Greetings,

A few days ago, there was a thread regarding the most recent issue of
FWW containing a review of 8" jointers. The OP expressed some surprise
that Grizzly won top honors. This led to a discussion in which I
chimed in to the effect that I was also somewhat surprised, that
Grizzly makes some real good stuff and that they often are recognized
as a top value, but not so often as the top machine, and that I was not
being critical in saying so, nor did I find it surprising given that
their machines are often much less money than the competition.

I asked whether anyone knew whether FWW purchased their test machines
anonymously, so that they obtained a random sample, or whether they in
fact identified themselves when they procured tools for
testing/comparison. The point being, I felt, that most manufacturers
are capable of producing nice flat jointer beds, but any manufacturer
is also capable of producing the occasional pretzel-shaped jointer bed,
and, it seemed to me, that the jointer going out to say, FWW for their
jointer test might get a slightly more careful going over by the QC
people than the one going to say, me.

Nobody really knew,so I volunteered to put the question to the Powers
that Be at FWW and report back. Today I received a response from Andy
Engel at FWW. I've reproduced most of my question and the response
below. My question is edited so as not to bore the s**t out of those
of you who are still awake. The response is edited at the request of
FWW, who requested that I simply omit the identity of the specific
brand which does not loan tools for testing. That identity doesn't
matter anyway, since the main point is that Yes, FWW does identify
themselves when procuring equipment for testing.



Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:30 PM
To: FW Editorial Mailbox
Subject: Question about a past issue

Greetings:
Re your latest issue containing the review of 8" jointers. I was
somewhat surprised to see the Grizzley win the top slot... (snippage)
I've rarely seen
them take top honors for flatness of castings, for example, or fit and
finish... How does FWW procure the equipment it uses for tests and
comparisons? Is it via an "anonymous" purchase, or do you make no
effort to conceal your identity and the purpose of your purchase? In
fact, is it even a purchase, or do you simply ask the manufacturer to
loan a machine
for this purpose?
(snippage)... I've subscribed for about six years, but I don't ever
recall reading any
sort of explanation of how these tests are conducted with respect to
this issue. A clarification of this point would be appreciated I
suspect
by many readers.

RESPONSE:

Interesting question. *********** will not loan tools, although most
other manufacturers do so. So, ***************** was a purchase,
while the other machines in the test were loaners. To answer your
broader question, we are somewhat concerned that manufacturers might
send ringers for tool tests. Given the number of lemons we've gotten
from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.

Andy Engel

I oughta do some snipping here, but I won't...

Greetings,

A few days ago, there was a thread regarding the most recent issue of
FWW containing a review of 8" jointers. The OP expressed some surprise
that Grizzly won top honors. This led to a discussion in which I
chimed in to the effect that I was also somewhat surprised, that
Grizzly makes some real good stuff and that they often are recognized
as a top value, but not so often as the top machine, and that I was not
being critical in saying so, nor did I find it surprising given that
their machines are often much less money than the competition.

I asked whether anyone knew whether FWW purchased their test machines
anonymously, so that they obtained a random sample, or whether they in
fact identified themselves when they procured tools for
testing/comparison. The point being, I felt, that most manufacturers
are capable of producing nice flat jointer beds, but any manufacturer
is also capable of producing the occasional pretzel-shaped jointer bed,
and, it seemed to me, that the jointer going out to say, FWW for their
jointer test might get a slightly more careful going over by the QC
people than the one going to say, me.

Nobody really knew,so I volunteered to put the question to the Powers
that Be at FWW and report back. Today I received a response from Andy
Engel at FWW. I've reproduced most of my question and the response
below. My question is edited so as not to bore the s**t out of those
of you who are still awake. The response is edited at the request of
FWW, who requested that I simply omit the identity of the specific
brand which does not loan tools for testing. That identity doesn't
matter anyway, since the main point is that Yes, FWW does identify
themselves when procuring equipment for testing.



Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 1:30 PM
To: FW Editorial Mailbox
Subject: Question about a past issue

Greetings:
Re your latest issue containing the review of 8" jointers. I was
somewhat surprised to see the Grizzley win the top slot... (snippage)
I've rarely seen
them take top honors for flatness of castings, for example, or fit and
finish... How does FWW procure the equipment it uses for tests and
comparisons? Is it via an "anonymous" purchase, or do you make no
effort to conceal your identity and the purpose of your purchase? In
fact, is it even a purchase, or do you simply ask the manufacturer to
loan a machine
for this purpose?
(snippage)... I've subscribed for about six years, but I don't ever
recall reading any
sort of explanation of how these tests are conducted with respect to
this issue. A clarification of this point would be appreciated I
suspect
by many readers.

RESPONSE:

Interesting question. *********** will not loan tools, although most
other manufacturers do so. So, ***************** was a purchase,
while the other machines in the test were loaners. To answer your
broader question, we are somewhat concerned that manufacturers might
send ringers for tool tests. Given the number of lemons we've gotten
from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.

Andy Engel


I find that sorta scary...not that the mag would get lemons, but that they'd
get lemons when the manufacturer KNOWS that the machine is going for a
review!

If it was me, I'd like to think that I wouldn't send a souped up machine,
but that I'd at least have it checked out pretty well before shipping.

Just a thought...

Mike

[...snip...]

Given the number of lemons we've gotten
from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.

Andy Engel

I think Andy has a point, at least with Grizzly. They have certainly
had machines get dinged on points that could have been tweaked out in
past reviews.

Jim

"The Davenport's" wrote in message
I find that sorta scary...not that the mag would get lemons, but that
they'd get lemons when the manufacturer KNOWS that the machine is going
for a review!

If it was me, I'd like to think that I wouldn't send a souped up machine,
but that I'd at least have it checked out pretty well before shipping.

Just a thought...

Actually, a good thought, Mike.

Perhaps it is an ego thing where the manufacturer actually thinks every
product they make is perfect, so no need to check. I do know that when we
send samples to a trade show, they are taken from regular production
inventory, but each piece is looked over first. The best of companies can
make a lemon.

Edwin Pawlowski said:

"The Davenport's" wrote in message
I find that sorta scary...not that the mag would get lemons, but that
they'd get lemons when the manufacturer KNOWS that the machine is going
for a review!

If it was me, I'd like to think that I wouldn't send a souped up machine,
but that I'd at least have it checked out pretty well before shipping.

Just a thought...

Actually, a good thought, Mike.

Perhaps it is an ego thing where the manufacturer actually thinks every
product they make is perfect, so no need to check. I do know that when we
send samples to a trade show, they are taken from regular production
inventory, but each piece is looked over first. The best of companies can
make a lemon.

I believe you make a valid observation on the ego thing - at least as
it concerns woodworking machinery manufacturers and a few others.

They apparently don't hold a candle to the computer industry, where
review items often get tweaked to perform in benchmarks, sometime at
the expense of real-world performance.

And very red faces when they're called on it.

A lemon... Or two...


Greg G.

said:

Greetings,

A few days ago, there was a thread regarding the most recent issue of
FWW containing a review of 8" jointers. The OP expressed some surprise
that Grizzly won top honors. This led to a discussion in which I

snip

RESPONSE:

Interesting question. *********** will not loan tools, although most
other manufacturers do so. So, ***************** was a purchase,
while the other machines in the test were loaners. To answer your
broader question, we are somewhat concerned that manufacturers might
send ringers for tool tests. Given the number of lemons we've gotten
from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.

Thanks, Andy, for doing the leg work on this.
That was interesting, On Topic, and I've often wondered about this
very issue. ( I have a suspicious mind.)


Greg G.

The Davenport's wrote:


Interesting question. *********** will not loan tools, although most
other manufacturers do so. So, ***************** was a purchase,
while the other machines in the test were loaners. To answer your
broader question, we are somewhat concerned that manufacturers might
send ringers for tool tests. Given the number of lemons we've gotten
from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.

Andy Engel


I find that sorta scary...not that the mag would get lemons, but that they'd
get lemons when the manufacturer KNOWS that the machine is going for a
review!

If it was me, I'd like to think that I wouldn't send a souped up machine,
but that I'd at least have it checked out pretty well before shipping.


I can attest to the fact that lemons arrive for testing. In the early
days of several companies, there was about a 50-50 chance of getting
such a machine. Today, the likelihood is down in the neighborhood of my
chances of winning the Mega Million jackpot tomorrow evening.

What you get, 99 times out of 100, is a crate straight from the
manufacturer in whatever country, unopened since the last nail or
staple was driven. You can generally figure such a tool is a stock
unit. I have had distributors tell me they need a week extra to
'tune-up' tools, usually small tools (routers, etc.). I sometimes
wonder if the new age sellers of larger machinery have anyone on this
side of the Pacific who can actully do a decent tune-up of the tools
anyway. If they do, they're occupied elsewhere.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message

I can attest to the fact that lemons arrive for testing. In the early
days of several companies, there was about a 50-50 chance of getting
such a machine. Today, the likelihood is down in the neighborhood of my
chances of winning the Mega Million jackpot tomorrow evening.

Hey Charlie, I show your posting time on this message as being 5:44. I
usually see messages from you about this time. Do you always get up this
early or are you more prone to staying up really late?

Passed my 50th birthday a little more than a year ago. I've found that I
don't sleep as much as I used to. Either that or I'm just too stupid to
climb into bed and get to it. Hope it doesn't get too much worse as I get
older or I'm in big trouble, because I'm a s.o.b. when I don't get enough.
(sleep or sex) Which probably accounts for my miserable attitude most of the
time.

Upscale wrote:
"Charlie Self" wrote in message

I can attest to the fact that lemons arrive for testing. In the early
days of several companies, there was about a 50-50 chance of getting
such a machine. Today, the likelihood is down in the neighborhood of my
chances of winning the Mega Million jackpot tomorrow evening.

Hey Charlie, I show your posting time on this message as being 5:44. I
usually see messages from you about this time. Do you always get up this
early or are you more prone to staying up really late?

Passed my 50th birthday a little more than a year ago. I've found that I
don't sleep as much as I used to. Either that or I'm just too stupid to
climb into bed and get to it. Hope it doesn't get too much worse as I get
older or I'm in big trouble, because I'm a s.o.b. when I don't get enough.
(sleep or sex) Which probably accounts for my miserable attitude most of the
time.

Yes, well...I promise, I wasn't staying up late. Seldom happens. I get
to 10:30 about once a month. I'm usually in the sack shortly after 9,
up around 4. After all, I do live in the country and don't watch much
TV, so when I reach a stopping point in a book I'm reading, I go to
bed.

Works for me. Others hate it (I used to come HOME at this time..drink,
dance and generally fool around, then stop and have breakfast on the
road home).

wrote:
Given the number of lemons we've gotten
from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.

Now I know why so many of these companies have financial trouble. G

I know that if _I_ were sending an item for review, I would make sure I
was putting my best foot forward.

Barry

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message

"The Davenport's" wrote in message

If it was me, I'd like to think that I wouldn't send a souped up
machine,
but that I'd at least have it checked out pretty well before shipping.

Just a thought...

Actually, a good thought, Mike.

Perhaps it is an ego thing where the manufacturer actually thinks every
product they make is perfect, so no need to check. I do know that when we
send samples to a trade show, they are taken from regular production
inventory, but each piece is looked over first. The best of companies can
make a lemon.

In this the age of the MBA, it may likely be more arrogance than ego,
closely followed by clueless.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 11/06/05

There's a very interesting thread at the Sawmill Creek forum on this
topic, and interestingly enough the president of Grizzly is an active
participant, with quite interesting comments about his relationship
with FWW. He confirmed FWW must have purchased, and also said he knew
nothing about the test in advance. He was surprised, given his past
dealings with FWW, that THEY would choose a Griz machine as best, but
not surprised that it was... :-) .... Go take a peek, long thread,
interesting (and on topic) reading. Mutt

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=25821

Pig said:

There's a very interesting thread at the Sawmill Creek forum on this
topic, and interestingly enough the president of Grizzly is an active
participant, with quite interesting comments about his relationship
with FWW. He confirmed FWW must have purchased, and also said he knew
nothing about the test in advance. He was surprised, given his past
dealings with FWW, that THEY would choose a Griz machine as best, but
not surprised that it was... :-) .... Go take a peek, long thread,
interesting (and on topic) reading. Mutt

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=25821

Could it be that FWW is trolling for advertising dollars?
Perhaps to replace other, more inconsistent pocketbooks.

FWIW,

Greg G.

This all reveals quite a bit about the current state of play in the
woodworking machinery field. If a company does not concern itself with a
thorough pre-shipping inspection of a unit to be evaluated by a national
magazine, one can't help but wonder what sort of pre-shipping inspection
befalls purchases by anonymous customers.

Perhaps this is the way business must be conducted today to compete on
price. I recall the early days of semiconductor manufacturing when
barrels of untested transistors could be bought quite cheaply but if you
wanted them tested, the price rose several fold. It would be interesting
to see a company like Grizzly offer a pre-assembled (and then
unassembled) and tested product at a higher price as an alternative to
the roulette game we have come to know.

It is also difficult to believe magazines don't extend some form of
special consideration to their regular advertisers. But on the other
hand, if the manufacturers don't bother, maybe the magazines don't either.

Chuck


Pig wrote:
There's a very interesting thread at the Sawmill Creek forum on this
topic, and interestingly enough the president of Grizzly is an active
participant, with quite interesting comments about his relationship
with FWW. He confirmed FWW must have purchased, and also said he knew
nothing about the test in advance. He was surprised, given his past
dealings with FWW, that THEY would choose a Griz machine as best, but
not surprised that it was... :-) .... Go take a peek, long thread,
interesting (and on topic) reading. Mutt

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=25821

Swingman wrote:

Perhaps it is an ego thing where the manufacturer actually thinks every
product they make is perfect, so no need to check. I do know that when we
send samples to a trade show, they are taken from regular production
inventory, but each piece is looked over first. The best of companies can
make a lemon.

In this the age of the MBA, it may likely be more arrogance than ego,
closely followed by clueless.

The perfect twins: clueless and arrogant. It may be a requirement for
graduation with an MBA.

Charlie Self wrote:

The perfect twins: clueless and arrogant. It may be a requirement for
graduation with an MBA.

With excellent hair...

And I suspect it's because the manufacturers don't send a brand
new machine to every single reviewer and show. The demo models
can get pretty beat up.

wrote:

RESPONSE:

Interesting question. *********** will not loan tools, although most
other manufacturers do so. So, ***************** was a purchase,
while the other machines in the test were loaners. To answer your
broader question, we are somewhat concerned that manufacturers might
send ringers for tool tests. Given the number of lemons we've gotten
from manufacturers over the years, I doubt that many do so.

Andy Engel