Greetings woodworkers!
In another thread in this forum is a rather heated debate, complete with many interesting comments and a fair amount of vitriol, concerning a tool test review written by Mr. Cohen, on a hand plane recently created by Mr. Marcou.
A dominant theme in this thread, and a prime reason for its intensity, is the debate over how a tool test should be conducted and the review written.
So…..with that in mind:
What constitutes a “valid” or “scientific” tool test? In other words, what should the parameters of a good test be? And why?
What constitutes a “valid” or “useful” review? In other words, what information should a good tool test review contain? And why?
Let the commentary begin……
James
Replies
Ok, if we are going to talk about the actual tool review, let me begin with this statement. I find that most if not all tools are reviewed with one persons skills in place, and for me what is easy for one person may be difficult for me. I find some tools more cumbersome or less user friendly than a tool review makes it out to be. I find that repeatability is important, ease of set up, maintenance and durability and cost all important factors. In the past I felt like some tools got better reviews because they had more advertising dollars spent in the same publication, not necessarily woodworking tools but they also can fit here. I also think that three or four people should write their own comments on the tools, and tell what they like and dislike, have more than just one article's author telling about the review. Make the review comprehensive. Now we're talking a lot of money, and who will pay for that other than the fellows that have a high advertising budget and are more likely to 'buy' their way into a good review. For me, I really don't like putting a lot of confidence in tool reviews as a whole because I don't think they are completely done without some sort of bias on the testers part. Am I wrong on that?
You make some good points here.
I'm not sure that I necessarily agree that tool tests/reviews have to be expensive or even complicated, but do strongly agree that they should be comprehensive, to be of more than just marginal use.
Yes, some companies probably "buy" their reviews, either directly or indirectly; others don't. As long as that's known, then there's really no huge problem -- it is merely another (sometimes somewhat deceptive) form of advertising, and should be treated as such. Other reviews (i.e., the non-bought variety) that simply state the reviewer's methods, procedures, (biases,) and conclusions can be very useful.
IMO, tool reviews (automobile reviews, vacation reviews, software reviews, book reviews, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam) most certainly should be taken with a grain or twenty of salt, and be read with a somewhat jaundiced eye, at least until you know what the reviewer's biases are. As in most things involving money: caveat emptor.
James
Tool reviews, in general, suck.
Tool reviews by the same bloke over and over suck really hard.
I absolutely will not buy a Lee Valley product under any circumstances given their association with one particular tool reviewer.
Derek Cohen is not a 'buzz creator' for Lee Valley tools. Quite the opposite at this point, I think.
Why Taunton allows these reviews to be posted on this site I'll never understand.
Edited 6/7/2006 3:55 pm ET by charlesstanford
I agree, bad (tool) reviews are useless; good ones can be useful.
Might I suggest that you are being a bit short-sighted in refusing to buy from LV, simply because of one individual's association with the company? I have no association with LV, but will tell you from personal experience that they make some very high quality and innovative tools, and have some of the very best customer service available in ANY industry. (No, I don't own any LV hand planes; all of mine are LN or vintage Stanley, with a Sargent, a couple of old Craftsman, and some Chinese-style wooden planes thrown in.)
Of course, where/how you choose to spend your money is entirely your business and decision, but I thought I'd throw that out for your consideration.
James
In the last few minutes I was thumbing through a back issue of another woodworking magazine, and came across a 'review' of table saw fences. The article reviewed some nice fences, and many that I have only seen in those ads, and never had a chance to use. The fence I use happened to be in the lineup, but was not the highest rated. Of the fences that I have used, my fence scored lower on some points, but highest on some points. The down side to my fence is it can't go wider than 32" on the table without moving it and readjusting it. Now you likely know what fence I have. I would not trade this one for any of the others for my use as repeatability and ease of use for my type work is what I need. I have never had any other problems with the fence setup that I use that was negative enough to cause me to give it a poorer rating than some other. How did I come to purchase my fence? I saw it at a trade show. For me that is the best over all tool review that you can get. You can see the thing right there in front of you being used, and if you ask nice you might be allowed to use it too, no matter what the tool is. Maybe this is driving the point that we should be advertising and asking for more trade shows to give us our reviews instead of wasting space in the precious pages of a woodworking magazine where I'd much rather have a plan to build than a tool to drool over and never see.
Again, you make some good and thoughtful points.
As I said earlier, I think tool reviews have a place and can be useful, if done "properly."
The $64,000 question is, of course, "What, exactly, is "properly?"
I suspect that the definition, in many respects, is a moving target: your table saw fence is a perfectly good example of that. While it didn't get the highest ratings in the review you referred to, it has turned out to be the best fence for you, because it does what you need it to do. That might not be the case for another woodworker, who has different methods of work and/or different needs; perhaps another fence would do that, and perhaps a decent tool review would help him/her select that "perfect" fence.
In all the acrimony generated in the other thread, some folks seem to forget that there are many ways to approach and do things in woodworking (as in many other aspects of life). Different techniques work for different folks. Regardless of how you get there, the ultimate objective in woodworking is, usually, to create something useful and beautiful, to the best of your ability and talent. Tools help us do that, and (good) tool reviews often help us select those tools. Thus my original questions.
James
James,
A very good question and one deserving of some thought rather than a snap reply generated from one's automated-attitude dispenser. Pondering is called for.
Meanwhile, I hear snipping noises. Ah, it is a natterjack cutting off his nose to spite his face. But I suppose it's the ultimate in individuality, distrusting everything and everyone.
Lataxe
Lataxe,
Thank you, sir.
I eagerly await your considered opinion on this subject; I suspect that not only will it be entertaining to read, but, more importantly, enlightening, as well.
James
I stayed away of the Marcou plane review however I was slightly involved in a recent thread about hand planes and review probably as vitriolic though, since it involved some of the same characters. People need to take a deep breath, I am a scientist by profession, and I can tell you that few things are "exact" and most are open for debates. That being said, I take any kind of review with a grain of salt. I also appreciate people who take their own time to perform and write a "biased" tool review. Yes biased, everyone is biased, so what? read the review, use your judgement. And if Mr Cohen's review or the way he did it does not please you, say so ,then move on, or why dont you take the time and do your own review.
Well said!!
For me the answer is simple: This is a free forum for the discussion of woodworking issues. Reviews, particularly ones my self-appointed reviewers, do not belong here. I find nothing wrong with a person expressing an opinion about a particular product based on his ownership experience with that product. That happens in almost every thread. I agree with the poster who said that Taunton needs to moderate the content of this otherwise excellent forum in that regard. Some of the other forums have banned the use of links to any auctions or sites where the forum is highjacked for commercial use. I am not sure that necessary and Taunton might be reluctant to step on the toes of their advertisers, anyway. The reviews need be gone, in any case.
Just to play devil's advocate: are not tool reviews a form of information exchange that can be useful to at least some portion of those who read and participate in these forums? And can not a reasoned debate over the merits and limitations of a particular review/test methodology be useful to the reviewer to improve his/her test methodology such that the next review by that individual becomes more useful to more people?
I won't pretend to know that answer(s) to those questions, but throw them out for your consideration and thoughtful reply.....
James
Edited 6/7/2006 6:39 pm by pzgren
Logic and reason would say yes to your question; but in reality the answer seems to be 'no, not always'. The same hand plane review has caused conflict on two different forums in the last week. Apparently many readers, including myself, take exception to this so-called 'review' format. No need to rehash it here, but I would suggest either having reviews posted directly to a reviews-only page, or simply having a moderator limit certain posters from contributing to the discussions, by PM.
One thing I notice is a kind of road rage on the internet that stems from its annonymity. I am making it my goal to proceed as if we were all sitting around a table having coffee.
<<Logic and reason would say yes to your question; but in reality the answer seems to be 'no, not always'.>>
I agree. Whether we have a reasoned debate is up to the participants...not all seem to want to. And, whether the reviewer uses the feedback given is up to the reviewer.....
<<....I am making it my goal to proceed as if we were all sitting around a table having coffee.>>
One of the more astute and civil things I've seen someone say recently. A most refreshing way to approach the conversation here!!
Cheers!
James
Sure don't want to step on Fine Woodworkings toes as they do command my greatest respects. But !
