David C
In Memorium
A2 (a high speed steel) seems to me, to remain workable for significantly longer.
I have observed this many times.
David Charlesworth
I have observed this many times.
David Charlesworth
WoodRiver 5 1/2 Jack Plane Passaround
- Thread starter Peter Sefton
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Yes I suppose it does. But then it takes longer to sharpen. So perhaps not a significant advantage.
G S Haydon
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,667
- Reaction score
- 223
Normal service resumed 
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
=D> :lol:
David C
In Memorium
Have to disagree.
Using my methods and Japanese waterstones, sharpening takes no longer.
I think it may be the oilstone user who struggles.
David
Using my methods and Japanese waterstones, sharpening takes no longer.
I think it may be the oilstone user who struggles.
David
Cheshirechappie
Established Member
I'm not getting into any arguments about sharpening, or the relative merits of A2, D2, PMV11, Z47 1/2 or any other grades you can think of or invent.
The only purpose to all the technical guff above was to demonstrate that T10 is very similar to other long-established 'simple' carbon steels, and whilst not quite the same as 'cast steel' of old (which itself can be quite variable in exact composition and quality), it is sufficiently similar to lend credence to the findings of those who suggest that T10 has similar working characteristics when used for plane blades. If anyone were to make plane blades out of CS95, they would be virtually identical to T10 (CS95 is used as knife blade stock for some non-woodworking applications, and for high grade woodworking handsaw blades; it's main use is for springs).
Blades made of W1 would be pretty damn close to T10, too. One slight problem with this plan is that, as far as I can determine, W1 (or similar 1%-ish straight carbon steels with no alloying elements except perhaps a bit of manganese) are unobtainable, in the UK at any rate. The reason for this is that industrially, there are grades of steel that have all the advantages of W1 without it's disadvantages, consequently, there is virtually no market for it outside a few custom knife and edge-tool makers, and their total consumption does not amount to a viable steelworks melt quantity.
The only purpose to all the technical guff above was to demonstrate that T10 is very similar to other long-established 'simple' carbon steels, and whilst not quite the same as 'cast steel' of old (which itself can be quite variable in exact composition and quality), it is sufficiently similar to lend credence to the findings of those who suggest that T10 has similar working characteristics when used for plane blades. If anyone were to make plane blades out of CS95, they would be virtually identical to T10 (CS95 is used as knife blade stock for some non-woodworking applications, and for high grade woodworking handsaw blades; it's main use is for springs).
Blades made of W1 would be pretty damn close to T10, too. One slight problem with this plan is that, as far as I can determine, W1 (or similar 1%-ish straight carbon steels with no alloying elements except perhaps a bit of manganese) are unobtainable, in the UK at any rate. The reason for this is that industrially, there are grades of steel that have all the advantages of W1 without it's disadvantages, consequently, there is virtually no market for it outside a few custom knife and edge-tool makers, and their total consumption does not amount to a viable steelworks melt quantity.
Now that I know what T10 is I applaud the decision to use a plain carbon steel which can be sharpened efficiently with any relevant media. That decision seems congruent with the planes as well-executed reproductions of an obviously classic design (Bailey/Bedrock) -- good for the more or less purists among us that appreciate the imprimatur of history with respect to these kinds of planes. They need not be tricked-up or festooned in any way just reasonably well made, which based on Graham's review certainly seems to be the case.
I applaud the decision to use a plain carbon steel which can be sharpened efficiently with any relevant media. That decision seems congruent with the planes as well-executed reproductions of an obviously classic design (Bailey/Bedrock) -- good for the more or less purists among us that appreciate the imprimatur of history with respect to these kinds of planes. They need not be tricked-up or festooned in any way just reasonably well made, which based on Graham's review certainly seems to be the case.David C
In Memorium
Just to be pedantic, I believe they took castings or patterns directly from L-N planes.
In the beginning the block plane lever cap showed traces of the place where the L-N name had been ground off.
So they are direct copies of L-N which are often improvements on the original Stanley model.
