Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 158

Thread: What's wrong with Woodriver?!

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by John Kananis View Post
    Sure but I'd like to see the difference in the margins - I would imagine the higher profit items getting the floor space and I can't see Tom paying so high a commission (why should he?).
    It's not that simple. "Halo" products often aren't particularly profitable for the retailer, but they can still be a significant win inasmuch as they draw the right sort of customers to the store. For example the owner of a local WoodCraft buys Clifton planes at trade shows and prominently displays them (WC stores are franchises and they have some latitude to do stuff like that, though they're on their own for distribution). He's clearly not making much if any money on those, but he's decided it's worth it because they bring well-heeled customers through the door. I asked a store manager about it at one point and he was quite blunt that he was using them to make up for the loss of the L-Ns.

    Similar logic has applied to every consumer-oriented product line I've worked on in my career. It is not uncommon to create marginally profitable halo SKUs specifically to enable the retailers to do stuff like that. Professional/industrial stuff is very different of course.
    Last edited by Patrick Chase; 03-16-2016 at 1:05 AM.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    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
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    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

  4. #19
    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.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Cohen View Post
    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.
    When you say "used a LN plane to cast their versions for WC" are you suggesting that Quangsheng physically created a casting directly from an L-N plane?

    LV products are still offered through WC, though not their handplanes - I suspect that they only allow WC to sell stuff that doesn't compete with WC's own products. L-N pulled out entirely.

    I agree with your implied point. That's why I posted the link to the FWW article earlier in this thread - those pictures speak stronger than words IMO...

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    Patrick, read the last paragraph of the link to the FWW article:

    "So who begot who? For sure, we know there’s Bedrock DNA in both Lie-Nielsen and Wood River. And, based on my side-by-side look, it appears there are Lie-Nielsen genes in Wood River."

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Koepke View Post
    +1 on that.

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

    jtk
    This is pretty much my thought. That and saws, I prefer to spend bucks on premium saws and specialty tools.

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Allen Jordan View Post
    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...

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Prashun Patel View Post
    I am with you John. I am star struck by the good brands and they have earned their reputation. But if someone hands me a good Bailey or woodriver that they can make sing, I am just as happy to work with it.
    Exactly. I actually want to own some planes outside of the norm...thinking after test driving themk at the alst L-N tool event I might give one of Steve Voight's wooden planes a go round on my bench.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg,Va.
    Posts
    12,402
    I think the WC store in Richmond,Va. still has a few LN planes in their nice display case for sale. but,I haven't been there for a while. If they still have a few LN's,they have been there for several years.

  11. #26
    You're going to find a lot of hand plane snobbery out there, on both sides. This is a fairly typical reaction of a biased person who's never really tried the tool

    I got one just to try and now I'm up to 3 of them, a 4, 6 and 7. I love them all. Yes they are a few notches below my LN's, but not as much as you think.

    There are the Stanley only guys out there you will never convince so I'll just say its a matter of opinion.

    I've own them all: LN, LV, Stanley and Woodriver.

    All of them will work. Any of them could have an issue.

    I also will say the 6 is my most used plane. It leave almost as good a surface as my LN 4 1/2.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    1,029
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    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.
    -- Dan Rode

    "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chevy Chase, Maryland
    Posts
    2,484
    +1


    what Derek said.
    ~ Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    22,492
    Blog Entries
    1
    The MkIII's are reported to be quite decent. For me Woodriver planes break my 60% rule for all tools; if I have to pay 60% of the price of a really good one, I'll go ahead and get the really good one.
    "A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg".


    – Samuel Butler

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Cohen View Post
    Patrick, read the last paragraph of the link to the FWW article:

    "So who begot who? For sure, we know there’s Bedrock DNA in both Lie-Nielsen and Wood River. And, based on my side-by-side look, it appears there are Lie-Nielsen genes in Wood River."

    Regards from Perth

    Derek
    Yes, I had already read that a few times. You used different wording in your post so I asked for clarification of what you meant. As you have pointed out many times you often know things FWW doesn't.

    If they had actually copied the casting (as opposed to copying some design features) that would make my opinion of WC/WR even more negative.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •