Dear friends
Below is a link to the latest handplane review, the Marcou S15/BU Smoother, the handwork of Philip Marcou from New Zealand.
http://www.wkfinetools.com/contrib/dCohen/marcou1/index.asp
This is a high-end smoother, with looks, performance and price to match.
What is interesting is the combination of traditional construction with up-to-the-moment design. Many special features, and a superlative performance. Here it is contrasted with the Veritas Bevel Up Smoother (BUS) and, to a lesser extent, the LN #4 1/2 Smoother.
Enjoy (lots of tool porn and construction techniques included). About 8 pages worth.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Replies
Derek,
Slaver, drip, drool!
A great review, with plenty data and unalloyed honesty. I like this extract in particular, which characterises the whole review quite well:
"The Veritas does the job, superbly, at a quarter of the price of the Marcou. So, why would one buy a Marcou? Well, it is beautiful. It combines the best of new design with the tradition of the dovetailed infill planes of the late eighteenth century. It has heft, it has been lovingly hand machined, it says “pick me up and use me”. It is a plane to visit, take down and make a few gossamer shavings before retiring for the night. It is a plane about which to say to the progeny “someday this will be yours” (if you are good). It is a plane which, when acquired, will demonstrate once again that men are as romantic as women, and for that reason alone it was a bargain".
I wouldn't let the progeny near mine, though, should I ever manage to nick one off young Philip. It would have to be buried with me.
Lataxe.
Edited 5/31/2006 5:29 pm ET by Lataxe
Thanks Dereck, great review.
One day I will have to give up the bveloved Stanleys
Excellent work by Phillip
Dave
Derek posted this review on Wood Central, and the feral folks in that neck of the woods missed the point entirely. I kept hearing dueling banjos (Deliverance!) echoing in the background as I skimmed the dialogue. So much so that the moderator stepped in and drew things to a close (not that I spend any time there - and reading through the discussion, I'm pleased I don't!).
So if they missed the point, what do I think 'the point' is?
Well, as you'd expect, a beautifully-engineered hand tool does the business.
There are other planes which are sort of just about as good, so it's not about a big performance edge - unless you consider ease of setup, fast precise adjustment and weight/authority to be 'big performance' issues.
You can buy other planes that are as good, more or less. What you buy when you buy a Marcou, or Holtey, or any of the other handfull of top-end bespoke makers, is a tool that does the job, is superbly engineered, is a pleasure to use, and that you love as an object.
Clearly, there's a lot of envy in some sections of the tool-watching community in the US (and probably elsewhere in the WWW). Luckily, it's not usually evident here in the FWW forums.
Malcolm
http://www.macpherson.co.nz
Edit - not recommending you waste your time, but the discussion is here:
http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/handtools.pl?noframes;read=90397
Edited 6/5/2006 2:18 am ET by Malcolm
Although the tone of some of that discussion was uncomfortable, I found thought provoking commentary in it. Perhaps we Yanks have a different perspective. Unlike you, I would encourage a look at that particular thread, and take away from it what you will. Sorry, but your comments really are in the same vein as your complaint, and begged for a reply. Let sleeping dogs lie?
> I would encourage a look at that particular thread <
Yes, and that's why I included the link!
I take your point about the pot calling the kettle black, however. I wanted to emphasise that the discussion over on the dark side did get away from the point, but I should have stopped short of name calling!
My generic complaint is that there is value in a discussion of handtool characteristics, and I like to see innovators getting some exposure, bacause we woodworkers do tend to be a bit conservative when we buy tools and machinery. The WC discussion get bogged down in motivation, and methodology, and the purity (sic) of the forum, and spent very little space talking about the pros and cons of high-end hand tools, as epitomised by Philip's planes.
Malcolm
http://www.macpherson.co.nz
In part, Malcolm writes "My generic complaint is that there is value in a discussion of handtool characteristics, and I like to see innovators getting some exposure, bacause we woodworkers do tend to be a bit conservative when we buy tools..."
