The Marcou S15/BU Smoother - Reviewed *LINK*

Comments (long and gratuitous)

woodburnbob

>Derek, the review you put together has the form of an enthusiastic, professional, publication-grade piece. It's very attractive. Thanks a lot for sharing it. I admire your industry.

I know you didn't ask for comments, but I suppose posting here means you'd be likely to receive feedback anyway.

To begin with something trivial, let me admit, the first thing that caught my eye, other than the photo in your post of a very handsome plane, was the model number: S15/BU. I get the BU, but what is the significance of the S15?

Anyway, I really enjoyed the construction and shop work photos. It's always nice to see how someone goes about doing something. I suppose I wasn't surprised to see the free-hand cut-line and bandsaw work on the side rail contours, but that approach with the lever cap did get my attention.

It seems to me that the adjustable mouth is a critical design and manufacturing detail for the S15/BU. From the text of your review and the photos, I still can't figure out how it works.

If you revise the review, I hope you get a chance to include a few more photos of how the adjustable mouth is aligned, secured, and so forth. I'm thinking of the machining setup necessary to provide for precise parallelism between the sole and whatever guides the back and forth movement of the adjustable piece. Also, I don't think I understand what the dark line is that's about a half inch in front of the mouth on the sole. Is that just a gap? Isn't it going to fill up with crud, fibers and such?

I agree with you that Mr. Marcou did a dandy job on metal finishing. But I don't think the tote works, aesthetically.

I did read the review to the end. This is where I had to stop and think a little...at your disclaimer:

"Disclaimer: When approached to provide feedback or write an article, the standard arrangement is to accept the review item as a gift. This has no influence on what I write or how I write it. As in all my reviews, the opinions expressed are my own and offered with as much objectivity as I am able to achieve. My goal is to present the information as clearly as possible, and trust that the readers will decide for themselves what is valuable."

That first sentence made me wonder: do you mean that is the standard for all reviewers and all tool vendors? Or, do you mean that is only your policy? Indeed, does it mean that in the context of your review you and Mr. Marcou agreed you would produce a review and he would give you the reviewed plane (valued in your text at $2000 or thereabouts) to keep for your own?

Especially if you intend to repeat this arrangement in the future, sort of build a reputation and side career as a reviewer, your policy does tend to give the appearance of a conflict of interest. I certainly don't mean to impugn your policy, ethics or objectivity. But, I mean, wouldn't you admit that the appearance of the transaction is that of a payment for a service.

In fact, I'm not so sure that in the USA, you wouldn't have to report this as income and pay federal, state and local taxes on $2000. I'd think the IRS would argue: it wasn't a gift; it was an exchange.

Oh well, this is all very much beside the point. I enjoyed reading your work and learned several things from it.

Best wishes, Bob

In Canada

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>You would have to claim the products you are given in exchange for the review as well. Sorta like the company you work for giving you a car

Nice review Derek. I like the pictures and the idea of getting others involved. I enjoyed reading the reviews from the other to users as they both seemed to have different but similar opinions.

Kinda wished you held off publishing or writing the review till after the LN Blade arrived. Doesn't seem like their was a time limit on when the review had to be completed seeing as how you were given the Marcou plane as a gift.

Tis a shame you will only review products that are given to you for free. Doesn't sound right.

Cheers

Dan Clermont

In U.S.

Ted Owen, Pittsburgh

>Almost certainly taxable.

Just ask the Internal Revenue Service--where, as they themselves tease, the revenue comes before the service. : )

Best, Ted

Wood Selection

Warren in Lancaster, PA

>Derek, I'm wondering why you chose the woods you did for your tests. It seems that as a group they are rather similar- dense woods that would respond well to high angle planing. I wonder how these planes would do with somthing rather tender like Butternut (Juglans cinerea), White Pine (Pinus strobus), or the the cedars. However fine a wood Tasmanian Blackwood is, I've never been asked to work it.

Your experience with the one wood I am familiar with is so different from mine that it clouds the review. On page 5 you write about Rock Maple "When planed with a common Stanley #4 and freshly honed iron, the soft areas tore out repeatedly." I cannot remember ever having the slightest tearout problems with my #4 and Rock maple. What is going on here?

Machining using handtools

David Barnett - SW Florida

>"Some planemakers do all their machining using handtools."

