What's wrong with Woodriver?!

[John Kananis]

Ok, this thread is a bit rhetorical but here's the story:

A buddy comes by the other day and as we're talking (obviously hanging out in the shop), he says, "Hey, is that a 4 1/2 over there?" I say yes and hand him the plane (it is a woodriver - I have others as well, LN, LV and Stanley; this one was among the mix). He was excited to notice the plane but when I handed it to him, I got an: "Oh, its a woodriver..." and he placed it down without a second look.

Gosh darned things are good planes - I understand the whole China thing but from a utilitarian perspective, what the hek?! Am I missing something, I love these planes - good price, good performance (even the mystery steel they use isn't that bad at all - although the stock blades in mine have been replaced I still think they're decent).

I guess I'm done venting but wouldn't mind your thoughts.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

I tried one a while ago at a Woodcraft. It seemed like a decent plane, but I did not like it enough to pay what they were asking. My old Stanleys seem to be just as good, and were much cheaper.

[Stew Denton]

John, there was a published review a few years ago that was none to good when it comes to the Woodriver planes. It was clear at that time that there were some significant problems with them.

However, one of the guys here on the Neander forum wrote one a while back that was really positive. Thus, if his report is typical of the more recent ones, then Woodriver Planes may be on the way.

Stew

[Frederick Skelly]

I have two of their v3 planes - a #3 and a #1. They work just fine. I'm told the V3 planes sre much better than earlier models, but don't know first hand what the originals were like.

Their smaller planes (#1- #4 1/2) seem to provide good value when stacked up against other brands. The value per dollar is less clear (to me) with the larger/longer ones.

Fred

[Jim Koepke]

My recollection could be off. A few years back, Woodcraft sold Lie Nielsen planes. Somewhat abruptly the relationship ended.

There were a few stories of various legal actions.

One explanation sounds very reasonable that when the relationship started it was one store. Woodcraft became a franchise. Lie Nielsen could not keep up with demand and keep to their mission of a high quality tool provider. There was also some problem with Woodcraft not wanting to train all of their store personnel in the use and handling of the Lie Nielsen product line.

I found a link to this information by searching on > woodcraft lie nielsen legal <

The above information was found at:

greystonegreen.blogspot.com/2009/12/chat-with-patrick-jackson-of-lie

I hope linking to a blog doesn't go against the TOS.

If it does and the moderator removes the link, search > chat with patrick jackson at lie <

Wow! A lot of posts between when I started this and when I pressed the post button. One thing I forgot to mention is a lot of businesses can die real fast when they have one big retailer who decides they no longer want to carry a product line. One good rule of business is to not have one customer you can not afford to lose.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

Good article Jim. Thanks for posting it.

[Daniel Rode]

My planes are for woodworking only. I don't collect them as object to be admired and I don't really show them to people. My shop is a pretty solitary place

I bought a Wood River V3 #4. I can't think of a bad thing to say about it. I got it on sale for around $110 and I still feel it is the best new plane for the money. I think all their V3 bench planes are great planes and the prices are very good. Apparently the older WR planes had some issues but I never used any of them. All my other planes are vintage. The WR is prettier than the rest. Mechanically, It's smooth, predictable and precise. I'm not as sold on the block planes, but that's another story.

My issues with the WR planes is the same as I have with LN, Veritas, etc. A) They are heavy. B) I prefer --very slightly-- the Bailey style to the Bedrock style planes.

Sometimes a heavy plane is an advantage but, for me, that's rarely the case. I much prefer the lighter vintage planes. I'm afraid to try my hand with good wooden plane. I suspect I'd be hooked after one stoke

I also love using old tools for reasons that have nothing to do with money or status or superior quality.

[Patrick Chase]

My planes are for woodworking only. I don't collect them as object to be admired and I don't really show them to people. My shop is a pretty solitary place

I bought a Wood River V3 #4. I can't think of a bad thing to say about it. I got it on sale for around $110 and I still feel it is the best new plane for the money. I think all their V3 bench planes are great planes and the prices are very good. Apparently the older WR planes had some issues but I never used any of them. All my other planes are vintage. The WR is prettier than the rest. Mechanically, It's smooth, predictable and precise. I'm not as sold on the block planes, but that's another story.