I agree Malcolm but you may have missed the point of the WoodCentral thread. The questions were about the credibility of the review. When one looks to be a shill in what appears to be an orchestrated buzz marketing (link) campaign, there is a risk of questions about bias. With history as a guide Malcolm, I could have told you the conclusion or point of the review before it was written: “Phillip's plane is very nice but the LV BU smooth plane is almost as nice, performs very well and is considerably less expensive.”
Add that this particular reviewer's writing raises red flags that could call into question his knowledge, experience and objectivity. Can you imagine Thomas Lie-Nielsen's reaction to his promised "head-to-head" comparison between the LN 4 1/2 and LV Bevel-up smooth plane? While I have no idea what pseudo scientific hoops he intends to skew things through, I can probably summarize his "conclusions" in two sentences. I can also tell you issues that won't be addressed or even mentioned.
Malcolm, don't you think Phillip deserved a legitimate review? Shouldn't questions like, "When using obtuse iron bevel angles, does Phillip's additional 2.5º of bed angle avoid problems with depth of cut limitations and premature edge wear? If so, with what woods?” I don't know the answers but I'd like to. Please don't let regional chauvinism affect your judgment, the reviewer apparently didn't.
Well said, sir.
Are we going to go here again? Although I agree wholly with your view, surely everyone who cares about this issue has formed their opinion already. Point made.
Dear Larry
You cannot come out and impune my character and expect that I not reply. Nevertheless, I shall not enter into a debate about this matter since, as Mike has stated (as I have elsewhere), it is unfair to Philip. Not to mention just plain bad manners. For the reference of all, I will direct you to the comments I wrote on Wood Central in regard to the laying out of the research design for the Marcou review. The readers can make up their own mind after reading this and the review.
http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/handtools.pl?noframes;read=90537
Despite the fact that you think of me as "a shill in what appears to be an orchestrated buzz marketing campaign", and that I think of you as clearly paranoid, since you raise doubts about the objectivity of my planned LN 4 1/2 vs LV BUS review, I throw out a challenge to you to help design a suitable study, one that we all (I invite others to join in) might say "this is the right way to go about it".
I am more than happy to share my research design for this venture, as long as you have a scientist's cap on your head.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 6/6/2006 3:08 am ET by derekcohen
Edited 6/6/2006 3:09 am ET by derekcohen
one that we all (I invite others to join in) might say "this is the right way to go about it".
surely aan ideal place to start would be getting the terminology of your objective correct.. Last I heard, a review focused entirely on the subject in question i.e. review of a particular plane would focus exclusivly on the features, charactoristics and results produced by that particular plane... what you've achieved with the article on Phillips pland and subsequently propose with your next article is simply a comparrison, nothing more..
as for claims re a scientific method.. without publishing the "raw data" any claims re performance are merely heresay, or worse, blind speculation... Relevent data IMHO would be macro shots of the boards being tested that clearly illustrate the quality of the cut..
Lastly... accepting planes as "gifts" for services rendered totally torpedoes any objectivity in a review.. Of course... if the reviewer is suitably impressed with the tool, there's nothing to stop a subsequent purchace...Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
accepting planes as "gifts" for services rendered totally torpedoes any objectivity in a review
The reader should definitely have that information. As long as full disclosure is made, nothing sneaky is going on.
I would not, for myself, dismiss such a review out of hand, and would in fact feel that the reviewer is showing honesty in appropriately revealing the circumstances.
So while I would not have any argument with anyone who felt such a review was too tainted for them to get value from, I would not feel that way myself.My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
I frankly still have some questions about the reviewer's background as a furnituremaker and whether he has the breadth and depth of experience necessary to write useful reviews of hand planes and other hand tools.
At the moment, I would have to say that my bias would be NOT to buy the brands he is given to review.
The reviews themselves come across as a bit amateurish, IMO.
I am very skeptical about the number of significant pieces built by the reviewer.
Edited 6/6/2006 3:27 pm ET by BossCrunk
Boss, you wrote,
"I frankly still have some questions about the reviewer's background as a furnituremaker and whether he has the breadth and depth of experience necessary to write useful reviews of hand planes and other hand tools.
At the moment, I would have to say that my bias would be NOT to buy the brands he is given to review.
The reviews themselves come across as a bit amateurish, IMO.
I am very skeptical about the number of significant pieces built by the reviewer".