Awhile back there was a test of straight cutting router bits, done with a CNC router. Well all bits arn't created equal and we all know that. Again But, Two of the bits were made by the same manufacture, off the same line, equal specs, etc. etc. They just had different names and part numbers on the shanks, We have visited the factory and they are the same bits. One of them made it to the very top, the other one nearly failed. How does one explain that ???
Work Safe, Count to 10 when your done for the day !!
Bruce S.
My Wife is a Scientist and Writer in the Scientific field. Many times they get funding from a Pharmaceutical firm to do testing. If the testing is positive the results get published, if the results are negative it gets wiped under the carpet. If the firm my wife works for published negative results which could possibly damage the reputation of the Pharmaceutical firm I will guarantee they will never see funding from them again. Nor would any other firm offer them money.
Derek is going to go ahead and do his LV vs LN review whether or not we all like it. I would suggest that those who can think of a possible "loop hole" that needs to be plugged should do so now before the testing gets underway. Yes, I have given Derek my input.
Regarding the Marcoux thread. For those of you whom mentioned that those who question Derek on WoodCentral must be pretty negative people in life and assuming you are refering to me. I must say that I live a wonderful life in a beautiful city with an incredible job and family whom support my hobbies and interests.
Cheers
Dan Clermont
My only uninformed explanation there would be the reviewer didn't know that the bits were the same, and somehow came to a conclusion in testing that they were very different. Human error may have been involved here, but a retest over and over should have eliminated some portion of that in my opinion. I get back to the buy your way to the top, and the other guy sells by word of mouth? I'm a hands on kind of person, but do look through the tool reviews and put the information in the back of my mind, usually to never return to the front. All good points, and hey, somebody's got to play devils advocate here......Good stuff!!!
Same thing with the recent 8" jointer reviews. Many of the machines are built off the same castings from the same factory, but the author duly measured and reported microsocopic (and therefore irrelevant) "differences" in table flatness. I think there's a tendency to get overscientific. Another example was a finish review that measured some liquid property (viscosity?) and then claimed that it somehow correlated to what the finish would look like. I agree with the poster who said "speak from experience". Much more likely to be meaninful.Pete
Pete, this definately isn't directed at you, you're just the end on the thread.
I recently started my first formal study of history in over 20 years.
The first part of the course was sorting the wheat from the chaff of history. The guts of this are a good against this discussion.
Historians are all reviewers. Every one has their own bias. Equally everyone of them is exposed to different experiences that filter both their approach to that particualr study but also what sort of information they have available. We can strenuously disagree with the approach, assumptions, and conclusions of any historian. That doesn't make them wrong unless they make an error in fact (eg the iron was 0.5" thick on a Stanley #4), and that error contributed to a conclusion.
So in this discussion, experience vs 'revew' is really just a matter of the type of filter being applied to generate the opinion. Each has validity.
So much varies in wood work that to create a scientific (meaning in this case repeatable) experiment we would have to loose precision. Perhaps the nature of this problem is that the achievable precision is only the reviewers personal opinion after attempting to control as many variables as he can.
I personally value the reviews as an expression of the attention people pay to improvng their craft. Most dont contribute to the few buying decisions that I make.
dave
<<....One of them made it to the very top, the other one nearly failed. How does one explain that ???>>
A very good question, and one to which I have no answer. The best I could do would be to speculate on a number of possible explanations, both positive and negative, but without further information, that's probably pretty worthless.....
James
It's beyond me why folks think a tool review by a magazine or a single user can be expected to be "scientific." Where the he\ is the funding going to come from to do a "scientific" review/comparison of anything. Nuts.
Useful, yes maybe. Valid -- depends on what you're looking for. But scientific? Not.
When I was actively buying tools, on a very limited budget mind you, I found the most useful approach was to read all the reviews in all the magazines and look for a pattern. When every reviewer had the same complaint about a specific model, chances were strong that it was a valid criticism. Same with the positive stuff, but maybe less weight given. I learned to take all the info with a grain of salt.
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
It's beyond me why folks think a tool review by a magazine or a single user can be expected to be "scientific."
As a whole most people do not understand what scientific means... I think in general the reviewers try to use testing techniques from science to test an unscientific thing. The function of a plane, or a tablesaw for the most part is subjective.
I found the most useful approach was to read all the reviews...
Now here is a novel idea... Multiple users, testing multiple tools! Probably the most scientific thing in tool reviews: statistics.
*** ALL
What I find most odd about the complaints about tool reviews are the accusations of bias. I can not think of one person who would not be biased when the sit down to write a review. The company which depends on advertising dollars, the guys with a free plane, or the sucker who paid full price...
Educationally and work-wise, I come very much from a scientific background. It's been awhile since I've been involved that way, but the mental frame of reference will always be there.
Your statement about statistics (multiple users, multiple tools) is a bit over the top as a summary. But the general idea is useful, not scientific <g> but useful.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
"...or the sucker who paid full price..." That's an excellent point! LOL.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
What constitutes a good "tool review"? The Consumer Guide magazine does better reviews than any other group. Indeed, the standard for reviews of any consumer product is Consumer Guide. They don't accept advertising. They buy on the open market. They always use multiple reviewers and they show the spread of the conclusions of the reviewers. When possible, they ask their readers to provide information. They annual review of cars provides the best info on cars that one can find anywhere in the world. They re-review popular items regularly. Cars are every year. Cameras are very frequent. etc.
They provide information on usability, safety, cost, frequency of repair, etc.. They provide information on the positive and negative aspects of each item, Finally, they attempt to roll up all of the sub-reviews, and provide an overall rating of the different brands. One almost never sees tool reviews in woodworking magazines that come near the quality of the reviews of Consumer Guide. They almost always provide some information which I find useful, but they often seem to focus on things that can be measured very precisely, rather that things that are most important. I really don't care if one brand has a surface variability of .003 and the other has one of .002. What I would rather know is: why and how much should I worry about this particular parameter. Bottom line: I would like to see each tool review include a list of the most relevant parameters, along with an explanation of why each is important. Why would one do a review of "English style" dovetail saws? Why not start with the issue of "Dovetail saws"? What about the Japanese style saws or the bow-saws that Tage Frid used? Why focus in so quickly on one type of saw? Maybe the "best" dovetail saw for any person is the one the he or she originally learned on. I would like to learn what features of a dovetail saw cause what differences in performance. I would like to hear what many people think about this, not just one person. I would also like to see tests of these hypotheses, whenever possible. Too many tool reviews focus on parameters are easy to measure, but not important. What comes to mind here is not a particular tool review, but some reviews that I have read on comparing mortise and tenon joints to biscuit and dowel joints. I have read a number of such reviews in which the author makes one of each and then applies increasing pressure to each until they pop, and then they show a photo of the broken joints and give the number of pounds of pressure that cause each breakage. No-one seems to compare 15 different M&T joints, some of which were poorly made. It is hard to make a bad biscuit joint, and if you have a good dowel jig, it is hard to make a bad dowel joint, but it is easy to make a poor M&T joint and it takes much longer. I am now making M&T joints, but I relied on dowel joints for panel doors for decades. I have never had a failure of a dowel joint in a door, a face frame or anything else. What I would like to read in an evaluation of types of joints is: what works, and what doesn't, and why? If M&T joints work and dowel joints work, but the M&T joint is stronger, that is important to know. I have read dozens of reviews of dowel joints and they all indicate that "theoretically", this joint has a lot of problems. OK, now I know the theory, but how come none of the hundreds of them that I made over the decades have ever failed? Maybe the dowel joints will fail in 150 years and the M&T joints will fail in 275 years, on the average. If you want a specific example of the above, go to the Dowelmax website and look at the review of dowel vs M&T joints. When you are finished reading it, ask yourself if you are convinced. If not, what would it take to convince you? When I was 16, I had a hard time deciding which of two guitars to buy. Each was at a different store. I asked the store-owner to play each a number of times. For one guitar, the store-owner tuned it each time before he played it. The other one never tuned it. I figured that one that never needed tuning was a better guitar. I bought that guitar and told the man why. He laughed. He said that he tuned the guitar each time as he was playing it, but that I just never noticed. Maybe it is not the tool that is important, but the skill of the user. That rarely comes up in tool reviews. Maybe tool reviews for beginners should be different than those for professionals because they look for different things. Back when I first started doing woodworking, I built a dry sink, bookcases, two desks, and other pieces of furniture on the porch of my apartment in Binghamton, New York, using four power tools that I bought at Sears: a circular saw, a jig saw, a router and a sander, along with some hand tools. I now have a very nice indoor workshop with lots of very "good" tools, but those old pieces of furniture still look pretty good and there have been no joint failures yet. Besides, the tools that I used out on the porch were much more capable than those used by the craftsmen of the 1700s who created pieces that now sell for over $100k. Pardon the length of my post. I went on too long, but now I feel better.
