I picked up a copy of Fine Woodworking yesterday and nearly fell out of my
chair. Not only did they feature a Grizzly G0500 in their review of
jointers under $1,400; they even declared it their choice of eight machines
they tested! In a video featured on their web site Bill Duckworth even
points out that the Grizzly provided the kind of cut you want in a jointer.

RonB

RonB wrote:

I picked up a copy of Fine Woodworking yesterday and nearly fell out of my
chair. Not only did they feature a Grizzly G0500 in their review of
jointers under $1,400; they even declared it their choice of eight machines
they tested! In a video featured on their web site Bill Duckworth even
points out that the Grizzly provided the kind of cut you want in a jointer.

And your point is????

And your point is????

Just surprised. FWW is a fine magazine but many of their product reports
seem to be limited to a rather predictable group of manufacturers. I think
they are doing their readers a service when they expand to include other
good equipment.

Thats all - surprised.

RonB

RonB wrote:

And your point is????

Just surprised. FWW is a fine magazine but many of their product reports
seem to be limited to a rather predictable group of manufacturers. I think
they are doing their readers a service when they expand to include other
good equipment.

Thats all - surprised.

I still fail to see why. I believe Grizzly has at least been in
virtually all stationary equipment reviews I can recall over the last
several years...and I strongly suspect if/when they haven't been, it's
because they (Grizzly) haven't responded to requests for equipment from
the reviewers.

RonB wrote:

I picked up a copy of Fine Woodworking yesterday and nearly fell out of my
chair. Not only did they feature a Grizzly G0500 in their review of
jointers under $1,400; they even declared it their choice of eight machines
they tested! In a video featured on their web site Bill Duckworth even
points out that the Grizzly provided the kind of cut you want in a jointer.

RonB


guess I wasn't the only one surprised by that article.

Dave

David wrote:
RonB wrote:

I picked up a copy of Fine Woodworking yesterday and nearly fell out of my
chair. Not only did they feature a Grizzly G0500 in their review of
jointers under $1,400; they even declared it their choice of eight machines
they tested! In a video featured on their web site Bill Duckworth even
points out that the Grizzly provided the kind of cut you want in a jointer.

RonB


guess I wasn't the only one surprised by that article.

Dave

I was (mildly) surprised by this result too. DISCLAIMER: I am not
"anti-Grizzly." I think they make some good stuff; I've bought stuff
from them over the years with varying degrees of satisfaction. But I
was surprised to see them earn the "best" prize in this review because,
while they often have the best VALUE equipment, they don't often have
the very best in terms of absolute quality, flatness, finish etc. This
is understandable considering that their equipment is often priced
substantially below comparable competitors' equipment. So here's the
question this review engendered in my mind:

When FWW (or any other magazine) does these tests, do they purchase the
equipment anonymously? It's an important question, I believe, because
while every manufacturer is probably CAPABLE of producing a perfect
machine, there probably are differences in how likely it is you are to
receive a perfect machine, given varying degrees of QC, etc. So, it
would seem to me that any manufacturer would do a little extra work to
make sure that the jointer that gets sent to FWW, for example, is as
close to perfect a specimen as they are capable of producing. Of
course, any random jointer off the line might be just as good, or (more
likely) might be a little more "off-spec." I don't recall reading
anywhere how FWW procures the test samples for their comparison tests.
In general, I find FWW reviews to be among the best, and I tend to
trust them a bit more than most other magazines. But again, if they
identified themselves and their purpose in securing the machines, that
would not necessarily mean that I'd discount the entire test result,
but it would be another data point that I'd consider in evaluating the
test results.

Of course, every other manufacturer presumably would have had the
same opportunity to present FWW with their own "perfect specimen," but
then that result is a different test; the best each manufacturer is
capable of producing, rather than the machine you are likely to get as
a result of their quality control standards.

Bradnh -
You make a valid point, and I've wondered that same thing myself when I've
read reviews in FWW and other magazines. It is interesting though that FWW
found defects in the jointers they did get, however it was they acquired
them. The article said that several - at least 4 or 5 if my memory is
right - had blades that were nicked and had chunks out of them. They also
found tables that needed to be shimed to be correctly coplaner. If the mfg
knew they were going to FWW for a review, why would they have let them go
out with defective knives, and in a condition that they had to be shimed?

So, it makes me think that they (either the mfg or FWW) somehow just pulled
the various machines at random. Like you, I do find FWW's reviews a little
better and more believable than some others. I'd really like to get that
Yorkcraft 8" - I've seen it at Wilke (near my home). I just have to get my
6" Jet sold first.

Nick B


wrote in message
ups.com...

David wrote:
RonB wrote:

I picked up a copy of Fine Woodworking yesterday and nearly fell out of
my
chair. Not only did they feature a Grizzly G0500 in their review of
jointers under $1,400; they even declared it their choice of eight
machines
they tested! In a video featured on their web site Bill Duckworth even
points out that the Grizzly provided the kind of cut you want in a
jointer.

RonB


guess I wasn't the only one surprised by that article.

Dave

I was (mildly) surprised by this result too. DISCLAIMER: I am not
"anti-Grizzly." I think they make some good stuff; I've bought stuff
from them over the years with varying degrees of satisfaction. But I
was surprised to see them earn the "best" prize in this review because,
while they often have the best VALUE equipment, they don't often have
the very best in terms of absolute quality, flatness, finish etc. This
is understandable considering that their equipment is often priced
substantially below comparable competitors' equipment. So here's the
question this review engendered in my mind:

When FWW (or any other magazine) does these tests, do they purchase the
equipment anonymously? It's an important question, I believe, because
while every manufacturer is probably CAPABLE of producing a perfect
machine, there probably are differences in how likely it is you are to
receive a perfect machine, given varying degrees of QC, etc. So, it
would seem to me that any manufacturer would do a little extra work to
make sure that the jointer that gets sent to FWW, for example, is as
close to perfect a specimen as they are capable of producing. Of
course, any random jointer off the line might be just as good, or (more
likely) might be a little more "off-spec." I don't recall reading
anywhere how FWW procures the test samples for their comparison tests.
In general, I find FWW reviews to be among the best, and I tend to
trust them a bit more than most other magazines. But again, if they
identified themselves and their purpose in securing the machines, that
would not necessarily mean that I'd discount the entire test result,
but it would be another data point that I'd consider in evaluating the
test results.

Of course, every other manufacturer presumably would have had the
same opportunity to present FWW with their own "perfect specimen," but
then that result is a different test; the best each manufacturer is
capable of producing, rather than the machine you are likely to get as
a result of their quality control standards.

Nick-
I'm in the same position as you, which is why I read the FWW article
with more than a little interest. I've got to sell my Jet 6" too to
make room for an 8" jointer. I'd decided that a jointer is not a
machine to try to economize on too much, as the quality of the castings
is everything. A few years ago that would have made the choice
fairly easy; either a Delta DJ-20, with its cool parallelogram system
and excellent castings, or a powermatic. But these days the choice is
not so simple; I've read more than a couple of unhappy DJ-20 reviews.
This is why, no matter how well the Grizzly scores in any review, I
would not be inclined to buy one; it just seems that with any
manufacturer, you could get a bad casting, and then you'd have the
hassle of returning by shipper. I'd rather be able to just load it
back in my van and bring it back for a new one. I don't necessarily
think Grizz is any MORE prone to this possibility, but neither is it
any less so,and the return hassles are enough to stop me.

I think I may write to FWW to see if they will shed any light on their
procurement procedures for these tests. I will report bak if I learn
anything....


Nick Bozovich wrote:
Bradnh -
You make a valid point, and I've wondered that same thing myself when I've
read reviews in FWW and other magazines. It is interesting though that FWW
found defects in the jointers they did get, however it was they acquired
them. The article said that several - at least 4 or 5 if my memory is
right - had blades that were nicked and had chunks out of them. They also
found tables that needed to be shimed to be correctly coplaner. If the mfg
knew they were going to FWW for a review, why would they have let them go
out with defective knives, and in a condition that they had to be shimed?

So, it makes me think that they (either the mfg or FWW) somehow just pulled
the various machines at random. Like you, I do find FWW's reviews a little
better and more believable than some others. I'd really like to get that
Yorkcraft 8" - I've seen it at Wilke (near my home). I just have to get my
6" Jet sold first.

Nick B


wrote in message
ups.com...

David wrote:
RonB wrote:

I picked up a copy of Fine Woodworking yesterday and nearly fell out of
my
chair. Not only did they feature a Grizzly G0500 in their review of
jointers under $1,400; they even declared it their choice of eight
machines
they tested! In a video featured on their web site Bill Duckworth even
points out that the Grizzly provided the kind of cut you want in a
jointer.

RonB


guess I wasn't the only one surprised by that article.

Dave

I was (mildly) surprised by this result too. DISCLAIMER: I am not
"anti-Grizzly." I think they make some good stuff; I've bought stuff
from them over the years with varying degrees of satisfaction. But I
was surprised to see them earn the "best" prize in this review because,
while they often have the best VALUE equipment, they don't often have
the very best in terms of absolute quality, flatness, finish etc. This
is understandable considering that their equipment is often priced
substantially below comparable competitors' equipment. So here's the
question this review engendered in my mind:

When FWW (or any other magazine) does these tests, do they purchase the
equipment anonymously? It's an important question, I believe, because
while every manufacturer is probably CAPABLE of producing a perfect
machine, there probably are differences in how likely it is you are to
receive a perfect machine, given varying degrees of QC, etc. So, it
would seem to me that any manufacturer would do a little extra work to
make sure that the jointer that gets sent to FWW, for example, is as
close to perfect a specimen as they are capable of producing. Of
course, any random jointer off the line might be just as good, or (more
likely) might be a little more "off-spec." I don't recall reading
anywhere how FWW procures the test samples for their comparison tests.
In general, I find FWW reviews to be among the best, and I tend to
trust them a bit more than most other magazines. But again, if they
identified themselves and their purpose in securing the machines, that
would not necessarily mean that I'd discount the entire test result,
but it would be another data point that I'd consider in evaluating the
test results.

Of course, every other manufacturer presumably would have had the
same opportunity to present FWW with their own "perfect specimen," but
then that result is a different test; the best each manufacturer is
capable of producing, rather than the machine you are likely to get as
a result of their quality control standards.

I'd rather be able to just load it back in my van and bring it back for a
new one. I don't
necessarily think Grizz is any MORE prone to this possibility, but neither
is it
any less so,and the return hassles are enough to stop me.

That is a good point that any of us who order from Griz, Amazon or anyone
have to consider. I suspect that is why Grizzly has developed a very good
support and delivery operation. The initally had to overcome both the mail
order and the off-shore bias. Seems like they have done pretty well.

Sideline - My Son-in-Law bought a G0500 and one of their bigger surface
planers about 1-1/2 years ago. Since, he has run a house full of victorian
base trim and door mouldings across them without a hiccup.

RonB

How odd. They ran a review, and awarded a prize, to what appears to be
a discontinued model.

Granted they have to run those things early, probably months in
advance, but it's kind of funny that no sooner does the issue come out
than that particular Griz model gets moved to the Outlet Section of the
website.
http://www.grizzly.com/outlet/items-...listtype=group

How odd. They ran a review, and awarded a prize, to what appears to be
a discontinued model.

That is odd. I just took a look at the '05 Grizzly catalog and it is still
in there but it is absent from the main part of their site. I have to
wonder if the G0586 is its upgrade.

I noticed a few weeks ago the Grizzly appears to have modified its site. I
was a little afraid they had discontinued a couple of hand-held drum sanders
I was going to buy. They disappeared from the normal search screens but I
could still find them by doing a site search. Ordered them and got them.

By the way, I just did a model number search for G0500 and found it right
where you did.

RonB

I have to wonder if the G0586 is its upgrade.

That certainly appears to be the case. It's the only 8 inch jointer
there. Okay, it's the only 8 inch jointer under two thousand dollars.
:-)

I bought the 586. At the time I ordered it, the 500 was still there but
I wanted the topmount power switch. Got it assembled and running a
couple days ago. Everything about it looks solid and well done.

I was going to get one with a spiral cutterhead but decided to spend
the extra money on classes and lumber.

I'd be inclined to think they shipped demo models. If you're not
the first to receive it, it might have taken lots of abuse from
transporting to shows, allowing it to be used on consignment, etc.
Most companies can't afford to ship a brand new product to every
single demonstration or reviewer. I see this with high end
electronics test equipment.

Nick Bozovich wrote:

So, it makes me think that they (either the mfg or FWW) somehow just pulled
the various machines at random.

RonB wrote:
And your point is????

Just surprised. FWW is a fine magazine but many of their product reports
seem to be limited to a rather predictable group of manufacturers. I think
they are doing their readers a service when they expand to include other
good equipment.

The fact that they picked the tool they did tells several things:

* FWW can do objective reviews. Many imports were not all that great
in the past. Companies like Grizzly are steadily improving quality
while some old guard brands are slipping.

