TiteBond Responce from Headquarters

A typical marketting oriented response devoid of detail or specfics. I
wonder how long until they withdraw their advertising dollars from Wood
Magazine.

Brian.


"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
> Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine
> glue test. I also responded to his email that "some of us" were concerned
> about the actual differences or advantages of TB3 over TB2. I requested
an
> explanation of how or why TB3 is labeled Water Proof when the Common
> Knowledge Definition of Water Proof is so vastly different. I will share
> those answers when they come.
>
> Mr. Bridges,
>
> Thank you for your note on Friday regarding the Wood Magazine article on
> wood glues. We first viewed the information Friday afternoon, and we as
an
> organization are shocked, disappointed and concerned about the results
> contained in this article. Although I cannot get into the specifics right
> now, we have communicated our feelings to the appropriate personnel and
plan
> to pursue a very aggressive action plan to refute the results and ensure
> that all woodworkers know the capabilities of not only Titebond III, but
all
> of our woodworking glues.
>
> Titebond is the preferred brand of professionals more than 3 to 1 over our
> leading competitor, and this is due to performance, reliability and
> consistency over a 70-year period. We perform 3rd party, independent
> testing on all of our products, and our wood glues have continually
> outperformed all other competitors...Titebond III passed Type I
> water-resistance and many of the polyurethanes did NOT pass the same test.
> In addition, ASTM standard testing continually indicates our products to
> have much higher strength numbers. How did the article reach their final
> results? We are not sure...but we are going to find out.
>
> In contrast to this article, Titebond III has received excellent reviews
> from other woodworking publications, and initial sales (as well as repeat
> use) is as strong as we have seen with any Titebond product. Again,
thanks
> for your interest...if you have any additional questions, please forward
> them to my attention.
>
> Craig Stone
> Director of Marketing
> Franklin International (Titebond)
> 800-877-4583
>
>

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 06:06:25 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>On 12 Jul 2004 22:19:32 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:
>
>Did you stop to consider that TiteBond III isn't ready for prime time but they
>released the product anyway.
>There was a lot of money spent advertising TB III before it was even in the
>bottle.
>
>Maybe they decided to take a page from software developers and release a
>defective product hoping to fix the formula before anyone noticed.
>

do you have a basis for saying that other than the pleasure of hearing
yourself spout?

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'm sure they would not try to print that they meet certain standards with
> no basis in fact. The liability would be far too high to ever think about
> doing that.
> Ed
>
>

The ANSI standards is a board consisting of industry companies writing the
standards in which they create products that adhere to those standards. It
is a nonprofit that gets all of its funding from all of the 100 dollar
reports and member dues. It doesn't mean Sh&% to the consumer unless you are
a gullible moron. there is nothing on ANSI.org geared for the consumer. Try
doing a search. It is just a bunch of hogwash they use.

Franklin is trying to redefine the word for waterproof. Would you buy a pair
of waterproof hip waders for fly fishing if you couldn't immerse the in
water for more than 20 minutes?

In the software world there is always jockeying over the standards and what
constitutes them. In the electronics world it is the same. A perfect example
of standards today's is DVD's. It is an absolute cluster on how many
different standards there are. Utterly confusing when picking out DVD media.

The standards for Glue is absolute Bull. It either works or it doesn't. I
have both TBII and Elmer's and I really don't give a hoot. If Wood Magazine
has exposed TB for what they are worth that is great. Isn't that what you
want from the magazine? to Give you fair and unbiased information?

Rich

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:26:49 -0700, Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
> A typical marketting oriented response devoid of detail or specfics. I
> wonder how long until they withdraw their advertising dollars from Wood
> Magazine.

Isn't Titebond the company whose employee was here a month or two
ago posing as a college student doing research, while not mentioning
they were also an employee of Titebond?

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:12:12 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Isn't Titebond the company whose employee was here a month or two
>>ago posing as a college student doing research, while not mentioning
>>they were also an employee of Titebond?
>>
> Well, the company is Franklin International, actually, and Titebond is the
> name of the product -- but yeah, it's the same outfit.

I sense a disturbing trend.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:58:27 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "RKON" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >
>>
>> The ANSI standards is a board consisting of industry companies writing the
>> standards in which they create products that adhere to those standards.
>
> It may be hogwash, but it is a standard and a common ground for comparisons.

The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? I think that's
the point), my question is - how touchy is this product that an experienced
woodworking outfit such as Wood magazine can use it wrong, such that it's
not going to perform right? If the process for using it is substantionally
different than other glues, maybe they need to do some more R&D before
releasing the product.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:02:56 GMT, NoOne N Particular <[email protected]> wrote:
> Don't you mean Ford PINTO? LOL

No, the Firestone tires on the Ford Explorer, in combination, caused
more than a few major accidents. The odd thing is that those tires are
fine on other vehicles, and other tires are fine on that vehicle,
or so we've been asked to believe.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:52:27 -0500, Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
>> magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? I think that's
>> the point), my question is - how touchy is this product

> Apparently, Wood's problem is in reading the directions. The bottle says it
> is not mean for continuous submersion. Is there something unclear about
> that?

How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous submersion",
exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
able to do something it can't.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:15:44 -0500, Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous
> submersion",
>> exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
>> able to do something it can't.
>
> Why don't you read the relavant ASTM/ANSI standard and get back to me?

I'm not taking an attitude here, Todd, so why are you?

> This
> appears to be a case where the common-sense understanding and the technical
> meaning of a word in a specific context are at odds.

OK, so it depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is, then?

> Most likely, you
> should take your complaint to the relavant standards subcommittee rather
> than berating Franklin for following a standard which they may or may not
> have had a hand in writing.

Standards aside, if someone claims their product is waterproof, or
unbreakable, or non-staining, or "transparent when cured", or whatever,
then it damn well ought to be waterproof, unbreakable, non-staining,
or transparent when cured, not "Transparent when cured as defined by
a standard which defines 'transparent' to be something other than
transparent, and 'cured' to be defined as cured in specific, unusual
laboratory conditions". If they claim it's waterproof, but that it can't
be put in water, then it's not waterproof. "Well, it's water _resistant_",
fine, but don't say something is waterproof* and have the disclaimer on
the back somewhere saying "* Not for continuous exposure to water", 'cuz
that ain't waterproof.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:25:54 GMT, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Look...I don't own stock in Franklin, so I don't really have a stake in
> the
>> outcome of a test. It's just that as an engineer, I want a test to be
>> representative of the conditions that the product is designed to be
> applied >> in.
>
> I can certainly understand your point of view. But engineers are not a
> majority of the population that will be using TB3. For the rest of us, let
> the label say what it really stands for.

Ahem. Engineers aren't real keen on marketing people redefining
words with established definitions either.

> With the Mad Cow desease some people in the USA may want to insure where
> their beef is coming from. The labeling on the hamburger meat sold in the
> grocery store says pure 100% American grown beef.
>
> The fact that it was grown in Chili, South America does not make the lable
> wrong but it certainly does not imply that it was NOT grown in the USA.

Great example of this sort of a tactic.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:31:10 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>> how touchy is this product that an
> experienced
>> woodworking outfit such as Wood magazine can use it wrong, such that it's
>> not going to perform right?
>
> Did you read the article and see how it was tested?

Not yet, probably tonight.

> Not a question of being
> touchy, it was put to a test it was not intended to be used.

OK, ...

> OK let's compare a Bradley tank and a Chevy. The auto editor takes the
> Chevy to the woods and bashes into a tree. He then declares it no good
> because it cannot take down the tree.

More to the point, the Chevy is called the Chevy Treecutter, but buried
in the owners manual is a statement "Not to be used for taking down trees".

> Same as the Chevy is not made for or intended for knocking over trees,
> Titebond is not designed to be used submerged. You think that more R & D is
> going to get that Chevy to be capable of knocking down trees?

No, I think they shouldn't call it the Chevy Treecutter.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:19:45 -0700, Tim Douglass <[email protected]> wrote:
> I guess the question that leaps out at me is what do you call a glue
> that is actually *waterproof*, that is, usable for continuous
> submersion? I've only ever seen glues labeled as "water resistant" or
> "water proof" I don't recall anything beyond that. So how do you
> differentiate between the "waterproof" glue that is not appropriate
> for continuous submersion and the "waterproof" glue that is?

Sums up my point better than I have. Thanks, Tim, for putting it so
clearly.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:04:56 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>
>> There are quite a few older craftsmen that will tell you that Titebond products
>> just don't measure up in this regard.
>
>Meaningless. "There are quite a few older [fill in the blank] that will
>tell you that [fill in the blank] products just don't measure up..."
>works with almost anything you care to put in the blanks.
>>
>> Why do you think I had 3/4 of a gallon of the stuff 18 months old.
>> I've never had a problem with it but I distrust the company and have heard
>> enough negative comments that I stopped using it.
>
>So the product always worked fine for you -- but you stopped using it
>because other people said they didn't like it.
>
>How much sense does *that* make?

I consider one of the people who told me this to be the finest craftsman I've
ever met. I trust his opinion more than anyone else in the world.
I trust him to tell me the truth with no bullshit or personal bias.
I trust him with my life.
He's my dad.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:17:04 -0700, Tim Douglass
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:13:56 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>In this case, even though it failed at a fairly low psi, it is perhaps more
>>than I'd need anyway. Wood Magazine did not bother to tell us that.
>
>This whole debate does beg another question - now that I've gotten my
>copy of the review read - just how strong does glue need to be for
>holding stuff together? What is the force in terms of a 3/4" edge
>glued table top that hangs over 8" when you put a stack of textbooks
>on it? The PSI figures make for great comparisons, but I would like to
>know how to relate that to the real world.
>
>Tim Douglass
>
>http://www.DouglassClan.com


it needs to be a little stronger than the wood.

elmer's white glue is plenty strong- and it has more open time than
any of the yellow glues, for those situations where you have a complex
assembly that won't see wet service.

Don't you mean Ford PINTO? LOL


>>>>>>>>> Huge snippage <<<<<<<<<<<<<
If you believe everything a corporation has to spew on you
> then I have some Enron stock to sell you, Firestone Tires for your Ford
> Explorer, or some swamp land in Louisiana. >

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
> > Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood
Magazine
> > glue test.
> (snip)
>
> Seems like an entirely reasonable response. I'm an engineer myself,
> and I've seen many examples where it is easy to unintentionally skew
> an experiment and come up with flawed test data. It's possible that
> is what happened in the Wood test.
>
> Remember, the people that make Titebond are not likely to be amateurs
> in test methods. It's likely that they are more competent in running
> controlled tests than are the folks at Wood Magazine.

Also an engineer (a PE even...at least in my previous non-IT life), and all
I can say is that people aren't just sitting on ASTM standards subcommittees
because they enjoy the company of other engineers. They create meaningful
tests that are designed to test products in real-world conditions. That
way, you don't end up with some cockamamie (sp? you get the idea) test that
doesn't end up proving anything other than someone doesn't know how to
design a test that means something.

todd

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> This morning I received an e-mail form Craig Stone and I have extended an
> invitation to him or a company representative to participate in the group.

I'm in... Do you have the email for Mr. Stone?

There was also Firestone tire problems in the days of the Pinto. Self
destructing tires and impact explosive gas tank.

Wayne

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:02:56 GMT, NoOne N Particular
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Don't you mean Ford PINTO? LOL
>
> No, the Firestone tires on the Ford Explorer, in combination, caused
> more than a few major accidents. The odd thing is that those tires are
> fine on other vehicles, and other tires are fine on that vehicle,
> or so we've been asked to believe.
>

LOL

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
> Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine
> glue test.
(snip)

Seems like an entirely reasonable response. I'm an engineer myself,
and I've seen many examples where it is easy to unintentionally skew
an experiment and come up with flawed test data. It's possible that
is what happened in the Wood test.

Remember, the people that make Titebond are not likely to be amateurs
in test methods. It's likely that they are more competent in running
controlled tests than are the folks at Wood Magazine.

Perhaps you should forward that question on to Mr. Stone.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving


"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> LOL
>
>

Yeah Mike Mr. Stone has been very helpful and I believe that this is a good
product. Its just that labeling seems to be trying to reach out there and
grab you, as well it should, but maybe cutting it a bit too close.

On 12 Jul 2004 20:08:31 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:26:49 -0700, Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A typical marketting oriented response devoid of detail or specfics. I
>> wonder how long until they withdraw their advertising dollars from Wood
>> Magazine.
>
>Isn't Titebond the company whose employee was here a month or two
>ago posing as a college student doing research, while not mentioning
>they were also an employee of Titebond?


SONS OF BITCHES!!!

I vote for banishment.

JP

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
> Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine
> glue test. I also responded to his email that "some of us" were concerned
> about the actual differences or advantages of TB3 over TB2. I requested
an
> explanation of how or why TB3 is labeled Water Proof when the Common
> Knowledge Definition of Water Proof is so vastly different. I will share
> those answers when they come.

I'm looking forward to the next issue of Wood Magazine. I wonder if they
are re-doing the tests.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> that is interesting. it makes me wonder if they mixed up the samples.

Exactly. I had mentioned that may be the case in one of the first hundred
posts.. :~)

"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]....
>
> This whole debate does beg another question - now that I've gotten my
> copy of the review read - just how strong does glue need to be for
> holding stuff together? What is the force in terms of a 3/4" edge
> glued table top that hangs over 8" when you put a stack of textbooks
> on it? The PSI figures make for great comparisons, but I would like to
> know how to relate that to the real world.

Exactly,


Or...... :~) for instance how many times could your 350 lb sister in law
use the edge of the table as a place to lean on after you have boiled the
table top 2 times.