It was a dark and stormy night in the machine shop as Derek filed in the dim light wishing machines had actually been invented.

agree on maple

bill tindall

>I have never had any problem either with tame grain maple. But then I have never encountered any "soft" area in it either. The thousands of feet of maple that have gone under my nose have been exceptionally uniform. What is meant by soft areas?

Re: agree on maple

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>I too work allot of maple. Not familiar with the term soft.

Allot of the maple I do work tends to not be straight grained and simple and tends to be figured. Can't say I have a problem with tearout unless I am taking a rank cut and the mouth isn't tight.

Dan Clermont

Oxymoronic?

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>If one is using handtools, can it be machining? Or is it shaping?

I feel like a RHUMBA!

David Barnett - SW Florida

>It's certainly shaping and forming.

While awkward and amusing at first glance, it's not entirely incorrect. Although the Enc. Brittanica defines a machine tool as: "any stationary power-driven machine that is used to shape or form parts made of metal or other materials". 'Machining' today really isn't so much about using external power as jigging for precise and repeatable processes. Buying a 'machined' fly reel, for example, implies that strength derives from milled solid metal rather than perhaps flimsier die-cut sheet metal stampings (also 'machined' and quite possibly just as strong). At any rate, I knew what he meant. And editor could solve the problem by machini... er, shearing, corroding or exploding, cutting/grinding, or somehow punch pressing that sentence and the rest of that paragraph into literary oblivion, although a backspace key might do just as well.

Seriously, think how many tools were prefixed 'power' before they were prefixed with the now vestigial 'hand'. Things were once called 'Xerox copies' before simply xeroxes or now just copies. So today we'd say 'hand copied' to mean anything more primitive than mimeography. Now terms such as 'hand printed' and 'hand bound' are commonly seen. Only after moveable type would there become the need for 'handwritten'.

Tough language, English. But endlessly fun. I'm guilty of more run-on rambling peregrinating questionably juxtaposed, uh... forgot where I was going with this. Anyway, in what other tongue can one really say "I feel like a cheeseburger" without provoking ridicule (Liberace's "I feel like a RHUMBA!" pushes the envelope somewhat, though)?

Recent words and terms I've seen:

anthropocene

pro-ana

Brokeback marriage

Blackberry thumb

Bluejacking

monotasking

Swiss Army phone (I have one)

country-and-eastern

analog ruler

paper maps

Re: Wood Selection

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>I'm wondering why you chose the woods you did for your tests. It seems that as a group they are rather similar- dense woods that would respond well to high angle planing.

Hi Warren

Firstly, these were all Australian-grown timbers. I am not sure if the Maple I had is the same as the Maple you know. I assume that the characteristics would be similar. Nevertheless, this piece was chosen because it proved to be a challenge to plane without tearing out. Quite independently, this was also recognised by one guest reviewer who, like myself, used a Stanley plane. In my case, it was a standard Stanley #4 (UK-made), while his was a Type 11 Stanley #4 1/2 with a LN iron and chipbreaker. This same piece of wood did not tear out when planed with either the LV BUS or LN #4 1/2 (with Clifton iron), both set up for a 45 degree cutting angle.

Secondly, the woods did differ according to density, which I stated. As noted above, all the planes managed to do excellent jobs at both 45 and 60 degrees.

Your experience with the one wood I am familiar with is so different from mine that it clouds the review.

It is difficult to get a perfectly repeatable "experiment", even when this is attempted, as I have. I attempt to control as many variables as I can, and after this you must use your own judgement as to the helpfulness of the data.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: I feel like a RHUMBA!

Victor P

>Yes, the English language is alive and well. It can take the bending,folding, stapling and spindling better than most. Try some of these in other languages and in return you receive a dull glassy eyed response of non-recogonition. "Hanging chad" is a term that comes to mind. Try that one in Spanish.

Victor - 5 inches of rain and more on the way.

Re: I feel like a RHUMBA!

Thom D

>If one is filing, I would tend to refer to that as filing or milling. Certainly not machining.

Um, I was teasing

Bill Houghton, finally Spring? in Sebastopol, CA

>but it is an interesting point that the English language tends to spin off meanings. "Machining," which I assume originally meant shaping material by means of a machine, has come to mean the precise shaping of a material as opposed to the try-and-cut methods more common with handtools.

Re: Comments (long and gratuitous)

Michael Brady

>Actually this kind of arrangement is very common here in the States; except we don't call them "reviews". I think the term would be "infomercial". I personally feel that the very thorough and informative effort by the reviewer is unfortuately tainted by the fact that the tools reviewed (and highly praised)are gifts. The offhand treatment of an obvious contender, an L-N smoothing plane, reflects the probability that a gratis plane was not forthcoming from Warren, ME. Fortunately for Mr. Marcou, his plane speaks for itself. Derek Cohen needs to realize that when you take on the mantle of reviewer, you become the subject of reviews yourself.

You Mean

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>I am not the only one who feels this isn't quite right.

Always wondered why we never see reviews of the LN's Derek owns or purchased whereas we see many LV reviews which I can only asume are gifts for doing the review

It is too bad that the only plane which was not a gift was left out of the review (LN 4.5)

Cheers

Dan Clermont

Hence 12,800 Google hits for "hand machined".

David Barnett - SW Florida

>Yeah, I know. And I was having a bit of middle-of-the-night fun at Derek's expense*.

It would seem that 'hand machining' now has considerable cachet, if not so much for elevated workmanship-of-risk as for the demanding combination of knowledge, skills and equipment. I think it's high time, too. Although I haven't moved to air-powered engraving and stone setting yet, I consider work done with one to be hand engraving, and the same for certain finessed operations on a Foredom. I know, I know. Bzzzzzz... the march of electrons. But there's plenty of W-O-R to go around. I guess I've migrated to thinking that little motorized tools that require excellent motor skills are handtools, too. I'm sure I've logged more miles on my LV Taig than almost all my other power tools put together -- it's a great handtool-making machine, btw -- and I use gravers freehand on the most delicate turnings and it sure FEELS like a handtool.

*And a much-deserved one-gun salute for all that tool porn, Derek!

Re: Um, I was teasing

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>When I think of machining, I include all processes that start with a block of solid metal and cut off bits of it with sharp tools. Machining does not include forging, where you heat metal to a more flexible state and push it around with blunt instruments. It does not include casting, where you heat the metal to a liquid state and pour the molten metal into a form and wait for it to harden. It does not include bending metal on a brake. It does not include hardening, tempering and annealing, which change the crystaline structure. It does not include hot or cold rolling. It does not include welding, or soldering, or brazing. It does not include refining or alloying, or case hardening.

Whether electrons or muscle cells die in the process of powering the changes in the metal is not what is important.

That's how I see it. Of course, there are other processes used to change metals that I have not mentioned, and the processes I have mentioned intergrade to a certain extent into each other. For example, where do you put the process of cutting it with a high pressure water jet, with or without an abrasive, or with a laser?

Disappointed, Me Too...

Dave Thompson

>Like the others, I enjoyed the tool porn and seeing the photos of the production process. I guess I also have Marcou to thank for paying you with a $2000 plane that I might benefit from the tool porn.

I agree with others that it's a pity you included references to the LN. Given your earlier thread last week that presumed issues with LN only to find out that it was actually your sharpening technique, I would have thought you might have left that alone. The explanation given in that earlier thread seemed so implausible, that repeating such speculation in such a fine review seems tantamount to slander.

Perhaps some hardness testing would support the assertion that your blade is significantly softer in the middle than the sides. Failing that, how about trying the replacement blade that LN is sending you before posting the review? Given that it was only a week ago that you even considered this, it doesn't sounds like you gave LN much of a chance to get a replacement to you.

Really, what's the benefit to a reader of mentioning a Clifton blade in an LN? It's been my experience that LN always satisfies any reported issue whether true or false, so the use case is unreal to begin with. The frankinplane configuration only serves to dis LN, and adds to the smell of bias in this infomercial.

Feeling a little fiesty tonight...

Dave

Re: You Mean

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Ah, come on guys, this is how it's done almost everywhere, possibly excepting staff rag writers now and then. Writing a full review is a lot of work. Now if magazines started paying what it cost to write these reviews, you'd have a much better case.

Pam

Re: You Mean

Dave Thompson

>True, it's the real world. It might be idealistic to expect people with enough time on their hands and altruistic enough to produce an unbiased unpaid review of this quality. Though it does happen as evidenced by the many nice Articles & Reviews in WoodCentral. A prefix like "Paid Infomercial:..." would be appreciated, and give the unwary a heads up. Ellis should be getting a cut too for hosting the add....

Re: You Mean

Thom D

>I've been down that road, and they give it to you no strings attached in my experience. Does it bias you, of course. Bias is the obvious starting point of any writing.

Does wanting to review infill planes 'cause you like them, make you biased. That might be a more potent source in my opinion.

What maters in life is what you do with the bias. Bias is a given.

What if you really want the product badly, know it's smashing and are just trying to move it to your side of the table? What kind of review is appropriate in that targeted approach?

That said, part of the reason they let you have it is because, all told, it probably is pretty cost neutral by the time comunication, postage, and restocking are considered. A 2000 dollar plane is pretty rich pickings, but then the photos and lay-out are pretty good too. You can say you hate the plane, if the photos are good enough it may not mater. Same also about the quality of the "scientific" research included.

Re: Poor advert

paul womack

>I'd like to think that Derek's command of language is good enough that if he'd wanted to advertise the plane in return for a freebie, he wouldn't haven't written a review I feel justified in summarising as:

"It's a wonderfully made plane, but the LV BUS works damn near as well for a quarter the price".

BugBear

In reply .. *LINK*

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>Like the others, I enjoyed the tool porn and seeing the photos of the production process. I guess I also have Marcou to thank for paying you with a $2000 plane that I might benefit from the tool porn.

Well Dave, you really are in a grouchy mood today. Sat on something sharp, did you? Your attitude is quite offensive really, but we shall put that aside while I try and respond to your points.

First off, I should have been clearer about the price - it is about $2000 New Zealand money... about $1300 USD?

I agree with others that it's a pity you included references to the LN. Given your earlier thread last week that presumed issues with LN only to find out that it was actually your sharpening technique, I would have thought you might have left that alone. The explanation given in that earlier thread seemed so implausible, that repeating such speculation in such a fine review seems tantamount to slander.

If the thread you refer to had not faded out, giving the impression, that either no one cared to discuss the points further, or that my comments were accepted, then I would have posted a lot more information. There was a great deal more discussed on the UK form, link below.

From my side, as the discussion continued, I was increasingly concerned that it was moving far beyond my original request for help identifying a problem, and that it might reflect negatively on LN. I was in communication with Thomas L-N, and shared these concerns. He offered to replace the iron sight unseen. Thomas is one of the great gentlemen of woodworking, and I felt quite distressed about all the hoopla.

I would have liked to have included the full LN in the test, but there was a time limit. Don't forget I had a borrowed #4 1/2 plane. The owner did want it back, and he took a lot of persuading to allow me to hold onto it longer, also agreeing that LN send the replacement iron to me, so that I can do a report on the #4 1/2 vs BUS smoothers. This is going to happen. I am quite excited about this since I have not read a review of one. Further, the original iron is on its way back to LN. I, too, only want the truth, not insinuation. This was a rogue iron and I have repeatedly said so.

Really, what's the benefit to a reader of mentioning a Clifton blade in an LN? It's been my experience that LN always satisfies any reported issue whether true or false, so the use case is unreal to begin with. The frankinplane configuration only serves to dis LN, and adds to the smell of bias in this infomercial.

We all know that the Clifton is an excellent iron, and whether it is that different from the LN is a moot point. The aim in the review was to establish a "minimum" set of criteria that the Marcou had to meet. You and I know that no one is going to buy this plane on performance alone. They are going to do so because they like its looks and because it also performs well. Again, I thought that I had made my standpoint about LN very clear - or would you have prefered me to have used the original iron as is and reported on that?

See the UK site for the thread there.

Regards from Perth

Derek


LN iron discussion at UK Forum

"Soft" spots in maple

Angus Barclay, in New Zealand

>My experience with tearout on maple mirrors Derek's experience.

In the project currently under way, I've used WW2 era US made Stanley #4 1/2 and a #3 smoothers with tight mouths and freshly sharpened blades (honed with an 8000 King stone LV Mk2 guide and the Charlesworth ruler trick) and I still got small areas of tearout. I don't own a vast collection of handplanes (despite what SWMBO beleives) so resorted to the trusty old #80 scraper.

Maybe the maple at this end of the world is a poorer grade compared with that from the North American continent. Or maybe standing south of the equator promotes tearout!

regards

Angus Barclay