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

I think I read somewhere that the ideal bench height should be set at the wrist. After reading the article I went out and checked my old horror and discovered that I had failed that test for a start. Mind you if I posted a pic of said bench the best it would manage is solid its all downhill from there.

I've had my eyes on a LV low angle jack for awhile and that article swayed me into thinking of going for the more expensive LN version. I think this thread has me heading back the other way, failure to declare an interest really damages the credibility of the author.

Yes I spoke with the author on Friday at the show and bought 2 LN block planes on Sunday, one a rebate. I didnt ask about the planes as I knew what I wanted. Zed can confirm that. I've no use for the larger planes as I would much rather use something that plugs in if I can.

I also asked a question about Japanese chisels and what he said convinced me that I will buy the Japanese chisels I was intending to buy. During the conversation that bias was plain to see IMHO.

LN make a fine product and I dont need much convincing in that respect. I think that there are many reveiws that will confirm that fact.

That said, a declaration of interest would be appropriate from the author. I read the article and agree that LV got a bit of a pasting when you consider the performance rating it received. I think it would be fair to say he went out of his way to highlight the so called failings of planes which received a 5 star performance rating.

Now what I found amazing is that he said that the Clifton was overpriced at $450, the LN was $641 in the article and no mention of price. You be the judge.

And it is also interesting that the contact for LN is the website of his new company

Did anyone bother asking the author Robert Howard what his connection was with the Lei Neilsen. I think not! Did anyone bother asking Lei Neilsen Australia if there was a connection between the company and Robert Howard. Once again, I think not!

Maybe some posters should look again at the first thread in this and most other Forums titled: Please Read This.

Members of these forums have in the past crucified a number of people and businesses without knowing correct details and in most cases have got it horribly wrong. Think long and hard before you start spreading rumours, and falsehoods. Think before you start casting aspersions and bad mouthing anyone. Think how you would feel and what you would do if someone started up a career damaging rumour about you...... Then, either make sure your facts are right or shut up.

I received this email today from Robert Howard and place a part of it here it here for all to read.

Dear U-Beaut

I am the subject of the thread "Call me cynical, suspicious, whatever......" and I am a little concerned that this thread is flying on a false assumption. In Post #1 BobR states that he saw me at the Sydney Working With Wood Show working the Lie-Nielsen stand.
This was correct. But by Post #5 Slavo has me as THE Director of Lie- Nielsen Australia. Not only am I not THE Director of Lie-Nielsen Australia, I am not A Director. Nor do I have any connection with the Company of any sort, financial, legal, or whatever else you can think of. Nor have I ever had any. And I have had no connection with Lie- Nielsen in the USA, and I currently have no connection with them (I am trying to be clear and exhaustive about this).

I do accept that I made an error of judgement in accepting the invitation to appear on the stand, and I can understand that some people will question my objectivity in future. But I stand by everything I have written, and furthermore wish to point out that my latest Review was written well before I even knew Lie-Nielsen Australia existed. The article was out of my hands and well into the production process before I saw Lie-Nielsen Australia in Brisbane, and thus even further before the Sydney Show.

The email info about Lie-Nielsen Australia at the end of the review came from the AWR and not from me. I find the statement that it is the email address of MY company extremely offensive.

I have no wish to take action against anyone at this point, but I would like to think that there was some way to put the correct information up there before this gets out of hand. It is damaging to me and to the Australian Wood Review.

Please let me know if I am at the wrong place with this email.

Regards,

Robert Howard.

I also received this email from Robert this morning:

For Neil Ellis: I am copying to you an e-mail that I have sent to Slavo, the person who started the worst of the mischief on the BB thread.
As one who has not had any experience with BBs I did not know whether I could post a response directly on the Board, and I understand now that I could have. I will look into it this morning anyway, though by now the horse has probably bolted.


I am aware of course, that I personally only have myself to blame, and don't mind copping the flack for my lack of judgement. But I do wish people like Slavo would at least check their facts first. It also would have been reassuring to see some other contributor ask him how he knew his so called fact. Apart from that, my concern is mainly about the damage that is being done to the AWR and to Lie-Nielsen.


Regards,
Bob Howard.





Begin forwarded message:

Dear Brett:



The penny didn't drop for me but my partner saw it right away: slavo = slavin. The coincidence is too great.


