of reasons. That is also my privilege.
Secondly Stanley ceased all production of these planes decades ago and allowed legal protection to these designs to expire. Never mind the legal battles between Stanley and Bailey which is an entire subject in itself.
The major issue of any legal protection of intellectual property ultimately boils down to one of venue. Violate a patent in the USA and you will have some lovely discussions with US attorneys!
But China is NOT the USA or England. It’s laws are different and they view intellectual property protection with distain.
Many folks do product reviews. Some do it on YouTube. They are neither appointed nor sponsors. Some may be sponsored but many are not. So anyone can review a product on their own accord with their own opinions. As a consumer you can agree or disagree with these opinions. It’s the magic of free speech and the privilege of not being censored.
I personally would never buy a Luban for a variety of reasons. That is also my privilege.
Actually, that's not true.
If you want to not have your functions patented, you have to be patented.
If you want to not have your non-functional identifying aspects copied, that's just basic trademark law in the US. The only thing that really prevents trade dress suits is:
1) cost
2) if you're trying to use trade dress as a way to intimidate other makers who are copying functional things, you can lose and if you lose, you've set precedent and can't make threats about the loss
If we step back and pretend that LN sells 100MM of the block planes and the luban block plane comes on the market in the US, the lawsuit would be pretty easy to win unless luban could prove that the distinctive visual elements unique to LN are functional.
Early on, I sort of wondered if copying the LN planes was also partly due to the assumption that it would be safer than making a dead copy of a stanley bedrock since stanley is still in business. No clue on that. At the time, LN planes sold for 2-3x most bedrock planes. If you can copy the visual and non-functional material aspects of a competitor, you give people the impression that the items are identical other than the brand an origin.
if you're the company that created something style or trade wise, it's a simple thing - someone else is taking your investment in brand and appearance and trading on it.
Devmeister
Established Member
Here's a summary of what happened similar with guitars.
https://steelguitarforum.com/Forum10/HTML/200587.html
The reality with the guitars, though, is that nobody who was buying guitars would confuse a PRS for a gibson across the room, even if body types were similar.
But over the years, the courts have established for guitars at least that the peghead shape is the identifying aspect of a guitar because aspects of it beyond holding tuners are non-functional. The rest of a guitar has been advertised at one point or another to have a function, which is what cost gibson in the end.
It's a little scary that they won the initial case.
It took 5 years for this case to go through the court. The difference between the first case and the second case was literally as simple as PRS stating on appeal that gibson advertised that single cutaway guitar has a different sound (functionally) than a double cut guitar. It's probably not true, but they stuck themselves advertising that it does to attract customers. 5 years and probably 10s of millions of dollars in costs, and that's what it came down to.
The precedent is set in the US now and you can make a les paul copy as long as you don't copy certain aesthetics on the guitar peghead or do certain aesthetic-only things on a guitar. Gibson has threatened to sue heritage (a former gibson manufacturing site) for making a guitar with an orange burst finish and two piece maple top. This is a color and look thing - and apparently heritage had an agreement from them much earlier that it would be OK to do the stylistic copying - one that probably originated from when Gibson moved production to the south to make guitars at a lower cost. Then, the business is suddenly worth a lot more and they changed their mind.
Finish color and figure on wood is kind of like all of the little visual aspects on an LN plane (like the shape of the routs inside the frog or the lever cap material and color).
The thing that started the gibson lawsuit as I recall is gibson was battling it out with the largest guitar retailer in the US as they were raising prices at a high rate back then. PRS offered to make a functionally similar guitar and torpedoed gibson's leverage, so gibson sued to try to more or less own the entire market of single cutaway electric guitars. That's a little odd given that they have existed for probably 60 years in other brands in the US, just not with a copied peghead shape. Luban/WR planes originated from a battle between WC and LN about supply numbers and about how the planes are demonstrated. It's not that much different. except the scale of the companies is different in the guitar suit by probably about a factor of 30 on average between the two.
https://steelguitarforum.com/Forum10/HTML/200587.html
The reality with the guitars, though, is that nobody who was buying guitars would confuse a PRS for a gibson across the room, even if body types were similar.