...They don't accept advertising. They buy on the open market. They always use multiple reviewers and they show the spread of the conclusions of the reviewers. When possible, they ask their readers to provide information....
I extracted this from your post for emphasis.
It sounds like you are referring to the work done by Consumer's Union under the Consumer Reports name.-Jazzdogg-
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive." Gil Bailie
Jazzdogg,
you are correct. I meant to say "Consumers Report" by Consumers Union.
Thank you.
9619
FG,
<<I found the most useful approach was to read all the reviews in all the magazines and look for a pattern. >>
I think you have a very useful technique there. The research and reading could be a bit time consuming, but then....what's the value of your wasted time and frustration because you bought a less than adequate or even totally unsuitable tool? [rhetorical question!!]
Cheers!
James
Hi James,
Interesting topic.
I appreciate tool reviews in which objective data is presented in ways that invite direct comparison, e.g., a table in which dimensions, capacities, amperages, prices, etc., can be quickly and easily compared side-by-side. I don't want to dig through someone's prose to unearth vital data.
I also find it useful when the reviewer discloses his proclivities, work habits, and biases up-front. When a reviewer issues a judgement, I like to know why she feels that way. For example, "As a chairmaker working primarily in green wood, I prefer to use spokeshaves with the following attributes..."
I dislike the kind of "puffery" in which power tool makers, as but one example, manipulate the numbers to support grandiose or potentially misleading claims - like the "peak horsepower" ratings some retailers rely upon to lure the uneducated.
It would be very nice if there were reliability data on commonly used power tools. Instead, what we generally have to rely upon are anecdotes, sometimes in the form of wild rantings. Reliability over time is very important to me, and while the needs and experiences of weekend woodworkers and a commercial cabinetmaking shops aren't likely to be directly comparable, I tend to pay attention when a tool can withstand the rigors or commercial use, even if I'll be using the tool to be used for only a few hours each week.
Conversely, if a tool is sufficiently well made for a hobbyist, but will not withstand commercial use, such information may be valuable, but will not necessarily relegate it to "junk" status, even if the reviewer would eschew its purchase. Disclosure seems vital.
I would like to see tool reviewers agree to fastidiously avoid including logical fallacies (the formalized kind we studied in college philosophy courses) in their reviews, but doubt that this is reasonable to expect.
Whether in this forum or published tool reviews, I tend to dismiss claims made in absolutist terms unless they are backed up by hard facts. In general, when opinions are expressed forcefully, sanctimoniously, or disrespectfully, I tend to view them with more than a dash of skepticism.
My thoughts so far,
-Jazzdogg-
"Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive, and go do that, because what the world needs is people who have come alive." Gil Bailie
Edited 6/7/2006 9:17 pm by jazzdogg
I also find it useful when the reviewer discloses his proclivities, work habits, and biases up-front. When a reviewer issues a judgement, I like to know why she feels that way. For example, "As a chairmaker working primarily in green wood, I prefer to use spokeshaves with the following attributes..."Absolutely. Unless "we" pay someone to do fully controlled (pseudo)scientific comparisons, we have to make the best of the information we get.It's common enough on a forum for someone to say "this (tool) is crap".It's just an opinion, and everybody takes it in context; most posters on a forum have enough history for other people to weight opinions quite accurately.And a 8 page review is just a wordy opinion :-)In the current case, if it wasn't for Derek I'm not sure I'd even know the Marcou smoother existed; he's provided me a fine service. BugBear
Jazzdog,
<<Interesting topic.>
Thanks.
"Peak horsepower" reminds me of my younger days, when I had a very serious interest in mid-to-high-end stereo equipment. Before the FTC stepped in, there were all manner of fictitious (or at least just barely non-fiction) claims about amplifier power: 1250 watts peak power per channel, etc., when the actual sustained, usable power was more like 59.4 watts RMS total. The more reputable manufacturers never played this game and gave realistic and honest power and other ratings, but the others.....
Some of the same thing goes on with the manufacturers of dust control systems...very hard to compare apples with cucumbers......
Some very good ideas on review content. Thanks!!
James
I love the fact that my little bitty router claims 2 1/4 HP. Heh, that's more powerful than some table saws. Amazing that they can pull more power out of the motor than comes through the wire. :)
Hey, that gives me an idea... I could hook the router up to a generator, and plug the router into its output... Hehe.My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
John,
Too funny!! Hey...you better get a patent on that there perpetual motion machine before some one else does... ;-)
James
James
Good idea to segregate this discussion here - pity that the attributes of Philip Marcou's plane got buried in the arguments about process.
My view - thinking about this - is that it's useful to consider tool and machine and materials 'reviews' as you would a theatre or movie or book review.
We know and accept that there's no absolute 'truth' in those reviews, but read them for their insights and educative value. They make us think, extend our horizons, and inform a decision to buy or not.
I don't expect to make a purchasing decision based, say, on Derek Cohen's reviews, nor probably on a test-off in FWW, but might approach a buying decision with a new and different set of questions as a result of reading one.
On the seperate question about whether 'reviews' should be allowed on knots, I'm a market liberal - if you don't like them, don't read them (and especially, desist from responding to them). And let's not waste too much time debating what is or is not a 'review'. There goes the Gallery?
Malcolm
I think I would have just preferred a review of Phillips plane in and of itself. I think the comparison to other planes is where the problems began. If the reviewer is having trouble getting one of the comparison planes fettled properly then it shouldn't be subjected to the comparison. In this case everyone that owns a well fettled LN 4 1/2 was probably teed off that their plane was not given a fair comparison. I would much preferrred that the reviewer just give his impression of the working attributes of Phillip's plane and the experience of using something that not only works great but also looks wonderful. I would have liked to know if using such a plane envoked greater confidence in one's ability to smooth wood to a higher level. The reviewer could have given information about the general working differences between Phillip's bevel up smoother and a traditional pitched smoothing plane without mentioning brands. One of the unique things about Phillip's plane is that it is a bevel up smoother with greater weight and mass than other planes. I would have liked information about how that lent itself to better planing. In other words if the review is about the S15 Marcou Smoother then make it about the S15 Marcou smoother. When you start dissing other planes in the process that's when the trouble starts.Ron
I think I would have just preferred a review of Phillips plane in and of itself. I think the comparison to other planes is where the problems began.
I would much preferrred that the reviewer just give his impression of the working attributes of Phillip's plane and the experience of using something that not only works great but also looks wonderful.