I will copy to you the response that I have sent to Linda at the AWR. The pertinent fact is my statement that I am not, never have been, and have no intention of becoming, a Director of Lie-Nielsen Australia. Further, I have no connection whatsoever with them, financial, legal or otherwise, and never have had - except, of course, helping them at the Sydney Show for the grand sum of $150 per day plus $50 per day expenses.


I had never met David Eckert before the Brisbane Show a couple of weeks ago, and did not even know he existed until a couple of days before that when I found out that Lie-Nielsen Australia existed. The review was well out of my hands by then and in Linda's.


Given all that, I am sure you can see how mischievous your statement (as Slavo) on the Woodworking Forum has become. I have no idea where you obtained your information, but you obviously made little or no attempt to check it out before posting it. It is very damaging to my reputation, to the AWR, and to Lie-Nielsen Australia - and to Lie-Nielsen (US) for that matter.


I hope that at the very least you will immediately post a retraction, and an apology. That would be the decent thing to do.


And to repeat what I said in my other response to your e-mail, I do accept that I made an awful error of judgement when I accepted David Eckert's invitation to appear on his stand. Your irresponsibility makes me regret it more than ever.


Regards,
Robert Howard.

Not, as I said before, the first unwarranted crucifixion and I'm sure it won't be the last. This one has at least been clarified by the accused and should make some of you hang your heads in shame and maybe think about the consequences that you can have on a someone's personal or business reputation and good name before start up these threads or add to them.


Neil :(

In Post #5 Slavo has claimed, with no supporting evidence, that I am the Director of Lie-Nielsen Australia. Without asking or checking many of you have taken his statement as fact and run with it. I find this very disappointing.

For the record, I am not and never have been a Director of Lie-Nielsen Australia. Nor do I have, nor have I ever had, any relationship, financial, legal or otherwise, with Lie-Nielsen Australia, beyond my appearance on their stand at the Sydney Working With Wood Show (for which I received $150 a day plus $50 a day expenses, and an airfare). I provided my own accomodation.

As for 'bagging' other manufacturers, I said nothing that would contradict anything that I have already said in print in the AWR. In other words, I gave my honest opinion when asked.

The Review of Jack planes just published was well out of my hands before I even discovered that Lie-Nielsen Australia existed, which accounts for the $641 price tag on the L-N plane. The reference to the L-N Aust website was not supplied by me. It was inserted by the magazine, and must have been done at the very last moment. Once again, I find Slavo's remark about 'my' company extremely offensive, especially after all his righteous talk about how 'in his field all potential conflicts of interest are declared' etc.,etc. I wonder if they check their facts 'in his field' before they sound off?

It was obviously a bad error of judgement for me to appear on the L-N stand as I did as it does compromise my objectivity in your eyes. I regret that, and I apologize to you for it. All I can do is assure you that it will not affect the way I view any tools that I might review in future, though I realize that that is easy to say and that you will rightly be wary until I can hopefully prove it to your satisfaction.

OK, well for my part I apologise if I was too quick to believe hearsay. I should know better. I didn't go out of my way to find out if Robert was connected with Lie-Nielsen but I also didn't go out of my way to make trouble over it either.

If he was working for Lie-Nielsen then obviously it would be a big deal but I would have pointed the finger at AWR for not disclosing the fact. I don't think it would have reflected poorly on Lie-Nielsen at all and you cannot begrudge Robert his opinions. We all have them.

It's worrying to think that things said here could affect someone's reputation in the 'real world'. Sobering thought for all of us I think.

I endorse SilentC's comments, and of course Neils.

I do not want to be misunderstood, I am not doing a smarty "I told you so", but in retrospect, I wish that I had been stronger/more clear in my comments.

Quote:

---

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!

---

I think there has been an awful lot of merciless and unwarrented bagging of people, products and businesses of late, and it is concerning and often, even if it is not slanderous is at best impolite and discourteous(and that's coming from ME!.

It's fair enough to knock off people that set themselves up for it, TO THEIR FACES! and to an extent, Robert (whom I don't know and haven't read his review) has set himself up (unintentionally) and apologised for it, but copped a flogging behind his back.

I think there's a big difference between the aspersions cast in his case, and the one which SilentC raised... (no names mentioned nor hinted at, a specific criticism, and no reputations at stake) and providing or intimating FALSE or MISLEADING information regarding a person, or even true stuff if it's out of context.

I think the intent of this thread was good; to highlight an apparent conflict of interest in a product comparison, but as it unfolded it was far more damaging than the issue which it set out to discuss.