Best wishes,
David
In the beginning the block plane lever cap showed traces of the place where the L-N name had been ground off.
So they are direct copies of L-N which are often improvements on the original Stanley model.
Best wishes,
David
Assuming this is the case I don't think anybody cares at this point, Woodcraft doesn't care nor do UK stockists -- ethics, legality, etc.
There have been at least a dozen manufacturers (probably more) of Bailey-pattern and other Stanley planes through history some with slight and not-so-slight twists ('improvements') some just absolute knock-offs. L-N is but one amongst an unbroken continuum of copyists going back decades, no more, no less. Any conclusion otherwise ignores the history of iron hand planes.
If one finds these things distasteful then Record was probably the most egregious offender, and I would imagine at their peak that one year's worth of production exceeded L-N's from inception to date.
That said, there are some so delusional as to believe that L-N hasn't essentially been making copies all these years and that a copy of their copy (yep, it's a copy) all of a sudden isn't fair game when all of these copies have been fair game for over a hundred years. It would be quite an exercise, frankly, to sort all of the copies and copyists given the length of time, depth, breadth, and scope of the whole thing.
There have been at least a dozen manufacturers (probably more) of Bailey-pattern and other Stanley planes through history some with slight and not-so-slight twists ('improvements') some just absolute knock-offs. L-N is but one amongst an unbroken continuum of copyists going back decades, no more, no less. Any conclusion otherwise ignores the history of iron hand planes.
If one finds these things distasteful then Record was probably the most egregious offender, and I would imagine at their peak that one year's worth of production exceeded L-N's from inception to date.
That said, there are some so delusional as to believe that L-N hasn't essentially been making copies all these years and that a copy of their copy (yep, it's a copy) all of a sudden isn't fair game when all of these copies have been fair game for over a hundred years. It would be quite an exercise, frankly, to sort all of the copies and copyists given the length of time, depth, breadth, and scope of the whole thing.
woodbrains
Established Member
CStanford":26djwsfu said:
Hello,
Except that LN did all the hard work in developing the improvements along with the associated high costs, whereas Woodriver just knocked the finished products off. Investing in designing or remodelling a tool has to be paid for by actually selling enough of them, which has to be harder when the market is pulled from under you by a counterfeiter. Be careful that buying the cheaper option will not eventually lead to the innovator ceasing trading and then even the copyist will no longer have a source to make too tools from and we will be back in the sorry state of no one making good tools anymore.
Mike.
It's like a bank robber calling the cops when somebody steals the results of his ingenuity in robbing banks.
Your conclusion that L-N represents such a departure as to rise to something other than essentially a copy is simply wrong. Thomas Lie-Nielsen would tell you that himself. Hence, no lawsuits. He owns no patents on hand planes. None.
Mr. Holtey would tell you the same thing about his exquisitely made copies of Norris designs which themselves are derivative to an extent.
Your conclusion that L-N represents such a departure as to rise to something other than essentially a copy is simply wrong. Thomas Lie-Nielsen would tell you that himself. Hence, no lawsuits. He owns no patents on hand planes. None.
Mr. Holtey would tell you the same thing about his exquisitely made copies of Norris designs which themselves are derivative to an extent.
David C
In Memorium
The patents had long expired and UK Stanley had gone very far down the cost cutting route, which left us with planes that did not work.
Many specialist planes had also been discontinued.
You may have noticed that I wrote not one word of moral judgement.
David
Many specialist planes had also been discontinued.
You may have noticed that I wrote not one word of moral judgement.
David
bugbear
Established Member
CStanford":2eh1qiz3 said:
Except for his carefully thought out and tested refinements and improvements of course, including the not minor
matter of a completely different blade bedding system. Look it up.
BugBear
No David you just made a statement that they were direct copies. The moral judgment in your statement is implicit and supported especially by you having made the explicit case on other forums (if memory serves).
http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/141 ... nd-stanley
Lie-Nielsen does make their planes thicker, though one wonders how much thicker if they were compared to WWII-era Stanley which strangely enough are now routinely panned for having been 'too thick and clumsy' because of a lack of quality machinist labor during the war. Thin was (is?) in at least with the vintage set...
Lie-Nielsen does make their planes thicker, though one wonders how much thicker if they were compared to WWII-era Stanley which strangely enough are now routinely panned for having been 'too thick and clumsy' because of a lack of quality machinist labor during the war. Thin was (is?) in at least with the vintage set...
David C
In Memorium
But Charles, you must know that they are direct copies!!
90+% of the L-N design is copied, after that does it really make any difference?
When 90% of the design work is already done for you it's damned easy to make 'improvements.' But, at the end of the day all one has done is made an improved copy. Can't get upset when somebody else says to himself 'wow, good idea, I'm totally using that.'
I'm sure you've done it in your own furniture-making. You've made your share of reproductions but built the drawers to a higher standard than the original, or you made some other overall improvement in the joinery or stock selection (ductile iron instead of a brittle version of cast iron would be a corollary, no?). How many times have you read, for instance, that "so and so has built a reproduction in cherry of the mahogany original" substitute other species as you may. Same thing.
It's still a reproduction. If another woodworker (perhaps a former student) comes along and builds the same, historic piece and also makes his (or her) drawers to a higher standard have they somehow ripped you off? Building drawers to a very high standard is just a plain, good idea. You've invented nothing new. You've simply brought commonsense to the equation and perhaps a little extra time to build the piece that the original designer/maker did not have or did not care to allocate to the project or to ongoing production.
When 90% of the design work is already done for you it's damned easy to make 'improvements.' But, at the end of the day all one has done is made an improved copy. Can't get upset when somebody else says to himself 'wow, good idea, I'm totally using that.'
I'm sure you've done it in your own furniture-making. You've made your share of reproductions but built the drawers to a higher standard than the original, or you made some other overall improvement in the joinery or stock selection (ductile iron instead of a brittle version of cast iron would be a corollary, no?). How many times have you read, for instance, that "so and so has built a reproduction in cherry of the mahogany original" substitute other species as you may. Same thing.
It's still a reproduction. If another woodworker (perhaps a former student) comes along and builds the same, historic piece and also makes his (or her) drawers to a higher standard have they somehow ripped you off? Building drawers to a very high standard is just a plain, good idea. You've invented nothing new. You've simply brought commonsense to the equation and perhaps a little extra time to build the piece that the original designer/maker did not have or did not care to allocate to the project or to ongoing production.
G S Haydon
Established Member
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2013
- Messages
- 1,667
- Reaction score
- 223
I stayed away from this topic as I felt it would detract from finding out if the WR is a solid performer or not (and in my opinion it is very good)
On differences. The LN uses A2 the WR uses T10 High Carbon - The WR has and alternative depth adjuster detail, as I mentioned I'm not sure how much better that is but it is an "innovation" applied by WR. i think sticking with a high quality high carbon steel is also to WR's credit. It's not all about edge retention and I personally don't want to but a new sharpening medium to go with my new plane.
On the copying issue, to the best of my knowledge the LN design is not covered by a patent. Rightly or wrongly it's a competitive world. Even if products are protected by patent law the patent does expire to allow competition. If this were not the case the only automobiles we would be driving would be a version of the Karl Benz Motowaggen. LN did not break huge new ground, the best thing above all details and innovations is they made a tool that worked and worked well and surprise surprise there was a market for it.
The fact it is produced in China should not really raise alarm bells. Making is down to quality control, attention to detail, the right process and a focus on quality rather than one human being better at it than another human. The WR displays those facts. Many, many businesses make in China and I have no problem with that. Trade is a global thing.
I don't think that LN is due to go out of business, they have brilliant customer care and perhaps the target market is different than WR.
Charles reference on Record is valid. The government of the day applied an import tariff on foreign goods that allow Record to get a foothold. And as an extra hurdle Stanley had to deal with was that Record were making excellent planes using the patent they had bought from Leonard Bailey.
On actually making these things don't underestimate how difficult it is to set up a consistent, reliable factory aimed at quality anywhere in the world. If the LN was a direct copy then the easy part was having a template! The hard part came after.