Hi Ron<!----><!----><!---->
There is much in what you say that I agree with. Unfortunately, others will disagree. The fact is, there is no single way to please everyone.<!----><!---->
I have tended to approach the writing of a review as is I were writing a science article or, in my case, a psychology article. What influences my thinking is actually not a background in statistical analysis (which I do have), but rather a combination of the analytic approach I developed (courtesy of training in psychoanalysis) plus the awareness that the whole is more that the sum of the parts (thanks to my later training in systems theory). In other words, I try to combine as much of that which may be measured with that which can only be experienced and described. <!----><!---->
The problem with the single case analysis (i.e. presenting the Marcou smoother alone) is that most people are more comfortable with contrasts, that is, it is easier to appreciate features when these are seen alongside those of others. While the planes in my reviews are often perceived by some to be part of a plane-off, this is actually not my intention. I generally just find this process more helpful to highlight a special feature or illustrate it in action. In the Marcou review I considered omitting the LN, but I could anticipate the critics saying that I should have included more than just the LV. In the end I emphasised that the inclusion of the LN and LV was not about these planes, but to set a standard for the Marcou. Most understood this, but some did not.<!----><!---->
The issue of reviewer bias is always present. Many confuse bias and objectivity. They are not the same. Objectivity is about the establishment of conditions for assessment that others can replicate (since the mark of scientific research is the ability to test the object of interest). When a condition cannot be replicated by others, then we no longer have objectivity. On the other hand, bias is always present. It can only be controlled by one's awareness of this (and is a fundamental part in the training of psychoanalysts). <!----><!---->
I have been moving away from reviewing planes on my own. While the single-reviewer model was never a problem for most, I am looking to obtain a broader range of experiences. As a result I included those of two others in the Marcou review. For the evaluation of the LV BUS vs the LN #4 ½ I am aiming to obtain the input of several and, to take this a step further, I would like to define groups that consist of novices and experienced users in the effort to better understand the differences of the planes. At this level it is really down to ergonomics and aesthetics, not simply performance. <!----><!---->
Lastly, one must not neglect the fact that readers want to be entertained by the article. It is read by woodworking hobbiests, not by scientists (or even psychology students). It is not enough to just present the facts, it is important that this is interesting and fun – an adventure!<!----><!---->
By the way, I have not detailed here my research proposal for the next study. It is in the Marcou smoother thread. <!----><!---->
Regards from Perth<!----><!---->Derek
Derek I guess my comments were somewhat a reaction to the negative response you received on the review of Phillip's S15BU smoother. I think maybe I was looking for a safer way for you to present this information that would not trigger the response received on the recent review. However that may not in fact produce a good review. As far as including different skill levels of woodworkers in the review process there could be some pitfalls. Someone without a significant background in hand tool usage and without a good bit of knowledge about planes and different usages, might well give a bad review to a tool that they just do not have the knowledge and ability to adjust and use properly. An infill smoother with a tight mouth, no adjuster and a 50 degree bed would not yield a good review from a person with limited hand tool experience. These tools are finicky to adjust at best and most that are interested in these tools are looking for the specific performance these tools are designed to produce. A reviewer without adequate knowledge would most likely give these tool a poor review which would not at all be fair to the tool maker. As you can see I am really looking at this from a tool maker's point of view, but why not? They are the ones most vunerable in this process.Ron
"entertained by the article. It is read by woodworking hobbiests, not by scientists (or even psychology students)"
Well Derek, there are other readers apart from woodworking hobbiests don't forget.
Incidentally, you'd perhaps be surprised at the clunker planes I come across that I can get to work reasonably satisfactorily without too much effort. If a clunker plane or three is all an impoverished learner has, and they're having trouble getting them to work, then I've got to get the bloody things up and running pretty swiftly, or show the learner how to. I can't just tell the learner to dump their sad collection and buy some mid-priced real planes, ha, ha-- ha, ha, ha. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
Since I believe bias shows most in the affirmative - we seek to affirm what we believe - I find the negative comments most instructive. Reviews that are all sunshine and roses don't provide me anything useful. If I know that the reviewer doesn't like something and why, I find it easier to decide if the rest of the information is valid.
Eric
Richard,
What is a plane reviewer to do with a fellow like you, who actually uses the things to do work? Much more interesting, don't you think, to spend ones time "scientifically" talking about using them on generic, average, repeatable, wood "samples" that can be transferred to a spot beneath another plane for comparative purposes, by another reviewer.
For what it's worth, (I know, I know, not just a whole he// of a lot) MY smoother is a block of scrap mahogany with an ebony slip laminated on the sole. I recently replaced its salvaged antique iron (used by me for the last 16 yrs) with a Hock blade, that is held in place with a maple wedge. Gee whiz, I can smooth a bit of work with it, and, later, push the stuff out the door, wherupon I get paid for the work. My review.
DISCLOSURE CLAUSE: Oh, and I got to keep the plane, 'cause I made it meself. Shavings are available upon request, for those who wish to measure their thickness.
cheers,
Ray Pine
I don't know what you do with old lags like you and me Ray. I just use tools to make furniture and show learners how to make furniture with tools too. Good tools, crap tools, whatever comes through the door-- somehow I have to make them work.
Mind you, there are some benefits to teaching furniture making. Learners come in with all sorts of planes-- Stanley and Record, both old and new, Lee Valley, Lie-Nielsen, Clifton, grandads rust bucket with an old coal shovel in it for an iron, monkey metal planes made from old bean cans, etc.. I usually get the chance to test drive most of them because sometimes the learner can't get them to work for some reason-- got to find a way of getting something a bit better out of the mouth than crunched up matchsticks.
It's a job. Someone has to do it, ha, ha. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
SD,From a careful reading of numerous tool reviews, I have concluded that handplanes are designed to make full width, 0.001" thick, curly shavings that are 24-30" long.I have finally tuned my Bailey #5 to do so. Question: after I convert 30 or 40 bf of white oak to shavings, what can I build out of the shavings?What do you use the shavings for, or do you use your handplanes for something else? ;^)Just curious,Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Ah, Glaucon. I can think of two good choices.
1. Donate the curly, wispy shavings to either, 1, a childrens nursery where they can make childish sculptures that are educational and fun, or 2, an art school, where students can make childish sculptures that contain deeply serious commentary on the state of society or on the human condition.
2. Build a funeral pyre for all the planes that you found to be truly unsalvageable and need to be melted down again to base metal.
Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Second best reply
My very good neighbor Sam is ever so happy to collect the bags of shavings from my planner and jointer( and the prorportionaly fewer from hand planing) for bedding for his horses. "IS EVERY BODY HAPPY" That's a famous quote for all the young folks. Peace, Pat
Glaucon,
If you are enjoying the bite of blade into wood so much that furniture has become by-the-bye, I recommend the replacement of the thin shaving machine with a drawknife. It's a relatively crude tool but produces lovely thick shavings ideal for barbecuing, lighting fires and just smelling deeply.
The vigorous slicing is also good for the cardio vascular system and the endoctrine system, as you will know only too well. :-)
I have been shaving madly this week, putting the voluminous product into attractive hessian coffee bean sacks (from my local coffe shop) and giving them to the neighbours, the weather being currently hot and conducive to barby-life. They like the oak ones in particular; as a result, Galgate now smells delicious of an evening time. And I hold back towards the end of the slicing, leaving handy chair parts.
I would like a review of drawknives but have never seen one.
Lataxe, log anatomist
endoctrine system
Huh?
Me hormones, Charles man!
The fear of the drawknife, the thrill of the slicing - I almost get a red mist. It's nearly as exciting as reading a plane review. :-)
Lataxe
Endocrine glands for your future reference, not endoctrine [sic] glands.
Edited 6/9/2006 12:50 pm ET by charlesstanford
Charles,
You are a champion spelling bee and I am a dunce. I will put the pointy hat on now.
Also, I will use the dictionary and spell checker much more in future, as I do not want you to get confused more than you already are. :-)
Lataxe, bottom of the class.
I'm patient and you're going to be easy.... easy.... easy.....
Charlie,
Which institution are you a patient in? I will send flowers, commiseration and a large, fierce nurse with a de-vitrioler.
I hope they don't let you play with sharp tools!
Lataxe, a concerned friend
Charles,
My endoctrine glands go into action whenever a tool review makes me want to run out and buy into whatever the reviewer is pushing. I guess you could say I'm easily endoctrinated (sic).
Cheers,
Ray
Lataxe, I always enjoy your posts.
>I would like a review of drawknives but have never seen one<
"The H.D. Smith "Perfect Handle" Drawknife is the bee's knees. It is better than all the rest of them. If you don't agree with me its only because I have one and you don't."
There you go, there's your review. BTW, if you only had an H.D. Smith "Perfect Handle" Drawknife, perhaps you'd be a bit more than a log anatomist - a log surgeon, maybe. Have a good day.
Ed,
Send me your Special Drawknife NOW! (You persuasive devil).
Lataxe the envious.
<<"If you are enjoying the bite of blade into wood so much that furniture has become by-the-bye,">>L,There is a problem, however.Since I began making only shavings, and not sawdust, I have become concerned that my present DC system is inadequate. I have therefore begun design work on an Automatic recovery of Shavings System, that I call the ArSS. It turns out that, as you would expect in anything that involves high end hand planes, design tolerances are critical, and this has really bedeviled my progress- in fact it has become a pain in the ArSS...;^)Any help that you or Richard or others (who may have encounted similar ArSS pains) could provide would be deeply appreciated,GlauconIf you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Edited 6/9/2006 12:39 pm ET by Glaucon
G,
Luckily, the tolerances with low end drawknives are very wide. My shaving collector is merely a Mighty Puff that I give with my ex-racing cyclist lungs. I call this my Puff In To The Sack (PITTS) method.