This promped me to similar thoughts (very similar) as thus:
I frankly still have some questions about the Bosser's background as a furnituremaker and whether he has the breadth and depth of experience necessary to write useful comments on the honest efforts of someone he doesn't know who reviews hand planes and other hand tools.
At the moment, I would have to say that my bias would be NOT to take anything the Bosser says as other than troublemaking, of the troll variety.
His posts themselves come across as a bit amateurish, IMO.
I am very skeptical about the number of significant post made by the Bosser.
Lataxe, a mirror
Edited 6/7/2006 11:28 am ET by Lataxe
Wow.... Strong words from you sir! I agree 100 pct., was just surprised to hear it from you! Methinks there is more fire in the furnace than usually appears.
Since the house is on fire let us warm ourselves. ~Italian Proverb
D,
Have you not heard? It's troll-hunt week. Cyberspace in this neck of the woods needs to be cleared of natterjacks so that we may discuss woodworking in a helpful and positive manner, for a change.
By the way, the words are the Bosser's own, taken from his earlier post in this thread. I merely reflected them upon hisssgoodself, with hisssgoodself as the accused one for a change.
I read his historical posts, you see, and understood his modus operandi.
Lataxe, tutting as bit
I must have missed the memo.... Good luck and good hunting.
Since the house is on fire let us warm ourselves. ~Italian Proverb
The disclosure made by the reviewer in question that the planes were gifts was not volunteered until well after many of the reviews were written. It was critical readers who basically forced the issue with him. I agree that the gifts are not necessarily linked to a bias towards the giver, in this case Lee Valley tools, and Phillip Marcou. On the other hand it is unlikely that manufacturers would continue providing free tools to a reviewer who rated their tools poorly in prior reviews. The benefit (or harm) to any manufacturer because of this type of review is probably negligible. If anything I may me a little less inclined to purchase one of the reviewed tools, not more so. The main casualty may be the reviewer who, in this case, may have incurred some injury to his pride.
The disclosure made by the reviewer in question that the planes were gifts was not volunteered until well after many of the reviews were written. It was critical readers who basically forced the issue with him.
It's bad form not to reveal what might reasonably be seen as compensation, whether one is a professional or not.
it is unlikely that manufacturers would continue providing free tools to a reviewer who rated their tools poorly in prior reviews
Almost two decades ago, I was the editor for the newsletter for a PC User's Group. We got the software for free, and whoever reviewed it could keep or discard it. We did disclose, and we got later releases whether we praised, panned or (mostly the case) pointed out both the good and the bad.
I don't know how the woodworking industry handles this, but the concept of review copies / review product is reasonably common in other industries. This seeming currying of favor, of course, is why people like Consumer Reports make such a point of buying all their products on the market, both to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and to prevent the sort of cherry-picking another poster referred to.
I agree that if I had a chance to read a Consumer Reports-style review by a qualified woodworker, I would prefer it to the review being discussed. I'd still like to know that person's biases and preferences, though. These can come from surveying the person's other work, but the best source (with a good writer) is the article itself, because a good reviewer knows that the reader's question isn't "Did you like it?" but rather "Will I like it?" and the reader isn't the reviewer. Therefore a good review will lay out all the criteria, how they're chosen, and include all the raw data rather than simple useless conclusions.My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
Derek,Hand tool woodworking like many other things is a varied endeavor. Judging by your reviews I suspect, if you were involved in golf, you'd be converting all your clubs to putters.You simply can't control all the variables in your "reviews." Even the effort put forth to use or describe a tool is subjective. No matter how many "scientific" trappings you hang on your reviews, the science only leads to subjective observations. Implying anything else just isn't valid.You are just too emotionally involved with Lee Valley and the bevel-up design to be objective. Leave the reviews to those who carry less baggage or have an editor looking over their shoulder. I'll take my own advise, recognize my own bias and not get involved in reviewing planes.
> I found thought provoking commentary <
Yes, it wasn't all bad, but why did any of it have to be 'bad'?
One of the cool things about these fora is that people can put stuff up, and expect to get a well-qualified analysis ... of the work.
I know that threads often quickly go astray, and I've been guilty (if 'guilty' is the word) of doing that - there's usually so much to talk about - but we do usually come back to the topic, and give it a good airing, in constructive and helpful ways. Well, usually we do.