On differences. The LN uses A2 the WR uses T10 High Carbon - The WR has and alternative depth adjuster detail, as I mentioned I'm not sure how much better that is but it is an "innovation" applied by WR. i think sticking with a high quality high carbon steel is also to WR's credit. It's not all about edge retention and I personally don't want to but a new sharpening medium to go with my new plane.
On the copying issue, to the best of my knowledge the LN design is not covered by a patent. Rightly or wrongly it's a competitive world. Even if products are protected by patent law the patent does expire to allow competition. If this were not the case the only automobiles we would be driving would be a version of the Karl Benz Motowaggen. LN did not break huge new ground, the best thing above all details and innovations is they made a tool that worked and worked well and surprise surprise there was a market for it.
The fact it is produced in China should not really raise alarm bells. Making is down to quality control, attention to detail, the right process and a focus on quality rather than one human being better at it than another human. The WR displays those facts. Many, many businesses make in China and I have no problem with that. Trade is a global thing.
I don't think that LN is due to go out of business, they have brilliant customer care and perhaps the target market is different than WR.
Charles reference on Record is valid. The government of the day applied an import tariff on foreign goods that allow Record to get a foothold. And as an extra hurdle Stanley had to deal with was that Record were making excellent planes using the patent they had bought from Leonard Bailey.
On actually making these things don't underestimate how difficult it is to set up a consistent, reliable factory aimed at quality anywhere in the world. If the LN was a direct copy then the easy part was having a template! The hard part came after.
The reason all the competently manufactured copies are so good, with or without improvements and tweaks that run the gamut, is because the original design was so incredibly good.
This is the essential point that seems too easily lost in these threads.
Not only did the design have to be good in a vacuum it had to be susceptible to being manufactured in quantity and therein lies its real genius. This is the inextricable essence of all the copies that have followed -- they can actually be made -- in large quantity or in small quantity to a higher or normal standard as you wish. I GUARANTEE that this is not lost on the Lie-Nielsen group. They know to whom they owe a debt of gratitude. The wheel, quite simply, did not have to be reinvented perhaps just made a touch smoother.
This is the essential point that seems too easily lost in these threads.
Not only did the design have to be good in a vacuum it had to be susceptible to being manufactured in quantity and therein lies its real genius. This is the inextricable essence of all the copies that have followed -- they can actually be made -- in large quantity or in small quantity to a higher or normal standard as you wish. I GUARANTEE that this is not lost on the Lie-Nielsen group. They know to whom they owe a debt of gratitude. The wheel, quite simply, did not have to be reinvented perhaps just made a touch smoother.
woodbrains
Established Member
Hello,
No one is denying LN copied and improved Bedrock planes. If no one thinks improvement takes no research, testing, scrapping and trying again with investment, then they are naive to say the least. So the are no patents involved. There aren't on windsor chairs, but if I make one, with my own nuanced design refinements (developed over many years of making adjustments and changes) and it becomes popular, should I not be annoyed if someone copies directly my chairs, sells them off the back of the market I made for them, and then undercuts me so I have a smaller (or no) market left. It has nothing to do with patents, it is underhand and loathesome. But the people who want my chairs will justify buying the cheap knock offs with arguments such as you are offering, and ease there guilt, so I suppose it is hard luck on me.
Mike.
No one is denying LN copied and improved Bedrock planes. If no one thinks improvement takes no research, testing, scrapping and trying again with investment, then they are naive to say the least. So the are no patents involved. There aren't on windsor chairs, but if I make one, with my own nuanced design refinements (developed over many years of making adjustments and changes) and it becomes popular, should I not be annoyed if someone copies directly my chairs, sells them off the back of the market I made for them, and then undercuts me so I have a smaller (or no) market left. It has nothing to do with patents, it is underhand and loathesome. But the people who want my chairs will justify buying the cheap knock offs with arguments such as you are offering, and ease there guilt, so I suppose it is hard luck on me.
Mike.
