Quality hand tools??

Quality control

jim_reed@marietta

>I am a small mfg and I run into quality issues constantly. To have a quality product, you need to develop a quality system that is integrated into your manufacturing process. It is not easy and out of spec products can slip out in spite of your controls and inspections. I am sure the manufacturers are *red faced* and frustrated.

Re: Quality hand tools??

Rob Lee

>David -

In fairness to Shepherd Tools - you can't characterize a company's product line, service policies, and overall quality from a single instance in a review.

There's no reason to doubt that Shepherd would stand behind their products, and ensure their customers are satisfied. I'm sure there are numerous customers on this board who can confirm this.

Sometimes for a magazine review - you ship what you have on hand - and don't pick through your stock... we do it all the time.

Cheers -

Rob Lee

Re: Quality hand tools??

Art Geiger

>Send what you've got? You've got to be kidding - but your loyalty to a fellow toolmaker is respected.

I don't think it boils down to quality control at all, it's more a question of the right market niche or marketing in general. We all know Shepherd make a large amount of planes and that they also get more than their fair share of knockers. The art of the dovetailed plane practised by Holtey, Hutchinson, Carter, Entwhistle, etc doesn't lend itself to volume production, and these artisans make dozens, not hundreds, each year. However, any toolmaker like Shepherd, that market a dovetailed shoulder plane sub $300 is only going to be able to spend a certain amount of time on it. It's simple economics.

Re: Quality hand tools??

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>Last year I got two Shepherd shoulder planes from Ben. Both planes had sides out of parallel, and on one, the mouth was filed crooked. I sent the planes back and Ben sent out two new ones. The whole process took six months, but I am happy with the new planes. Ben even offered to upgrade me to brass at no charge. Unfortunately, I didn't want brass.

I also jumped on Ben's yupperdoodle christmas sale. Delivery took longer than promised, but Ben did finally deliver. I got the new A6 smoother. The sole is not flat (convex), and the dovetails have gaps on the sole. This should all lap out, but will take considerabal time and sweat. I think that the sole got out of whack from the hammering of the dovetails, and then wasn't properly ground flat before it left Bens shop. I'd rather lap this one myself than wait three more months for a replacement.

Overall, they are nice guys up at Shepherd, and will stand behind their planes, but I'm oh for three in the quality control department. Perhaps I'm just unlucky.

Re: Quality hand tools??

Rod Cole

>I don't have the issue in front of me and I don't know the specifics of how careful FWW is about how the conduct reviews in general, but done correctly you don't tell the manufacturer "Hey, FWW here, can you send us a shoulder plane to review?"

Rather you have someone order one as a regular customer, or if it is a commonly available item, you go down to the local store and buy one off the shelf. All so they don't get a chance to pick through their stoke for the best, or custom tune one just for the review.

Anybody know FWW's policy on product acquisition for reviews?

- Rod Cole

Re: Quality hand tools??

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>I got the distinct impression that Shepherd likes selling their kits and will also build a finished plane. I think that this mission statement from their website speaks loudly

We began with a mission statement: Put a quality high performance plane in the hands of a customer at the lowest possible cost.

Re: Quality hand tools??

Cameron

>Art Geiger wrote:

"The art of the dovetailed plane practised by Holtey, Hutchinson, Carter, Entwhistle, etc doesn't lend itself to volume production, and these artisans make dozens, not hundreds, each year."

Spiers, Mathieson & Norris did OK in making 100's of planes a year. If they could do it way back when then it surely can be done nowadays with the technology available to us. If one laser cuts the plates, has a couple of sanding machines and a mill or two then anything is possible. However having said that it does appear from what you've said that the overall quality control of Shepherd planes may need reviewing. Having not seen the article - or any of Shepherds planes for that matter - I cannot comment personally on the build quality of them.

Re: Quality hand tools??

Cameron

>Ohh, I should add that a drill press and bandsaw wouldn't go astray either - as far as "volume production" is concerned.

Re: Quality hand tools??

Dave Anderson Chester,NH

>I just sent out one of my tools for an upcoming review by a magazine. While I didn't spruce it up any and took it right from stock, I did inspect it to prevent sending out a clunker. In fact, the first tool I inspected had developed a crack in the wood handle and will be repaired and relegated to my seconds bin after refinishing. Tools, particularly those containing wooden parts, will exhibit some movement are are liable to change over time. As an example, even plane and other tools made from machined castings will exhibit movement as the casting stress relieves itself. The reality is that all of those of us who make and sell tools try and do our best all of the time, but we are human and mistakes and quality issues do arise.

Now putting on my consumer hat.... What's important to me is not just initial quality, but how well the seller stands behind the product and how quickly and well they solve any problems which arise.

Re: Quality hand tools??

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>No, I don't think Rob is kidding. While the preproduction prototypes I have had the honor to look at were clearly special units, and usually go back to LV, all the other planes I have from them have been clearly off the shelf items. The LA Jack and Bullnose I recently received (which he knows I am likely to make additional comments on) came after a lot of the rest of you got yours, are packaged and look as much like off the shelf items as you can get.

I've had the chance to receive a number of planes after they had made a tour of one or more magazines (including several infills from makers other than Shepherd) and you might be interested to know how often they didn't seem to represent the best of current production and you might be astonished (I know ALF won't) to see what condition they came from the magazines in. I've never seen such butchering of a blade as one infill that came direct from FWW to me after it had been "reviewed." (Popular Woodworking is the exception, with the plane that come from them properly tuned and sharpened).

So while I think I would have shown more caution as to what I had sent out if I were Shepherd, I think it is fair to say that manufacturers don't often choose to send along a premier exemplar of their line, or even have the time or opportunity to do so.

No excuses. No prisoners.

David Barnett

>While I can certainly appreciate the apologists for Shepherd Tools; especially those with manufacturing viewpoints, it still doesn't excuse poorly peined fit and finish and certainly not out-of-parallel sides on a dovetailed shoulder plane (no casting excuses here). I mean, these tools were presumably made by a couple guys with self-professed expertise, not a sweatshop of untrained and underpaid laborers. Shepherd Tools either knew their products were unsuitable or they did not. All conclusions are unfavorable.

Yes, some of their carelessness is ameliorated in their after sale policies and service. Yes, they'll correct their poor craftsmanship, and yes, you'll eventually get what you expected and that for which you paid. But a consumer has the reasonable expectation of initial quality and timey satisfaction. It shouldn't take six months. I've had my share of hastily made disappointments and too often the manufacturer asks me to understand and excuse their problem with too-rapid growth, labor, and so on. While these are valid reasons for falling short of quality goals, I'd rather be warned and wait until later to order than take shipment on something unusable or shoddy.

Anyway, Jim's right. They probably are (and should be) red-faced. As far as frustration; yeah, they'll have that, too. But that's not (nor should it be) the customer's problem.

Maybe it would be better to turn away orders until production problems are solved.

Just my opinion. (and no relation to the above 'david b')

Re: Quality hand tools??

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Actually, my conversations with manufacturers, and sometimes my own review experience of woodturning tools is very much of the "Hey, ..... here, can you send us/me a ....... to review?"

Indeed, I suspect those few times when this doesn't occur, is highly touted in the magazine article. For myself, I usually give some identifier of how I obtained the tools I comment on (i.e. preproduction prototype, loan, donation to support an investigation, personal purchase, etc.)

Re: Quality hand tools??

Todd Hughes

>I think the reason they could turn out so many planes back then was that they had a much bigger operation then the Shepard one today with more workers putting them together...as well as the machines needed in thier production.While maybe they didn't have laser cutters I think power milling machines, lathes, sanders etc. were common and used when needed.....Todd

Re: Quality hand tools??

Greg Sloop

>I agree with Rod here...

IMHO, the honest way is to treat the "reviewer" as any normal customer.

If you carefully check every single plane prior to sending it out, then the same should happen for a review. If you don't, and a significant quantity of your production may have problems, then the review will be biased. This defeats the purpose of a "review." The review shouldn't review the best possible outcome of a tool, but rather what the "average Joe" would get

This is where buying "off the shelf" or anonymously give a better and more objective review.

Given enough "tinkering" prior to sending out a review unit, one can probably make a new off the shelf stanley perform like a LN. (Ok, probably not, but you get the idea.)

Best,

Greg

Magazine Reviews

Todd Hughes

>While i am not speaking to the review or magazine in this particular case I have several friends that write for magazines that do reviews and I can tell you straight the outcome of the review often has a good deal to do with if the maker advertises in the magazine or not.A maker that advertises alot will get a good review no matter what while a competer that doesn't advertise may get dished.My friends have actually had thier manuscripts returned to be "cleaned" up to reflect this.In one particular case a knife maker that used to advertise with half page adds stopped due to too much work and shortly afterward the magazine ran an article on how shoddy his knives were!....again I am NOT saying this is the case here, I don't know. I am just saying don't believe everything you read ....Todd

Re: No excuses. No prisoners.

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I happened to be in correspondence with Doug at the time they were sending off the plane for this review. They were very pleased to be included in the review and were anticipating a high quality review that would reflect positively on them.

Yes, I think they are frustrated and embarrassed that things turned out otherwise. Sometimes things just happen, despite one's best intent and practice. I read the same thing in ALF's reviews, with her finding machining faults with some LV planes that I have never experienced in all the LV planes that have passed through and usually into my shop. We all have heard tales, and perhaps experienced high quality products that have been faulty, from Mercedes and Porsche, to Rolex chronometers (I have one that I have had for 30 years, and while rugged, it has never kept time worth a darn) to hand planes. There is always both predicted and unforseen variance in manufactured product, which is why warrantees and customer support practices are as important as the product itself in most cases. I don't think that is being aplogist, but just realistic. One should always be extremely conservative and cautious about coming to any conclusions based on a sample of one, which is why almost all reviews really are more informational than scientific.

Re: Quality control

Brad Patch

>Jim Reed is exactly on target with his comments regarding building a quality system into, in his case, a manufacturing process. This is the basis of the International Orginization of Standards (ISO) quality program. A system that lacks these controls will spend time and money reworking non-conforming products, or even worse, risk having a defective product get into the hands of a customer.

Yeah, but...

Scott in Douglassville, PA

>...magazines and their contributors often (mostly?) don't buy the tools they're reviewing. Look at the shoulder plane article - what do you think the combined outlay to purchase all those planes anonymously would be? To a medium circulation magazine? Who already has an author/photographer/overhead to pay? And this would be nothing compared to the heavy equipment reviews (like those large, stationary belt sanders, resaw bandsaws, etc.). There almost is never enough budget for that, and I doubt too many high-dollar tool manufacturers would be ammenable to your 'average Joe' phoning up, asking for a two week trial on a tool. The tools are largely (mostly?) on loan, by necessity, and the explanation given up front.

Good or bad, magazine reviews have to be taken with a grain of salt. You hope for ethics and objectivity, but, then, you have to realize there's an editor involved... ;)

Still no excuses. No prisoners.

David Barnett

>They either knew they were sending out a shoddy piece of work, which you contend they wouldn't have done, so instead, one must assume they couldn't tell what they adjudged to be either their best work, or at least average and passable work, was unsuitable; non-parallel, poor fit and finish.

In the first case, I'd have little sympathy, and in the second, perhaps sympathy, even a certain embarrassed pity. If it was only poor discrimination in cosmetics, aesthetics, 'taste' (something I'd be inclined to believe from their website - what's with that garish chandelier?), that's one thing, but if they can't discern whether the sides aren't even parallel... well, how you gonna explain that?

In my work (not toolmaking, although I make a fair number of them), nothing goes out that isn't first rate. Nothing. And it's never happened and it never will. Just lucky so far? No way, Jose.

On the other hand, I can accept some problems now and then. I'll take another shot at something that was out of spec. I'm civil if not polite. But no way am I going to think something that falls so far short of function and finesse, the two attributes one is presumably paying for in a Shepherd plane, can be explained away by a 'bad day'.

Re: Quality hand tools??

Christopher Fitch @ Memphis

>Rob, so when is that new spokeshave coming out? You know the one in the latest issue of Popular Woodworking?

:)

U R Correct

jim_reed@marietta

>I think you are correct in your feelings. Using the customer as a quality inspector is a doomed plan. Many complaints never make it back to the mfg. You cannot track quality and fix problems if you do not know what the failure rate is. Items need to have serial or batch numbers. Records need to be kept on production dates, machines used, components used, etc. Many small mfgs are just not set up to design and implement a full quality system. The result is lack of consistency. Problem is that repeat customers like consistency better than anything else.

Re: Quality hand tools??

Art Geiger

>Sure, technology has moved on, but you are missing the point. The heyday of planemaking has long gone and the demand for hand made work has all but diminished. Norris and Spiers employed a number of staff to meet the demand of the time. Then, work was done by hand with hand tools. Today, the machine is king and in the commercial shops I know (some producing the highest qaulity work) a hand plane is only used to trim a joint that doesn't quite fit. Contemporary planemakers are mostly sole traders making tens of planes per year and tapping a small demand in the collector or white collar woodworker markets.

Re: U R Correct

Frank D. in Montreal

>I'm not the most experienced guy around (I work part-time as a carpenter and odd-jobber),

but I have spent tens of thousands on tools and I know I don't always have the patience nor the time to contact the company, send the tool back, and wait for them to fix things. If it's a small amount I usually write it off and that company looses my business. If it's a bigger amount of money I ask for them to fix it but rarely risk being disappointed again.

I don't know about Shepherd. I do remember a David Charlesworth article in which he was a little disappointed about the fit and finish, but should we expect a plane to look and be as well made as one four times the price from Sauer and Steiner?

I'm always wary about tool reviews. I remember one about tablesaws in FWW when they bashed a General for inadequate dust collection, but they didn't mention that they had an old model for the test, nor that the company had fixed the problem a few years earlier! Gonchour seems to have done a fairly good one, although I wondered a little about his preference for blade widths exactly the same size as the sole. Many companies let the user hone it down a little to their preference. And the Lie-Nielsen shoulder supposedly came with a blade exactly the same width--I know mine didn't, and the few others I have tried didn't either. Makes me wonder.

Re: Still no excuses. No prisoners.

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>David Barnett wrote:

"I'm civil if not polite. But no way am I going to think something that falls so far short of function and finesse, the two attributes one is presumably paying for in a Shepherd plane, can be explained away by a 'bad day'."

Or a 'good beer':-)