* Some companies who sell direct may be smart enough to triple check a
machine, especially if there's a chance it's going to be a review
subject. Companies who sell through dealers may not have that
opportunity. The machine that gets reviewed may be their best work, or
maybe not.

I wonder if these machines are loaned, purchased by the author or
publisher, or blind purchased?

This is why, no matter how well the Grizzly scores in any review, I
would not be inclined to buy one; it just seems that with any
manufacturer, you could get a bad casting, and then you'd have the
hassle of returning by shipper. I'd rather be able to just load it
back in my van and bring it back for a new one. I don't necessarily
think Grizz is any MORE prone to this possibility, but neither is it
any less so,and the return hassles are enough to stop me.

I think you are spot on. Oddly, this is the reason why I *would* buy
Grizzly. Since I don't own a truck and the nearest serious tool dealer is 60
miles away, no return is going to be easy. I choose my vendor based on who
will support me. Grizz has a pretty good reputation for customer service.

Everybody ships a lemon once in a while. Buy from the vendor that will
support you.

Cheers,

Steve

RonB wrote:
I picked up a copy of Fine Woodworking yesterday and nearly fell out of my
chair.

Just remember...

LOTS of brands are green. G

Green in a wood shop doesn't mean Grizzly by any sense of the word.

"B a r r y" wrote in message
news
RonB wrote:
I picked up a copy of Fine Woodworking yesterday and nearly fell out of
my chair.

Just remember...

LOTS of brands are green. G

Green in a wood shop doesn't mean Grizzly by any sense of the word.

But the grizzly green is a particular shade of green.

And it is not a particularly attractive shade of green either.

I don't know anything about color. But if I was going to put thousnds of
machines out there in the world, I would have chosen a different color.

Lee Michaels said:

"B a r r y" wrote in message
news

RonB wrote:
Just remember...

LOTS of brands are green. G

Green in a wood shop doesn't mean Grizzly by any sense of the word.

General comes to mind...

But the grizzly green is a particular shade of green.

As is General's.

And it is not a particularly attractive shade of green either.

As is General's - again...

I don't know anything about color. But if I was going to put thousnds of
machines out there in the world, I would have chosen a different color.

PLEASE, no more red. Blood-like colors trigger the 'Oh Sh*t" response
in the back of your mind. Something genetically hardwired, or maybe
just conditioning. Stop, Danger, Blood - not a color I want on a saw.

How about a dusty greyish-blue.
Nothing like Delta's, but not near as blue as Ryobi.
Here let me pull up a Pantone Color... ;-)

Cripes, we sound like a group of old ladies discussing drape colors...




Greg G.

"Greg G." wrote:

Lee Michaels said:

"B a r r y" wrote in message
news

RonB wrote:
Just remember...

LOTS of brands are green. G

Green in a wood shop doesn't mean Grizzly by any sense of the word.

General comes to mind...

But the grizzly green is a particular shade of green.

As is General's.

And it is not a particularly attractive shade of green either.

As is General's - again...

So is Woodtek and it isn't that attractive, either...one wonders who
comes up w/ these paint schemes????

I think the Yorktown/Jet off-whites are pretty good, personally.

I have no problem w/ the Delta gray nor the PM gold/green.

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:23:18 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:


"B a r r y" wrote in message
news
RonB wrote:
I picked up a copy of Fine Woodworking yesterday and nearly fell out of
my chair.

Just remember...

LOTS of brands are green. G

Green in a wood shop doesn't mean Grizzly by any sense of the word.

But the grizzly green is a particular shade of green.

And it is not a particularly attractive shade of green either.

I don't know anything about color. But if I was going to put thousnds of
machines out there in the world, I would have chosen a different color.






purple! (tm keeter)

I still fail to see why. I believe Grizzly has at least been in
virtually all stationary equipment reviews I can recall over the last
several years...and I strongly suspect if/when they haven't been, it's
because they (Grizzly) haven't responded to requests for equipment from
the reviewers.

I honestly do not remember them being included that much. I say that as a
fairly new subscriber who has been buying news stand copies or mooching
reads from a cousin for years. To test a hunch I did a simple magazine
index search on the word "grizzly" in their website. It came back with 17
hits that included about 14 issues. This goes back to 1995 and includes
some smaller items like sanders, brad nailers, router bits, etc. This might
not be an accurate way of determining actual appearances but it doesn't seem
like much when compared to mainstream woodworking magazines.