“Why are you all red, sweaty and gasping like that”, ask the passing children of the village?
“It’s the PITTS”, I respond; and they curl their lips in distaste as they nod in agreement.
Of course, your ArSS would be useful for the one or two hundred shavings that refuse to respond to my huffing and puffing. However, you would need to get your ArSS into gear, which may be the problem if you have been gazing lovingly at the wafer thin shavings from your over-engineered and gleaming plane.
Perhaps you could instead get your ArSS to give a mighty [censored by the Decorum Police].
You can love a thing too much, you know. I hope you have kept the plane and shavings-fondling within the bounds of good taste and consideration for gentlefolk. The same applies to all that fiddling about with your [stop that! - the DP].
Lataxe
Best comment I have seen so far
While the planes in my reviews are often perceived by some to be part of a plane-off, this is actually not my intent.
Derek, you must be joking.
Hi Charles
Read in context, yes. I said,
The problem with the single case analysis (i.e. presenting the Marcou smoother alone) is that most people are more comfortable with contrasts, that is, it is easier to appreciate features when these are seen alongside those of others. While the planes in my reviews are often perceived by some to be part of a plane-off, this is actually not my intention. I generally just find this process more helpful to highlight a special feature or illustrate it in action.
Regards from Perth
Derek
It seems odd that so many have interpreted your motivations in a completely different way.
I guess that's our fault.
It seems odd that so many have interpreted your motivations in a completely different way.
Fortunately most did not.
Regards from Perth
Derek
<<"Fortunately most did not.">>But some are determined to. <sigh>Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Good luck with your reviews.
Derek, would writing compensated reviews for a magazine, with some editorial oversight, be something that interested you?
Edited 6/9/2006 11:57 am ET by charlesstanford
Charles
While yours is a simple question, mine is not a simple answer. <!----><!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
I am by nature quite hyperactive. I sit in my office talking, analyzing, cogitating.. In between consultations, when I am not writing notes or telephonically discussing a diagnostic point with a colleague, I can sometimes escape to a WW forum and discuss something practical, tangible. It is my nature to pull something apart, put it back together, and describe the process. This grew over time, at first just sharing views, and then I was writing reviews. Compared to the daily grind of the psychiatric reports I must complete (for I am in demand), these were a fun outlet where I could be creative and share a passion with others. The reviews have became ever more formal over the past two years as I sought a model to communicate the characteristics and experience of each tool. Each new review improves on the last. The work I put into Philip’s smoother was long and exhausting (about two months of interviews with other planemakers, data collection, questions and answers, testing and write up). I enjoy creative writing (by which I refer to creating visual imagery with the written word) but you are asking me at the wrong time whether I’d like to do this formally since this current experience has been unpleasant (to say the least). I do not, and have not, sought payment for my time (I do not consider gifting the tool as payment. Even in the case of Philip's smoother it hardly begins to cover the cost of my time). It is just a hobby. I have written some of my reviews for web magazines, and I experienced working to a deadline as intrusive. I am not looking for a job as a WW journalist. Right now I’d rather be in my workshop building a birthday present for my wife.<!----><!---->
<!----><!---->
Regards from Perth<!----><!---->
Derek
If the planes are a pittance then you should simply return them after the review is complete and keep the perception of impartiality intact. Do you believe that you should be perceived as an impartial reviewer?
I understand that you are stating that the worth of the planes is immaterial to your financial situation and your effort in writing the review. Seems to me to be even more reason not to keep them and state that fact in all your reviews.
Charles
It is late and as I head for bed I will leave you with this question: do you judge my impartiality (or the lack thereof) on the basis of the content of my review, or on the content of my disclaimer?
Regards from Perth
Derek
Both, of course.
Edited 6/9/2006 2:05 pm ET by charlesstanford
And there, dear Charles, lies the rub - for you it makes no difference what I do.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Not true,,,,
The best review you could write would be if you simply purchased the tools through normal channels (this is where a magazine as sponsor would help) and then reviewed them. The mfg. couldn't 'cherry pick' and your bona fides would not be in question. Only your methodology and qualifications as a reviewer could be questioned (true of ANY review by ANYBODY).
In other words if the review is about the S15 Marcou Smoother then make it about the S15 Marcou smoother. When you start dissing other planes in the process that's when the trouble starts.
FWIW... I couldn't agree with you more... throwing an additional 5 planes and 2 woodworkers into an article that was already struggling turned a half baked (if well intended) comparrison into nothing more than a kirn....
As for being "scientific".. I'm afraid it'd take a wee bit more than a liberal sprinkling of $20 words to convince me of that... Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Well said,,,,
ronaway said: In this case everyone that owns a well fettled LN 4 1/2 was probably teed off that their plane was not given a fair comparison
This is a very revealing sentence, laying bare a major component of all the sturm und drang surrounding the review that sparked much of this dissent.
Nobody's worried that they themselves will be fooled. Rather, they seem concerned that review writers, ignorant and incompetent and possibly tool-whored shills, will lead others -- newbies and fools -- down the rosy path of wrong choices.
But wise, skilled and experienced though they may be, they needn't worry overmuch that the rest of us will be unduly swayed. It's a rare person who swallows any random review on the Internet whole, and that level of gullibility will expose one to far worse problems than choosing the wrong smoother.
One poster has actually called for a ban on reviews. I'm glad nobody has agreed with him, since the reason we're all here is to ask questions and get input. Unless you've learned to simply waggle your bushy eyebrows near a standing tree and have a Queen Anne highboy fall out, you're going to have to use tools to work wood. Where else but here should one go to discuss the selection of woodworking tools? How much sense does it say we can discuss how to use the tools, but not which tools to use?
All I really expect from a review is honesty. Tell us what you can of your biases and methods of work. Reveal any affiliation, and disclose compensation or consideration you've received. Try to offer more evidence than conclusions, as others' needs may differ from yours.My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
There is a fairly large contingent of trustworthy and knowledgeable hand tool aficionados on a couple of other forums who would strenuously assert that everything in your last paragraph is precisely what is missing from the hand plane review(s) in question.
Edited 6/8/2006 4:22 pm ET by charlesstanford
Malcolm,
Thanks. It is a pity -- almost shameful -- that Philip's lovely plane has been largely forgotten in the midst of the debate on Derek's review.
I agree with you that (tool) reviews are but one of many factors taken into account when making a decision on whether to buy a specific tool.
My sentiments exactly: let the reviews be seen; if you're not interested in tool reviews, then don't waste your time reading them. If Taunton decides they don't want them on the forums, then they will certainly let us know.....
Cheers!
James
P.S. How is the remodeling project coming along?
I like the tool reviews because it gives me a feel for what other people call problems and how they deal with them.
They also give me a feel of what should be expected performance, and they often say what measures were taken to bring a reviewed tool up to standard.
I work alone, and magazines, forums like this, and tool reviews are the only way I have to comparing what my standards and tolerances are to people that know WTF they are doing and talking about. If I was an apprentice, I could ask the shopmaster. In lieu of that apprenticeship, I'll take the advice/recommendation/statement of standards and tolerances where I can find it.
James,
Your questions are not easy ones and I find I can't generate an answer from my own head and experience. If only there was a dimissive 5 word answer of the slippery, snide sort to hand. I fear Charlie has collected them all up for his own use, though.
:-) (T-hunting week is not over yet).
Since we are talking of Internet-hosted tool reviews (is that right?) I look for a WWW model. As one of my other hobbies is photography, I sometimes have a look at two WWW camera review sites - Steve's Digicams and DP Review. These are nor perfect review-site models for WW tools reviews but do have a lot of features worth noting, in respect of your questions.
It's late now and the ladywife has issued a siren note from le boodwar, so I must hasten away, Perhaps you will allow me, tomorrow, to offer camera review site pluses and minuses, as they might apply to a tool review facility here within Knots?
Lataxe, his ladywife's slave.
"It's late now and the ladywife has issued a siren note from le boodwar, so I must hasten away, Perhaps you will allow me, tomorrow, to offer camera review site pluses and minuses, as they might apply to a tool review facility here within Knots?"I discrete review by the ladywife would also be appreciated.
Donald,
The ladywife is the soul of discretion so there can be nought but a blank sheet with a cheshire cat smile just discernible.
Lataxe, a plaything
How interesting it would be if there were a Consumers Guide or Consumers Report type magazine for tools. They don't operate off of advertising, and don't allow the mfgs. to use them as a reference or use the reviews. Strictly a middle man with no "ties" that we know of.
Work Safe, Count to 10 when your done for the day !!
Bruce S.
Burce, don't be too sure, my late wife and kids worked for one of those labs that insure that you will not be killed by your toaster. They tested 47+ models of a famous hair dryer before one passed. Personal opinion, I guess some engineer had a nice trip to the islands.? Pat
Well Pat, I don't have enough hair to use a hair dryer but I will keep the test results in mind. Catch you in the Bahammas {;~) Work Safe, Count to 10 when your done for the day !!
Bruce S.
I tend to think that sometimes we tend to expect to much from tool reviews. Head to head workshop comparisons are not very practical because the market is so broad that no magazine can include all of the field in a single study. What I prefer is a simple list of the what the reviewers likes and dislikes are, and why. I also like a list of all the bells and whistles to help me make a choice based on what I need. There are many reputable tool brands available, and I have found the quality to be pretty much consistent among the major competitors. After I have narrowed my list using the reviews, I usually make my final selections based upon hands-on feel of what seems to be the most comfortable to me. I also rely on user history from members of this and other forums.
The same people who bash the reviews are also usually the first to laud the tool shows where the vendors are obviously biased. The only objective comparison available in that environment is for the potential buyers to make the rounds of the vendor booths that are at that event. Frequently there are major players missing.
First I'd like to mention that the vitriole surrounding ww magazine tool reviews is undeserved and hurtful to the people who work so hard on them. How would you like it if somebody told you you suck at your job? (this is a rhetorical question not aimed at James (pzgren)). I don't do tool reviews and God help me I never will. But I'd like to see the people who do shut down some of the foolishness of folks who think they've uncovered the next watergate or iran-contra.
With that off my chest, I think tool reviews would be better if instead of attempting to perform some meaningless scientific study, the reviewers listed the specifications direct from the manufacturers then actually used the tools to build something and reported back. "I liked the Metabo because it was lighter than the makita" or "I like the Milkwakee because its ornage and it was easy to find in my job box" or "if your hand is small, you might like this one better..."
That's my vote,
Adam
Edited 6/8/2006 10:14 pm ET by AdamCherubini
Adam,
I have to strongly agree with you on your first point; no matter how good or how bad a given (tool) review may be, IMO there really is no call for trashing the writer.
It would be much more productive, IMO, to state what the poster thinks is "wrong" with the review and perhaps even suggest how it might be improved. At the least, that would certainly be a lot easier to take than having your intelligence, integrity, honesty, and even your ancestry impugned.....
Cheers!
James
Wow, I always knew that you don't bring up religion or politics, you must be (as my old Irish mom would say) "a glutton for punishment"
The review has several factors.
1-The reader who is a beginner, a practicing woodworker or a professional making a living.
2- The reviewer who is a picked up (crontracted) pro or semi pro writer for the publication or a true master of the craft.
3- The goods. What items are to be reviewed ? All of the relevent worthwile items in the class. Only the market leaders ? or a mix depending on the publication and it's preferences.
4- The criteria. This should be how does it do the job.
5- Those little differences. Which reviewer dosen't like the blue knobs or their placement or dosen't like the method for replacing the bit, sandpaper or edge guide adjustment. Perhaps not the criteria that shapes a decision over performance.
6- The price, msrp or street price. you must have a guide here. (any ad or review that dosen't have a price is worthless).
So how do you deal with this? First, how much do you know, a big factor. Second, how much do you trust the motives of the publication? Third, how experienced is the reviewer. Fourth, what are your needs and how much do you have to spend.
This is how I look at them -with a jaundiced eye- and try to do my best, Pat
James,
I personaly have yet to find value, or enterainment in any tool review. I would like to see it removed from FWW magazine. You can leave tool reviews to Consumer Reports, and help us with our woodworking.
I'm glad that you are asking what your readers want. There's hope of keeping me as a reader.
GRW,
<<I'm glad that you are asking what your readers want. There's hope of keeping me as a reader.>>
I'm not a part (i.e., employee, article contributor, etc.) of Taunton; just a participant in these forums. So....I'm afraid that I will probably have no direct influence on whether you remain a FWW reader..... (I have noticed in other threads, though, that some of the FWW editors regularly ask questions about the interests of the woodworking community, including questions about what kinds of articles/features people want to see in FWW.)
The genesis of my questions was some of the commentary in the thread concerning Mr Cohen's review of Mr Marcou's hand plane. Since there seemed to be a lot of disagreement on just what a tool test should be and what information a tool review should contain, I decided to start a new thread by asking my original questions, rather than potentially hijack the other thread.
My main purpose was/is to stimulate some thoughtful conversation on what a good tool test/review "should" be.
So far, there has been a wide variety of opinion. Some have commented that they have no use at all for tool reviews; others have stated specific things that they think should be in them. Yet others have commented on general ideas about what tests/reviews should be, do for the reader, etc.
I'm happy; the thread has done what I intended it to do: get people to think about tool tests/reviews and contribute their ideas, for the general edification of the Knots community. So far, the comments have been interesting, educational, and entertaining. What more could you ask for?
Cheers!
James
James,
The attached note tries to answer your questions, at least in part. The note is HTML, so hope it just opens. A summary reads:
* Buyers need tool information other than from advertisements and hearsay.
* Tool tests need independent (ie disinterested) testers but these must be funded somehow.
* There are a couple of camera test sites of the web that might make good models for a WW tool test facility on the web.
* FWW could emulate the design and practice of the best camera test site(s).
* Knots users could contribute good additional tool test information to more formal tests; but Knots-hosted tool data needs better organisation and availability than it currently has.
Personally, I don’t think that many of the existing ordinary user-led tool discussion sites elsewhere on the web show enough organisation, structure or discipline. Many are merely a Speakers’ Corner, where everything from knowledgeable and well-intended advice, to the craziest ranting of prejudiced loones, is all mixed up - with the most boorish often shouting down more reasonable folk.
Lataxe
Lataxe,
Superb reply; exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to encourage posters to contribute.
<<Personally, I don’t think that many of the existing ordinary user-led tool discussion sites elsewhere on the web show enough organisation, structure or discipline. Many are merely a Speakers’ Corner, where everything from knowledgeable and well-intended advice, to the craziest ranting of prejudiced loones, is all mixed up - with the most boorish often shouting down more reasonable folk.>>
I tend to agree with you....us woodworkers, we tend to be a rather anarchic bunch, don't we?
I think that anyone planning to test tools and write reviews of their efforts would do well to read your attachment and incorporate at least some of the ideas there into their test/review.
Cheers!
James
P.S. <<It's late now and the ladywife has issued a siren note from le boodwar, so I must hasten away,>>
Since you are here writing this morning, I trust that "his ladywife's slave" has survived submission to the LadyWife's will and whim in good form and is in said LadyWife's good graces.... ;-)
James,
Nothing wrong with anarchy, as long as you're armed to the teeth and fast at running off with the spoils. Since I'm neither, I'll be staying in the safe places.
Actually, I feel I should apologise for the rather tedious and long-winded post. I wish I could be brief but there's a talkative little boy in my head. Witter, why, what - all day long!
Perhaps I could do a CS and simply say, "Well said" to posts I agree with. This is not only admirably brief but also a safe and sure method of contributing nothing at all; but it does mean also that your arguments can never be chopped up by one o' them darn Knots anarchists.
That camera review site enables one to make an informed decision. They may not be a perfect scientific test lab but a lot of work goes into the reviews and the subsequent discussions. I don't feel such confidence about any WW tool review facility I've yet come across, even FWW.
At least Derek Cohen is making the attempt and (if he has his natterjack virus innoculation) may actually succeed. (Don't let the nattering grind you down mate). If so, I will clap and cheer quite loudly and may even give an American-style whoop.
Lataxe, tool buying fool
PS Do you want to see my table?
Lataxe,
<<...At least Derek Cohen is making the attempt...>>
Yes, and that is more than can be said for his detractors.
While his testing method(s) and review(s) may not be perfect, one at least must give him much credit for making the attempt. I've read some of his earlier reviews, and IMO, each successive review gets better. What more can you ask of someone than to do better with each new attempt?
<<PS Do you want to see my table?>>
Yes I would like to see it.
Cheers!
James
Anarchy...it's everything government shouldn't be....
Yes, and that is more than can be said for his detractors.
strange though it may seem, there's no monopoly on good reviews..
http://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7777Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Careful there , Mike, those are all reviews-if Cde. Charles is reading he may abuse himself further and desist from buying tools from those manufacturers, inclusive of Lie Nielsen.
Anyway, having confirmed the hippopotamus like thickness of my hide , I convey thanks to all those supporters of both me and Derek. The ranks of gremlins, goblins, trolls ,Philistines and other detractors have been well civilised by the tactful oratory of stalwarts such as Lataxe (legend in his own time)and others too numerous to mention in these despatches.
Obviously my opinion is biased, so I'm not saying it was a bad review. In fact it was a good review, being informative,educational and especially entertaining (in an indirect manner).During the subsequent fall-out I learned with dismay, the meaning of the word "shill", but not of the word "kirn", and I still don't know who Michael Buffer is. There were many good suggestions on how to improve these tool reviews, but few came from the nay-sayers, which proves a point.A few technical points were raised, paving the way for the direction of future (plane) reviews.
With the above in mind, and mindful of potential publicity , I am inclined to now make a plane that can be used either bevel up or bevel down, being of appropriate bed angle and mouth adjustable, with doves naturally.Ever in the pursuit of technically informative reviews I am also inclined to have it (scientifically) reviewed by a maker of wooden planes, to avoid bias you understand, and encourage the further investigation of more technical details such as clearance angles and the mean operating blade temperatures. Why, it may happen that Tricky Jones (him of green signature)will be able to find some interest ....
So you see there is more than you would think in a good tool review-just sift through all the resulting messages and you will at least get a laugh or two.Philip Marcou
Philip - what doesn't kill you makes you strong. Kia Kaha!
Malcolmhttp://www.macpherson.co.nz
Phillip and Derek. NON ILIGITIMUS CARBORUNDUM .
I am very sure that our mates with first class public school educations will jump all over my 40+ year old Latin. Go for it brother. Pat
or Fac ut Wiwas ?
I finally figured out what is wrong with me. It all began when I started coming here..................However, I believe I found the cure..............
J
"I am inclined to now make a plane that can be used either bevel up or bevel down"I have a few of those already!When edge jointing I first plane the top of the board. Then pull a surplus army cot alongside the bench, lay on my back and plane the bottom. (Remember to wear your safety glasses.) It saves time not having to flip the boards over, and my feet don't get tired from standing on them all day!What I would like to see however is a plane with two blades so that it could cut on the push and on the return pull stroke. Sort of an East meets West plane. I could get twice as much done in the same time. Since, like most people, there is never enough time to pursue ones hobbies.I like your planes but they are a bit out of my means, so I settle for the enjoyment of reading about them.
" I like your planes but they are out of my means, so I settle for the enjoyment of reading about them".
It is a pleasure and an honour to oblige.
What would we do without reviews?Philip Marcou
"What would we do without reviews?"While some would be delighted. Others would grumble because there aren't any.
Dear friends of the anti-troll brigade (you know who you are)
I want to express my thanks for being such wonderful therapists. You have helped return my humour, lighten my mood, refresh my spirit and, above all, renewed my faith in humanity. I am loath to single out one, but I do want to especially thank Lataxe for being the Grand Wizard that he is. You wove words and waved them over my head, and I was better. Thank you my friend.
With kind regards from Perth
Derek
Derek, Something to keep in mind: Philip took the time and put forth a rather significant effort to make the hand plane that you reviewed. You took the time and put forth a rather significant effort to test it and do the write-up. There are a large number of folks on this forum that truly appreciate the efforts that both of you have made in this regard. With one exception, I don't see your detractors making planes or testing/reviewing them. What does that tell you?Cheers!James
derek, and all,
"Dear friends of the anti-troll brigade (you know who you are)
I want to express my thanks for being such wonderful therapists. You have helped return my humour, lighten my mood, refresh my spirit and, above all, renewed my faith in humanity. I am loath to single out one, but I do want to especially thank Lataxe for being the Grand Wizard that he is. You wove words and waved them over my head, and I was better. Thank you my friend."
Anyone else out there impressed by the irony -- a psychiatrist who writes reviews of woodworking planes, thanking a woodworking forum, for a successful therapy session? ;-0)))
Crawling back under my bridge now,
Ray
Ray,
Lurking near a bridge, even with a wig on, will fool no one. We know that you are a Good Elf and have never drunk vitriol at breakfast time, nor eaten kittens, puppies or other folk's peace of mind.
Lataxe, through the cyber-glass.
Lataxe,
Those are my eyebrows, nose and ear hair,not a wig- it is, however, questionable taste, I suppose to try and comb them over...
Kittens and puppies are not to my taste. No scruples about sticking a fork in a stuffed shirt from time to time, yummy!
Cheers,
Ray
Since this thread appears to be the 'companion thread' to the thread "Review of the Marcou Smoother" posted by Derek Cohen, I think that if all Mr. Marcou's online friends, supporters, and defenders would buy one of his handplanes he would make a nice, tidy living.
Clever posts have not put one dime in the man's pocket.
I don't think he wants my money. Too bad. I've got some to spend.
Ray, are you in a check writing mood? You buy one and I will too. What's a lousy fifteen hundred or so to grown men?
I'm sure Mr. Marcou appreciates the moral support (via support for the review of his plane). As a man trying to run a business I assume he'd appreciate an order even more.
So, who's buying? Lataxe? Ray Pine? Pzgren? Midnight? Philip? Paddydahat? Richard Jones?
Edited 6/13/2006 7:36 pm ET by BossCrunk
So, who's buying?
at £700 I'm afraid it's more than a wee bit outa my league.. besides.. ny L-N's already cover every smoothing requirement I'm likely to encounter..
Still... it'd be a fine plane to have if I could justify the need for it... if the manufacturing pics are anything to judge by, it's a wee cracker (as I've already said to Phil privately)... he's a bit handy we yon metal bashin toys o his..Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
Boss,
You are absolutely correct. As one of my smart-aleck buddies is prone to say, "After all is said and done, more will be said, than done."
I have often thought that if all MY friends, admirers, well wishers, and supporters would buy just one piece of my furniture I'd have a pretty good backlog. But they apparently don't all feel they need one.
I don't feel the need for one of Mr Marcou's planes, so I haven't even read the review, homeowner's insurance is due, as is the mortgage, I think I'll do the responsible thing this month. You're on your own kiddo. Maybe you'll want two, after you get the first one?
Regards,
Ray
I have often thought that if all MY friends, admirers, well wishers, and supporters would buy just one piece of my furniture I'd have a pretty good backlog. But they apparently don't all feel they need one.
You could start by giving one of your tea tables to Mr. Cohen, one with steam-bent fretwork, for a review and critique. That ought to get the ball rolling.
Boss,
You keep referring to that ol' tea table. http://www.davidraypine.com/portfolio.php?spgmGal=Tables&spgmPic=8&spgmFilters=#pic
I got to do some of that bent fretwork twice. The owner of the table fell down the stairs with it about a year after I delivered it. She said she kept it away from the walls and steps till she hit bottom and it got away from her, breaking a section of the gallery (of course). She told me she got up, looked at the top of the table, and then went in the bathroom and threw up. At least she didn't try to tell me, "It just fell off," (I have heard that one before...) So I got to replace about a fourth of the fretwork, good for staying in practice.
Regards,
Ray
I refer to it all the time because I love it. It's an awesome accomplishment.
Thank God for honest customers....
Your portfolio is stunning. Really top-notch stuff.
Hey, what kind of lathe do you have?
Edited 6/14/2006 1:35 pm ET by BossCrunk
Boss,
You'd probably laugh out loud to see my lathe.
