Excellent point! 'Waterproof' claims are far different than
merely 'water resistant'. A submersion test seems
legitimate. I doubt Franklin can pursue any legal recourse
against the magazine.

RKON wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
.. .

The test was done outside of the capability of the material. It is a

bogus

test as the glue was not designed to be submerged. Reminds me of 20-20
setting GM trucks ablaze. Poor journalism on the part of the author and
editors of Wood magazine.
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome



Hold on there Ed. The back cover of the same issue. It reads "The Best Wood
Glue Ever". It goes on to say What makes Titebond III Ultimate Wood Glue
the best ever? It's Waterproof, yet it cleans up with water......

In case one forgot what waterprrof means:

wa·ter·proof - Impervious to or unaffected by water.

I do not see any asterisks or footnotes on the Ad. I think they are making a
bold claim and they are fair game. If they can't even compete then maybe
they should have it read " The Best Wood Glue Ever as long as you don't
immerse it Water" And based on the tests it doesn't appear to be the best
regardless.

It seems to me that marketing went a bit to far and they are coming unglued
in their claims. I wouldn't jump all over the testing performed in the
article. They have set themselves up by making the bold claims.
You don't use Titebond by chance do you?

Rich