Leon wrote:

> This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
> Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine
> glue test. [snip]

Thanks for working this problem for us. The response seems to indicate
the presence of lawyers and the absence of any technical reasons as to
the ineffectiveness of the glue or the misapplication of the tests. Oh
well, perhaps there will be film at 11pm.
mahalo,
jo4hn

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:26:49 -0700, Brian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A typical marketting oriented response devoid of detail or specfics. I
>> wonder how long until they withdraw their advertising dollars from Wood
>> Magazine.
>
>Isn't Titebond the company whose employee was here a month or two
>ago posing as a college student doing research, while not mentioning
>they were also an employee of Titebond?
>
Well, the company is Franklin International, actually, and Titebond is the
name of the product -- but yeah, it's the same outfit.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

I missed this evidence of the failure of the product......

Seems like you should offer more than this below to back your comments.

Mike
Brisbane

<[email protected]> wrote in message
> There are quite a few older craftsmen that will tell you that Titebond
products
> just don't measure up in this regard.
>
> Why do you think I had 3/4 of a gallon of the stuff 18 months old.
> I've never had a problem with it but I distrust the company and have heard
> enough negative comments that I stopped using it.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
> magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? I think that's
> the point), my question is - how touchy is this product that an
experienced
> woodworking outfit such as Wood magazine can use it wrong, such that it's
> not going to perform right? If the process for using it is
substantionally
> different than other glues, maybe they need to do some more R&D before
> releasing the product.

Did you read the article and see how it was tested? Not a question of being
touchy, it was put to a test it was not intended to be used.

OK let's compare a Bradley tank and a Chevy. The auto editor takes the
Chevy to the woods and bashes into a tree. He then declares it no good
because it cannot take down the tree.

Same as the Chevy is not made for or intended for knocking over trees,
Titebond is not designed to be used submerged. You think that more R & D is
going to get that Chevy to be capable of knocking down trees?
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

What is wrong with advance advertising?

Yeah - that woudl be smart way to destroy 70 years of good will...

Mike


<[email protected]> wrote in message >
> Did you stop to consider that TiteBond III isn't ready for prime time but
they
> released the product anyway.
> There was a lot of money spent advertising TB III before it was even in
the
> bottle.
>
> Maybe they decided to take a page from software developers and release a
> defective product hoping to fix the formula before anyone noticed.
>
>

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:52:27 -0500, Todd Fatheree
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
> >> magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? I think
that's
> >> the point), my question is - how touchy is this product
>
> > Apparently, Wood's problem is in reading the directions. The bottle
says it
> > is not mean for continuous submersion. Is there something unclear about
> > that?
>
> How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous
submersion",
> exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
> able to do something it can't.

Why don't you read the relavant ASTM/ANSI standard and get back to me? This
appears to be a case where the common-sense understanding and the technical
meaning of a word in a specific context are at odds. Most likely, you
should take your complaint to the relavant standards subcommittee rather
than berating Franklin for following a standard which they may or may not
have had a hand in writing.

todd

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Why don't you read the relavant ASTM/ANSI standard and get back to me?

I think that these standards are credible and needed.

But, also IMHO Titebond could have taken the "High Road" and on its label
immediately under the words "Water Proof" added the stipulation of the
Standards. A simple "Asterick" would have been enough of a warning that
"This" Water Proof" label may not be up to an individuals Water Proof
Standards.

"RKON" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
>
> The ANSI standards is a board consisting of industry companies writing the
> standards in which they create products that adhere to those standards. It
> is a nonprofit that gets all of its funding from all of the 100 dollar
> reports and member dues.


It may be hogwash, but it is a standard and a common ground for comparisons.

>
> Franklin is trying to redefine the word for waterproof. Would you buy a
pair
> of waterproof hip waders for fly fishing if you couldn't immerse the in
> water for more than 20 minutes?

No, but I'd buy a glue that is suitable for intermittant watering because
that is the conditions I'm using it in. If it was to be submersed, I'd
either use epoxy or put in into hip wader for protection.

Franklin? They are taking advantage of an already mis-named standard. I
have no idea who came up with the terms and conditions, but I'd blame the
ANSI people and the industry representatives that puts them together. I
have no doubt that they meet the standard.


>
> The standards for Glue is absolute Bull. It either works or it doesn't. I
> have both TBII and Elmer's and I really don't give a hoot. If Wood
Magazine
> has exposed TB for what they are worth that is great. Isn't that what you
> want from the magazine? to Give you fair and unbiased information?

OK, does it work or does it not? Wood Magazine did not test according to
any published standard. What they told me was it is not so good when
submerged for 24 hours. OK, I'll buy that, but will it work for my lawn
furniture subjected to rain at times? They don't tell me that. They gave
me Bull and Hogwash, not facts that I can use to make a decision for my
particular use.

Had they done test with 1 hour, 2 hour, 3 hour, etc. exposure, I'd take it
for what it is worth. They skipped the meaningful data. That is
questionable as to bias, for sure, not at all fair. Nothing wrong with a
torture test, but let us know at what point it failed, not what point beyond
normal use it was not good.
Ed

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:58:27 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > "RKON" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >
> >>
> >> The ANSI standards is a board consisting of industry companies writing
the
> >> standards in which they create products that adhere to those standards.
> >
> > It may be hogwash, but it is a standard and a common ground for
comparisons.
>
> The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
> magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? I think that's
> the point), my question is - how touchy is this product that an
experienced
> woodworking outfit such as Wood magazine can use it wrong, such that it's
> not going to perform right? If the process for using it is
substantionally
> different than other glues, maybe they need to do some more R&D before
> releasing the product.

Apparently, Wood's problem is in reading the directions. The bottle says it
is not mean for continuous submersion. Is there something unclear about
that?

todd

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:ya-a
before anyone noticed.
>
> Well, we sure won't know with the lameass test that Wood Magazine did. I
> get the impression from the response that Franklin has done the relevant
> ASTM testing to back up their claim. Maybe the thing to do is to ask for
a
> copy of the test results.
>
> todd
>
>

A Response like this makes me realize how people get so defensive over
something they feel is the best. To me it is a sign of insecurity and the
failure to admit they may be wrong in their purchasing decision or their
favorite product. If you believe everything a corporation has to spew on you
then I have some Enron stock to sell you, Firestone Tires for your Ford
Explorer, or some swamp land in Louisiana. A perfect example of this is to
go out to Edmunds.com and look at the comments on all of the vehicles people
have bought. Everyone loves their vehicle it is the best and there is
nothing wrong with their decision. Although, the vehicle has been in the
shop 3 times to fix a weird smell from the a/c, the electronic door locks
don't work properly and etc...

What did Wood Magazine have to lose by this evaluation? What does Titebond
have tolose by the evaluation. It seems to me Titebond has more to lose.

Rich

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why don't you read the relavant ASTM/ANSI standard and get back to me?
This
> appears to be a case where the common-sense understanding and the
technical
> meaning of a word in a specific context are at odds. Most likely, you
> should take your complaint to the relavant standards subcommittee rather
> than berating Franklin for following a standard which they may or may not
> have had a hand in writing.
>
> todd
>
>
The Standards that TB adheres to is ANSI/HPVA. In my letter to TB I asked:
"Both of these organizations require purchase of a document in order to
understand what the specifications are. Please tell where I can find this
informationn free of charge."