The tailstock is recycled from an old great-wheel lathe, the only pieces left of it were the tailstock, and a segment of the wheel. The dead center, crank, and locking handle are all hand forged, mounted in an old piece of oak about 6x10x16. The headstock is similar, only the spindle is machine-shop made, with ball bearings; it has a 1"x 8tpi on one end,and a #2 morse taper inside to accept a modern spur center, and a step pulley on the other end. The ways and trestle ends are 3" thick oak. I can turn 7' between centers, about 7" throw. Headstock, tailstock and toolrests are held in place with wedges. It's ugly as sin, I'd not want Derek or anyone else to review it! but it works for everything from bedposts to lace-tatting bobbins.
Regards,
Ray
P.S. Thank you for the kind words about the bits I've cobbled together.
Edited 6/14/2006 6:05 pm ET by joinerswork
It's ugly as sin, I'd not want Derek or anyone else to review it!
That's a review I'd read. Franken-lathe.
It's turning around! It's alive! IT'S ALIVE!!! BWaaaahh, HAHAHA!!
Igor... who's lathe is this..???? ;)Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
It's ugly as sin, I'd not want Derek or anyone else to review it!
Oh please Ray! ...... please .... please ..... please!
It can't be worse that the first one I built out of odd bits of steel and aluminium, all thrown onto a old drill press and used in the vertical mode. Not only did I end up looking like the Hunchback from Notredame, but the "thing" blew apart and removed 8 lives from the cat.
I promise to return it.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Ray, from your description so far I would very much like to see pictures of that lathe....What are you waiting for?Philip Marcou
philip,
I am too dumb to figure out how to get a picture onto my machine. Will try to get my savvy son to help me with it this weekend, since you insist.
Regards,
Ray
philip,
Try, try, again.
Ray
View Image
I gave up trying to post pics a long time ago...
Don't worry.. the book is usually better than the movie. I can imagine what it looks like.
Boss,
It's there on my reply to myself, message 133 (at least when I look at it). Don't know how I did it...dang new-fangled modern contrivances.
Cheers,
Ray
Hate to tell you this Ray, but it shows up as a big empty box with a tiny red x in the corner on my computer.
Boss,
Hah! Well that's more like what I would have expected...Sorry.
Ray
philip,
tried to attach, could not do.
Edited 6/15/2006 1:42 pm ET by joinerswork
Maybe you'll want two, after you get the first one?
Not an unfamiliar scenario, even at this early stage of the venture....Philip Marcou
P.S- marvellous creations at your web site!
Edited 6/15/2006 6:11 am by philip
Boss,
I never know what I'll do one day to the next, being a drifter on life's currents. In all the chaos, though, the strange attractors appear from time to time.
I feel a strange attraction to that plane, so who knows? (I don't - yet).
You, of course, will make a rational decision on the matter and will not rely on copying Ray. When you do buy one, you owe us all a test report, on receipt of which my admiration will go up ten notches at least (not that you'd care, I know) :-)
Lataxe, a bit of flotsam in the market place.
Oh, I don't need a tool review to know that the plane would work just fine and if there were some minor quibbles I'm sure Mr. Marcou would take care of them.
"Why, it may happen that Tricky Jones (him of green signature)will be able to find some interest ...."
philip, you're not referring to me are you? If you are I have a solution to your dilemma. Send me three or four of your planes for a test run, and I'll give my biased, one-eyed, jaundiced, and opinionated view of them-- in public if you like.
I'll probably need to hang on to them for oh, perhaps five or ten years to form an impression of their performance during extended service-- we couldn't have an opinion formed on a mere fleeting passing of the things under my nose. That just wouldn't do, would it? Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
Hoy, ye, Richard!
I was first to ask for all the free Marcou planes on a pretense of testing them and I have near exhausted meself trying to flatter Philip in order to get them. Even a bribe may flutter his way (by a back door, naturally).
Of course, I have no idea how to test a plane but I was hoping to ask you. Anyway, a test by a complete plane-idiot would be a test indeed, or so goes my theory.
I'll send you the collection of Special Editions that I hope he's put aside for me, when I die in 2079. (I was going to have them buried with me, so you should be pleased).
Lataxe
Squire, I am indeed referring to you.
The proposal would be worthy of consideration if I lived within spitting distance of your place, especially if you left one cubic meter of quarter sawn prime oak per plane per year with me as security.
Actually-to answer message #1- I think tool reviews should be like Top Gear- entertaining, informative with an underlying serious message(s).Philip Marcou
Careful there , Mike, those are all reviews-if Cde. Charles is reading he may abuse himself further and desist from buying tools from those manufacturers, inclusive of Lie Nielsen.
aye... there's always a risk o that... but the potential benefit of bringing good reviews out from the outer nuiks n crannies o the net and to the attention of more potential beneficiaries might just outweigh that..
During the subsequent fall-out I learned with dismay, the meaning of the word "shill", but not of the word "kirn", and I still don't know who Michael Buffer is.
ever willing to educate..
The Online Scots Dictionary
Translate from Scots to English!Scots is the Germanic language, related to English, spoken in Lowland Scotland and Ulster, not the Celtic language Gaelic! <!--The Dictionary has found the following translation(s) for kirn,:-->
Found the following 'translations' for kirn:
General Scots* - variant - pronunciation
kirn [kɪrn]
a celebration marking the end of harvest, a harvest-home, the last sheaf of harvest presented for display
kirn [kɪrn]
a churn, stir up, mix up
as for Michael Buffer... this might help...
http://www.letsrumble.com/Mike Wallace
Stay safe....Have fun
What has been missed so far is that tool "reviews" at least expand the horizons in that they bring to the fore the large selection of options available for your buck. (Note my feeble attempt to ingratiate with our former colonials).
My only gripe is that many of the test items are not here available for scrutiny. Using is believing.
Mufti,<<...options available for your buck. (Note my feeble attempt to ingratiate with our former colonials).>> With the sad state of the (former) colonial dollar these days, I believe that one might be better off with HM's Pounds Sterling....... ;-)Cheers!James
A very good idea, can you tell me where I can get some?
I seem to be in a time warp, coming in on these discussions rather late. If a tool is not all it should be , then it would be good to know whether it can be fettled. I seem to do a lot in that line- this weekend having cured my L.N. Jack of changing cutter settings by itself and finding a way to power grind varying crown bevels on my hand planes. The latter arises from planing 3 inch square oak and leaving tram lines.
Strangely I get a kick out of putting things right so the perfect tool would just not do. Is there a doctor in the forum?
Too many replies to read them all since last time. The reviews are fine the way they are, sure they could be better. As long as it is stated clearly what it is and how its done.For example, I buy the LV BUS and like it and tell you about it, Thats a review. But you know thats my first smoother, that i do not compare it with another plane, etc. You take what you want out of it, or ignore it completely. No reason to bash the reviewer, we all understand that it's not the word of God stating the absolute truth.
What a great discussion!
It would be interesting to attend an antique furniture auction 250 yrs from now and hear the comments:
" OOOOhhhhh what a great piece!!! Worth every penny of the $2,000,000.00 they are asking. Obviously whoever built this night table used a Veritas #6 Fore plane, a Dewalt ROS and the wood was milled on a Delta Unisaw with a Forest 50 tooth 10" blade". Just as obvious is the fact that whoever built this piece used a Jet Bandsaw to cut the tenions, Titebond 3 glue and Jorgenson clamps. Absolutely fantastic!! Just look at the finish, it must be at least 3 coats of minwax poly. Oh honey please bid on it, I must have it."
Seriously, the most useful tool reviews I can recall were in Shopnotes several years ago. They were mostly on power tools but each review had opinions from three testers on the tool. Each tester was at a different level of ability. Interesting results that I found very helpful. I'd enjoy seeing more reviews like that.
Ed
Ok my thoughts since you asked.
Drop the Editors Choice, reviewers's choice etc. This will remove the "sell out" factor. Just give us the reviewer's impressions. One mag I no longer read rates grizzly very well most of the time and grizzly is the biggest advertiser in the magazine. Always makes you go Hmmm?
One thing that I've seen done is have three reviewers: Total Wood God; Intermediate Wood Guy; Wood Novice.
TWG may not think a certain machines set up is finicky because he can do it in his sleep, but it may be near impossible for Wood Novice to do the same set up. Have review input (well indicated who is writing) from all three.
This will make the review more relevant to a wider audience, also how many times have we heard about someone who buys top-o-the line tool based on review and hates it cause it's not as easy as the TWG reviewer claimed.
BTW I'd be more than happy to review all the tools you'd want to send my way :)
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled