Greetings,
A few days ago, there was a thread regarding the most recent issue of
FWW containing a review of 8" jointers. The OP expressed some surprise
that Grizzly won top honors. This led to a discussion in which I
chimed in to the effect that I was also somewhat surprised, that
Grizzly makes some real good stuff and that they often are recognized
as a top value, but not so often as the top machine, and that I was not
being critical in saying so, nor did I find it surprising given that
their machines are often much less money than the competition.
I asked whether anyone knew whether FWW purchased their test machines
anonymously, so that they obtained a random sample, or whether they in
fact identified themselves when they procured tools for
testing/comparison. The point being, I felt, that most manufacturers
are capable of producing nice flat jointer beds, but any manufacturer
is also capable of producing the occasional pretzel-shaped jointer bed,
and, it seemed to me, that the jointer going out to say, FWW for their
jointer test might get a slightly more careful going over by the QC
people than the one going to say, me.
Nobody really knew,so I volunteered to put the question to the Powers
that Be at FWW and report back. Today I received a response from Andy
Engel at FWW. I've reproduced most of my question and the response
below. My question is edited so as not to bore the s**t out of those
of you who are still awake. The response is edited at the request of
FWW, who requested that I simply omit the identity of the specific
brand which does not loan tools for testing. That identity doesn't
matter anyway, since the main point is that Yes, FWW does identify
themselves when procuring equipment for testing.
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:30 PM
To: FW Editorial Mailbox
Subject: Question about a past issue
Greetings:
Re your latest issue containing the review of 8" jointers. I was
somewhat surprised to see the Grizzley win the top slot... (snippage)
I've rarely seen
them take top honors for flatness of castings, for example, or fit and
finish... How does FWW procure the equipment it uses for tests and
comparisons? Is it via an "anonymous" purchase, or do you make no
effort to conceal your identity and the purpose of your purchase? In
fact, is it even a purchase, or do you simply ask the manufacturer to
loan a machine
for this purpose?
(snippage)... I've subscribed for about six years, but I don't ever
recall reading any
sort of explanation of how these tests are conducted with respect to
this issue. A clarification of this point would be appreciated I
suspect
by many readers.
RESPONSE:
Interesting question. *********** will not loan tools, although most
other manufacturers do so. So, ***************** was a purchase,
while the other machines in the test were loaners. To answer your
broader question, we are somewhat concerned that manufacturers might
send ringers for tool tests. Given the number of lemons we've gotten
from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.
Andy Engel
The Davenport's wrote:
> >
> > Interesting question. *********** will not loan tools, although most
> > other manufacturers do so. So, ***************** was a purchase,
> > while the other machines in the test were loaners. To answer your
> > broader question, we are somewhat concerned that manufacturers might
> > send ringers for tool tests. Given the number of lemons we've gotten
> > from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.
> >
> > Andy Engel
> >
>
> I find that sorta scary...not that the mag would get lemons, but that they'd
> get lemons when the manufacturer KNOWS that the machine is going for a
> review!
>
> If it was me, I'd like to think that I wouldn't send a souped up machine,
> but that I'd at least have it checked out pretty well before shipping.
>
I can attest to the fact that lemons arrive for testing. In the early
days of several companies, there was about a 50-50 chance of getting
such a machine. Today, the likelihood is down in the neighborhood of my
chances of winning the Mega Million jackpot tomorrow evening.
What you get, 99 times out of 100, is a crate straight from the
manufacturer in whatever country, unopened since the last nail or
staple was driven. You can generally figure such a tool is a stock
unit. I have had distributors tell me they need a week extra to
'tune-up' tools, usually small tools (routers, etc.). I sometimes
wonder if the new age sellers of larger machinery have anyone on this
side of the Pacific who can actully do a decent tune-up of the tools
anyway. If they do, they're occupied elsewhere.
Upscale wrote:
> "Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > I can attest to the fact that lemons arrive for testing. In the early
> > days of several companies, there was about a 50-50 chance of getting
> > such a machine. Today, the likelihood is down in the neighborhood of my
> > chances of winning the Mega Million jackpot tomorrow evening.
>
> Hey Charlie, I show your posting time on this message as being 5:44. I
> usually see messages from you about this time. Do you always get up this
> early or are you more prone to staying up really late?
>
> Passed my 50th birthday a little more than a year ago. I've found that I
> don't sleep as much as I used to. Either that or I'm just too stupid to
> climb into bed and get to it. Hope it doesn't get too much worse as I get
> older or I'm in big trouble, because I'm a s.o.b. when I don't get enough.
> (sleep or sex) Which probably accounts for my miserable attitude most of the
> time. :)
Yes, well...I promise, I wasn't staying up late. Seldom happens. I get
to 10:30 about once a month. I'm usually in the sack shortly after 9,
up around 4. After all, I do live in the country and don't watch much
TV, so when I reach a stopping point in a book I'm reading, I go to
bed.
Works for me. Others hate it (I used to come HOME at this time..drink,
dance and generally fool around, then stop and have breakfast on the
road home).
There's a very interesting thread at the Sawmill Creek forum on this
topic, and interestingly enough the president of Grizzly is an active
participant, with quite interesting comments about his relationship
with FWW. He confirmed FWW must have purchased, and also said he knew
nothing about the test in advance. He was surprised, given his past
dealings with FWW, that THEY would choose a Griz machine as best, but
not surprised that it was... :-) .... Go take a peek, long thread,
interesting (and on topic) reading. Mutt
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=25821
Swingman wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps it is an ego thing where the manufacturer actually thinks every
> > product they make is perfect, so no need to check. I do know that when we
> > send samples to a trade show, they are taken from regular production
> > inventory, but each piece is looked over first. The best of companies can
> > make a lemon.
>
> In this the age of the MBA, it may likely be more arrogance than ego,
> closely followed by clueless.
The perfect twins: clueless and arrogant. It may be a requirement for
graduation with an MBA.
[email protected] said:
>Greetings,
>
>A few days ago, there was a thread regarding the most recent issue of
>FWW containing a review of 8" jointers. The OP expressed some surprise
>that Grizzly won top honors. This led to a discussion in which I
<snip>
>RESPONSE:
>
>Interesting question. *********** will not loan tools, although most
>other manufacturers do so. So, ***************** was a purchase,
>while the other machines in the test were loaners. To answer your
>broader question, we are somewhat concerned that manufacturers might
>send ringers for tool tests. Given the number of lemons we've gotten
>from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.
Thanks, Andy, for doing the leg work on this.
That was interesting, On Topic, and I've often wondered about this
very issue. ( I have a suspicious mind.)
Greg G.
I oughta do some snipping here, but I won't...
> Greetings,
>
> A few days ago, there was a thread regarding the most recent issue of
> FWW containing a review of 8" jointers. The OP expressed some surprise
> that Grizzly won top honors. This led to a discussion in which I
> chimed in to the effect that I was also somewhat surprised, that
> Grizzly makes some real good stuff and that they often are recognized
> as a top value, but not so often as the top machine, and that I was not
> being critical in saying so, nor did I find it surprising given that
> their machines are often much less money than the competition.
>
> I asked whether anyone knew whether FWW purchased their test machines
> anonymously, so that they obtained a random sample, or whether they in
> fact identified themselves when they procured tools for
> testing/comparison. The point being, I felt, that most manufacturers
> are capable of producing nice flat jointer beds, but any manufacturer
> is also capable of producing the occasional pretzel-shaped jointer bed,
> and, it seemed to me, that the jointer going out to say, FWW for their
> jointer test might get a slightly more careful going over by the QC
> people than the one going to say, me.
>
> Nobody really knew,so I volunteered to put the question to the Powers
> that Be at FWW and report back. Today I received a response from Andy
> Engel at FWW. I've reproduced most of my question and the response
> below. My question is edited so as not to bore the s**t out of those
> of you who are still awake. The response is edited at the request of
> FWW, who requested that I simply omit the identity of the specific
> brand which does not loan tools for testing. That identity doesn't
> matter anyway, since the main point is that Yes, FWW does identify
> themselves when procuring equipment for testing.
>
>
>
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:30 PM
> To: FW Editorial Mailbox
> Subject: Question about a past issue
>
> Greetings:
> Re your latest issue containing the review of 8" jointers. I was
> somewhat surprised to see the Grizzley win the top slot... (snippage)
> I've rarely seen
> them take top honors for flatness of castings, for example, or fit and
> finish... How does FWW procure the equipment it uses for tests and
> comparisons? Is it via an "anonymous" purchase, or do you make no
> effort to conceal your identity and the purpose of your purchase? In
> fact, is it even a purchase, or do you simply ask the manufacturer to
> loan a machine
> for this purpose?
> (snippage)... I've subscribed for about six years, but I don't ever
> recall reading any
> sort of explanation of how these tests are conducted with respect to
> this issue. A clarification of this point would be appreciated I
> suspect
> by many readers.
>
> RESPONSE:
>
> Interesting question. *********** will not loan tools, although most
> other manufacturers do so. So, ***************** was a purchase,
> while the other machines in the test were loaners. To answer your
> broader question, we are somewhat concerned that manufacturers might
> send ringers for tool tests. Given the number of lemons we've gotten
> from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.
>
> Andy Engel
>
I find that sorta scary...not that the mag would get lemons, but that they'd
get lemons when the manufacturer KNOWS that the machine is going for a
review!
If it was me, I'd like to think that I wouldn't send a souped up machine,
but that I'd at least have it checked out pretty well before shipping.
Just a thought...
Mike
"Charlie Self" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I can attest to the fact that lemons arrive for testing. In the early
> days of several companies, there was about a 50-50 chance of getting
> such a machine. Today, the likelihood is down in the neighborhood of my
> chances of winning the Mega Million jackpot tomorrow evening.
Hey Charlie, I show your posting time on this message as being 5:44. I
usually see messages from you about this time. Do you always get up this
early or are you more prone to staying up really late?
Passed my 50th birthday a little more than a year ago. I've found that I
don't sleep as much as I used to. Either that or I'm just too stupid to
climb into bed and get to it. Hope it doesn't get too much worse as I get
older or I'm in big trouble, because I'm a s.o.b. when I don't get enough.
(sleep or sex) Which probably accounts for my miserable attitude most of the
time. :)
And I suspect it's because the manufacturers don't send a brand
new machine to every single reviewer and show. The demo models
can get pretty beat up.
[email protected] wrote:
> RESPONSE:
>
> Interesting question. *********** will not loan tools, although most
> other manufacturers do so. So, ***************** was a purchase,
> while the other machines in the test were loaners. To answer your
> broader question, we are somewhat concerned that manufacturers might
> send ringers for tool tests. Given the number of lemons we've gotten
> from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.
>
> Andy Engel
>
"The Davenport's" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I find that sorta scary...not that the mag would get lemons, but that
> they'd get lemons when the manufacturer KNOWS that the machine is going
> for a review!
>
> If it was me, I'd like to think that I wouldn't send a souped up machine,
> but that I'd at least have it checked out pretty well before shipping.
>
> Just a thought...
Actually, a good thought, Mike.
Perhaps it is an ego thing where the manufacturer actually thinks every
product they make is perfect, so no need to check. I do know that when we
send samples to a trade show, they are taken from regular production
inventory, but each piece is looked over first. The best of companies can
make a lemon.
Edwin Pawlowski said:
>"The Davenport's" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> I find that sorta scary...not that the mag would get lemons, but that
>> they'd get lemons when the manufacturer KNOWS that the machine is going
>> for a review!
>>
>> If it was me, I'd like to think that I wouldn't send a souped up machine,
>> but that I'd at least have it checked out pretty well before shipping.
>>
>> Just a thought...
>
>Actually, a good thought, Mike.
>
>Perhaps it is an ego thing where the manufacturer actually thinks every
>product they make is perfect, so no need to check. I do know that when we
>send samples to a trade show, they are taken from regular production
>inventory, but each piece is looked over first. The best of companies can
>make a lemon.
I believe you make a valid observation on the ego thing - at least as
it concerns woodworking machinery manufacturers and a few others.
They apparently don't hold a candle to the computer industry, where
review items often get tweaked to perform in benchmarks, sometime at
the expense of real-world performance.
And very red faces when they're called on it.
A lemon... Or two...
Greg G.
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
> "The Davenport's" wrote in message
> > If it was me, I'd like to think that I wouldn't send a souped up
machine,
> > but that I'd at least have it checked out pretty well before shipping.
> >
> > Just a thought...
>
> Actually, a good thought, Mike.
>
> Perhaps it is an ego thing where the manufacturer actually thinks every
> product they make is perfect, so no need to check. I do know that when we
> send samples to a trade show, they are taken from regular production
> inventory, but each piece is looked over first. The best of companies can
> make a lemon.
In this the age of the MBA, it may likely be more arrogance than ego,
closely followed by clueless.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/05
This all reveals quite a bit about the current state of play in the
woodworking machinery field. If a company does not concern itself with a
thorough pre-shipping inspection of a unit to be evaluated by a national
magazine, one can't help but wonder what sort of pre-shipping inspection
befalls purchases by anonymous customers.
Perhaps this is the way business must be conducted today to compete on
price. I recall the early days of semiconductor manufacturing when
barrels of untested transistors could be bought quite cheaply but if you
wanted them tested, the price rose several fold. It would be interesting
to see a company like Grizzly offer a pre-assembled (and then
unassembled) and tested product at a higher price as an alternative to
the roulette game we have come to know.
It is also difficult to believe magazines don't extend some form of
special consideration to their regular advertisers. But on the other
hand, if the manufacturers don't bother, maybe the magazines don't either.
Chuck
Pig wrote:
> There's a very interesting thread at the Sawmill Creek forum on this
> topic, and interestingly enough the president of Grizzly is an active
> participant, with quite interesting comments about his relationship
> with FWW. He confirmed FWW must have purchased, and also said he knew
> nothing about the test in advance. He was surprised, given his past
> dealings with FWW, that THEY would choose a Griz machine as best, but
> not surprised that it was... :-) .... Go take a peek, long thread,
> interesting (and on topic) reading. Mutt
>
> http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=25821
>
Pig said:
>There's a very interesting thread at the Sawmill Creek forum on this
>topic, and interestingly enough the president of Grizzly is an active
>participant, with quite interesting comments about his relationship
>with FWW. He confirmed FWW must have purchased, and also said he knew
>nothing about the test in advance. He was surprised, given his past
>dealings with FWW, that THEY would choose a Griz machine as best, but
>not surprised that it was... :-) .... Go take a peek, long thread,
>interesting (and on topic) reading. Mutt
>
>http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=25821
Could it be that FWW is trolling for advertising dollars?
Perhaps to replace other, more inconsistent pocketbooks.
FWIW,
Greg G.
[email protected] wrote:
> Given the number of lemons we've gotten
> from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.
Now I know why so many of these companies have financial trouble. <G>
I know that if _I_ were sending an item for review, I would make sure I
was putting my best foot forward.
Barry