Counterfeit and 'Knock-off' Tools

[iNewbie]

I can understand that it's not nice when you are selling your planes to a company and this company starts having them made
by another company for cheaper prices. But that's not the point. It's business and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If LN
had an original product/design and the WR was a copy, that would change the whole game. However that's not what happened.

So according to you it's ok for LN to copy the Bedrock design which is from Stanley and add some minor improvements, but it's not
ok for others to make a copyof that. You have no point at all, I am sorry to say.

Did Lie Nielsen copy the Bedrock designs? Yes he did.Do you agree? Did he make some minor changes/modifications. Yes he did.
Did he add something that changed the design radically or did he do anything else which makes the products considerably different
from the Bedrock design? My opinion is no he did not. A thicker blade is not a change in design or function. It's just improving
(which some people contest) the product.

TLN is keeping quiet on the matter because he knows there is nothing he can say about it since he himself has made loads of money
by copying the Bedrock design.

Ali

I think Derek summed it up.

 

[Trafalgar]

Here's my summary:

Some prima donnas have their shorts in a knot. The rest of the world mostly doesn't care which is usually what happens when prima donnas do what they do.

 

[Mr_P]

Just to play Devils advocate,

If Stanley were still making a Bedrock and then someone copied them with a few tweaks would that someone who copied be in the wrong?.

That experiment has already happened in the 1930's when the Bailey patents expired.

Nearly every British company who could make a No.4 , did just that.

Record, Acorn, Spiers, Mathieson, I.Sorby/Marples and within 15 years the infill makers were gone.

Didn't Stanley buy Acorn to make the Made in England Stanleys and let the quality of the Acorns drop of a cliff.

My crackpot theory is it wasn't Stanley that killed the infill trade it was the expiry of the patents that drove prices down on the Bailey types and made infills look even more expensive.

Once the patents have expired you are fair game, guess its how you do it and the passage of time that counts.

Clifton and LN started with a blank page and Bedrock , the early Chinese firms were lazy and just started with a LN.

Ethically wrong YES, against the law NO.

knock off of a knock off

 

[KevM]

Crikey, still going strong! Well done all.

I was reminded of the ads from the '80s Sekonda, beware of expensive imitations, were they apeing Seiko designs?

 

[Cheshirechappie]

In the end, 'the market' often decides whether a product sells or not.

Stanley gave up selling Bedrock planes because they judged that the market had shrunk too much to make production worthwhile. Tom Lie-Nielsen judged that there was a market for the same type of plane, made in smaller quantities - and he was right. When the first low-quality straight copies of the LN planes were offered, the market decided that it wasn't going to waste it's money on cheap 'knock-off' rubbish. When a better quality version of the bedrock plane became available, the market decided that quality was good enough to justify the price, though the market also still recognised that the slightly better quality, higher-priced LN planes still had their place.

Currently, 'the market' is scratching it's collective head, discussing the options, and influencing the future of LN (probably secure, but with a slightly reduced market share), Quangsheng/WoodRiver (probably also secure), and any cheaper direct copies (the market doesn't like them, so they'll bomb). Given that there seems to be a bit of an upsurge in enthusiasm for handtool woodworking, the market might well be getting bigger, thus giving all suppliers a better chance than Stanley thought it had.

That's how it's been for generations, and not just with woodworking handtools. No doubt that's how it will remain for a goodly while yet.

 

[G S Haydon]

Seems very logical Mr P, once Stanley's patent was gone it got cheaper for end users to get hold of a good Bailey.

On a side note, I wonder how long LN etc had been making bedrock planes before they were copied? LN was established in 1981 (same year I was born). I'd guess 1995ish, first WR 2009ish. 14 years is not so bad using tweaked designs before being copied.

The double edged sword for firms like LN is the more popular they become, the more likely it is there will be competition. And what of LN exporting into China and the wider world. That's what our system promotes! Container shipment arrives in USA full of WoodRivers. Container goes back to China full of LN's .

 

[Jacob]

In the end, 'the market' often decides whether a product sells or not.

Always, not just "often"

Stanley gave up selling Bedrock planes because they judged that the market had shrunk too much to make production worthwhile.

i.e. people gave up buying them. Dud design over hyped according to Patrick and superceded by the ordinary frog with adjusting screw.

 

[Mr_P]

That's what our system promotes! Container shipment arrives in USA full of WoodRivers. Container goes back to China full of LN's .

I'd wager it would be boxes/pallets one way and containers the other.

The good news/ bad news is as American/British standards of living decline/stagnate the Chinese worker is on the up and in 20-30 years times we might have a level playing field. Or perhaps the titanium 3d printer will take over the world and we can print our own

 

[G S Haydon]

An interesting write up from Patrick.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

In the end, 'the market' often decides whether a product sells or not.

Always, not just "often"

I'll stick with 'often'. When cartels, monopolies or government control are involved, the market can't decide. Fortunately in the woodworking handtool market, those evils are minimal.

 

[Trafalgar]

Re Patrick:... and completely consistent with the notion that a fine shaving is a fine shaving (if that's the metric) and a Bailey is perfectly capable of taking a fine shaving. It doesn't even require all that much skill. An adolescent could do it, and indeed they did.

Interesting that he used the Bedrock logo on his 601 copy, though I guess it wasn't a copy since one was never made.

Here we go again...

 

[Cheshirechappie]

An interesting write up from Patrick.

Indeed! But that's only his opinion - quite a lot of the market (rightly or wrongly) doesn't agree with him!

 

[Mr_P]

... and completely consistent with the notion that a fine shaving is a fine shaving (if that's the metric) and a Bailey is perfectly capable of taking a fine shaving. It doesn't even require all that much skill. An adolescent could do it, and indeed they did.

Nothing wrong with a good old Bailey and the Americans / Chinese will have to do something very special to get my cash when things like available for the newbie.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Two-Vintage-w ... 3cf48990f9

Go on grab a bargain and put the £100 / £300 towards some wood.

 

[Mr Ed]

On a side note, I wonder how long LN etc had been making bedrock planes before they were copied? LN was established in 1981 (same year I was born). I'd guess 1995ish, first WR 2009ish. 14 years is not so bad using tweaked designs before being copied.

The interesting thing is that whilst everyone is getting hung up on bedrocks, L-N didn't even start up doing them, in fact (as the link below shows) there is an interesting tale relating to someone else 'copying' Stanley 95's which Tom L-N then took up, so there is a pre-LN precedent for copying copiers (if that makes sense)

I should say I own a considerable number of L-N planes and find them excellent and also have no dog in the fight about who is copying what, I just thought this was interesting in the context of the discussions.

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... bronze-age

Ed

 

[G S Haydon]

Indeed, very interesting.

 

[Jacob]

In the end, 'the market' often decides whether a product sells or not.

Always, not just "often"

I'll stick with 'often'. When cartels, monopolies or government control are involved, the market can't decide. Fortunately in the woodworking handtool market, those evils are minimal.

If "cartels, monopolies or government control" are in the market then they are in the market. Govt orders keep/kept a lot of tool makers busy - there used to be some very classy stuff in Govt surplus shops. Old stuff still turns up with the War Dept mark.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I said 'government control', not 'government purchasing'. Two entirely different things. For the avoidance of doubt, that's 'government control OF the market' and not 'government purchasing IN the market'.

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

Wow, this is a long thread. I'm going to add some observations. The first is that there seems to be some truth that the american forum users have a much lower opinion of the copying of LN planes by QS/WR than many of the people on this forum. It is my opinion that a large factor in this is economic protectionism in the US. Japanese bikes are not copies of Harleys but plenty of American bikers would tut at a Honda or Kawasaki. Indeed I have some sympathy with this position. We in the UK have seen our manufacturing industry decline so much that buying british is not really an option. There are some British tool makers left and if I could afford shiny new tools I would like to help Clifton and Ashley Iles. Someone mentioned narex a few pages ago, as far as I am aware they have been making tools alot longer than Clifton, AI or for that matter LN. Personally I would feel happier supporting another EU business than an American one, more to the point they are at a price I can afford.
So if your position is you would not buy Chinese products then fair play, a difficult decision, but fair play. However I am strongly in the camp that there is no harm in copying a copied design. The earlier example of violins is a good one. Nearly all modern violins are copies of Guarnerius' or Stradavaius'. However since the height of the Cremona violin making days of the 16 and 1700s there have been some important changes in violins, one of the main ones is the necks are now longer to facilitate changes in classical music. Nearly all the great Cremona instruments have had longer necks grafted on. If you decide to make a violin you will most likely copy a guarnrius or strad but, just as with QS LN an Stanley, you will make one more similar to modern copies than the original design. Indeed the grafting of longer necks onto a strad has some parallels with retro fitting old Baileys with modern thick irons and chip breakers.
Another observation is that I do own a QS block plane and it is the first chinese made thing I've had that is any good. It's not a model of a block plane , it actually is one. If the chinese are starting to make things that work and don't fall apart within a week (like all those christmas presents my daughter gets) this has to be a good thing for the world
One more thing, I think there is a gap in the market for good quality Baileys. Especially if the chinese could make them for around £100-£150. I would see no issues morally with that and the only ones that get made now are rubbish.

Cheers, Paddy

 

[ali27]

Ali

Sorry, but that is a load of nonsense (I'd write "cr@p" but I might get into trouble for that), especially this part ...

TLN is keeping quiet on the matter because he knows there is nothing he can say about it since he himself has made loads of money by copying the Bedrock design.

LN responded by pulling all their tools out of Woodcraft (I seem to recall that LV did as well). Further, we will never know the full story, because it was kept quiet. But that does not mean it was quiet.

Keep in mind that that was WoodRiver version #1. It appeared not just to be copied from the shell of a LN, but it also used the exact trade dress. Planes such as Record, Clifton and Stanley Bedrock are distinctive in their own ways. But WR version #1 sort to copy the dress of LN.

Version #2 was an attempt to create their own identity. It was criticised for poor design choices. Interesting that - firstly, that they needed to change, and secondly that they could not get it right on their own.

Version #3 was designed by Rob Cosman. The result is the current bench plane, and this one looks good.

Similarly, the original WR block plane copied the LN design (noticeable in their distinct lever cap). There were other copies from the factory that were re-badged. Since then they have developed a different version that is based on the Stanley #65 (has a knuckle cap lever cap).

Clearly, WR are trying to form their own identity. This is no doubt in reaction to bad press and pressure. It is a good move since there is a market for a good quality plane that is cheaper than the LN and LV. To some extent, as a result of the changes, the conflict is now water under the bridge. For others it left a bad taste in the mouth that remains.

One might argue that all spring from the Bailey design. That is clearly and obviously so. However, LN was not a "copy" of the Stanley insofar as it created a model that markedly improved in so many areas, and it was not in competition - Stanley had left the room. When WR entered the market it was specifically to compete with LN, but did so "borrowing" the construction and trade dress of LN - and it was that which was criticised, not that they entered the market to compete, per se.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I have seen the first QS planes and there was never a moment I thought that looks like a LN plane. If I recall correctly
some of the QS planes were made with a bronze lever cap, but the difference was still very clear(to me).

The LN was a copy of the Bedrock design no matter how many times you say it wasn't. It isn't a 100% copy,but neither is the QS a 100% copy of the Bedrock or LN. The fact that there wasn't any competition makes no difference. It's still a copy.

http://www.finewoodworking.com/item/141 ... nd-stanley

My eyes see two planes that are copies of the Stanley Bedrock planes.

LN made a lot of money by copying the bedrock planes and selling them. Good for him and more power to him. QS is doing the same thing and more power to them.

There is no moral high ground here, stop pretending there is.

I have a QS plane from the first version. It absolutely does not look like a LN. It works great now, but it had many problems that I had to solve/tune for it work very well. In fact the hole/pin of lateral adjuster was clearly of centre by about 2-3mm which made the blade slightly skewed I think. I removed the lateral adjuster. The handles were coated with some kind of paint, ugly!! In hindsight I wish I had just bought a LN plane.

Lie Nielsen should keep producing his great planes. The WR are getting better, but are still not the same quality. Many feel the finish is less, there is more backlash, the handle is too small(I AGREE!!!) and the precision is less. Anybody who can tune a plane well, can make it work as well and even better than a non tuned LN.

Ali

 

[Andy Kev.]

This is an interesting thread which seems to be covering several issues simultaneously.

The original issue is the plight of “cottage industry” makers and whether or not one “supports” them in preference to buying cheaper and sometimes inferior copies. Should they be supported? IMO yes but of course not everyone can afford their prices. The small makers have to make no compromises on quality if they are to survive at all and I think we have to include Clifton, Veritas and LN in this category along with all the one man bands. Mass manufacturers seem to be committed to put in as much quality as is minimally necessary while combining that with a low enough price. If they get that combination right, then they will be financially content.

So why are the cottage industry types to be supported? The simple answer is that they illustrate what is possible and they seem more likely to be looking for and implementing improvements which enhance basic designs. If you leave industry to its devices – and industry doesn’t seem to care about anything at all other than profit as big firms are run by accountants who almost certainly have no (costly) love for their firms’ products – then quality goes down the drain and we all end up buying junk or the minimum quality standard which the market will bear and then we’ll all be saying, yet again, “Ah but they don’t make ‘em like they used to”.

I suspect that Clifton, Veritas and LN are run by people who are emotionally as well as financially committed to what they do while operating within the constraints of hard economic reality. I also suspect that QS etc. have emerged not because of a burning desire to manufacture good tools but rather because some market analyst has noticed that there is a resurgent market for hand tools and that there is money to be made with people who can’t afford Clifton, Veritas and LN. If the latter companies weren’t setting the benchmarks in terms of quality, the newcomers would flood the market with junk.

Then there is the issue of price. C, V and LN products are for many, if not most people, expensive things. It’s easy to forget that. Compared to the likes of Holtey they are dirt cheap. However, 100 – 300+ quid for a plane is a serious amount of dosh. Ideally, one would save until one could afford what one wanted. Some people will realistically never be able to afford such things. So they either have to go second hand (great idea if you know what you are about) or buy QS etc.

There is a third issue which as far as I can see no-one has mentioned yet and that is the matter of wider morality. Personally I avoid as far as I possibly can buying things made in China. There’s the small matter of human rights along with working conditions (remember reports of suicides amongst people working on iphones etc.?) and the general nastiness of the Chinese regime. I appreciate that it’s almost impossible to avoid buying Chinese if you are buying machines, electrical goods etc. but that might be a factor worth remembering. And I also appreciate that although I am not wealthy by any means, I do have enough disposable to be able to refuse to buy Chinese (except at the local takeaway).

One upshot of this is that I had a look at the Glenn-Drake website and I think I’m going to order a titemark because of the handy gadgets for marking mortices which he makes in the commonest sizes. And of course, to support one of the one man bands.