What's wrong with Woodriver?!

[Daniel Rode]

Exactly! I couldn't agree more.

A WR or no tool at all? Are there many tools made by WR which are not available on the used market or from other makers at reasonable cost?

The WR #4 is priced at $145. I have 3 Stanley #4s that cost me less than half of that. One is a cobbled together Frankenplane which is a great user.

I do not see the WR or no tool at all as being realistic vindication.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

Tried a WR #4 V3 for one year, then sold it. Seemed to be good only at making super thin shavings

This is kind of funny Steven. One of my books with information on planes has the writer saying something about people who are proud of the super thin shavings their planes can make. For many of them, that is the only kind of shaving their planes can make.

My planes that can take super thin shavings usually only have problems with thick shavings due to a tight mouth.

In my opinion, a plane that can not take a healthy shaving is more useless than a plane not being able to make a 0.001" shaving.

jtk

[Tony Zaffuto]

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.

I'll add that the United States intellectual property laws encourage people to copy. A patent is spoken of as "teaching" and should contain sufficient information that someone else can exploit the idea contained in the patent. The patent gives the owner the right to control the patented material for a certain length of time, but after that time, our system basically encourages others to use the idea.

Another concept is "trade secrets" but in our present "first to file" patent system, a company who attempts to keep something a secret can find that someone else has patented the concept. Then, they might have to seek a license to do what they had been doing.

[Disclaimer: I am not a patent attorney - just someone who has gone through the patent process a number of times (I hold a number of patents).]

Mike

I obtained a provisional patent and need to apply for non-provisional by 4/7/16. My costs to date are a whisker above $29,000. To complete the process, my patent attorney says to expect to spend between $4 and $8,000 more.

For the market I am in (I own a powder metal part manufacturing business), I have decided to not complete the process for the very reason of defending process and material against encroachment is so costly. Further, the burden would be on me to identify and challenge those encroaching. Knowing what I know today, I would not have gone down the patent path in the first place, at least for one, such as mine containing predominantly intellectual property.

I see more innovation in LV products than LN, and as a compnay I believe LN is aware of difficulties in challenging any that copy their iteration of the Bedrock design. There is a cost involved that in many times is never recouped, hence gentlemen agreements and then hard feelings or even lawsuits when said weak agreements fail.

[Tony Zaffuto]

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.

This is kind of funny Steven. One of my books with information on planes has the writer saying something about people who are proud of the super thin shavings their planes can make. For many of them, that is the only kind of shaving their planes can make.

My planes that can take super thin shavings usually only have problems with thick shavings due to a tight mouth.

In my opinion, a plane that can not take a healthy shaving is more useless than a plane not being able to make a 0.001" shaving.

jtk

Agreed Jim, but with the caveat that the resulting surface is acceptable per the plane's purpose. This is one of the strong points made by Waren Mickley, Dave Weaver, to name a few, that have demonstrated how useful a well set chipbreaker can be.

[Patrick Chase]

I'll add that the United States intellectual property laws encourage people to copy. A patent is spoken of as "teaching" and should contain sufficient information that someone else can exploit the idea contained in the patent. The patent gives the owner the right to control the patented material for a certain length of time, but after that time, our system basically encourages others to use the idea.

Another concept is "trade secrets" but in our present "first to file" patent system, a company who attempts to keep something a secret can find that someone else has patented the concept. Then, they might have to seek a license to do what they had been doing.

[Disclaimer: I am not a patent attorney - just someone who has gone through the patent process a number of times (I hold a number of patents).]

Mike

You're absolutely correct: The "iron law of trade secrets" is that you must be absolutely sure that nobody else can figure out what you're doing.

w.r.t. patent cost it's north of $10K these days, or more if you have to iterate with the patent office. Whether that's prohibitive or not depends on how deep-pocketed you are. My understanding is that L-N was started on a shoestring.

[Patrick Chase]

A WR or no tool at all? Are there many tools made by WR which are not available on the used market or from other makers at reasonable cost?

The WR #4 is priced at $145. I have 3 Stanley #4s that cost me less than half of that. One is a cobbled together Frankenplane which is a great user.

I do not see the WR or no tool at all as being realistic vindication.

jtk

Yeah, I intended that as a hypothetical rather than an assertion of fact, hence "if, say ...". I foresaw both the counterargument and the fact that you in particular would raise it :-).

The cases you chose as examples are ones where used Stanley planes are cost-effective. There are others where they aren't, for example the #62 or #1.

[John Sanford]

Put simply, methinks there are three things that set some folks off regarding Woodriver.

1) Chinese "knockoff". Yes, a good knockoff, but still, Country of Origin is the People's Republic of China, a factor that does not sit well with some folks.
2) The previously mentioned Lie-Nielsen / Woodcraft disruption.
3) Less than stellar previous iterations. This, I think, is a big part of what hurts them. When it takes THREE tries to get a knockoff right, what with modern manufacturing being applied to a tool design that is a century old, it simply reinforces the "Chinese junk" paradigm.

The V3 planes are, according to reviews by users I've run across, good planes. Certainly better than a plane you'll find at Home Depot / Lowes / Sears / Ace / True Value. They darn well better be, since a Woodriver plane costs a higher multiple of a hardware store plane than a LN does of a Woodriver. This, of course, presents another question. IF you can get a Chinese made plane for $20 at Home Depot, why should you pay 7 times as much for a Chinese made plane at Woodcraft?

[Jim Koepke]

Agreed Jim, but with the caveat that the resulting surface is acceptable per the plane's purpose. This is one of the strong points made by Waren Mickley, Dave Weaver, to name a few, that have demonstrated how useful a well set chipbreaker can be.

I think the writer I was paraphrasing had a different idea other than just the chip breaker that can be moved back for heavier work. My take was a plane should be usable over the full range of the operator's ability to provide the energy needed to make the cut.

One of my neighbors brought over an off brand plane of low quality. He was hoping I could sharpen the blade and get it to work. It was difficult to get it to take more than the lightest shaving without it bucking like a fresh rodeo bronco. I have had some very inexpensively made planes that were amazing at how well they worked. I have seen some mass marketed plane shaped objects that should have been embarrassments to those who foisted them off on the plane purchasing public.

My shoulder will go out on me with any extended planing over about 0.008". With a freshly sharpened blade right after my morning coffee I can get up to about 0.015" on the edge of a board.

Some of my planes will clog due to a tight mouth on shavings over about 0.008". This is with the frog all the way back and a stock Stanley blade.

A range of ~0.001-0.008" isn't really asking that much of a plane. I feel confident if the mouths were filed open a bit they would be capable of even thicker shavings.

jtk

[Mike Henderson]

You're absolutely correct: The "iron law of trade secrets" is that you must be absolutely sure that nobody else can figure out what you're doing.

w.r.t. patent cost it's north of $10K these days, or more if you have to iterate with the patent office. Whether that's prohibitive or not depends on how deep-pocketed you are. My understanding is that L-N was started on a shoestring.

My problem is that I don't see anything in the LN planes that could be patented. They appear to be nothing more than Bedrocks made to a high precision and with slightly different metals (ductile iron instead of regular cast iron). But maybe I'm missing something.

And lacking intellectual property protection, they are unable to prevent someone else from copying the Bedrocks, or for that matter, copying them.

Mike

[Jim Koepke]

There are others where they aren't, for example the #62 or #1.

I honestly think most woodworkers could do without a #1. It is a nice little plane, but not a do or die case.

The #62 might be another story. If the skew bladed LA/BU planes were available when I bought my #62, I might have purchased one of them instead.

jtk

[Rich Riddle]

One day in a shop someone handed me a plane to use for a bit. I used it but couldn't quite adjust to the way it "felt." After using it for a while, I looked down and noticed it was a Woodriver plane. I simply prefer Veritas and at times a Lie Nielsen plane because of the "feel" of the planes. I don't understand those who don't try them first. But to each his own.

[Robert Engel]

When I bought a lot of LN stuff I did so because of my trust in the brand, and they make a nice product, and have done well by me. I've had my planes for a number of years now and they do fine, I have some nitpicks but overall quite happy with the quality of the products.

As a consumer I am able to vote with my dollars and do so by supporting small retailers and producers which have devoted themselves to quality. It's quite literally the only thing you can do that will have any impact, as a consumer. Doing so has done well for me as I have very few complaints or frustrations with my tools.

While I wholeheartedly agree with this idealistically - and in the best world, but economic reality trumps especially for the young ww'er starting out or anyone with limited funds, $400 is just out of reach for a hand plane.

Hence the popularity of restored Stanleys.

Back to the original intent of the thread, the WR finds its market in those leaning toward a premium plane, or those who realize many times the price paid for an old Stanley is upwards of $200. And there are those, like myself, who got fed up with the elusive $5 Stanley restoration and don't have the time or energy for the caravan to flea markets and yard sales.

And we're not even going to mention hand saws, are we?
Have a good one.

[Brian Holcombe]

Restored vintage Stanley's and others are certainly a great way to go and the process of restoration will teach the user a great deal about the plane.

There are many, many small makers and if I'm buying a new tool I will always go that direction. Anymore I prefer to support small and very high quality makers and sellers like individual blacksmiths and plane makers. Ultimately every economic event will support many people in some small way, but supporting the small high quality makers encourages more people to move into that field, more competition encourages even higher quality and more choices made available. Higher quality usually requires educated and professional sources to sell it, further increasing the amount of information made available to the consumer.

I think these things are important and so I support them, not everyone will agree and that is fine with me.

Idealism is a fault of mine, I would sooner sit on the floor while saving money to purchase a well made chair then to purchase a cheap chair.

[Chris Fournier]

I'm Canadian and I'll buy American woodworking tools before I buy Chinese copies every time! You guys south of my border need to buck up! I am not a vintage fan and that is likely because we don't have much vintage up here but I'd buy US vintage before I bought Chinese.

[Chuck Tringo]

I dont have a problem with made in China in general. My problem with it is when an American (or Canadian or European) company has products manufactured in China. The only reason to do so is to save $$ and when that happens, 99 times out of 100 you get what you pay for. It is too complicated a discussion for me to spend time on here, but I support American Nd Canadian jobs whenever possible with my $$. I also disagree with the costs too much argument, plenty of vintage around and even a few dealers who sell them tuned and rewdy to go. I actually avoid shooping at Woodcraft as I find they tend to stock overpriced made in china and india junk, and their sale prices usually only bring items prices down to what can be had elsewheres normal price.