Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Rockler Bench Dog Planes

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Villa Park. CA
    Posts
    13,051

    Rockler Bench Dog Planes

    Looks like another company has started shipping clones of the Lie-Nielsen planes. Rockler now has "Bench Dog" planes that look an awful lot like the LN planes. I think the line is limited at this time, but I expect if they're successful in selling it they will expand the line.

    Mike

    Rockler plane.jpg
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  2. #2
    In all fairness, LN is not the creator of this design. They are just very keen on top-end manufacturing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    Looks like another company has started shipping clones of the Lie-Nielsen planes. Rockler now has "Bench Dog" planes that look an awful lot like the LN planes. I think the line is limited at this time, but I expect if they're successful in selling it they will expand the line.

    Mike

    Rockler plane.jpg

  3. #3
    The Bench Dog planes have been available for almost a year. Know anybody who bought one? Me neither.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Villa Park. CA
    Posts
    13,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Noah Magnuson View Post
    In all fairness, LN is not the creator of this design. They are just very keen on top-end manufacturing.
    My comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. There were a number of people who accused Woodcraft of cloning the LN planes so I wanted to see what they would say about Rockler's planes

    Mike

    [to be fair, ANY plane that looks like a Stanley Bailey or Bedrock can be accused of being a clone of the LN planes, because LN copied the Stanley planes.]
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 10-23-2017 at 10:44 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  5. #5
    It appears to be an India made plane (perhaps Anant?). Looks like they are trying to give Wood Craft's Woodriver planes some competition..

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by John C Cox View Post
    It appears to be an India made plane (perhaps Anant?). Looks like they are trying to give Wood Craft's Woodriver planes some competition..
    We've covered this before. IIRC they're Groz' high-end line (which are not actually sold under the Groz label AFAIK), the same ones that Axminster sells.

    EDIT: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...82#post2622482
    Last edited by Patrick Chase; 10-23-2017 at 8:06 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    That plane doesn't look like an LN unless LN took the lever off of the lever cap.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    At least it isn't an Anant..
    front end.JPGBefore clean-up)
    test drive.JPG( after clean up)

    As these are made in India....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,467
    The advert does not state "Bed Rock", so it is unlikely to be one.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sebastopol, California
    Posts
    2,319
    From what I can see of the lateral adjustment lever, it looks more like a coarsely done knockoff of the Sargent bench plane, which was itself a knockoff of the Stanley Bailey plane. Knockoffs aren't a new idea.

  11. #11
    I think that if they produce a affordable plane offering solid performance with minimal fitting and advertise it accordingly there is an opening in the market at the user tool level.

    Checked. $140. Not terrible.

    For $16 They sell a 1/8" thick carbon Steel iron for it. Could be interesting.
    Last edited by bridger berdel; 10-24-2017 at 11:28 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Colorful Colorado
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    There were a number of people who accused Woodcraft of cloning the LN planes so I wanted to see what they would say about Rockler's planes
    Wouldn't the Bench Dog be a clone of the Woodriver then?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Villa Park. CA
    Posts
    13,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Perez View Post
    Wouldn't the Bench Dog be a clone of the Woodriver then?
    LOL, could be. Maybe it's a chain, with each new maker copying the previous maker. So LN copied Stanley, then WoodRiver copied LN, then Bench Dog copied WoodRiver. And so it goes forever.

    Mike
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Villa Park. CA
    Posts
    13,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Houghton View Post
    From what I can see of the lateral adjustment lever, it looks more like a coarsely done knockoff of the Sargent bench plane, which was itself a knockoff of the Stanley Bailey plane. Knockoffs aren't a new idea.
    You're exactly right - legal knockoffs aren't a new idea.

    Additionally, our economic system encourages people and companies to use information that is in the public domain. Any patents Stanley had expired long ago so the information Stanley patented was in the public domain. Lie Nielsen came along and used the Stanley design (which was in the public domain) to make their planes. LN did not seek any protection for anything they did with their planes.

    WoodRiver came along and used the Stanley and LN designs (both in the public domain) to make their planes. Now, it seems that Bench Dog is following in LN, Woodriver, and Sargent's footsteps.

    Same with marking gauges.

    Mike
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    You're exactly right - legal knockoffs aren't a new idea.
    Almost everything is ultimately a knockoff of something. Design doesn't happen in a vacuum, and good designers pay VERY close attention to both historical and competitive solutions. You can't be competitive if you insist on reinventing the wheel.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    Additionally, our economic system encourages people and companies to use information that is in the public domain. Any patents Stanley had expired long ago so the information Stanley patented was in the public domain. Lie Nielsen came along and used the Stanley design (which was in the public domain) to make their planes. LN did not seek any protection for anything they did with their planes.
    The technical term for this is "progress". The patent system is expressly set up to encourage people to publish and share their inventions in exchange for a period of exclusivity. The underlying rationale for doing that is to ultimately make those inventions available for others to use and build upon, and that is now designs get improved and progress happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    WoodRiver came along and used the Stanley and LN designs (both in the public domain) to make their planes. Now, it seems that Bench Dog is following in LN, Woodriver, and Sargent's footsteps.
    There is a difference between using a design and using an invention. Either can be patented, though they're different types of patents with different durations. Everybody agrees that the inventions underlying the BedRock and L-N planes were/are long since in the public domain.

    The reason WR caught so much flak is because they appeared to re-use the *design* lock, stock, and barrel in their initial versions. L-N hadn't patented the design, which made it legal, but as a practical matter it's often viewed differently (and more negatively) than building on somebody's inventions. Unfortunately I don't have time to go into the gory details, nor would my employer want me to. The fact that Cosman went straight from partnering with LN to ripping off their design also left a bad taste in peoples' mouths. I've never bought anything from him, nor do I plan to FWIW.

    Both the L-N and TiteMark examples point to a real problem with our current patent system IMO - it's too expensive, such that only large players can actually benefit from its protection. As noted above L-N didn't file a design patent AFAIK, which left them open to Cosman/WR's shenanigans. Similarly TiteMark didn't file for either invention or design patents, which left both their adjustment mechanism (possibly an invention) and their design open to reuse. In both instances cost was the stated reason, and having navigated the system both for large employers and with a friend's startup I agree.
    Last edited by Patrick Chase; 10-24-2017 at 2:15 PM.

Posting Permissions

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