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Malcolm
I whole-heartedly agree with your assessment of the kind folks over at wood central. The whole deal over there is if you can jam a razor blade in the edge of a stick and get it to work, WONDERFUL!!!!! I don't buy into that line of thought at all, which is why I don't lurk there very often. Anything that is "nice" is idiotic to those guys.
Nice plane, mook!
Jeff
Actually, the arguements at Woodcentral appeared to have very little to do with the plane itself. Some questioned the validity of a review (and the integrity of the reviewer) if the item must be "gifted" to the reviewer as a condition of the review. Apparently a posted policy at the reviewers website. There were also some concerns expressed about the validity of the reviewer based on his previous posts.I can see both arguements.Would just hate to see someone write that members of Woodcentral don't know a quality tool when they see one. I would encourage others to read the threads for themselves and make their own judgement.
My comments weren't regarding Woodcentral folks not knowing a quality tool when they see one. I've spent a little time over there, mostly reading and lurking, and noticed how many belittle the purchase of more expensive tools that are pretty, when a cheapo tuned properly will do the same. Nothing more, and nothing less. Don't read anything into my post.
I've met quite a few of them in person, and there are some very talented people who "hang" at Woodcentral.
Jeff
Hi Everyone,
I think characterizing the whole of WC's HT forum contributors as basically cheapskates is an unfortunate one.
From time to time I have posted what are admittedly not inexpensive saws I make and they have both generated good discussion and been pretty well received. So too have various plane makers.
The incident there I see as unfortunate, perhaps in poor taste. I wish the word choices used were less dramatic as regards Derek. Underlying the hype of the words used, though, is a sentiment of which they have every right to express. The same happens here in other threads--perhaps even now in this one.
Larry too has every right to express his opinion of Derek and his conjecture of Derek's motivations. Larry has a history of condemning Derek and a couple others for what he considers shills, a payola posse. At one time I was asked by Larry what my motivations and connections to LV were. I don't know where I now stand in his eyes, and only care in passing. I wish as professional makers we could simply get along.
But like the direction the WC thread went, so too does Larry have his right to express himself and his conclusions concerning myself or any other person. This does not make what he writes, nor myself, gospel truth.
I wish people would divorce the discussion of Derek from Philip's plane. Discussion of the maker himself and his creation can only help us all. But we do him a disservice if we continue to focus on Derek.
It is a wonderful looking plane in my eye. Ultimately for a user the issues Larry raise are perfectly good and valid to ask. We should as intelligent consumers and users ask and seek these answers--and perhaps a few more which were not addressed.
But we shouldn't lambast another in the process. Sometimes in seeking to redress issues, we can tear down an individual. I don't think that is a good thing for the soul.
Take care, Mike
waiting for the shoe to drop...
Edited 6/6/2006 4:05 am by mwenz
Mike
First of all, very nice saws. I saw your work, and they certainly look terrific. I hope I get the chance to try one some day.
I couldn't agree more about characterizations. I reread my earlier post, and admit that pehaps I was, vocally, a little strong handed.
With regards to Woodcentral, I only base my opinions on personal experience. Over the last year or so, I placed a few items for sale: here, there, and on ebay....... I consistantly got the lowest offers at Woodcentral, as well as comments on how spending the extra money on "eye-candy" tools was pretty much a waste of money. I laughed it off at the time, but in this discussion, I was basing my opinions on these experiences.
Regarding all the negativity between individuals at this and other sites, I simply disregard it all. People who allow negativity to play a force in their lives are usually very unsuccessful in all their endeavors, whether it be with business, personal, or other issues. They waste too much of their valuable time on negativity, instead of focusing on what will get the job done, or make life better. I have no respect for those that are like that.
Anyway, it's one of the main reasons why I don't hang here much any more. There's very few interesting discussions regarding woodworking or life here anymore. Just quite a few wordsmith's who enjoy tearing into others behind the safety of the internet.
Signing off............
Jeff
Hi Jeff--and I was in a cranky mood when I started the post and so apologize. Too, I was responding to a couple posts and was too lazy to click on more than one name.