But over the years, the courts have established for guitars at least that the peghead shape is the identifying aspect of a guitar because aspects of it beyond holding tuners are non-functional. The rest of a guitar has been advertised at one point or another to have a function, which is what cost gibson in the end.
It's a little scary that they won the initial case.
It took 5 years for this case to go through the court. The difference between the first case and the second case was literally as simple as PRS stating on appeal that gibson advertised that single cutaway guitar has a different sound (functionally) than a double cut guitar. It's probably not true, but they stuck themselves advertising that it does to attract customers. 5 years and probably 10s of millions of dollars in costs, and that's what it came down to.
The precedent is set in the US now and you can make a les paul copy as long as you don't copy certain aesthetics on the guitar peghead or do certain aesthetic-only things on a guitar. Gibson has threatened to sue heritage (a former gibson manufacturing site) for making a guitar with an orange burst finish and two piece maple top. This is a color and look thing - and apparently heritage had an agreement from them much earlier that it would be OK to do the stylistic copying - one that probably originated from when Gibson moved production to the south to make guitars at a lower cost. Then, the business is suddenly worth a lot more and they changed their mind.
Finish color and figure on wood is kind of like all of the little visual aspects on an LN plane (like the shape of the routs inside the frog or the lever cap material and color).
The thing that started the gibson lawsuit as I recall is gibson was battling it out with the largest guitar retailer in the US as they were raising prices at a high rate back then. PRS offered to make a functionally similar guitar and torpedoed gibson's leverage, so gibson sued to try to more or less own the entire market of single cutaway electric guitars. That's a little odd given that they have existed for probably 60 years in other brands in the US, just not with a copied peghead shape. Luban/WR planes originated from a battle between WC and LN about supply numbers and about how the planes are demonstrated. It's not that much different. except the scale of the companies is different in the guitar suit by probably about a factor of 30 on average between the two.
Devmeister
Established Member
Here is a stupid question. Is there a tie between Luban and Wood River? I know both originate from China.
Woodcraft and Rockler are two large retail competitors in the USA. Years ago wood craft carried Bulldog. Bulldog made a nice cast iron router table top. Then almost overnight it was gone. WC is down the road and Rockler is to hell and gone from me. I learned that Rockler had bought Bulldog and WC dropped the line as a result.
Now while WC has the right to do so, such actions also affect the choice of products consumers ultimately purchase. Needless to say I took more business to Rockler. I also decided that more consumer product review is needed before I decide on something. You want to buy a product that best meets your needs and requirements than the whims of a retailer. Ultimately your the boss.
Each year the big thing was the woodworking show. A three day Orgee of woodworking. Lie Nielsen and Micro-were always there. The number of customers at the LN booth was insane. Deneb had Black hair then. It was clear to me then that there was a consumer disconnect on the proper use of the tools. YouTube was You-who? The issue was on setting up tools, adjusting throats, sharpening etc. It was also a chance to get hands on with new offerings.
Micro-Fence did the same thing. While I don’t use electric routers much I still use them. I cannot say enough about the basic micro fence design.
Both would leave the show as they were involved in marketing and the show in general interfered with the objectives they had. Both companies were concerned about making sure customers were satisfied. If someone buys a 450 dollar plane and can’t use it advertised, you have a problem. The plane gets sent back as defective and the consumer spreads negative propaganda. A little bit of education would eliminate this sernerio.
Years ago Rivette made a precision toolroom lathe known as the 608. In their brochure they clearly stated that they would prefer only experienced machinists to buy this lathe and that amateurs should go elsewhere as they would injure the reputation of the company.
we have come a long way since those days but education still remains key. Forums like YouTube have really helped but you have to fish thru the none useful material to seek the useful material.
As you become more proficient you begin to seek out the better tools and often deal with the online tool makers. I know what I want. So I go to Lie Nielsen’s site or to say Shane skeltons site. Lead times are an issue here but now you can get what you want without the clouded policies of retailers like wood craft or Rockler.
Before the main stream knew what a dovetail saw was, I bought one from independence tool. All I had to work with was an email address. No website then. I got jpegs emailed to me. LN would ultimately buy independence tool.
Customer support is important and customer satisfaction is important. It’s a time consuming evil that generates no revenue but has much greater benefits to your success. If I need a replacement part, I call LN. Done! If one of my older customers needs a part for an infill I did six years ago, I need to make the part. Done! Oh I am sorry but we don’t support that model anymore or we don’t carry spares simply won’t cut it! If a customer is having issues with getting a super fine shaving, you take the time to hold his hand.
Woodcraft and Rockler are two large retail competitors in the USA. Years ago wood craft carried Bulldog. Bulldog made a nice cast iron router table top. Then almost overnight it was gone. WC is down the road and Rockler is to hell and gone from me. I learned that Rockler had bought Bulldog and WC dropped the line as a result.
Now while WC has the right to do so, such actions also affect the choice of products consumers ultimately purchase. Needless to say I took more business to Rockler. I also decided that more consumer product review is needed before I decide on something. You want to buy a product that best meets your needs and requirements than the whims of a retailer. Ultimately your the boss.
Each year the big thing was the woodworking show. A three day Orgee of woodworking. Lie Nielsen and Micro-were always there. The number of customers at the LN booth was insane. Deneb had Black hair then. It was clear to me then that there was a consumer disconnect on the proper use of the tools. YouTube was You-who? The issue was on setting up tools, adjusting throats, sharpening etc. It was also a chance to get hands on with new offerings.
Micro-Fence did the same thing. While I don’t use electric routers much I still use them. I cannot say enough about the basic micro fence design.
Both would leave the show as they were involved in marketing and the show in general interfered with the objectives they had. Both companies were concerned about making sure customers were satisfied. If someone buys a 450 dollar plane and can’t use it advertised, you have a problem. The plane gets sent back as defective and the consumer spreads negative propaganda. A little bit of education would eliminate this sernerio.
Years ago Rivette made a precision toolroom lathe known as the 608. In their brochure they clearly stated that they would prefer only experienced machinists to buy this lathe and that amateurs should go elsewhere as they would injure the reputation of the company.
we have come a long way since those days but education still remains key. Forums like YouTube have really helped but you have to fish thru the none useful material to seek the useful material.
As you become more proficient you begin to seek out the better tools and often deal with the online tool makers. I know what I want. So I go to Lie Nielsen’s site or to say Shane skeltons site. Lead times are an issue here but now you can get what you want without the clouded policies of retailers like wood craft or Rockler.
Before the main stream knew what a dovetail saw was, I bought one from independence tool. All I had to work with was an email address. No website then. I got jpegs emailed to me. LN would ultimately buy independence tool.
Customer support is important and customer satisfaction is important. It’s a time consuming evil that generates no revenue but has much greater benefits to your success. If I need a replacement part, I call LN. Done! If one of my older customers needs a part for an infill I did six years ago, I need to make the part. Done! Oh I am sorry but we don’t support that model anymore or we don’t carry spares simply won’t cut it! If a customer is having issues with getting a super fine shaving, you take the time to hold his hand.
raffo
Established Member
The Luban brand is manufactured by a company called Cixi City Qiangsheng Tools Co. (qstools.com) I think Luban is a brand sold in the UK. In Germany they're sold under the Juuma brand. They probably also manufacture the planes sold under the WoodRiver brand or did in the past.
When these planes are examined, they're similar, but not identical. These planes are made under contract and specifications of the companies that ultimately sell them. Evidently they're as good as the design and manufacturing quality allows. This notion that because they're Chinese they're of lower quality is a very simplistic conclusion. The idea that all these companies that contract for these planes are somehow bamboozled into accepting low quality products doesn't make any sense. They know exactly what they're ordering and what they're getting.
Devmeister
Established Member
As mentioned manufacturing in China is a challenge. You get what you order and what you pay for. It’s all over the board.
The Luban planes are sold with the Ryder, made to a British specification. England often had these. Engineering squares often specified a British specification even years back. Exactly what this specification is can vary,
So yes, many manufacturers in China do know how to manufacture things even to a variety of quality levels. It’s up to the customer to establish the specification or standard to the most intricate detail and to ultimately verify adherence to the standard. That is what I mean when I said you have to watch them like a hawk. Omit an item in the specification and your likely to be disappointed.
But as you up the game, you also up the price making the value of off shore production less effective. It’s a trade off and many inferior products reflect this trade off.
American Furniture imports tons of product. About 50 percent is unsellable for a variety of reasons. They have a shop that fixes some of these issues in order to sell them. Some is just thrown away. AF still makes money and views this as a cost of business with China.
The Luban planes are sold with the Ryder, made to a British specification. England often had these. Engineering squares often specified a British specification even years back. Exactly what this specification is can vary,
So yes, many manufacturers in China do know how to manufacture things even to a variety of quality levels. It’s up to the customer to establish the specification or standard to the most intricate detail and to ultimately verify adherence to the standard. That is what I mean when I said you have to watch them like a hawk. Omit an item in the specification and your likely to be disappointed.
But as you up the game, you also up the price making the value of off shore production less effective. It’s a trade off and many inferior products reflect this trade off.
American Furniture imports tons of product. About 50 percent is unsellable for a variety of reasons. They have a shop that fixes some of these issues in order to sell them. Some is just thrown away. AF still makes money and views this as a cost of business with China.
raffo
Established Member
One has to verify the quality of outsourced parts or products, that's a given. It would be irresponsible not to do it. The big bucks paid to certifying bodies to get ISO or CE marks are not wasted.
I'm with David above, too. I would not buy products made to imitate the cosmetic look of recognized brands. It's not the manufacturer that came up with the design and surprised the contracting company with a product that looks like a famous brand. The Chinese maker is paid to make what's being asked to make, why would they care what it looks like or have an obligation to ensure that it doesn't look like someone else's product?
I'm with David above, too. I would not buy products made to imitate the cosmetic look of recognized brands. It's not the manufacturer that came up with the design and surprised the contracting company with a product that looks like a famous brand. The Chinese maker is paid to make what's being asked to make, why would they care what it looks like or have an obligation to ensure that it doesn't look like someone else's product?
rafezetter
Troll Hunter
The early Datsuns WERE junk, they just were; just as REGULARLY seen now in china, manufactured to the lowest cost, and only after a significant number of failures and issues did they raise the standard to get continued sales. It was the reverse of Western manufacturing ethos at the time which was "make it good, then chisel away at it to get the cost down."
Let's be brutally honest, reputations are EARNED not given; "the Chinese" to mean collectively the manufacturing base of China are well documented as having stolen the IP's of pretty much EVERYTHING worth manufacturing, and quite a lot of things that just baffle the mind. They have been proven to cut corners at every opportunity given even half a chance, as someone else stated, and there are documented cases of high quality components being swapped for junk once "the inspectors" have left.
Life is cheap to them, and so are human rights and morality.
Are chinese companies capable of high quality maufacturing? Yes. Do they do it ALL THE TIME as a matter of routine such as the reputation the Swiss and Germans have? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Is it "borderline racism" to make a statement that the chinese would make something out of junk and pass it off as "good" if given the chance? No, because they HAVE, multiple times.
They earned that reputation, and THEY really don't care about it, or how far they take it, as long as they can chisel an extra 1p out of the manufacturing costs.
Are they the only ones doing it? No, people will be people. Are they guilty of doing it the most often? Asolutely yes.