End of rant, but still not happy Jan.

Thanks for coming online Robert, hope you stick around and participate in future threads particularly where you can add some expertise.

P (Not always this kind, but I try to be fair!)


:rolleyes:

I have the AWR with the mentioned article. I think AWR is a pretty good wood magazine. It has worthwhile articles and I thought the review of planes was pretty decent. Looking at the table of planes and their features I thought the veritas stacked up pretty well. It scores 4 stars in everything except performance which was 5 stars. At a quoted $359 this looks pretty good. Robert criticised the Veritas lateral adjustment as "difficult". He wrote "It was not easy to move the blade by a small amount as it tended to stick...", however it scored 4 stars for ease of adjustment. He didn't like the Veritas system. He felt it was complicated which is a fair comment. He did say it was the only plane with no backlash in the adjustment mechanism. Robert didn't like that the handle pushes directly on the frog. He didn't seem keen on this plane however it was well enough written that you could see these things as being his preference. You could see some justification to this but I thought that I would like to see for myself. While he might have looked harsh in his writing he said "I think not" when asking was the complexity justified. That is different to saying it is no good.

While he wasn't friendly to the Veritas plane he posed his assesment as his opinion. He took the time to say why it was his opinion and the reader should be able to judge if they agree or not or want more information.

Back to the magazine it is pretty good and well worth a look for Aussie woodies.

Stevo

To Robert Howard,

I sincerely apologise for the statement I made regarding your perceved connection with Lie Neilsen Aust. I based my statement on incorrect information and I am truely sorry for any hurt I have caused Robert. I should have verified my information with Robert prior to posting and I hope you will accept my apology.

Lie Nielsen and Australian Wood Review are both highly reputable companies and Robert Howard is a most reputable and respected person in the finest of Australian woodwork circles.

I think Robert’s response was admirable under the circumstances.

Lie Nielsen tools are fantastic and although I have never used the other planes mentioned, I can clearly understand Robert Howard’s recommendations. His recommendations are consistent with reviews from other highly esteemed woodworkers world wide.

I look forward to reading future reviews by Robert Howard, looking forward to receiving future copies of AWR and I will be buying my future LN products from Lie Nielsen Australia.

I am certain those who made assumptions and consequently jumped to false conclusions are justifiably feeling pretty bad at the moment, I can appreciate how they must feel due to my own past stupid mistakes.

I stick by my original comments about reviews being independent and I am glad that it appears to have been in this circumstance. I think the AWR is a great publication and I'm relieved that the air has been somewhat cleared.

Robert, welcome on board, it's a pity that you had to come here under such circumstances. I hope to see you here in the future.

Dan

Back to the height of benches, mine came from my grandfather and his father brought it to Australia from Germany apparently. Its sitting on concrete blocks and is just about right. I'm only 6 foot.

If you can see around the well organised things.

I think the title of the thread really outlined what it was all about. It all seemed a bit suspect.. I think that was fair. We are not to know when he wrote the article. How it looked is what is in issue.

I respect Robert's opinion but he cannot be seen as being objective when he works a manufacturer's stand. That's obvious.

When I asked him about the Japanese chisel, he wasn't dishonest. Not at all. He answered my question like a politician. Because of this I made my own judgment as to why he answered the way he did, given what he has previously written.

Comments (criticism) about his reveiw are warranted and this type of behaviour should continue. There is no need for any censorship to protect others that are well known in the industry. I dont think Robert would be too concerned with constructive criticism.

Now to Robert, I dont believe anything I said in my posts was offensive or inaccurate. I have read many of your reveiws and many have influenced my purchases in the past. However I do my own research and I am entitled to form my own opinions about reveiws, whethers yours or others.

I respect your ability and experience and must admit I found it quite surprising to find you at the stand. If I offended, it was not my intention. I hope you remain on the forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert Howard

It was obviously a bad error of judgement for me to appear on the L-N stand as I did as it does compromise my objectivity in your eyes. I regret that, and I apologize to you for it. All I can do is assure you that it will not affect the way I view any tools that I might review in future.

---

Robert
You are too hard on yourself.
I do not consider your appearance on the Lie Neilsen stand at the Sydney Wood Show an "error of judgement". Nor do I see a need for you to appologise for having done so. David Charlesworth has done seminars with L-N in Maine and currently raves about his L-N chisels — it has not diminished my respect for his opinion. Likewise your periferal association with L-N Australia has not deminished my respect for yours.

When craftsmen and teachers like yourself proffer your knowledge and experience we all benefit. Very few of the people who saw you at the L-N stand would know who you are (I must have been one of them), to them you are a knowledgeable person who might help them with their purchase.


Ian Neuhaus

Welcome Robert
Whilst I must admit that when I read your review last week(before going to the Sydney Show) I thought you seemed harsh on the Lee Valley plane, I have always enjoyed your reviews before and thought you were entitled to give your opinion.
I am not condoning the hammering you received here and fully understand your anger and admire your restrained response (Russell Crowe must be wishing it was someone like you he hit) however, The nature of bbs seems to be to take the mickey out of anyone who voices an opinion. I doubt whether any malice was intended and people just seem to forget that we aren't a closed community and our irreverence can cause damage to someone's livelihood. For most of us this is a forum of info sharing and silliness to get us through the grind of the day to day. As Silent said it is a sobering thought and a timely reminder to pull our collected heads in.
Please dont think we are all jerks all the time. Also please visit and add to our collected wisdom often as you'd end up enjoying the place and may even learn something useful. (not from me though, I'm usually only good at opening my keyboard to change feet.)

I wish I had left this thread alone after my first post. But in post #2 I had added fuel to the fire which makes me just another one of the dickheads (or at least feeling like one).

Sorry Robert.

Neil/Robert,

There is an upside to this getting an airing. I too had one eyebrow arching northwards reading the review as I recognised the author as the extremely helpful gentleman I talked to at the show on the Lie-Nielsen stand.

So perhaps airing this openly has actually had a positive effect on the reputation of AWR, Robert and Lie-Nielsen. Unless this had been challenged I would have gone on thinking that something indeed was not as it should have been, to be polite.

Whether an apology is due to one party or another I think is irrelevant. There seems to have been errors of judgement on both sides, from where I stand.

Having been the victim of a professional slander (it's a long story) I know it hurts. My advice is that if either party still feels aggrieved then seek a meeting and sort it out as soon as practicable. Don't let it stew.

One other piece of advice for Robert and AWR would be to run a clarification in the next edition's editorial. Be completely candid and the hearts and minds will follow.

Kind regards,

Mark

Robert,

Like the other I also apologise, it's a timely reminder that sometimes we are too quick to accept what's before us without question. That's not good enough when the effect is to damage someones reputation.

I also think you are being a little hard on yourself about being on the LN stand, on balance its just one of those things that looks fine at the time but different in hindsight. Why do we always 20/20 vision looking backwards?

JohnC

I have just returned from being away for the long weekend and this thread has changed its colour during that time. As the person who started the thread I have to clarify that it was Robert's presence on the Lie-Nielsen's stand at the show, following the recent publication of the comparison of jack planes, that caught my attention. It should be noted that in my original entry that I did not challenge Robert's findings. I indicated that Lie-Nielsen most probably deserved the rating they received. However, as I also mentioned, as an observer at the Lie-Nielsen stand listening to Robert's comments on a Veritas plane, no matter how honest Robert believed his comments to be, it was not possible for me to then accept those comments in that light. Robert, this was not meant to be a direct attack on you, but on how one can accept the results of such an article when the author then appears to be representing the "winning" manufacturer. Please accept my thread in that light.

Bob
I've reread your original post and reread the magazine article you refered to.

I really think you need to clarify what you meant by the potentially emotive phrase "bad mouthing" ?
was it just a restating of the author's opinion as presented in the article?

IMO the author is entitled to restate any of his opinions that have already appeared in print.
I also don't like the look of the Veritas Jack plane, BUT I do like the look and feel of the Veritas low angle smoother — I got to try a Veritas LA smoother at the wood show and am now seriously considering swapping my LN LA smoother for a Veritas.

Ian

Ian, I believe that the thread has run its course and I don't see any value in flogging a dead horse. So as not to appear to be avoiding your question I can only say that what I heard said would not have been printed in the article. Shame though, as it was more colourfull.

I read the reviews & read the start of this thread, I'm just glad I kept reading to find out the full story, I wonder how many people left this thread after reading the first few posts?

Oh well, all I know is I think i'll stick with the Japanese dovetails saws.
Us Westoners have only just learned the benefits of a saw cutting backwards.
Der!?
The Japanese have known this secret for years. I'll stick with the superior Japanese Dovetail saws when it comes to quality of steel.

Hasn't anyone seen Kill Bill??:cool: