Originally Posted by
george wilson
IWhat puzzles me is that the reviewer said that the BU # 62 low angle jack plane couldn't be made to take an even shaving the full width of the blade "Because the bed wasn't fully machined across its width." Ridges were left on the sides of the bed,apparently .0025" high.
[snip]
If so,is Stanley so incredibly mismanaged as to send a defective plane to a major magazine for evaluating to the World?????
[snip]
I just find it hard to believe that no one at Stanley bothered to LOOK at the samples they sent. If that is the case for such an important occasion, I am left wondering what kind of fouled up planes would the average customer get sent?
[snip]
I think that if it was ever discovered that the marketing department at Stanley did not send out a random sample for review and instead sent out a "specially adjusted" copies to the reviewers, they would deserve more criticism than they have already garnered.
The particular plane in question should never have been put into a box at the factory that made it. The bigger problem is it would not surprise me to find that this is representative sample of what buyers should expect if they buy one of the new Stanley planes.
The problem is the infinite quest to knock every penny out of production costs. When lowering the cost of manufacturing is more important than assuring the quality of the product, the product will reflect this choice.
When a corporation wants wage slaves instead of thinking workers, they will have workers who will keep their heads down and not rock the boat by calling attention to a glaring problem.
jim
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)