Before anyone goes nuts, I do not consider FWW to be a mainstream magazine.
It might have a fairly large following but the projects and skills shown fit
a smaller sample of woodworkers than most of the mags. The magazine has an
elitist tone that probably serves the skill level of writers and
contributors; but perhaps not all of their readers. This is not a complaint
because, in a way, it adds to the appeal of the book. I do find it a little
curious that they chose to rerun a very early article regarding
"woodbutchers". It might have seemed appropriate in their early days but it
probably insulted some of their readers that do fit the mold of a mainstream
woodworker. We are amatures, we know it and we are trying to improve our
skills with FWW.

RonB

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:37:00 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, B a r
r y quickly quoth:

RonB wrote:
And your point is????

Just surprised. FWW is a fine magazine but many of their product reports
seem to be limited to a rather predictable group of manufacturers. I think
they are doing their readers a service when they expand to include other
good equipment.

The fact that they picked the tool they did tells several things:

* FWW can do objective reviews. Many imports were not all that great
in the past. Companies like Grizzly are steadily improving quality
while some old guard brands are slipping.

I complained to them last year about not having Griz products in their
tests. Maybe they finally listened to me. bseg


* Some companies who sell direct may be smart enough to triple check a
machine, especially if there's a chance it's going to be a review
subject. Companies who sell through dealers may not have that
opportunity. The machine that gets reviewed may be their best work, or
maybe not.

I wonder if these machines are loaned, purchased by the author or
publisher, or blind purchased?

Charlie Self may be able to answer that question. He's BTDT.

-
Don't be a possum on the Information Superhighway of life.
----
http://diversify.com Dynamic Database-Driven Websites

RonB said:

Before anyone goes nuts, I do not consider FWW to be a mainstream magazine.
It might have a fairly large following but the projects and skills shown fit
a smaller sample of woodworkers than most of the mags. The magazine has an
elitist tone that probably serves the skill level of writers and
contributors; but perhaps not all of their readers. This is not a complaint
because, in a way, it adds to the appeal of the book. I do find it a little
curious that they chose to rerun a very early article regarding
"woodbutchers". It might have seemed appropriate in their early days but it
probably insulted some of their readers that do fit the mold of a mainstream
woodworker. We are amatures, we know it and we are trying to improve our
skills with FWW.

I too, read that article and wondered why they ran it. It definitely
came off as an elitist slur against anyone who might be an amateur.

Very few are truly 'Masters' of anything - and only the most hubris
would claim otherwise. You stop learning (and making mistakes) the
day you die.

Besides, it's not a mistake, it's a feature...


Greg G.

"Greg G." wrote:

RonB said:

Before anyone goes nuts, I do not consider FWW to be a mainstream magazine.
It might have a fairly large following but the projects and skills shown fit
a smaller sample of woodworkers than most of the mags. The magazine has an
elitist tone that probably serves the skill level of writers and
contributors; but perhaps not all of their readers. This is not a complaint
because, in a way, it adds to the appeal of the book. I do find it a little
curious that they chose to rerun a very early article regarding
"woodbutchers". It might have seemed appropriate in their early days but it
probably insulted some of their readers that do fit the mold of a mainstream
woodworker. We are amatures, we know it and we are trying to improve our
skills with FWW.

I too, read that article and wondered why they ran it. It definitely
came off as an elitist slur against anyone who might be an amateur.

Very few are truly 'Masters' of anything - and only the most hubris
would claim otherwise. You stop learning (and making mistakes) the
day you die.

Besides, it's not a mistake, it's a feature...

As a subscriber since about the fifth or sixth issue, I'd say the level
of "elitism" has waxed and waned somewhat over the years, but the level
was _much_, _much_ higher years ago than now. I recalled the endpage
article and at the time that was essentially humour...

I think over the last two or three years the general content has gone
down quite a lot in order to try to be a broader base audience and I
also think the overall quality of the regular contributors isn't quite
what it was in the early days. But it takes quite a fella' to replace a
Tage Frid.

The Gallery is as good as always although again the emphasis on what
type of work is featured heavily has changed over the years.

Duane Bozarth said:

"Greg G." wrote:
I too, read that article and wondered why they ran it. It definitely
came off as an elitist slur against anyone who might be an amateur.

Very few are truly 'Masters' of anything - and only the most hubris
would claim otherwise. You stop learning (and making mistakes) the
day you die.

Besides, it's not a mistake, it's a feature...


As a subscriber since about the fifth or sixth issue, I'd say the level
of "elitism" has waxed and waned somewhat over the years, but the level
was _much_, _much_ higher years ago than now. I recalled the endpage
article and at the time that was essentially humour...

I had the uneasy feeling of not being sure if they were joking, or
specifically picking on me... ;-) I was haunted for days by the
fear that I, too, was unworthy of cutting into a chunk of cherry and
discovering a hidden gem, or whiffing the sweet smell of sawdust.

That my tools were mocking me, laughing behind my back at the dullard
who clumsily handled them. Every remotely visible glue line, every
slight distortion in the plane of a glued-up table top, each table leg
that varied the slightest of a centimeter from it's kin, shrieked
"Incompetent!" at me. The siren song of the wood catalogs suddenly
waned - sounding now to be no more than brazen schemes to filch a gold
coin from my pocket.


Then I went to the store and look at what was for sale. Bahh!

I think over the last two or three years the general content has gone
down quite a lot in order to try to be a broader base audience and I
also think the overall quality of the regular contributors isn't quite
what it was in the early days. But it takes quite a fella' to replace a
Tage Frid.

I grew up surrounded by truly talented people. Some were kinda weird,
but when it came down to knowledge, skill, and competence - they had
what it took to do the job - everything else became irrelevant.

My father would drag me around to different electronics shops and
distributors as a child - and I never heard him speak more than a few
hundred words in his life. But I met a multitude of people, and these
became a major part of my education. They were just ordinary people
you wouldn't look twice at on the street. But if you paused to look
closer, they stood out as shining stars in the night.

But I see more and more of these people dying off and retiring, and
there is no one replacing them. Depth and breadth are like a receding
tide...

The Gallery is as good as always although again the emphasis on what
type of work is featured heavily has changed over the years.

The Gallery is one of the first things I flip to. We don't need no
steenkin store bought plans, and don't have a desire to build the
perfect replica of a stale old design. I look to this section for
inspiration. Although the 'melting' lamp and chest were pretty
strange, try calculating angles and tweaking the fit on that puppy!



Greg G.

s said:

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 15:23:18 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
wrote:


"B a r r y" wrote in message
news
RonB wrote:
I picked up a copy of Fine Woodworking yesterday and nearly fell out of
my chair.

Just remember...

LOTS of brands are green. G

Green in a wood shop doesn't mean Grizzly by any sense of the word.

But the grizzly green is a particular shade of green.

And it is not a particularly attractive shade of green either.

I don't know anything about color. But if I was going to put thousnds of
machines out there in the world, I would have chosen a different color.




purple! (tm keeter)

Don't forget puky bright yellow.
Or is that bright yellow puky ducks.
Wait, I've got it - it's pukey ducks, bright yellow tools...


Greg G.

Snipped for brevity

Every remotely visible glue line, every
slight distortion in the plane of a glued-up table top, each table leg
that varied the slightest of a centimeter from it's kin, shrieked
"Incompetent!" at me......

Then I went to the store and look at what was for sale. Bahh!

Great post!

But I see more and more of these people dying off and retiring, and
there is no one replacing them. Depth and breadth are like a receding
tide...

And that's where we come in, to keep alive some shred of creativity, and
quality.

Grab that torch!

But it takes quite a fella' to replace a Tage Frid.

To this the only response is "Amen". I am sure he was immediatly assigned
to sprucing up the big guy's quarters in heaven.

Stephen M said:

Snipped for brevity

Every remotely visible glue line, every
slight distortion in the plane of a glued-up table top, each table leg
that varied the slightest of a centimeter from it's kin, shrieked
"Incompetent!" at me......

Then I went to the store and look at what was for sale. Bahh!

Great post!

Thanks! Sometimes I get all mushy like that... ;-)
But in re-reading this, I noticed that I blew the punch line.

Shoulda been:

Then I went to the Furniture Store and looked at what was for sale.
Bahh!

Dazzle 'em with the windup and blow the pitch - Oh Well...

But I see more and more of these people dying off and retiring, and
there is no one replacing them. Depth and breadth are like a receding
tide...

And that's where we come in, to keep alive some shred of creativity, and
quality.

Grab that torch!

I try, but hey, I'm no Spring Chicken myself...


Greg G.

RonB wrote:
But it takes quite a fella' to replace a Tage Frid.


To this the only response is "Amen". I am sure he was immediatly assigned
to sprucing up the big guy's quarters in heaven.

I thought Krenov was still alive?

*ducks*

er
--