And fortunately, or not, your explanation of what you meant was evidently being written while I was writing my post.
So again, apologies for singling out your post with which to speak up.
I have done fine doing more reading than posting. Perhaps I should go back to that.
Take care, Mike
and thank you for the kind words re our saws...
Jeff, I hope you are not "signing off".Philip Marcou
Philip
Ole friend!! What really ticks me off more than anything is that this thread about your outstanding work got hijacked by some complete @#$%$#^ i#$%^'s who have an axe to grind with everyone they seem to disagree with. I'd have preferred to see your terrific work get more recognition, as I think your planes look great, and if they're like the furniture you build, will function very well also.
Anyway, great job, and good luck with however far you wish to take your planes.
Jeff
Philip:
The plane is a beautiful piece of work. The posters in this thread seem to miss the point that we are all enamored of fine craftsmanship in one way or another. Some people want the latest Mercedes or Rolls Royce, some want the finest furniture or tools.
Nobody needs a Holtey or a Marcou, or even a Lie-Nielsen. (Duncan Phyfe did not have any of those and he turned out perfectly acceptable work.) By the same token, nobody actually needs a high end custom piece of furniture. People pay dearly for fine furniture because they appreciate the craftsmanship and beauty, not because a $10,000 table keeps plates off the floor any better than one from IKEA.
I am a total wood butcher who enjoys making piles of sawdust, and the occasional misshapen piece of furniture in the garage. But, dang it, right after I win the lottery, I am going to buy a Holtey or a Marcou for the sheer beauty of the thing, just to look at and occasionally to use.
Hey come on now, we have the best politicans money can buy, a few of us can read at middle school level and some of us can even eat with utensils now. Aside from the small majority of us that are bloodthirsty violent poorly educated selfish boors we really are fine folks.
Using big words like legalism and xenophobia qualifies you to become:
1. Contestant, National Spelling Bee.
2. Hand-tool reviewer.
Either of these would make your mother proud.
Try switching to decaffeinated.
Metod, look up oxymoron in your Websters unabridged. How can the "majority" be average and below when you are talking about a statistical sample that is hundreds of millions? In fact, one half of the population would be average and below and one half would be average and above.
Could you tell us a little about your background in woodworking?
YIKES!
A clinical, scientific test would be great but it wouldn't be a real world situation. Scientifically, the same board would be used, the iron would be sharpened to the same degree and angle, honed the same, the temperature, barometric pressure and humidity would be the same, the down force and thrust would be the same and the plane sole's coefficient of friction would have to be the same. Also, the altitude of the location where the test was conducted and the weight of the tester would need to be the same in order for the subjective "feel" of the plane to be similar.
The problem with doing a lab experiment in the use of a handplane is that they aren't generally used in laboratories. They're sharpened, honed and used by people in all kinds of situations, on different wood pieces and species.
If a set of boards could accompany a group of planes for comparison, and care could be taken to simulate the climate in all locations, at least a couple of variables would be eliminated.
From what the reviews said, all of the planes did a good job, without excessive effort and some were built to tighter tolerances (Phillip's) than the others. It's nice to compare these planes but it's really apples and oranges- If they were all in the same price range, things would be different. The precision that costs more can yield improvements that may be intangible but that doesn't make them less present.
If a set of boards could accompany a group of planes for comparison, and care could be taken to simulate the climate in all locations, at least a couple of variables would be eliminated.
Highfish, if one took the time to read all the reviews I have written to date, then it would be evident that it has always been my intent to approximate scientific conditions as much as possible (indeed, one of the methods I have used through out all reviews has been this suggestion of yours). Where it has not been possible to eliminate some variables, efforts have been made to minimize their effect.
To all: The basic aim of the scientific method is to develop a hypothesis and then evaluate it with a research design that may be reproduced by others. Objectivity is achieved when this criterion is established. Some of the replies here indicate to me that they confuse objectivity and bias, and/or have not read my original research design and are just jumping to conclusions.
To be fair, show me any other reviews of handplanes (other than the one by Lyn Mangiameli into high angle smoothers) that attempt to go to the lengths I/we are discussing.
