Replies

1. 
   9619 | Jul 27, 2008 04:24pm | #1

   Derek,
   I always look forward to your reviews. Reading your reviews is like reading some of the book reviews in the New York Times. I enjoy the reviews more than the books. You are unique as a reviewer, because of your passion for precision in sharpening, your comparison with other planes, and your amazing ability to write clearly and understandably. When I read your reviews, I find myself getting caught up more in your review than in the thing you are reviewing. I find myself "reviewing your review" and looking for holes in it. Such holes are hard to find,
   which is the reason that I look for them.

   What I find, rather than "holes", are differences in the criteria that you use from those I would use. Obviously that doesn't make your criteria "wrong", just different than mine. But then again, I am not a professional tool reviewer, as you have come to be.

   To me, NOTHING is more important in a review than the selection of criteria. I fuss over the criteria as much as you fuss over sharpening. IMHO, there are two ways to go in selecting criteria.
   1) How will this tool be seen by the large mass of woodworkers out there?
   2) How will this tool be seen by "its intended audience"?
   The former focuses on how it will be seen in woodworking shops of both professionals and hobbyists? The latter focuses on the audience that the toolmaker intended. Luckily, a reading of Blum's website gives good info on this.

   So what about the former-- the vast hordes of woodworkers both pros and ams? When thinking about this, I always ask "HOW MUCH DOES IT COST?" I didn't see the cost in your review but it was easy to find on Blum's website. I was blown over by the low cost of his planes. They are CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP. And they are phenomenally beautiful. Each is a thing of beauty worthy of being put in a glass case with overhead lighting. To me, Blum's planes are works of art, and one doesn't normally find works of art available for a measily few hundred dollars. When I read your review, I was expecting his planes to be in the "few thousand dollar" range, or at least the "many hundreds of dollar" range. I was pleasantly overwhelmed to find the very low prices.

   I would guess that Blum has accurately predicted how his planes will be "reviewed" by the "normal" woodworker in a woodworking shop (if there is such a thing). In professional shops, one doesn't have the time to fiddle around with stuff just because it is interesting. Such is the realm of the "Yuppie Woodworker", that is, the amateur woodworker with very high standards and a big pocketbook. There are many such Yuppie Woodworkers in the world. They are fascinated by the new and the different, in search of "THE BEST". As you know, there is a big focus on "The Best Tools" in FWW and in Knots. Just plain adequate tools, such as Lie Nielsens, are no match for "The Very Best", and cost is no object.

   My guess, based on your review, is that professional woodworking shops will find the Blum planes to be too finicky for their use.

   I have no idea how Yuppie Woodworkers will like the Blums. They might like them better if the price was higher (I am not joking here.) I don't believe BMW would sell more cars if they lowered their price. The high price is integral to Yuppie satisfaction. Remember the great line from Caddyshack, "I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member." :-)

   SO what about #2 criteria - Blum's intended audience and use? Blum says:
   "Our motto is 'Unique Designs for Quality Tools'. Our goal is to make tools of the highest quality which reflect the great traditions of the past with some modern 'outside the box' thinking."

   He specifically states that he INTENDS his tools to have unique designs. He focusses on "outside the box" designs. Note that he could have said that he is trying to come up with designs which will outperform other planes in the eyes of certain classes of woodworkers, but he did not. He focusses on the DIFFERENT, and the UNUSUAL.

   Based on Blum's own criterion, I wouldn't think of buying one of his planes for actual use. His criteria is completely different than mine. I want "really good performance at a fair price." I have no interesting in the unique if it doesn't outperform the others in a substantial way at a reasonable cost.

   I don't claim to represent other woodworkers, just me. I am a died in the wool afficianado of Lee Valley planes, because:
   1) they work very very well.
   2) they come (almost) ready to use.
   3) they are not finicky.
   4) I can sell them for almost what I paid for them, even after years of use.
   5) They are useful and fun to use and beautiful to look at.
   6) From a life-cycle cost standpoint (see #4), they are far cheaper than old or new Stanleys or anything else.