I think that at list price the value is a bit iffy, particularly on the bevel-up jack.

For example the WR #4 lists for $145. I think that the classic (pre-custom, "East German swimmer special") Veritas #4 at $220 is a better value when you consider its manufacturing quality and the fact that it has a mouth adjustment that's independent of cut depth. At the $110 price that you paid the WR starts to look attractive though.

The WR bevel-up jack lists for $200 which is drastically overpriced IMO, given that the larger (2.25" blade vs 2") and better-made Veritas bevel-up jack is $245 and the newer Stanley is $100.

[Daniel Rode]

It's all pretty subjective and depends on what you value. The Veritas, LN other premium makers boast certain features. Different materials, closer tolerances, design differences. However, I am skeptical that any of this equates to a difference in planing wood. I find $145 to be much less than $220 for what I consider to be equivalent tools. Among equal items, cheaper is better. Someone who values the premium features more or enjoys the aesthetics or status from a brand name would weight things differently. This is why all my other planes are vintage. For me, the older planes have the ideal mix of quality and cost.

I think that at list price the value is a big iffy, particularly on the bevel-up jack.

For example the WR #4 lists for $145. I think that the classic (pre-custom, "East German swimmer special") Veritas #4 at $220 is a better value when you consider its manufacturing quality and the fact that it has a mouth adjustment that's independent of cut depth. At the $110 price that you paid the WR starts to look attractive though.

The WR bevel-up jack lists for $200 which is drastically overpriced IMO, given that the larger (2.25" blade vs 2") and better-made Veritas bevel-up jack is $245 and the newer Stanley is $100.

[James Waldron]

[snip]

Sometimes a heavy plane is an advantage but, for me, that's rarely the case. I much prefer the lighter vintage planes. I'm afraid to try my hand with good wooden plane. I suspect I'd be hooked after one stoke
[snip]

There's nothing quite as satisfying as the snick, snick of planing with a wooden plane with a really sharp blade. Well, one thing: it's even better (and a lot cheaper) if you made that plane yourself. It ain't that hard.

[Jim Koepke]

I also love using old tools for reasons that have nothing to do with money or status or superior quality.

+1 on that.

It feels good to know that something wasn't tossed aside just because something slicker, shinier and newer came along.

jtk

[Derek Cohen]

The issue with WoodRiver is that the original planes left a bad taste in the mouths of many. WoodCraft represented Lie-Nielsen and Lee Valley, and then contracted a Chinese factory to make copies of their tools (and these are still around: spokeshaves, edge planes, etc). There was a storm of debate on a few forums, notably Knots, with sides for and against the moral and ethical issues of copying designs. While LN planes may be based on the Stanley Bedrock design, they added their own characteristics, such as the brass lever cap, as well as ramping up the construction. Fine Woodworking magazine demonstrated quite clearly that the Chinese factory had used a LN plane to cast their versions for WoodCraft. The livery was also copied. A number of Lee Valley tools were also treated in a similar way. As I recall, both LN and LV pulled out of WC, and LN took WC to court.

Clearly the message got through to WC - or WoodRiver - since they brought out a MkII version, which now featured changes. These were not successful designs. At this point Rob Cosman came in to design MkIII. Now the WR planes came into their own. By all accounts, these have been very good planes, however it is evident that many still remember the duplicity that surrounds their history, and prefer not to support them.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Allen Jordan]

Politics aside, I do love my WR No. 6. One of my very favorite planes. The finish on the tote/knob sucks though... it was giving me blisters until I scraped it off and refinished with shellac and wax. The blade back on mine is slightly concave, great for flattening actually.

[Chris Hachet]

Politics aside, I do love my WR No. 6. One of my very favorite planes. The finish on the tote/knob sucks though... it was giving me blisters until I scraped it off and refinished with shellac and wax. The blade back on mine is slightly concave, great for flattening actually.

I have a #6 sized vintage Stanley that I love. Not sure why the #6 sizedoes not get a lot of love...

[Gary Cunningham]

I have a #6 sized vintage Stanley that I love. Not sure why the #6 sizedoes not get a lot of love...

I have the WR #6. Works fine. The tote shape sucks. Someday I will reshape it.