Re: Some extended comments
Lyn J. Mangiameli
>Actually, few of the examples Larry raises are new. In the discussions that took place around the time of the release of the first of the new series of Lee Valley planes, and my review of it, all of these topics including Cecil and the set screws, the Narex and the Marples planes were discussed. Of course, any sincere historian of tools can find endless examples of ideas being reworked, rediscovered and incorporated in new overall designs.
I don't have a clue about patent law, and leave that to others, but suspect I am as familiar as anyone outside Lee Valley with their approach to tool development. As I see it, there are two general approaches to equipment design, whether it be audio amplifiers or hand planes. One approach is to take a solid existing fundamental design and reproduce it in the best of materials, with the best of techniques (essentially the counterpart to "blueprinting" an engine). The other approach is to consider the basic things one wants the tool to accomplish, and then consider all the possible ways that function can best be achieved, selecting and integrating them into the best possible package within certain fiscal restraints.
I see Lie-Nielsen and Larry's own C&W planes as primarily subscribing to the first approach; they have basically taken existing designs and reproduced them with the best of both modern and traditional materials and practice. I see Lee Valley as taking the second approach, of starting from "first principles" (as Rob likes to say). I find merit in both approaches, but suspect those who take the first approach, have little they might patent, while the latter likely consider their integrated design as something new and patentable.
I'm sure some who follow the first approach, feel constrained by those who obtain patents via the second approach. Afterall, may of those following the first approach would be having to ask for permission and pay royalties were it not that some things were never patented, or the patents have expired. What one can do, often influences what one believes should be done.
I also suspect that some things here are a little overstated. Steve Knight and I discussed adding lateral adjustment/limiting screws to his wooden planes, and he has been doing so for what seems to be a couple of years now. I haven't heard any attorneys knocking down his door for applying these screws to a wooden bodied plane.
Similarly, while I haven't read any of the Lee Valley patents, I have never sensed that any effort has been made to restrict the application of back bevels, though it may be true they discussed the concept in the course of a patent application. Leonard Lee described them as an existing technique in his sharpening book long before the new series of Lee Valley planes ever existed even as prototype castings. No Lee Valley plane even comes with a back bevel. What Lee Valley has done is make people aware of the technique and advocated it as a way to inexpensively obtain a broader range of function from a single plane. I and others have proved that they work, and are inexpensive to implement, though they are more appropriate to some styles of planes than others. Again, I don't see Lee Valley having contrained anyone from using back bevels on any plane, private or commercial.
There is a lot about Larry's statement that I am uneasy about. For one, he admits to never using a Lee Valley plane, but still makes a comparison of quality based on casual perusal of them compared to Lie-Nielsen planes, at least some of which I know he owns and is well familiar with. Quality is a word that covers a lot of ground, and I wish Larry had been more specific about what he considered the differences in quality: quality of fit, of finish, of performance, etc; and most of all, how do these things factor with respect to purchase price.
Now I have almost every model of plane Lie Nielsen has produced (just had my left hand 140 send out last week!!). I also have almost every model of plane Lee Valley has produced. I've lived with these planes, using them and studying them and writing my observations about how similar models compare. I find no homogeneous ranking of quality between the two manufacturers. Some things seem superior on one, some things superior on the other, and in use, when objectively measured by quality of cut, they are usually virtually identical. Same thing goes with how flat the blade backs are, how flat the soles are, how well machined the frogs are. I clearly have my preferences with respect to specific tools, but they are more often based on ergonomic factors, than performance or suble differences in finish. For example, I prefer the Lie-Nielsen Low Angle Adjustable Mouth Block Plane over all others; I also now prefer the Lee Valley Shoulder Plane over all others.
Larry raises the issue of integrity. He has his reasons, and has publicly aired them, but integrity, like quality, covers a lot of ground. Now Larry begins with the disclaimer that he makes "high end" planes, planes which more or less compete for our attention and dollars against not only the Lee Valley line of planes, but also the planes of other manufacture that Lee Valley sells. I, in a similar business relationship, would be very reluctant to publicly appraise the integrity of my fellow competitors, it is hard for even a well presented argument not to seem quite self serving.
And in what context are we as consumers to consider Larry's uneasiness with Lee Valley's integrity. I for one include not only what Larry has presented but also Lee Valley's long history of customer support second to none in the industry. I consider it with respect to Lee Valley developing and offering high performance products that most woodworkers can afford. I consider it with respect to them knowingly producing and/or offering products that they know will not be money makers for them, but doing it because they recognize that woodworkers have a need for those products (Rob can list them better than I, but there are more of them than I think most might readily imagine). I factor these things as well into my considerations about the integrity of a company.
I will also touch on what I consider counter examples of integrity, like certain woodworking suppliers seeking out and reselling virtually identical Asian knockoffs of products Lee Valley developed (say their marking guage and their sanding block). Or Jet offering Asian knock-offs of Oneway products (woodturning faceplates and live centers), that are duplicated right down to the nonfunctional embellishments. Is it any wonder, that a Lee Valley or a Oneway may be just a little sensitive to protection of their products.
What I think is really going on, and I have some direct knowledge to know this is true, is that some of the smaller and specialty manufacturers are threatened by Lee Valley coming up with products that compete in their former solitary niche. Lee Valley puts a lot of money into research and development, can invest in some very expensive modern machinery, and has economies of scale. The result is that LV produces some excellent products, at an excellent price, that are highly desirable to many woodworkers. It is causing some tool producers to rethink their market and production focus, and look for other and or additional ways to distinguish their products (Consider how Shepherd can focus on kits of high performance planes, something that almost no one else does to the same extent). I believe the best ones will respond this way, but clearly others won't. Ultimately it will be us woodworkers who decide what suits us best, and what offers us the best balance of quality, value, service, and yes, integrity.