The Response I received was: "If you go to our website www.titebond.com,
select FAQs, and then go to Woodworking Glues. Scroll down and it will
provide a "layperson" description of the two ANSI/HPVA tests. If you are
looking for the actual test method, which is cumbersome and difficult to
read, feel free to contact our Technical Support Group at 1-800-347-4583."

I did and the here is what is posted:

"What is the difference between the ANSI/HPVA Type I and Type II
water-resistance specification?
Both of these tests are conducted using 6" by 6" birch laminates glued
together to make three-ply plywood. The test for Type I is clearly more
stringent than Type II, and involves boiling the glue bonds and testing the
specimens while they are wet.

Type I testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 1" by 3"
specimens, boiling them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 145°F
oven for 20 hours. They are boiled for an additional 4 hours, then
immediately cooled using running water. The specimens are sheared while wet,
and the bonds must pass certain strength and wood failure requirements to
pass the Type I specification.

Type II testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 2" by 5"
specimens, soaking them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 120°F
oven for 19 hours. This is repeated for a total of three cycles, and the
bonds must not delaminate to pass the Type II specification."

Fair Enough.

Did anyone notice the glaring omission? It's right in front of you. This is
what Leon has been saying all along.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> There are quite a few older craftsmen that will tell you that Titebond products
> just don't measure up in this regard.

Meaningless. "There are quite a few older [fill in the blank] that will
tell you that [fill in the blank] products just don't measure up..."
works with almost anything you care to put in the blanks.
>
> Why do you think I had 3/4 of a gallon of the stuff 18 months old.
> I've never had a problem with it but I distrust the company and have heard
> enough negative comments that I stopped using it.

So the product always worked fine for you -- but you stopped using it
because other people said they didn't like it.

How much sense does *that* make?

"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I guess the question that leaps out at me is what do you call a glue
> that is actually *waterproof*, that is, usable for continuous
> submersion? I've only ever seen glues labeled as "water resistant" or
> "water proof" I don't recall anything beyond that. So how do you
> differentiate between the "waterproof" glue that is not appropriate
> for continuous submersion and the "waterproof" glue that is?


I guess that glue will be called Special Super Super Super Duper Extra Water
Proof, Now with Kryptonite.

I sent a letter this morning. They dod not address any of my concerns and
did not address my queries on what the ANSI/HPVA standards are. My bottle
of TB2 is going in the garbage. But is this response canned or what?

Good morning, thank you for your response. We defined Waterproof as
outlined in the ANSI/HPVA standardized testing, which has been the benchmark
for numerous years. It is a very tough procedure that measure the
performance of each glue tested. The vast majority (if not all)
manufacturers of polyurethane glues, construction adhesives, caulks,
sealant, etc. indicate"waterpoof", on their labeling, when they in fact are
not designed for continuous submersion or use below the waterline. (In our
case, our claims are supported by a reputable testing procedure). Simply
put, the liability is too significant for these types of applications and
oftentimes, the substrates can't be controlled sufficiently. In my office
right now, I have a dried film of Titebond II Premium Wood Glue that has
been underwater for over 11 years...the film is fine. This would support
the claim waterproof as you defined it..."Impervious to or unaffected by
water". However, it is how the substrates around the glue line react to
these conditions that could impact the overall strength and water-resistance
of the bond.

Having said this, and living the ethical standards established by our
privately-held organization for over 70 years, we absolutely stand behind
our claim of waterproof for Titebond III as defined by the aforementioned
criteria. In addition, the thousands of success stories of Titebond II over
the past 13 years, as well as the performance of Titebond III over the past
4 months lends much more credibility than a magazine article.

Please note that we are strong partners of Wood Magazine, and together we
have supported woodworking for a number of years. However, we completely
disagree with the results published in this article and will be able to
demonstrate scientifically many of the inaccuracies that we feel compromised
our performance.


Finally, I'm quite concerned about your feelings regarding our product
marketing efforts. As stated above, the ethical standards we support here
at Franklin are extremely high, which is apparent throughout the woodworking
industry as our product performance, technical support and commitment to
woodworking is clearly demonstrated throughout all the top woodworking
publications and associations. I am sorry that you question our marketing
efforts; hopefully you have a better understanding of our position and
ethical standards in comparison to industry-wide practices. We feel good
about our position, our marketing efforts and again, completely stand behind
our claims, regardless of the product.

Thanks again for your inquiry. Take care and have a great day.


"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mr. Bridges,
>
> You ask good questions, and I can easily provide answers to each of your
> issues. We defined Waterproof as outlined in the ANSI/HPVA standardized
> testing, which has been the benchmark for numerous years. It is a very
> tough procedure that measure the performance of each glue tested. The
vast
> majority (if not all) manufacturers of polyurethane glues, construction
> adhesives, caulks, sealant, etc. indicate"waterpoof", on their labeling,
> when they in fact are not designed for continuous submersion or use below
> the waterline. (In our case, our claims are supported by a reputable
testing
> procedure). Simply put, the liability is too significant for these types
of
> applications and oftentimes, the substrates can't be controlled
> sufficiently. In my office right now, I have a dried film of Titebond II
> Premium Wood Glue that has been underwater for over 11 years...the film is
> fine. However, it is how the substrates around the glue line react to
these
> conditions that could impact the overall strength and water-resistance of
> the bond.
>
> Having said this, and living the ethical standards established by our
> privately-held organization for over 70 years, we absolutely stand behind
> our claim of waterproof as defined by the aforementioned criteria. In
> addition, the thousands of success stories of Titebond II over the past 13
> years, as well as the performance of Titebond III over the past 4 months
> lends much more credibility than a magazine article. Are you a current
user
> of Titebond Wood Glues? If so, what has your experience been? It is
> incredibly rare when someone is unhappy with the performance of our
> products.
>
> Please note that we are strong partners of Wood Magazine, and together we
> have supported woodworking for a number of years. However, we completely
> disagree with the results published in this article and will be able to
> demonstrate scientifically many of the inaccuracies that we feel
compromised
> our performance.
>
> How is Titebond III superior to Titebond II?
>
> 1. Increased water-resistance according to standardized and recognized,
> third-part testing.
> 2. Approximately 400 psi stronger than Titebond II, according to
> standardized and recognized testing procedures.
> 3. Longer open time, upwards of twice as long. For years, even the most
> loyal Titebond II users have asked us for a longer setting glue. Titebond
> III takes care of this.
> 4. Titebond III is effective in temperatures down to 45 degrees, compared
> to 55 degrees for Titebond II. Less chalking potential.
>
> Finally, I'm quite concerned about your use of "hype" in reference to our
> marketing efforts. As stated above, the ethical standards we support here
> at Franklin are extremely high, which is apparent throughout the
woodworking
> industry as our product performance, technical support and commitment to
> woodworking is clearly demonstrated throughout all the top woodworking
> publications and associations. I am sorry that you question our marketing
> efforts; I simply wish you could understand our position and ethical
> standards in comparison to industry-wide practices. We feel good about
our
> position, our marketing efforts and again, completely stand behind our
> claims, regardless of the product.
>
> I appreciate your interest in this situation. Hopefully, this has been
> helpful. Take care and have a great day.
>
> P.S. Since we have taken the time to correspond with one another, could
you
> elaborate on your involvement in woodworking; the types of glues you use
and
> your experiences with these glues. I'm curious to know from what
> perspective you are approaching this situation. Thanks so much.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
>> Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine
>> glue test. I also responded to his email that "some of us" were concerned
>> about the actual differences or advantages of TB3 over TB2. I requested
>an
>> explanation of how or why TB3 is labeled Water Proof when the Common
>> Knowledge Definition of Water Proof is so vastly different. I will share
>> those answers when they come.
>
>I'm looking forward to the next issue of Wood Magazine. I wonder if they
>are re-doing the tests.

It'll be more than one issue out, if they do. 2 months is the absolute
_minimum_ lead-time for something to make it into a magazine of this type,
and space is generally assigned 4-6 months in advance.

Assuming a serious flaw/problem/issue in the testing procedure, one might
see a 'minimal' announcement of 'test results problems' 2-3 months after
publication, and a re-do of the story another 2-3 months after that.

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> >>
>> How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous
submersion",
> exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
> able to do something it can't.

Here's my take on this controversy, having NOT read the Wood review:

Waterproof means the product will not fail when subject to getting
wet. Yellow glue is not waterproof because if it gets wet it fails.
The submersion test could only be relevent to define the outside
limits of the material: obviously, 24 hours under water is too much.
It doesn't define what the useful limit is (as someone else in this
thread has pointed out). A fine point of distinction, this
"waterproof" vs. "not meant for submersion", but valid none the less.
If you must submerge your project best use epoxy. I used TB2 on an
exterior deck about a year ago to patch knot holes in old redwood, and
the stuff is still tight. Can't complain.

Dan
"I can...but I don't want to."

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:31:10 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > OK let's compare a Bradley tank and a Chevy. The auto editor takes the
> > Chevy to the woods and bashes into a tree. He then declares it no good
> > because it cannot take down the tree.
>
> More to the point, the Chevy is called the Chevy Treecutter, but buried
> in the owners manual is a statement "Not to be used for taking down trees".
>
> > Same as the Chevy is not made for or intended for knocking over trees,
> > Titebond is not designed to be used submerged. You think that more R & D is
> > going to get that Chevy to be capable of knocking down trees?


When I was in college I had a buddy who knocked down trees AND
submerged his Chevy. (Or was that an International.) It didn't look
too good, but did go where he wanted to go.
Usually...umm...sometimes...well, he'd ask me for a lift to class
occasionally...Maybe some glue woulda helped...

Dan

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:31:10 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > OK let's compare a Bradley tank and a Chevy. The auto editor takes the
> > Chevy to the woods and bashes into a tree. He then declares it no good
> > because it cannot take down the tree.
>
> More to the point, the Chevy is called the Chevy Treecutter, but buried
> in the owners manual is a statement "Not to be used for taking down trees".
>
> > Same as the Chevy is not made for or intended for knocking over trees,
> > Titebond is not designed to be used submerged. You think that more R & D is
> > going to get that Chevy to be capable of knocking down trees?


When I was in college I had a buddy who knocked down trees AND
submerged his Chevy. (Or was that an International?) It didn't look
too good, but did go where he wanted to go.
Usually...umm...sometimes...well, he'd ask me for a lift to class
occasionally...Maybe some glue woulda helped...

Dan

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 05:03:57 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
>>> Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine
>>> glue test. I also responded to his email that "some of us" were concerned
>>> about the actual differences or advantages of TB3 over TB2. I requested
>>an
>>> explanation of how or why TB3 is labeled Water Proof when the Common
>>> Knowledge Definition of Water Proof is so vastly different. I will share
>>> those answers when they come.
>>
>>I'm looking forward to the next issue of Wood Magazine. I wonder if they
>>are re-doing the tests.
>
>It'll be more than one issue out, if they do. 2 months is the absolute
>_minimum_ lead-time for something to make it into a magazine of this type,
>and space is generally assigned 4-6 months in advance.
>
>Assuming a serious flaw/problem/issue in the testing procedure, one might
>see a 'minimal' announcement of 'test results problems' 2-3 months after
>publication, and a re-do of the story another 2-3 months after that.


seems most publications have space reserved for "corrections" near
where letters to the editor are. could be a notice there.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:52:27 -0500, Todd Fatheree
<[email protected]> wrote:

> How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous
submersion",
> exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
> able to do something it can't.

Uh Huh... and,,,, most the other glues have the same stipulations and still
performed better in this particular test TB3.

[email protected] wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 06:06:25 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On 12 Jul 2004 22:19:32 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins)
>>wrote:
>>
>>Did you stop to consider that TiteBond III isn't ready for prime time but
>>they released the product anyway.
>>There was a lot of money spent advertising TB III before it was even in
>>the bottle.
>>
>>Maybe they decided to take a page from software developers and release a
>>defective product hoping to fix the formula before anyone noticed.
>>
>
> do you have a basis for saying that other than the pleasure of hearing
> yourself spout?

Some people seem to labor under the impression that "business" (including
the blind guy selling pencils on the street corner) is automatically evil
and will never do anything but lie, cheat, steal, and eat babies unless
monitored constantly by hordes of government inspectors, who we all know
are always perfectly honest and incorruptible and would never interfere
unnecessarily and are certain to be unfailingly polite.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Dan Cullimore wrote:

> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>>> >>
>>> How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous
> submersion",
>> exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
>> able to do something it can't.
>
> Here's my take on this controversy, having NOT read the Wood review:
>
> Waterproof means the product will not fail when subject to getting
> wet. Yellow glue is not waterproof because if it gets wet it fails.
> The submersion test could only be relevent to define the outside
> limits of the material: obviously, 24 hours under water is too much.
> It doesn't define what the useful limit is (as someone else in this
> thread has pointed out). A fine point of distinction, this
> "waterproof" vs. "not meant for submersion", but valid none the less.
> If you must submerge your project best use epoxy.

Actually, best use resorcinol, phenol-formaldehyde, or one of the other well
proven technologies. While epoxy is decent, its real benefit is the
variety of materials that it will bond, not its resistance to water
immersion. Water penetration of the bond line is a well known problem with
epoxy that the vendors and the aerospace and marine communities have been
battling for decades--the current stuff is better than what was available
20 years ago but it's not as good as a technology optimized specifically
for bonding wood. It doesn't happen quickly, but it does happen.

> I used TB2 on an
> exterior deck about a year ago to patch knot holes in old redwood, and
> the stuff is still tight. Can't complain.
>
> Dan
> "I can...but I don't want to."

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Tim Douglass wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:56:57 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> I guess the question that leaps out at me is what do you call a glue
>>> that is actually *waterproof*, that is, usable for continuous
>>> submersion? I've only ever seen glues labeled as "water resistant" or
>>> "water proof" I don't recall anything beyond that. So how do you
>>> differentiate between the "waterproof" glue that is not appropriate
>>> for continuous submersion and the "waterproof" glue that is?
>>
>>
>>I guess that glue will be called Special Super Super Super Duper Extra
>>Water Proof, Now with Kryptonite.
>
> Is that from the appropriate ANSI standard?
>
> Seriously, the designations of Waterproof and Water-Resistant come
> from specific standards which do not call for the ability to hold
> under continuous immersion. My quick search doesn't reveal a standard
> for a truly waterproof glue or a term for such. Maybe the ANSI people
> decided that there wasn't really any such thing and didn't create a
> standard for it.

Remember that the ANSI standard in question was prepared in conjunction with
another organization that specialized in standardization of plywood.

For truly waterproof adhesives for some purpose other than making plywood I
believe you have to go to the military specifications, and don't just
assume because something is mil-spec that it's good for a particular
purpose--there's a mil-spec for anything that the military buys--you have
to read the spec to see what it covers. Glue that is compliant with the
military specification for "defense beans" wouldn't be much good as an
adhesive for example.

> Tim Douglass
>
> http://www.DouglassClan.com

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

dave, are they miscreants?

[email protected] wrote:

> Of course this won't matter to people who spend all their free time preaching in
> a usenet news group and none in a workshop.<g>

Wood did state in the article that the water testing was beyond the limits
of the glues tested. I suspect the they may simply renounce that statement
and stick to their guns.

On 13 Jul 2004 19:01:22 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:52:27 -0500, Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
>>> magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? I think that's
>>> the point), my question is - how touchy is this product
>
>> Apparently, Wood's problem is in reading the directions. The bottle says it
>> is not mean for continuous submersion. Is there something unclear about
>> that?
>
>How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous submersion",
>exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
>able to do something it can't.

I guess the question that leaps out at me is what do you call a glue
that is actually *waterproof*, that is, usable for continuous
submersion? I've only ever seen glues labeled as "water resistant" or
"water proof" I don't recall anything beyond that. So how do you
differentiate between the "waterproof" glue that is not appropriate
for continuous submersion and the "waterproof" glue that is?

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:31:55 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Wood did state in the article that the water testing was beyond the limits
>of the glues tested. I suspect the they may simply renounce that statement
>and stick to their guns.
>
>


what, and claim that franklin claims titebond is intended for
continuous submersion? that'll do wonders for Wood Mag's
credibility....

On 12 Jul 2004 22:19:32 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins) wrote:

>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
>> Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine
>> glue test.
>(snip)
>
>Seems like an entirely reasonable response. I'm an engineer myself,
>and I've seen many examples where it is easy to unintentionally skew
>an experiment and come up with flawed test data. It's possible that
>is what happened in the Wood test.
>
>Remember, the people that make Titebond are not likely to be amateurs
>in test methods. It's likely that they are more competent in running
>controlled tests than are the folks at Wood Magazine.

Did you stop to consider that TiteBond III isn't ready for prime time but they
released the product anyway.
There was a lot of money spent advertising TB III before it was even in the
bottle.

Maybe they decided to take a page from software developers and release a
defective product hoping to fix the formula before anyone noticed.

Mr. Bridges,

You ask good questions, and I can easily provide answers to each of your
issues. We defined Waterproof as outlined in the ANSI/HPVA standardized
testing, which has been the benchmark for numerous years. It is a very
tough procedure that measure the performance of each glue tested. The vast
majority (if not all) manufacturers of polyurethane glues, construction
adhesives, caulks, sealant, etc. indicate"waterpoof", on their labeling,
when they in fact are not designed for continuous submersion or use below
the waterline. (In our case, our claims are supported by a reputable testing
procedure). Simply put, the liability is too significant for these types of
applications and oftentimes, the substrates can't be controlled
sufficiently. In my office right now, I have a dried film of Titebond II
Premium Wood Glue that has been underwater for over 11 years...the film is
fine. However, it is how the substrates around the glue line react to these
conditions that could impact the overall strength and water-resistance of
the bond.

Having said this, and living the ethical standards established by our
privately-held organization for over 70 years, we absolutely stand behind
our claim of waterproof as defined by the aforementioned criteria. In
addition, the thousands of success stories of Titebond II over the past 13
years, as well as the performance of Titebond III over the past 4 months
lends much more credibility than a magazine article. Are you a current user
of Titebond Wood Glues? If so, what has your experience been? It is
incredibly rare when someone is unhappy with the performance of our
products.

Please note that we are strong partners of Wood Magazine, and together we
have supported woodworking for a number of years. However, we completely
disagree with the results published in this article and will be able to
demonstrate scientifically many of the inaccuracies that we feel compromised
our performance.

How is Titebond III superior to Titebond II?

1. Increased water-resistance according to standardized and recognized,
third-part testing.
2. Approximately 400 psi stronger than Titebond II, according to
standardized and recognized testing procedures.
3. Longer open time, upwards of twice as long. For years, even the most
loyal Titebond II users have asked us for a longer setting glue. Titebond
III takes care of this.
4. Titebond III is effective in temperatures down to 45 degrees, compared
to 55 degrees for Titebond II. Less chalking potential.

Finally, I'm quite concerned about your use of "hype" in reference to our
marketing efforts. As stated above, the ethical standards we support here
at Franklin are extremely high, which is apparent throughout the woodworking
industry as our product performance, technical support and commitment to
woodworking is clearly demonstrated throughout all the top woodworking
publications and associations. I am sorry that you question our marketing
efforts; I simply wish you could understand our position and ethical
standards in comparison to industry-wide practices. We feel good about our
position, our marketing efforts and again, completely stand behind our
claims, regardless of the product.

I appreciate your interest in this situation. Hopefully, this has been
helpful. Take care and have a great day.

P.S. Since we have taken the time to correspond with one another, could you
elaborate on your involvement in woodworking; the types of glues you use and
your experiences with these glues. I'm curious to know from what
perspective you are approaching this situation. Thanks so much.

On 12 Jul 2004 21:20:37 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:12:12 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Isn't Titebond the company whose employee was here a month or two
>>>ago posing as a college student doing research, while not mentioning
>>>they were also an employee of Titebond?
>>>
>> Well, the company is Franklin International, actually, and Titebond is the
>> name of the product -- but yeah, it's the same outfit.
>
>I sense a disturbing trend.

Only now?
Franklin went from spending money on r&d trying to create the best glue, to
spending it's money on "A Sucker is Born Every Minute" marketing.

TiteBond III is just the tip of the iceberg.

Franklin has become a company everyone should be very wary of, especially if you
do fine work that is expected to stand the test of time.

There are quite a few older craftsmen that will tell you that Titebond products
just don't measure up in this regard.

Why do you think I had 3/4 of a gallon of the stuff 18 months old.
I've never had a problem with it but I distrust the company and have heard
enough negative comments that I stopped using it.

In the response I received back from TB on the use of waterproof on their
bottle I asked about the ANSI/HPVA tests. Where is information that I can
view without paying $75 Dollars..

The Response I received was: "If you go to our website www.titebond.com,
select FAQs, and then go to Woodworking Glues. Scroll down and it will
provide a "layperson" description of the two ANSI/HPVA tests. If you are
looking for the actual test method, which is cumbersome and difficult to
read, feel free to contact our Technical Support Group at 1-800-347-4583."

I did and the here is what is posted:

Frome website FAQ:

"What is the difference between the ANSI/HPVA Type I and Type II
water-resistance specification?"

Notice how they say Water-resistance specification. Where is the word
Waterproof???????????


answer:

"Both of these tests are conducted using 6" by 6" birch laminates glued
together to make three-ply plywood. The test for Type I is clearly more
stringent than Type II, and involves boiling the glue bonds and testing the
specimens while they are wet.

Type I testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 1" by 3"
specimens, boiling them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 145°F
oven for 20 hours. They are boiled for an additional 4 hours, then
immediately cooled using running water. The specimens are sheared while wet,
and the bonds must pass certain strength and wood failure requirements to
pass the Type I specification.

Type II testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 2" by 5"
specimens, soaking them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 120°F
oven for 19 hours. This is repeated for a total of three cycles, and the
bonds must not delaminate to pass the Type II specification."

This morning I received an e-mail form Craig Stone and I have extended an
invitation to him or a company representative to participate in the group.
If some of you would also like for them to participate, please make that
request to Titebond also so that I am not the only one they see offering the
invitation.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:31:41 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:52:27 -0500, Todd Fatheree
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous
>> submersion",
>> > exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
>> > able to do something it can't.
>>
>> Uh Huh... and,,,, most the other glues have the same stipulations and
>still
>> performed better in this particular test TB3.
>
>Look...I don't own stock in Franklin, so I don't really have a stake in the
>outcome of a test. It's just that as an engineer, I want a test to be
>representative of the conditions that the product is designed to be applied
>in. So far, all I know from the Wood test is that if I was going to
>continuously submerge a joint, TB2 would be a better choice than TB3,
>although you probably don't really want to use either. How about this? I
>know this is crazy-talk here, but why doesn't Wood just do a test that tests
>a real-world application of the product that's in line with the
>instructions?

We could be waiting many months for those results.
WOOD was trying to accelerate the adverse conditions so they could bring us a
timely report.
I think they have done their readers a great service.

Of course this won't matter to people who spend all their free time preaching in
a usenet news group and none in a workshop.<g>

Another e-mail with Mr. Stone has indicated that they don't seem to want to
change their relationship with Wood Magazine but rather they will certainly
get to the bottom of the test conclusions to see why the results were not
more favorable and he indicated that he will be issuing a response to the
test later this week.

"Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> A typical marketting oriented response devoid of detail or specfics. I
> wonder how long until they withdraw their advertising dollars from Wood
> Magazine.
>
> Brian.
>
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
> > Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood
Magazine
> > glue test. I also responded to his email that "some of us" were
concerned
> > about the actual differences or advantages of TB3 over TB2. I requested
> an
> > explanation of how or why TB3 is labeled Water Proof when the Common
> > Knowledge Definition of Water Proof is so vastly different. I will
share
> > those answers when they come.
> >
> > Mr. Bridges,
> >
> > Thank you for your note on Friday regarding the Wood Magazine article on
> > wood glues. We first viewed the information Friday afternoon, and we as
> an
> > organization are shocked, disappointed and concerned about the results
> > contained in this article. Although I cannot get into the specifics
right
> > now, we have communicated our feelings to the appropriate personnel and
> plan
> > to pursue a very aggressive action plan to refute the results and ensure
> > that all woodworkers know the capabilities of not only Titebond III, but
> all
> > of our woodworking glues.
> >
> > Titebond is the preferred brand of professionals more than 3 to 1 over
our
> > leading competitor, and this is due to performance, reliability and
> > consistency over a 70-year period. We perform 3rd party, independent
> > testing on all of our products, and our wood glues have continually
> > outperformed all other competitors...Titebond III passed Type I
> > water-resistance and many of the polyurethanes did NOT pass the same
test.
> > In addition, ASTM standard testing continually indicates our products to
> > have much higher strength numbers. How did the article reach their
final
> > results? We are not sure...but we are going to find out.
> >
> > In contrast to this article, Titebond III has received excellent reviews
> > from other woodworking publications, and initial sales (as well as
repeat
> > use) is as strong as we have seen with any Titebond product. Again,
> thanks
> > for your interest...if you have any additional questions, please forward
> > them to my attention.
> >
> > Craig Stone
> > Director of Marketing
> > Franklin International (Titebond)
> > 800-877-4583
> >
> >
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:45:47 GMT, "Leon"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>The interesting part of the Wood test though is although the test was beyond
>>the TB3 limits, it was WAY beyond the TB2 limits and the TB2 did better than
>>the TB3.
>>
>that is interesting. it makes me wonder if they mixed up the samples.

I think they must do that from time to time. I remember a few months back they
tested various materials for shelf boards, and their tests somehow
"demonstrated" pine to be stronger than red oak. Yeah, right.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Look...I don't own stock in Franklin, so I don't really have a stake in
the
> outcome of a test. It's just that as an engineer, I want a test to be
> representative of the conditions that the product is designed to be
applied
> in.

I can certainly understand your point of view. But engineers are not a
majority of the population that will be using TB3. For the rest of us, let
the label say what it really stands for. Let them be UPFRONT with the
stipulations. An "asterick" beside the words water proof could point to
this on the back label.
ADHESIVE, TYPE I FULLY WATERPROOF: Forms a bond that will retain practically
all of its strength when occasionally

subjected to a thorough wetting and drying; bond shall be of such quality
that specimens will withstand shear and two cycle boil test

specified in ANSI/HPVA HP (2000).

And IMHO that would make all the difference in the world as to whether one
might mistake it for something that they might be really looking for or not.

It's the smoke and mirrorsmarketing approach that upsets most of the
woodworkers buying and not just using what the boss supplies.

With the Mad Cow desease some people in the USA may want to insure where
their beef is coming from. The labeling on the hamburger meat sold in the
grocery store says pure 100% American grown beef.

The fact that it was grown in Chili, South America does not make the lable
wrong but it certainly does not imply that it was NOT grown in the USA.

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:13:56 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In this case, even though it failed at a fairly low psi, it is perhaps more
>than I'd need anyway. Wood Magazine did not bother to tell us that.

This whole debate does beg another question - now that I've gotten my
copy of the review read - just how strong does glue need to be for
holding stuff together? What is the force in terms of a 3/4" edge
glued table top that hangs over 8" when you put a stack of textbooks
on it? The PSI figures make for great comparisons, but I would like to
know how to relate that to the real world.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:02:56 GMT, NoOne N Particular
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Don't you mean Ford PINTO? LOL
>
> No, the Firestone tires on the Ford Explorer, in combination, caused
> more than a few major accidents. The odd thing is that those tires are
> fine on other vehicles, and other tires are fine on that vehicle,
> or so we've been asked to believe.
>

The issue was that they hid the problem. But yes, it was a deadly
combination.

"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> No, I think they shouldn't call it the Chevy Treecutter.
>
>
Right. While I don't absolve Franklin for touting waterproof, (as opposed
to resistant) it does meet the ANSI standards. The front label should have
an asterisk pointing out the standard it meets. It should be tested in
accordance with intended use to be meaningful to the consumer.

If the tester says "this is good for strength, but turns black" I will not
use it on my whirligigs, but it will be my first choice for the ebony
laundry cart I'm building.

In this case, even though it failed at a fairly low psi, it is perhaps more
than I'd need anyway. Wood Magazine did not bother to tell us that.
Ed

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:45:47 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> OK let's compare a Bradley tank and a Chevy. The auto editor takes the
>> Chevy to the woods and bashes into a tree. He then declares it no good
>> because it cannot take down the tree.
>>
>> Same as the Chevy is not made for or intended for knocking over trees,
>> Titebond is not designed to be used submerged. You think that more R & D
>is
>> going to get that Chevy to be capable of knocking down trees?
>
>The interesting part of the Wood test though is although the test was beyond
>the TB3 limits, it was WAY beyond the TB2 limits and the TB2 did better than
>the TB3.
>
>


that is interesting. it makes me wonder if they mixed up the samples.

On 13 Jul 2004 19:01:22 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:52:27 -0500, Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
>>> magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? I think that's
>>> the point), my question is - how touchy is this product
>
>> Apparently, Wood's problem is in reading the directions. The bottle says it
>> is not mean for continuous submersion. Is there something unclear about
>> that?
>
>How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous submersion",
>exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
>able to do something it can't.
>
Does it matter?
The important issue is that a cheaper, and even according to Franklin, an
inferior product TiteBond II work better under those extreme conditions than the
heavily advertized 'superior' TiteBond III.
It's my opinion that Franklin might have released TB III to the market before
the product was ready and they got CAUGHT by WOOD magazine.

I read one of the descriptions of Type I and found the words Water Proof
only in the title.

Notice that Water Proof is only in the Name of the test and not in the
description. I suspect this is where Titebond gets its Water Proof
definition.

I got this information from
http://dl1.woodinst.com/pdfdocs/2003-MM/03Glosry.pdf

ADHESIVE, TYPE I FULLY WATERPROOF: Forms a bond that will retain practically
all of its strength when occasionally

subjected to a thorough wetting and drying; bond shall be of such quality
that specimens will withstand shear and two cycle boil test

specified in ANSI/HPVA HP (2000).

ADHESIVE, TYPE II WATER-RESISTANT: Forms a bond that will retain practically
all of its strength when occasionally

subjected to a thorough wetting and drying; bond shall be of such quality
that specimens will withstand the three cycle cold soak

test specified in ANSI/HPVA HP (2000).

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:52:27 -0500, Todd Fatheree
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous
> submersion",
> > exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
> > able to do something it can't.
>
> Uh Huh... and,,,, most the other glues have the same stipulations and
still
> performed better in this particular test TB3.

Look...I don't own stock in Franklin, so I don't really have a stake in the
outcome of a test. It's just that as an engineer, I want a test to be
representative of the conditions that the product is designed to be applied
in. So far, all I know from the Wood test is that if I was going to
continuously submerge a joint, TB2 would be a better choice than TB3,
although you probably don't really want to use either. How about this? I
know this is crazy-talk here, but why doesn't Wood just do a test that tests
a real-world application of the product that's in line with the
instructions? Then, whichever product wins, fine.

todd

Leon,

Thanks for posting these responses and giving us "both sides" so to speak.

I still haven't received the issue of Wood in question and I am very
interested in reading the article, but the response by this guy from
Franklin is pretty professional and he makes a lot of valid points, IMO.
Namely, (and I'm inferring and paraphrasing here) it seems unlikely that the
manufacturer of the glue wouldn't have done thorough and scientific tests to
verify that the TBIII was indeed superior to TBII before marketing as such.
Specs such as open time and working temperature are far to easy to evaluate
for them to simply claim them out of hand. The waterproof issue, of course,
is more difficult to address, but in my experience working for several
chemical and pharmaceutical companies it seems more likely than not that
they verified this functionality of the TBIII just as thoroughly. I do
grant you that using the term "ultimate wood glue" on the label does
approach the limits of "hype", but seeing as they're running a business and
trying to catch the consumer's eye, it doesn't really seem like a misleading
statement (think Budweiser "king of beers", etc. etc. - everyone thinks they
are the best).

Mike

<[email protected]> wrote in message
> Did you stop to consider that TiteBond III isn't ready for prime time but
they
> released the product anyway.
> There was a lot of money spent advertising TB III before it was even in
the
> bottle.
>
> Maybe they decided to take a page from software developers and release a
> defective product hoping to fix the formula before anyone noticed.
>

I'm sure they would not try to print that they meet certain standards with
no basis in fact. The liability would be far too high to ever think about
doing that.
Ed

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:56:57 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I guess the question that leaps out at me is what do you call a glue
>> that is actually *waterproof*, that is, usable for continuous
>> submersion? I've only ever seen glues labeled as "water resistant" or
>> "water proof" I don't recall anything beyond that. So how do you
>> differentiate between the "waterproof" glue that is not appropriate
>> for continuous submersion and the "waterproof" glue that is?
>
>
>I guess that glue will be called Special Super Super Super Duper Extra Water
>Proof, Now with Kryptonite.

Is that from the appropriate ANSI standard?

Seriously, the designations of Waterproof and Water-Resistant come
from specific standards which do not call for the ability to hold
under continuous immersion. My quick search doesn't reveal a standard
for a truly waterproof glue or a term for such. Maybe the ANSI people
decided that there wasn't really any such thing and didn't create a
standard for it.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:43:52 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But does it work on _concrete_?

>This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
>Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> OK let's compare a Bradley tank and a Chevy. The auto editor takes the
> Chevy to the woods and bashes into a tree. He then declares it no good
> because it cannot take down the tree.
>
> Same as the Chevy is not made for or intended for knocking over trees,
> Titebond is not designed to be used submerged. You think that more R & D
is
> going to get that Chevy to be capable of knocking down trees?

The interesting part of the Wood test though is although the test was beyond
the TB3 limits, it was WAY beyond the TB2 limits and the TB2 did better than
the TB3.

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>

Never mind - I see you posted it already...

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12 Jul 2004 22:19:32 -0700, [email protected] (Nate Perkins)
wrote:
>
> >"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director
of
> >> Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood
Magazine
> >> glue test.
> >(snip)
> >
> >Seems like an entirely reasonable response. I'm an engineer myself,
> >and I've seen many examples where it is easy to unintentionally skew
> >an experiment and come up with flawed test data. It's possible that
> >is what happened in the Wood test.
> >
> >Remember, the people that make Titebond are not likely to be amateurs
> >in test methods. It's likely that they are more competent in running
> >controlled tests than are the folks at Wood Magazine.
>
> Did you stop to consider that TiteBond III isn't ready for prime time but
they
> released the product anyway.
> There was a lot of money spent advertising TB III before it was even in
the
> bottle.
>
> Maybe they decided to take a page from software developers and release a
> defective product hoping to fix the formula before anyone noticed.

Well, we sure won't know with the lameass test that Wood Magazine did. I
get the impression from the response that Franklin has done the relevant
ASTM testing to back up their claim. Maybe the thing to do is to ask for a
copy of the test results.

todd