Call me cynical, suspicious, whatever....

In a current wood working magazine there is an assessment of several jack planes. Most probably not undeservingly the Lie-Nielsen gets the top rating of five stars. Being awarded five stars in each of the five categories except one, where it got four. However, at the Lie-Nielsen stand at the Woodworking Show is the author. All fitted out in his Lie-Nielsen T-shirt and bad mouthing Veritas to a potential customer whilst I was there. One can only wonder what the value is of the article now, and if the magazine's past and future evaluations are any more impartial.http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ons/icon13.gif

Yeah, but aren't Lie-Nielsen much more expensive? Isn't that all that counts? Bob, maybe you aren't even close to being cynical and suspicious.

Cheers
Richard

Back in issue #30 he compares the Veritas and Lie Neilsen block planes. The verdict was that although the Lie Neilsen looks better, the Veritas was the better plane to use. In issue #46 he compares Dovetail saws and wrote that Adria or Ikeda were the pick of the bunch (there were a couple of Lie Nielsens in the bunch). Seems fairly impartial to me.

You're a cynical suspicious whatever. :p

But it is interesting to know.

Dan

I work in the public sector and it is important that any pecuniary interest (where you stand to gain financially or otherwise) is declared.

Given that Lie-Nielsen's operation in Australia in new, and taking into account the coments made by Slavo and Dan, then I can accept that previous evaluation results are as presented. However, my suspicions still exist re the current publication. Though I would like to believe the results are as represented based on the criteria used.

If what Slavo said is correct then I think I'll join you Bob and be a bit suspicious of any future reviews and possibly the current one also.

It's quite simple.

Any review should be INDEPENDENT. The person doing the review should have no interest whatsoever in any of the reviewed items or his/her review WILL be biased.

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanP

It's quite simple.

Any review should be INDEPENDENT. The person doing the review should have no interest whatsoever in any of the reviewed items or his/her review WILL be biased.

Dan

---

Dan, Dan, Dan.
If reviews were independant we would get honest results. After 105 years, why start now? The results of reviews should favour the party trying to avoid critisism or, otherwise, should be secret and hidden from the public for 30 years.
Your radical views could lead us to the :eek: truth :eek: . Can we cope with that?
The advertising industry would collapse.

What came first, the review or the association with Lie Nielsen? If he was already associated with them when the review was written, it should have been in his profile along with "professional woodworker and woodwork teacher" doncha think?

theres a jack plane review in an earlier AWR where clifton & lie neilsen were compared. I think the LN won but the Clifton was pretty good too. certainly not the drubbing that it got in this issue of AWR.

?? maybe it was a faulty item sent for review or maybe he wasnt allowed to keep it :D ??

I read the jack plane review again last night. There's a remark at the end in his summing up where he talks glowingly about Lie Nielsen and how they don't "innovate for the sake of it", which I reckon is directed fair and square at Lee Valley. It doesn't surprise me that he was bagging Lee Valley at the show.

There was one other negative comment I heard from another party at the show about Lee Valley and that was regarding the angle of the handle, which this person reckons is too upright making it uncomfortable to use for long periods.

if youre gunna use a jack plane for long periods - its a perfect excuse for a jointer or thicknesser yeah ???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

There was one other negative comment I heard from another party at the show about Lee Valley and that was regarding the angle of the handle, which this person reckons is too upright making it uncomfortable to use for long periods.

---

Interesting comment, I've seen that somewhere before and read that surprisingly the reviewer found it more comfortable the longer he used it.

What that sort of comment says to me, is that the bench is too low... think about it!

Of course "standard" bench heights were set many, many decades (centuries?) ago when the average bod was much much shorter, and we didn't understand anthropometrics, and plane handles were designed "traditionally" rather than functionally. Technically it is impossible to design a plane handle to work at one bench height for all sizes of user.

As Zed said, that's what machines are for!

I don't want to get into a Holden/Ford argument here, (I can't even imagine what I could do with a better plane than my LV LA Jack :eek: ) because this thread is all about biased reporting, or more correctly undeclared vested interests.

Would one or two of the subscribers to the magazine please take the same time they took to post here, and write to the editor voicing their concern.

I think it would be appropriate then, to post the response so that we can judge fairly! In the meantime, there are plenty of other reviews out there that acknowledge the quality and performance of the LN while providing constructive criticism. Maybe those magazines are more worthy of subscription dollars.

Cheers,

P :D

Quote:

---

What that sort of comment says to me, is that the bench is too low... think about it!

---

That's what I said! Given the fellow who made the remark is a maker of benches, it seemed the obvious thing to say at the time :D