To be sensible, recognize that web (and magazine) reviews are not only meant to educate, they are also meant to entertain. It must be enjoyable to read. Or would you prefer a dry scientific journal article sprinkled by terms such as dependent and independent variable, ANOVA, significant difference, and so on. I have done my best to provide objective, replicatable material that is easy and enjoyable to read.
Who am I, someone asked: you are welcome to read an interview on Sawmill Creek: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=32656<!----><!----><!---->
Now please let’s get back to the original offer I made to develop a research design together for the BUS verses LN 4 ½ plane off. I am waiting on Larry to provide something constructive here. <!----><!---->
Regards from Perth<!----><!---->
Derek<!----><!---->
I wasn't questioning your test methods and I was here when others called you on the way you receive your samples and if I recall, you added the explaination to your reviews afterward. I think the ideal tool test would reveal tools that allow you to do more work, with equal or better results, less fiddling with the tool and maybe with less effort while not adding to maintenance/setup/initial fettling. If it fails in any of these, it's not as good. If it is demonstrably better, it's a better tool. I don't think there is a tool out there that will do its job absolutely perfectly, in every case. OTOH, there are certainly some great tools out there, some old and some very new. Actually, part of the point of my post (whether it came through or not) is that I don't know if a scientific test is really valid when there are so many variables. I think a lot of using a plane and the impression of that tool is subjective and would be hard, at best, to measure. I have a British #4 that cuts great, stays sharp for longer than I would expect, leaves a glassy surface and still has the original iron but feels like a toy compared to the L-N #4. Nothing I would want to try using one-handed, like a L-N, because of the light weight. I don't think it would be hard to devise a test jig for these, though. Something with a ball joint to serve as a wrist, so the plane could be skewed, a way to add weight over the plane (as well as a way to move the weight forward and back) and a way to push it across the edge or surface of the wood. It would be easy enough to check the Fc of the plane's sole and wood surface so a comparison can be made. That might take care of the objective part.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Actually, part of the point of my post (whether it came through or not) is that I don't know if a scientific test is really valid when there are so many variables. I think a lot of using a plane and the impression of that tool is subjective and would be hard, at best, to measure. <!----><!----><!---->
Highfigh<!----><!---->
I am in full agreement with you. I do not believe that “testing” planes is a simple matter at all, and that much of the relevant data is difficult to quantify. There is a danger of becoming too much of a Reductionist and oversimplifying the complex dynamics that exist. In previous reviews I have sought to obtain evidence of "results" as close to empirical data as possible, such as scanning the wood surface before and after planing, and comparing the results. This works on one level only (e.g. these scans are two-dimensional, and the results of planing are three-dimensional when you include the depth of tearout). Therefore one is still forced to include subjective observations - nothing wrong with that as long as you are able to qualify the basis of one's observations for reproducing by others. <!----><!---->
The research design for the Marcou smoother is not really different from the above. Potential buyers were expected not to be only interested in performance, but possibly to be more interested in aesthetics alone (i.e. as a work of art), if they were to be a collector, or performance and ergonomics if the plane was purchased to be a user. As a result, it was deemed necessary to establish a measure of excellence for performance, which is where comparative results were established (I did mention that the results were scanned but that these were not good enough to pick out differences). Many of the ergonomic and, especially, the aesthetic factors are subjective. How does one quantify and measure such variables? Here I turned to a phenomenological method and obtained the experiences of others to add to and also balance my own observations. This methodology clearly has confused some, who do not view it “scientific”.<!----><!---->
With a comparison of the LV BUS and the LN #4 ½, the approach would be different again. Why this article in the first place? Because many have asked for it, there seem to be “camps” of supporters, and these are two fine planes that prospective buyers end up being confused over. What should the target issues be? Well, performance is one obviously, and this requires to defined. I am interested in the viewpoints of others. As I see it, performance includes not only the ability to smooth difficult woods, but also the ease of use. In other words, ergonomics – the ease of set up, adjustment, comfort, amongst others. Another factor of interest to readers is whether one plane is better suited to a novice and another for the more experienced user. <!----><!---->
What do I expect? I expect the planing performances to be very similar. I have used both planes and they both work well. I also expect that there will be some that prefer the BU and some that prefer the BD plane. This could be for a variety of reasons, and this is what I think most will want to know. <!----><!---->
My plan at present – open to discussion here and elsewhere – is to invite a number of woodworkers to participate as subjects in the study. They will be divided into two groups, novice handplaners (under 2 years experience) and experienced handplaners (greater than 5 years of experience). The two planes will be set up identically for each subject (honed for the same cutting angle – I am thinking 45 degrees since this will expose more difficulties while a high cutting angle might more easily compensate here; up to the same polishing grit – I use a King Gold 8000; using a honing guide for reliability; keeping the same wood surfaces – these have yet to be selected, but I want to challenge the top end of the planes), and these results will be recorded by scanner. With regard the ergonomic area, I envisage a selection of questions that can be rated by the subjects, and that these are combined with user descriptions. These ratings can then be quantified for comparison. I am less confident about obtaining sufficient subjects to obtain a statistical significance since Perth is small and the population pool of prospective subjects is limited. As a result, results will be in percentages of the total. My own part in this research is to supervise and collate – I will leave the ratings and experiential descriptions to others.<!----><!---->
There is a second area I am interested in including. This being how modified Stanley #4 ½ planes might compare with the off-the-shelf LV and LN. I can throw into the ring a T12 with Clifton iron and stayset (my own), with a T11 and LN iron and chipbreaker available on loan. All that is needed is to include these two planes in the study along with the others. Comments are invited. <!----><!---->
To Larry: I am disappointed that you are either not prepared to accept the challenge, or unable to do so. <!----><!---->
To all: please accept the above in the spirit of endeavour. Offer criticism by all means, but please make it constructive.<!----><!---->
Regards from Perth<!----><!---->
Derek<!----><!---->
Derek, I don't see a problem in your quest for creating a platform for valid reviews of planes. They are interesting from an academic point of view to this horny handed old furniture lag.
From the collectors point of view, or the point of view of the amateur, I'm convinced there is a great deal to debate about tool construction, history, performance, aesthetics, etc..
From my angle of only really being interested in performance I just get on and make furniture. I don't bother with honing to ridiculous lengths before planing-- an 800 grit ceramic stone is usually more than good enough- and, what can't be planed can be scraped and sanded.
In the end it's all about getting the furniture out of the door and into the punters house followed smartly by the bill.
However I believe that the interest of amateurs like yourself and your fellow band of handtool afficionado's that nit-pick anally over every minute detail to the n'th degree has provided a useful service to mercenary old furniture gits like me.
The choice of reasonably priced and good handtools has grown fantastically over the last thirty odd years or so I've been in the trade: I believe it's the handtool enthusiasts that have gone a long way to creating this availability. Lie-Nielsen wasn't in business when I started, and Clifton were pretty much moribund or near enough dead. Now both make excellent planes that I can buy and use.
I'll probably never own a boutique plane like a Holtey and I really couldn't care less. I just want tools that work that I can afford to buy that help me make furniture efficiently. Handtools, machine woodworking-- it's all the same to me.
Keep on taking the slings and arrows. To hell with the doom-mongers and the morally affronted mob that get all knicker twisted because-- shock, horror-- you actually take payment in some form for writing your reviews, ha, ha-- ha, ha, ha. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
Richard,
In a recent BBC Radio 3 broadcast (my favourite radio station whilst working in the shed) a descendant of Sigmund Freud was interviewed. In conversation, she said that old Sigmund's belief that sex was at the bottom of all human behaviour has long been disproved. Rather, if there is one prevalent psychological factor present in most human relationships, it is the desire for respect from others.
If only some other posters to Knots could grasp this idea, as you obviously do, and couch comments or critiques without the personal vitriol. Knots might then have more inhabitants - those troll-damaged former contributors might not have gone off in a huff, as many seem to have done.
We should be able to discuss and learn (including the lessons pointing our mistakes and misunderstandings) without having to suffer a dissing. I think your posts provide a model for how that process should go. Respect!
Of course, one should give trolls a wide berth, only pausing to take up a stick now and then, crying, "Be off back to your rude hovel, loathsome and warty thing". However, they seem to put out a cyber-pheromone that attracts the unwary, whom they then attempt to dismember with a scathe. Even I find myself slightly fascinated by their japes and catcalls.
Lataxe
Edited 6/7/2006 4:31 am ET by Lataxe
Lataxe
If I were not already taken, I would marry you in an instant!
And Richard
You are a gentleman, sir.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 6/7/2006 5:54 am ET by derekcohen
Hmmmm - what dowry do you offer? Your collection of planes might be included of course, along with your personal fortune, surfboard and any nice dogs or cats you have.
The contract will have to contain certain specific restraints on your conjugal rights, naturally.
Lataxe, a blushing bride.
:)
Lataxe, I wonder how many posters to this thread appreciate your wit. Almost all the other posts here have been worthless as far as woodworking goes. They should try a newsgroup like alt.whineallday or alt.bitchalot.
Its too bad more energy couldn't be devoted to WWing. Personally, I like online reviews as I know how to 'average' them. Posts like the ones in this thread largely do not become the old men that hang out here. I hope I'm a happy well-adjusted poet when I grow up like those blokes from Lancaster...
Andy
Lataxe,
Don't you think you are being a bit hard on the trolls, old chap? After all, they only want your respect, just are a bit challenged in the social skills dept.
I like the input of our resident curmudgeons (you know who you are). They keep me from taking myself too seriously. Some day, I may aspire to the role myself...nah, it takes too much effort, all the good bridges are already taken.
"dismember with a scathe" I love that bit, just enough like a scythe to make the image gory. But a good lataxe will provide a sharp and effective defence, I'm sure.
Cheers,
Ray
Ray,
I have been harsh to the odd troll this week. I have been drawknifing green oak a lot and its gets the hormones flowing.
On the other hand, I wasn't that harsh. Trolls don't deserve respect as they want to eat you (well, your cyber-self) alive. However, were their human progenitors to post in another not-troll mood, including a happy wave and some useful WW advice, I will greet them effusively and even issue a compliment or two, rather than reflect their vitriol back at them.
The problem is that I have paradoxia. For instance, if there is one thing I can't tolerate it's intolerance. :-) Moreover, I cannot respect the disrespectful. Oh, I got it bad!
Some folk have been driven off Knots by the Monsters and that is not a good thing. (Have a search through the Naughty Ones' histories, if you like, for evidence of their horrible cruelties in past threads).
Lataxe, looking about for the fairy dust
Derek. You asked for input on what to include or how to conduct a review so I would like to suggest that among your "reviewing crew" you try to have people with small, medium, and large hands. It would help to address any ergonomic / fit concerns a reader might have when they read the review.
"...there are people in the world who do not love their fellow human beings -- and I hate people like that."
--- Tom LehrerMy goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
Ray,
There is a Heath Ledger movie called 'A knight's Tale' - one of the characters is Chaucer. He has a line "I wll evicserate you in fiction" delivered to a couple of jewish money lenders.
Dave
Thing is,... Chaucer was so good at the dirty jokes and double entendres, nobody remembers the people that he might have made fools of.
LN vs. Lee Valley vs. Philip Marcou vs. Carl Holtey.
Where is Michael Buffer when you need him? Let's get ready to RUMBLE.
I'm also reminded of Godzilla vs. King Kong.
Edited 6/7/2006 10:58 am ET by charlesstanford
Charles, no doubt there is a message there-but it is lost on me because I don't know who Michael Buffer is. Can you explain further?Philip Marcou
Metod,
Why consider yourself a "national" of some group invented by power-hungry politicians or other crazy syndicates? Me, I'm a citizen of the world, especially since the http://WWW.  When the aliens come, I will enjoy them too.
Of course, I still have a funny accent and the strange manners that came with it. For instance, I find it very hard to take humans seriously and like to eat sea snails.
As to Philip's plane and Derek's review, I take them for what they are, not as some grist to a personal idealogy or cue for an angst-splurge. The net is full of whiners and moaners, goblins and trolls. Who cares - their antics are often amusing or easily ignored.
I think perhaps we have similar feelings in these matters. But one must allow mad dogs to howl at the moon, otherwise they may actually bite someone.
Lataxe, who should have been a dolphin or possibly an oceanic snail.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled