Thread: Melbourne Tool Company

Yes that milling was atrocious. It would be interesting to fondle a few and see if they are all shockers or if you could find a good one.

Cheers Andrew

Originally Posted by AJ.

Yes that milling was atrocious. It would be interesting to fondle a few and see if they are all shockers or if you could find a good one.

Cheers Andrew

When you purchase online, as many of us have no other option, its pot luck in that department.

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

When you purchase online, as many of us have no other option, its pot luck in that department.

Which is where reviews like the one linked to above can have a big influence on where punters decide to put their $$s! It seems to me that MTC needs to quickly move into damage-control after that bit of publicity. The reviewer was taking great care with his words, but I think the message came across loud & clear...

Cheers,

A few comments from me ... more like a rant ... sorry ...

Firstly, the bed does not need to be milled perfectly; it just needs to be coplanar so that the blade is supported evenly. The reviewer did not check or comment about this. Also, the painting of the bed suggests a cheap method to cover up a cheap construction. Where the money usually goes, with higher cost planes such as Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley, is in finish and quality control. The latter may be lacking at the price point of this block plane ... so Buyer beware.

Secondly, I like to buy Australian-made, where there is an equal quality with an overseas product. I do not feel enamoured by the "Designed in Melbourne" designation. Omitting or hiding the "Made in China" smacks of dishonesty. Having written this, I quite like the design, such as the take on the Stanley #60 1/2 levercap.

Thirdly, that was a rather poor review. The hand planning skills of the reviewer were rather weak - scrubbing away at the board, for one. I would have liked to have heard about the ability of the HSS blade to sharpen and take an edge (and not what the blade was like out of the box - no one expects a blade to arrive and not be sharpened!). I also wonder how sharp he actually got the blade - he used what-looked-like an 8000 King (not really suited to HSS), which did not leave any signs of metal on its surface. His "planing" failed to take full-width shavings.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I get the impression you were not favourably impressed by either the plane or the review, Derek?

I thought the reviewer skippd a few important aspects myself, and he certainly didn't show it working in a way that would impress anyone who is reasonably competent with a block plane. He damned it with faint praise & I don't think many people would rush out & order one after watching that clip. If he'd showed the plane taking a fine, full-width shaving with a nice, steady cut across end grain I would have been more convinced it was well set-up & working properly. I don't watch tool reviews on "u-too?" (I prefer print, which gives the reviewer a chance to write carefully & me time to think & evaluate what's being said) so I have no idea of how it compares with the norm for the genre.

As to that bed, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "it doesn't need to be perfectly flat". In my view a bed does have to be flat over the crucial contact area, but that's not something you can assess accurately by "eyeballing" it. The bed only needs to be truly flat near the end, depending on where the lever cap bears on the end of the blade.The blade needs to be clamped against a flat, solid surface to minimise any chance of chatter. 'Non-contact" areas can be rough as long as they are not contacting & causing high spots.

But if you meant some superficial & regular tool marks are ok, then I do agree, they will not affect 'flatness' to a significant degree. My concern is that deep & irregular mill marks like those shown are an indication of any or all of, poor job-holding, poor machine rigidity, or dull bits. The crucial part of the surface may be ok, but there's a fair chance it's not given the sheer roughness of the job. I think any operator who is satisfied with that level of finish doesn't care too much about the quality of the work they're putting out & I'd be highly suspicious of just how even that bed is. I was expecting the reviewer to flatten the blade, ink it up & show us just where it does make contact over the bed instead of saying "it's ok". How did he know - did he do that off-camera? The mill marks on the bed of the Luban he pulled out were what I'd expect to see - shallow, even & regular, indicating it was finished with very light passes to get a good surface fit for purpose.

Anyway, 'nuff said by me - I'll go back to my shed at this point....

Cheers,

Makes me think that scouring tool vendors, classifieds, flea markets etc for "good old Stanleys" is the only real option for woodies on a tight budget. At least they are a known quantity.

The guy in the Plane review video says the bed is painted.
The bed and rest of the internal surfaces looks more like an acid treatment rather than paint I think . Possibly that Phosphoric acid method . That's probably better than paint .

Untitledaaa.jpg

Originally Posted by derekcohen

... Secondly, I like to buy Australian-made, where there is an equal quality with an overseas product. I do not feel enamoured by the "Designed in Melbourne" designation. Omitting or hiding the "Made in China" smacks of dishonesty. ...

Me, too.

But after Stanley introduced the 60 and 65 series c.1900, how much actual design work was there left to do in Melbourne?

Perhaps it should read: "Inspired in Melbourne by Stanley, LV, LN, Qiangsheng and a host of others."

Originally Posted by auscab

The bed and rest of the internal surfaces looks more like an acid treatment rather than paint I think.

That's what I thought.

That crossed my mind too, but it looks rather thick for a surface treatment.

Originally Posted by auscab

.....Untitledaaa.jpg ...

Whatever it is, it sure as heck doesn't disguise that sloppy machining!

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

I don't watch tool reviews on "u-too?" (I prefer print, which gives the reviewer a chance to write carefully & me time to think & evaluate what's being said) so I have no idea of how it compares with the norm for the genre.

It’s not the worst review I’ve seen on YouTube, but I’d not make a purchasing decision based on his word. Looking over his shoulder at his tools in the background, he’s not a hand tool specialist, all I could see were power tools.

The good thing about YouTube reviews is that there are so many to choose from. The bad thing about them is that there are so many to choose from. It’s too easy to fall into the trap of confirmation bias, and only count the ones which back up your own feelings. And, once you’ve click to checkout, you only seem to see reviews which completely slag off your recent purchase. I can understand why some people choose a guru and follow him slavishly - it’s easier than sifting through the rubbish.

For what it’s worth, if I were in his shoes I’d keep the Luban, it seemed better than the new one.

Originally Posted by Colin62

.....For what it’s worth, if I were in his shoes I’d keep the Luban, it seemed better than the new one.....

!

Originally Posted by Colin62

It’s not the worst review I’ve seen on YouTube, but I’d not make a purchasing decision based on his word. Looking over his shoulder at his tools in the background, he’s not a hand tool specialist, all I could see were power tools.

Quite a few thoughts come to mind when evaluating a "review" - Social Media Influencers, Cash for Comment, credibility .... etc. I accept his disclosure statement in good faith.

As others have mentioned not all that convincing (MTC's claims that is) imo, however it is far better than one or perhaps two or three (if you are lucky) flattering images on a website or a video that shows nothing of the innards of the plane.

Just as a point of interest, the guy in the Video, Paul Jenkins I think his name is, is a member of this forum, I forget what his forum name is though.

Cheers Andrew