   When it comes to reviewing tools, or anything else, there is only one method that I REALLY like - that is - to have it tested by a wide sample of people from its intended audience. You are a psychologist. Suppose someone developed a new test for creativity, and sent it to a famous psychologist for a "review". That would be interesting, but I really don't want to use the test until it has been validated. My suggestion to you is that in future reviews, you give the tool to five or six of your woodworking friends, some pros, some amateurs, etc, and see that they have to say too. Their ideas, together with yours, would be very good.

   This is more a review of your review from my unique point of view, than a comment on the two Blum planes that you reviewed. Hope you find something useful in it.

   Your tool review are just about the only "professional tool reviews" that I read. I generally find them too biased too be of use, and too different from my own experience. I read your reviews because you are such a good writer and I enjoy your biases.

   I would have a suggestion. Every time you review a tool, I would suggest that you state what the conditions of your review were. What remuneration did your receive? Did you get to keep the tool? Did the maker send you a bunch of blades to make the plane easier to use than a normal customer who wouldn't have bought a number of extra blades (you stated this). Does the maker have a "continuing" working relationship with you in which they send you many or most of their new tools to review?

   The reason that I bring up the point in the last paragraph was because over the weekend, I read an article in either the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal about the pressures that "stock analysts" are under. When I read your review, I tried to put myself in your position. You do try hard to be a gentleman and to be civil and polite when you have negative things to say. That is a very difficult like to walk. There are some woodworking writers who do not share your insistence on politeness and good manners. I don't read their stuff. I do read yours, but I am sensitive to the difficulty of being fair and mannerly, and in continuing to being sent things to review.

   Now for what I really think. IMHO, no one in the business comes close to your tool reviews. You are the best that exists. My small suggestions for improvement are like a few pieces of lint on a fine cashmere sweater.

   Regards from Burke.
   Mel

   Measure your output in smiles per board foot. 

1. 
   derekcohen | Jul 27, 2008 06:05pm | #2

   Hi Mel

   Well it must be said that I preferred your review over mine!

   No matter how often I review and edit my writings, I leave out details. I omitted to discuss the cost of the Blum planes. And, like yourself, I think that they are low for what is offered. Between $200-$250 each, depending on the wood chosen.

   With regard having a team of reviewers contribute to the evaluation, well I must smile. :) Spoken like a scientist or psychologist... Actually I did do this when I reviewed the Marcou smoother... Do it again? It is simply not practical, either in the organisation needed or the time it would consume. I'm afraid that you'll have to put up with me on my own :)

   The issue of accountability frequently raises its head, less so as more readers get to know me through my work (both the written and the constructions). I would hardly call myself a "professional reviewer". If so, I'd starve. My payment is to keep the planes I am asked to review (note that I have never been asked to write a review by LV - those I choose to do after receiving planes for development or pre-release feedback to the design team). So you can calculate what I got "paid" for writing this review: 5 months @ say a minimum of 10 hours each week = total of 400 hours minimum (this is very conservative). Remunaration is two planes totaling about $500. This works out to $1.25 per hour. I think that I had better keep my day job! :)

   At the end of the day you have to read what I wrote and decide whether I was objective or not. This is what I deal with everyday as a full time professional psychologist dealing with patients in private practice. There are always some individuals I like as they are nice people, and there are some I dislike as they are not nice people. But I work hard to treat them the same, to be fair and objective. Of course I have biases. The essence of "objectivity" is to be aware of them and keep them under control. In the context of this review, I would love to see Gary succeed, since I admire people who are willing to take the risks he has, but I will not allow this bias to affect  my objectivity. Only you can tell me if I have succeeded in this regard when you read my review and examine my methodology and analyses.

   Thanks again for the kind words.

   Regards from Perth

   Derek

1. 
   9619 | Jul 27, 2008 07:00pm | #3

   Derek,
   Thank you for the very nice reply. You sensed that there was nothing mean in my comments. You either sensed or know that I was trained as a "scientist", not as a clinician. My bias toward the scientific method, where possible, is obvious. I am also a realist. One can only do so much. THAT IDEA IS CENTRAL to my thoughts on tool reviews. I read them voraciously, but not for the reviews. I believe that there is too much "normal bias toward what one is used to" on the parts of folks who write reviews for the magazines. I read them only to find out if there is any obvious major problems with a tool that I don't want to pay for to find out about. I am biased against the tool reviews in magazines for the obvious reasons. After all, the magazines must survive on their revenues. That is not the case with you. You have achieved. IMHO, a great degree of credibility among woodworkers. Your sense of curiosity, and your love of tinkering, just billow out of your writing. You couldn't hide it if you tried, and there is no reason to do so. I read your "reviews" because I love your curiosity and your love of tinkering, and your writing style. Now I will let my hair down. I was raised "blue collar". You can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy." My father only bought one thing on credit in his life, and that was his house. He always told me to buy a car only if I had the money to pay cash. He always told me to start saving for the next car right away. No sense giving all that interest to the bank. I have tried to fight this, with little effect. My father, now 93, has had a lifelong effect on my buying habits. In buying any tool, I focus on "bang for the buck." If I can get a tool that "works for me" for $100, I will not pay $1000 for another tool that is a little bit better. I also focus on "life cycle cost". That is why I am such an unmitigitated fan Lie Nielsen. They work good and nothing matches their life cycle cost, which is just about $0. You just can't beat that with a stick. I have found that Pfeil "Swiss Made" gouges sell for almost full retail price on EBAY, even after years of use. Same is true for Lee Nielsen. If anyone knows of other brands that do that, I would love to know about them. For any gouge to be more desirable to buy than a Pfeil, it would have to not only feel better when I use it, it would have to have a life cycle cost as low as Pfeil gouges. I am not sure that such a thing is possible. Same for Lie Nielsen planes. (And they don't give me a plane for believing and saying that.)Because of what I said, Pfeil and Lie Nielsen are GOLD STANDARDS when it comes to gouges and planes. They didn't achieve that status overnight. So if someone else comes along and tries to come up with a better product, IMHO, they have to overcome the "approximately $0 life-cycle cost" of a great tool. It is more than possible, that my focus on "good quality at a low life cycle price" makes me a heathen and an outcast on Knots. I am an elitist when it comes to woodwork. I love to see others and myself outdo what we did in the past. I just have no interest in mediocrity in woodworking, because it is a hobby of mine, and it is not done for a livelihood. But when it comes to the tools used to make fine woodwork, I don't believe in buying the most expensive, or the one with the most bells an whistles, or in paying $100 for $10 worth of improvement. So while you and I share in a love of quality, and a love of being civil, and of good, fair (not mean) analysis, we differ on our approach to tools. I believe you have far greater love of "tools" than I do. (and that is a very good thing, not a bad one). I see tools as merely things which allow a woodworker to do good woodwork. However, I am a great lover of art. I see many tools of the past and of the present which I would buy an put in a glass case in the living room, because they are affordable works of art. However, I don't find that many tool evaluators ever get into the details of the aesthetics of a beautiful tool, and into the business of buying tools as art. This field needs more exploration.We live in an era in which criticism is THE THING. Here in the US, people are not watching the newscasts of the three big networks as much as they did in the past. They are tuning into things like "Fox News" in which people yell and scream about the goodness of a certain set of political ideas, and they shout down token opposition. Too many people seem to love to hear what they want to hear. I see no value in this. There is no surprise, and nothing to be learned. Which is another reason that I love your reviews. You surprise me every time with thoughts that never would have occurred to me otherwise. I am now writing material for two companies who have sent me some of their tools. NOW YOU SEE WHY I AM SO INTERESTED IN YOUR THOUGHT PROCESSES ON THE SUBJECT OF VALID CRITICISM. None of my stuff is "out" yet. When it is, I will let you know, and I will look forward to a good, strong, fair, disciplined, creative, well mannered, interesting review of my writing. There is a difference in what I am doing than what you do. What I am developing is not a review of the tools, but a "how to use these tools to make things." But "how to" and "how good" are inextricably intertwined. So my two overly-long messages to you today, only seemed to be about your review. Actually they are about my struggle with something that I am currently doing. I consider you the mentor, and me the mentee. I look forward to the opportunity of continuing to learn at the foot of a master. Like you, I would never "sell out" and push a tool that I didn't like. A few tens or hundreds (or thousands) of dollars just are not worth a drop in self respect. ( now millions -- that may give me pause. :-)Your humble but wordy student,
   MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. 

1. 
   Joe Sullivan | Jul 27, 2008 07:41pm | #4

   So, Mel -- looks like you got back to a place where there is internet service...Joe

1. 
   9619 | Jul 27, 2008 07:50pm | #5

   Joe,
   Very insightful. Of course, you have some private knowledge about this. I'll call you tomorrow. Please let me know if any specific time is good. I am looking forward to this adventure. As with Derek, I am in your debt.
   MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. 

2. 
   Joe Sullivan | Jul 27, 2008 08:10pm | #6

   Mid-morning Central time is probably best.J

3. 
   9619 | Jul 27, 2008 08:15pm | #8

   Mid morning Central time Monday.
   Done.
   MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. 

2. 
   dkellernc | Jul 29, 2008 04:38pm | #12

   Mel - It's worth noting that Mr. Blum has indeed designed something that is highly useful to planecraft. 

   As someone that frequently uses all sorts of planes, including all-wood beech antiques, Lee Valley, Lie-Nielsen, Norris and Sauer and Steiner, I can attest to the fact that wooden planes offer a money-saving performance boost over any metal plane.  The boost is that a wooden plane is far easier to push across (and take a shaving from) a wooden surface than even a well-waxed or oiled metal plane, with the result that more can be done in a day.

   The downside to a wooden plane is that the mouth will open up due to wear and occasional sole-flattening, and will quickly become unacceptable as the final finish plane on a surface.  There have been historic attempts at overcoming this problem - the typical one is "throating", or inserting a piece of hard wood into the sole that closes the mouth back up.  Another, more useful modification that is a couple of hundred years old is the insertion of a boxwood piece at the front of the throat that is tapped down from the top as the sole wears.  Because of the extraordinary precision required for fitting this secondary, front of the throat wedge, its use was confined to the very best planes of 18th and 19th century makers, and were thus fairly rare.

   Because of this rarity, they really shouldn't be used by today's woodworkers (and their value as collector's items means it's not a very economical choice for day-to-day use in the shop).

   Knight toolworks has a design that overcomes this mouth-widening problem, and is similar to the boxwood wear compensators in that the piece is vertically oriented against the front of the throat of the plane.  Steve has overcome the expensive fitting requirement by attaching this piece with two screws.

   Mr. Blum has come up with a second (and possibly unique) way to overcome the wear issue, and he's doing it at an extraordinarily low cost.  That's a substantial contribution to plane design, in my book.

1. 
   9619 | Jul 29, 2008 05:48pm | #14

   d,
   Point well taken.
   My messages to Derek were really not about Gary Blum's planes, but about the art of doing tool reviews. I have nothing against wood planes. I have about six of them. Gary seems to be a very clever and inventive guy and a real go-getter. The world needs more people like him.I did criticize some of the words he used on his website -- not his planes. In Gary's response, he says he is going to change the words on the website. So I believe that "all's well that ends well", and that is the case here. I hope Gary's business thrives. In my last message, I sent him seven marketing ideas. Your message was right on.
   MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. 

2. 
   garyblum | Jul 29, 2008 06:39am | #10

   Hi Mel,

   This is my first post here, but I feel I must respond to your conclusions about my motivations for developing the tools that I make.

    

   You said: 'He specifically said he INTENDS his tools to have unique designs. He focuses on 'outside the box designs'. Note that he could have said that he is trying to come up with designs that wil outperform other planes in the eyes of certain classes of woodworkers, but he did not. He focuses on the DIFFERENT and UNUSUAL.

    

   "Based on Blum's own criterion, I wouldn't think of buying one of his planes for actual use. His criterion is completely different than mine. I want really good performance at a fair price. I have no interesting in the unique if it doesn't outperform the others in a substantial way at a reasonable cost.'

    

   You are assigning to me criterion that says I am just designing tools that are different just for the sake of being different , and that's what my motto implies? Couldn't it also be that I am trying to design tools that ( I feel ) are improvements over traditional tools and therefore in doing this needed to 'think outside the box'.? I don't think there is any perfect tool, including mine. I have thougt about tools my entire adult life and ways to improve them. I have been ( and still am ) a cabintermaker for over 20 years. On my website, under the "About Us" category, I talk about my motivation in designing tools. It says "Blum Tool Co was started because of my experiences using and collecting antique tools and my work experiences using tools and thinking of ways to improve them. I was especially influenced by working on the jobsite with other tradesman and seeing them use tools ( block planes especially) that were extremely dull. Often they would see my plane and ask me to sharpen theirs. All of our tools have been developed with this concern for practicality and ease of use in mind.'

    

   My motto was thought of AFTER all my tools were already developed. Since all my tools were different, I thought the motto fit. I never thought it would define my motivation for making tools in the first  place. That motivation is to make a tool that provides features that make the  tool perform better, be easier to work with, and easier to sharpen. I think I'll put that last line on my website!

    

   Kind Regards,

   Gary Blum

    

    

    

   .

1. 
   derekcohen | Jul 29, 2008 08:56am | #11

   Hi Mel and welcome Gary

   Gary, I feel I owe you an apology. I should have responded to Mel's comments in this regard and was far too busy at the time having a good time discussing other matters with Mel.

   Mel, let me reassure you that these are serious planes for serious woodworkers. They may have a different design and a different look, but they have the same brief - to plane wood and do so as well as possible. And they do a bloody good job of this task.

   Like every plane choice, it comes down to a set of personal preferences - those features that one holds most important. In this regard the Blum planes are no different from the LNs and LVs of this world. As in all these matters, my recommendation is to go and try out the different planes.

   Regards from Perth

   Derek

2. 
   9619 | Jul 29, 2008 05:36pm | #13

   Gary,
   I just sent you a private message in response to yours. Since you and Derek both wrote back to me on Knots, I am also posting a Knots response. When I saw your planes, I fell in love with their beauty. They are, as Derek said, works of art. When I saw the prices, I was amazed. They are very very low. I would have guessed at a price three or four times as high, and would not have been surprised if they were eight times as high as you are selling them for.I feel bad that I caused you any grief. Unfortunately things have unintended consequences. My messages to Derek may have seemed to have been about your planes, but they were not. They were about the process of doing a tool review. The conversation was started by Derek's review of your two planes, and thus the confusion. I think you can tell that I hold Derek in the highest esteem, even though we have some different biases, beliefs and attitudes. It is these differences that make life worth living. Derek knows that I wasn't attacking his process, but merely giving my ideas on how I would do it differently. Derek said that handplanes come down to a matter of personal preferences. Tool reviews are the same. Derek and I were trading ideas on doing tool reviews.I believe that my message inadvertently will help you improve your website. I believe this because you said "My motto was thought of AFTER all my tools were already developed. Since all my tools were different, I thought the motto fit. I never thought it would define my motivation for making tools in the first place. That motivation is to make a tool that provides features that make the tool perform better, be easier to work with, and easier to sharpen. I think I'll put that last line on my website!"The words in your current website about a focus on out of the box thinking are what turned me off. But your newer words on making tools perform better are the words I like to hear. Following are seven "out of the box" ideas on marketing your planes. See what you think of them.Here is a technique that I used to use when I sold antique clocks. I used to offer a "money back with 5% interest" guarantee. If a person bought my clock for $200 and wanted to return it in two years, for example, I would give them $210 for it. A number of people said that my guarantee gave them the confidence to buy the clock. No one ever took me up on the offer to buy back a clock from them. Your planes are priced so low, that that technique may work for you. You believe in the quality of your planes. You want to get them into the hands of woodworkers. Why not make them a "money back" offer? If they don't like the plane after using it (for up to a year), give them their money back. My guess is that few will return the planes after they use them. Of course, the cost of shipping both ways in on the customer.Second OOTB marketing idea: If you ever see one of your planes go up on EBay, why not buy it at full price? That suggestion is in line with my first suggestion. It is just a different mechanism. These ideas will let people know that you really believe that you have a GREAT tool for sale. Third OOTB marketing idea: There are a number of woodworking guilds and clubs in the US. Offer them a "multiple purchase discount. "If your club buys ten of my planes, I'll give you x% off."Fourth OOTB marketing idea - It is the one Nike uses. If people see professionals use your tool, they are more likely to buy it. Why not contact 10 well known woodworkers and ask them to try out your planes (and return them if they don't like them). If they like the plane, then they have to send you a set of comments you can use in your marketing, and a photo of them using the plane. Fifth OOTB marketing idea. Hold a "Plane Off" contest, which pits your plane versus five others (a Holtey, a LV, an LN, ####etc etc) Use a well known woodworker or venue for doing this. Then take photos of the wood that was planed by all the planes and look for differences. My guess is that there will not be any. Putting together the details of this "test" would require painstaking planning, but it is do-able in a fair an interesting way. My guess is that your plane will do as well as the others at a fraction of the cost. FWW did a contest on methods of sharpening. They were all pretty close, but scary sharp was the winner. The operative thought here is that they were all pretty close, and an inexpensive way won.A sixth OOTB marketing recommendation. If you are going to sell your planes at wood shows, why not have a booth set up so that a woodworker could test your plane versus five other well known planes which cost more. Let the woodworker hone your blade and a standard blade and see that yours compares well. I think of this as "The John Henry Test". IT is very convincing.A seventh OOTB marketing recommendation. I work two part-days a week at Woodcraft. Why not sell through Woodcraft, which now carries Stanley, Groz and Lie Nielsen. Your planes are BY FAR the most beautiful, and the price is much less than LN. I believe your planes would do well at a store like Woodcraft. I hope you got a kick out of my OOTB ideas on marketing.
   I wish you great success in your business.
   I wish you personal satisfaction and happiness.Thank you for writing. I apologize for any grief that I caused you.
   Have fun.
   Mel
   Measure your output in smiles per board foot. 

1. 
   garyblum | Jul 30, 2008 01:32am | #15

   Hi Mel,

   Thanks so much for the nice PM and for all the thought and work you have put into this response. I really appreciate all the advice and those look like some great ideas. Your perspective on my motto and verbage is something I hadn't thought of before you mentioned it. I am definitely going to include some language that conveys my motivations and goals with a little more clarity, probably using that last sentence in my previous post just as it is.

   You didn't cause me any grief. Since my tools have been out, I have developed some slightly thicker skin than I had at the beginning. I just wanted to clarify my motivations and expectations for my tools. I think you've helped me do that.

   Kind Regards,

   Gary Blum

1. 
   9619 | Jul 30, 2008 03:08am | #16

   Gary,
   Thanks for the nice response. I can easily see you are a stand-up guy. Glad you got a kick out of my ideas on marketing. Glad you will rethink your "motto".Keep this in the back of your mind. I am a member of the Washington Woodworkers Guild. Last year, Delta / Porter Cable asked us if they could demonstrate a number of tools that they have under development, and get our feedback on them. This was one of the most popular meetings we have ever had. They came back two more times. Now we have a nice informal relationship. They really like the fast feedback from a large number of competent woodworkers. The feedback that we give them is STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. They have also left us with tools for a while so that a bunch of folks could try them out in workshops. Same deal. They get great written feedback from a number of people. If you ever want to try this technique out on the WWG, I am positive they would love to test out your tools and give you quick, confidential feedback, including suggestions. These woodworkers love to try out tools that they have not tried before. I gave a demo of how to use power carving tools to make large bowls quickly at the July meeting. I brought in the tools, gave a talk, including about 30 slides, and then did a demo, and then let the folks come up and try the tools. I wasn't looking for feedback on the tools, even though I wasn't looking for it. I just love to do power carving. BUT I GOT FEEDBACK on the tools -- cost, safety, ease of use, alternative tools, etc. So if you ever want to try this out, just let me know.
   Have fun, and best of luck.
   MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot. 

2. 
   xmike | Jul 27, 2008 08:15pm | #7

   Thanks for, as usual, a very readable and understandable review.
   Mike D

3. 
   WillGeorge | Jul 28, 2008 10:52pm | #9

   Geat post!

   I mentioned those planes here and got no response that I remember..