Is JET a decent company for making bandsaws, or are they a cheap chinese
knockoff company? Or heck are they a cheap American knockoff company.

I noticed on their webpage that they list themselves as JET Europe, so
presumably they are European. Are they made in Europe or somewhere else?

"Eigenvector" wrote in message
...
Is JET a decent company for making bandsaws, or are they a cheap chinese
knockoff company? Or heck are they a cheap American knockoff company.

I noticed on their webpage that they list themselves as JET Europe, so
presumably they are European. Are they made in Europe or somewhere else?

The new (current} iss ue of Fine Woodworking has a comparison of 14 inch
bandsaws.
The Laguna took best overall and the Grizzly best value.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

Dave in Houston wrote:
....
The new (current} issue of Fine Woodworking has a comparison of 14 inch
bandsaws.
The Laguna took best overall and the Grizzly best value.

Slight correction -- one of the two Griz's took best value, the other
was in the "also-ran" category w/ some defects (although w/o looking
again I don't recall what specifically was the problem with it).

I do remember noting and being somewhat surprised that PM and Jet were
two which rated worst on wheel alignment owing to being out and not
having sufficient upper shaft length to compensate via shimming...

I always have a real problem in believing some of the details on these
reviews like this, however--they take measurements of some such as
runout and report it. But, there's absolutely no indication of
reproducibility and no way to measure it so you could by the same model
and have results better or worse by a significant amount...or, it could
be identical, there's no way to know.

Caveat emptor...

--

Eigenvector wrote:
Is JET a decent company for making bandsaws, or are they a cheap chinese
knockoff company? Or heck are they a cheap American knockoff company.

I noticed on their webpage that they list themselves as JET Europe, so
presumably they are European. Are they made in Europe or somewhere else?

They're the parent of Powermatic now. As w/ most other manufacturers,
their products are mostly imports if not all. They made their mark as a
Grizzly-type distributor before Griz became big -- a good value, lower
price alternative when most of the import stuff really was pretty trashy.

In most reviews their stuff rates pretty well altho the particular model
of bandsaw reviewed didn't fare so well in the FWW shootout...

--

dpb wrote:
....
I always have a real problem in believing some of the details on these
reviews like this, however--...

A correction to the correction...

I don't mean "believe" here, bad choice. I meant relying on the
single-point measurement as being a reliable ranking of all machines of
the given vendor/model compared to the population of another...

--

In article ,
says...
Is JET a decent company for making bandsaws, or are they a cheap chinese
knockoff company? Or heck are they a cheap American knockoff company.

I noticed on their webpage that they list themselves as JET Europe, so
presumably they are European. Are they made in Europe or somewhere else?


I bought one about a year ago. I went around all the shops in Auckland, NZ and
looked at maybe 10-12 brands of saw. Most were made in Taiwan, except for a
couple of Italians. Of all the Taiwan made saws, the 18" Jet I ended up buying
had by far the best production standards. It was also the only saw that didn't
try to judder itself off its pallet when turned on (didn't get the Italians
started, they had no plugs, and they were twice the price). So far I am happy
with the performance. But there are brands in the US that we don't get here, so
you may be able to do better .... in any event, I can tell you that the one
I've got isn't total crap ;-)

-P.


--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com

"Peter Huebner" wrote in message
t...
In article ,

says...
Is JET a decent company for making bandsaws, or are they a cheap chinese
knockoff company? Or heck are they a cheap American knockoff company.

I noticed on their webpage that they list themselves as JET Europe, so
presumably they are European. Are they made in Europe or somewhere else?


I bought one about a year ago. I went around all the shops in Auckland, NZ
and
looked at maybe 10-12 brands of saw. Most were made in Taiwan, except for
a
couple of Italians. Of all the Taiwan made saws, the 18" Jet I ended up
buying
had by far the best production standards. It was also the only saw that
didn't
try to judder itself off its pallet when turned on (didn't get the
Italians
started, they had no plugs, and they were twice the price). So far I am
happy
with the performance. But there are brands in the US that we don't get
here, so
you may be able to do better .... in any event, I can tell you that the
one
I've got isn't total crap ;-)

-P.

Thanks, actually I'm not necessarily interested in only US equipment, but
rather equipment that ISN'T Chinese manufactured. After all I really want
to buy an Audi Quattro - I don't expect it to be made in the US

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Dave in Houston wrote:
...
The new (current} issue of Fine Woodworking has a comparison of 14 inch
bandsaws.
The Laguna took best overall and the Grizzly best value.

Slight correction -- one of the two Griz's took best value, the other was
in the "also-ran" category w/ some defects (although w/o looking again I
don't recall what specifically was the problem with it).

I do remember noting and being somewhat surprised that PM and Jet were two
which rated worst on wheel alignment owing to being out and not having
sufficient upper shaft length to compensate via shimming...

I always have a real problem in believing some of the details on these
reviews like this, however--they take measurements of some such as runout
and report it. But, there's absolutely no indication of reproducibility
and no way to measure it so you could by the same model and have results
better or worse by a significant amount...or, it could be identical,
there's no way to know.

Caveat emptor...

--

I think you guys think I know more about this than I really do. I was
asking about JET and the replies all mentioned Grizzly and Laguna. Since I
don't read Fine Woodworking I don't really understand what you are referring
to except maybe that JET makes the Grizzly line.

Sorry for the confusion, I'm a total woodworking noob and am just trying to
familiarize myself with the vendors so that later when I can justify the
purchases I can put a name with a face so to speak.

For now I'm looking at a joiner/planer for $450, a bandsaw is a long way
aways for now.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:34:07 -0700, "Eigenvector"
wrote:

Is JET a decent company for making bandsaws, or are they a cheap chinese
knockoff company? Or heck are they a cheap American knockoff company.

I noticed on their webpage that they list themselves as JET Europe, so
presumably they are European. Are they made in Europe or somewhere else?


I have their Jet 16" bandsaw, and, so far, it has done all that I've
asked of it. I'm not displeased with it.

"Jet" is a brand name of the WMH Tool Group whose corporate offices
are in Elgin, Illinois. WMH Tool Group is a subsidiary of Walter Meier
Holding AG which is based in Zurich Switzerland. Other brands of WMH
Tool Group include Wilton, Powermatic, Performax, Columbian,
Polishmaster, and Waxmaster.

I believe that most if not all the Jet line is manufactured outside
the USA, but I stand to be corrected on that.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS
USA

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Dave in Houston wrote:
...
The new (current} issue of Fine Woodworking has a comparison of 14 inch
bandsaws.
The Laguna took best overall and the Grizzly best value.

Slight correction -- one of the two Griz's took best value, the other was
in the "also-ran" category w/ some defects (although w/o looking again I
don't recall what specifically was the problem with it).

I do remember noting and being somewhat surprised that PM and Jet were two
which rated worst on wheel alignment owing to being out and not having
sufficient upper shaft length to compensate via shimming...

Wrong!!


I always have a real problem in believing some of the details on these
reviews like this, however--they take measurements of some such as runout
and report it. But, there's absolutely no indication of reproducibility
and no way to measure it so you could by the same model and have results
better or worse by a significant amount...or, it could be identical,
there's no way to know.

Caveat emptor...

I have a Jet 14" 1 hp bandsaw. The FW article is B.S.
I had to tune the saw, put an after market tension spring on it and shim the
top wheel to get proper alignment. It does a great job resawing and it is
adjusted to have no blade drift. I am completely happy with it.
It will cut tenons quickly and there is no after work required on the tenon
to make it fit. I use B.C saw blades from Canada. I had very poor luck with
Timberwolf. The saw was made in Taiwan and the fit and finish are what Delta
used to be. I also added the extension block to resaw 12" stock.

"Eigenvector" wrote in message
. ..
I think you guys think I know more about this than I really do. I was
asking about JET and the replies all mentioned Grizzly and Laguna. Since
I don't read Fine Woodworking I don't really understand what you are
referring to except maybe that JET makes the Grizzly line.

Perhaps, if you bought the magazine and read the article it might put
some things in perspective.

Or don't.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

"Eigenvector" wrote in message
...
Is JET a decent company for making bandsaws, or are they a cheap chinese
knockoff company? Or heck are they a cheap American knockoff company.

I noticed on their webpage that they list themselves as JET Europe, so
presumably they are European. Are they made in Europe or somewhere else?

JET is part of WMH Tools. http://www.wmhtoolgroup.com/

My bandsaw was made in Taiwan and it is pretty good in quality and value.
That was 5 years ago so things may have changed. There are better, but
they are generally much more expensive.

"Eigenvector" wrote in message
...
Is JET a decent company for making bandsaws, or are they a cheap chinese
knockoff company? Or heck are they a cheap American knockoff company.

I noticed on their webpage that they list themselves as JET Europe, so
presumably they are European. Are they made in Europe or somewhere else?


As mentioned, WMH tool company. JET began as Japan Engineering and Tools I
believe. Before Taiwan. Most of their higher end stuff is still from
there, but I imagine they'll be on the mainland soon. If they hold their
partner to their standards, the product will be the same.
http://www.jettools.com/jet_index.cf...TOKEN=42927518

Good bandsaw? Sure. ALL of the saws in the test are better than ninety
percent of us using them, so I'd say you buy by feature rather than by what
faults they could find with their particular unit.

Only saw I was never able to get to perform consistently, including my old
12" Sears, was the Grizzly at school. Casting and machining was so bad that
it couldn't be counted on repeat a setting. Most frustrating animal I ever
encountered. Of course, the jointer we got was no prize, either.

Lowell Holmes wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

I do remember noting and being somewhat surprised that PM and Jet were two
which rated worst on wheel alignment owing to being out and not having
sufficient upper shaft length to compensate via shimming...

Wrong!!

No, what DJB posted was in fact printed and photo illustrated in said
article.

I have a Jet 14" 1 hp bandsaw. The FW article is B.S.

I have a Delta X5 that I love. Did you see how well MY saw did? G I
will agree that if you use Delta's stamped blade tension scale, my
example will return the same resaw result the test stated, but I totally
disagree with other comments about my saw.

Remember, the testers get one example of each tool, just like the
examples you and I own.

So much personal preference is involved in any too review that I just
use them as feature reviews and listings of measurable stats. In many
cases, personal methods of work can greatly tilt preferences.

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
et...
Lowell Holmes wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

I have a Jet 14" 1 hp bandsaw. The FW article is B.S.

I have a Delta X5 that I love. Did you see how well MY saw did? G I
will agree that if you use Delta's stamped blade tension scale, my example
will return the same resaw result the test stated, but I totally disagree
with other comments about my saw.

Remember, the testers get one example of each tool, just like the examples
you and I own.

So much personal preference is involved in any too review that I just use
them as feature reviews and listings of measurable stats. In many cases,
personal methods of work can greatly tilt preferences.

I did not mean the op was wrong. I totally disagree with the article.

When I was shopping for my saw, I was biased toward Delta, but The Jet
suited me
and the fit and finish of the Delta tools had deteriorated to being
un-acceptable.

Michael Fortune did a FW article about tuning a band saw. I don't remember
if it was Michael
or another writer that resaws happily with a 3/4 hp Rigid saw. It seems to
me that a properly
tuned bandsaw is a joy, but if you don't take time to figure it out, you
will be miserable.
Michael Fortune recommends using a 3tpi skip tooth blade fro BC Saw. I went
to using that
blade and the performance is great.

I might mention that I regularly apply Johnson's paste wax to the blade and
there is no rust,
which being in the Texas Gulf Coast area is remarkable.

Dave in Houston wrote:
"Eigenvector" wrote in message
. ..
I think you guys think I know more about this than I really do. I was
asking about JET and the replies all mentioned Grizzly and Laguna. Since
I don't read Fine Woodworking I don't really understand what you are
referring to except maybe that JET makes the Grizzly line.

Perhaps, if you bought the magazine and read the article it might put
some things in perspective.

Or don't.

Or looked at it online...I think they still have current articles
available but their site is slow for dialup so I don't use it much...

www.taunton.com is top link

Grizzly is independent importer www.grizzly.com

Jet is the parent of Powermatic besides the Jet line

--

Lowell Holmes wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
et...
Lowell Holmes wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
I have a Jet 14" 1 hp bandsaw. The FW article is B.S.
I have a Delta X5 that I love. Did you see how well MY saw did? G I
will agree that if you use Delta's stamped blade tension scale, my example
will return the same resaw result the test stated, but I totally disagree
with other comments about my saw.

Remember, the testers get one example of each tool, just like the examples
you and I own.

So much personal preference is involved in any too review that I just use
them as feature reviews and listings of measurable stats. In many cases,
personal methods of work can greatly tilt preferences.

I did not mean the op was wrong. I totally disagree with the article.

That wasn't OP, but me who commented on what the article said and your
point might have been clarified a little...

I think it illustrates what I went on to say that a single-point sample
may (or may not) be an accurate representation of a machine overall.

Then again, maybe the one machine out of a 1000 you happened to get is
the one on the far extreme of the distribution that did just happen to
have manufacturing tolerances come out right.

Or, is it sure that the machine you have is even the same model as the
one in the FWW review article? Or have they introduced a "new and
improved" version of the same model? Is it clear that the 1 hp motor on
yours isn't actually stouter in performance than the 1-1/4 hp-rated one
on the sample machine?

None of those are known so if you had the tested machine in your shop
it's quite possible you would be badmouthing it, too, or had sent it
back and gone to something else.

Too many variables and too much unknown to draw more than some general
conclusions on various things such as a general "fit and finish" and the
design features or lack thereof imo.

What I'd like to see would be a subsequent test where instead of 8 or 10
different manufacturers' machines they took a sample of (say) 5 each
from two to make an actual assessment of variability. It would be ideal
if these were procured over a period of at least a year or so and not
all in one bulk purchase as well.

--

Eigenvector wrote:
....

Thanks, actually I'm not necessarily interested in only US equipment, but
rather equipment that ISN'T Chinese manufactured. ...

Well, your choices then get somewhat limited from virtually all
manufacturers of homeshop priced equipment.

Some are Taiwanese or other overseas but very little (if any) is
actually US-made for stationary equipment any more owing to price
structure and the competitiveness of the marketplace...

But, Chinese alone doesn't signify a bad piece of equipment a priori...

--

"Eigenvector" wrote in message
...
Is JET a decent company for making bandsaws, or are they a cheap chinese
knockoff company? Or heck are they a cheap American knockoff company.

I noticed on their webpage that they list themselves as JET Europe, so
presumably they are European. Are they made in Europe or somewhere else?

Jet contracts with a Chinese company to make their equipment. Jet and
Powermatic
are divisions of the same company.

What you saw on the webpage was the address of the divsion of this company
which distributes their products
to Europe.

Since I don't own any kind of bandsaw, I have no opinion on the FWW article.
However, the Grizzly model certainly
seems attractive.

Jim

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:21:16 GMT, B A R R Y
wrote:

Lowell Holmes wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...

I do remember noting and being somewhat surprised that PM and Jet were two
which rated worst on wheel alignment owing to being out and not having
sufficient upper shaft length to compensate via shimming...

Wrong!!

No, what DJB posted was in fact printed and photo illustrated in said
article.

I have a Jet 14" 1 hp bandsaw. The FW article is B.S.

I have a Delta X5 that I love. Did you see how well MY saw did? G I
will agree that if you use Delta's stamped blade tension scale, my
example will return the same resaw result the test stated, but I totally
disagree with other comments about my saw.

I didn't read the FWW article, don't know what they said, but your saw
may be completely different from the saw that was tested with regard
to the process control of the parts that result in appropriate
function. A lot of water has gone under the bridge from then to now.

Frank

Remember, the testers get one example of each tool, just like the
examples you and I own.

So much personal preference is involved in any too review that I just
use them as feature reviews and listings of measurable stats. In many
cases, personal methods of work can greatly tilt preferences.

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:38:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

Lowell Holmes wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
et...
Lowell Holmes wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
I have a Jet 14" 1 hp bandsaw. The FW article is B.S.
I have a Delta X5 that I love. Did you see how well MY saw did? G I
will agree that if you use Delta's stamped blade tension scale, my example
will return the same resaw result the test stated, but I totally disagree
with other comments about my saw.

Remember, the testers get one example of each tool, just like the examples
you and I own.

So much personal preference is involved in any too review that I just use
them as feature reviews and listings of measurable stats. In many cases,
personal methods of work can greatly tilt preferences.

I did not mean the op was wrong. I totally disagree with the article.

That wasn't OP, but me who commented on what the article said and your
point might have been clarified a little...

I think it illustrates what I went on to say that a single-point sample
may (or may not) be an accurate representation of a machine overall.

Then again, maybe the one machine out of a 1000 you happened to get is
the one on the far extreme of the distribution that did just happen to
have manufacturing tolerances come out right.

Manufacturers have process tolerances and a final functional
tolereances. The final functional tolerances on a band saw are such
things as blade tracking,radial and axial wheel runnout, wheel
balance, table flatness, slot alignment, blade speed, arm deflection
under tension, motor power characteristics, overall run vibration,
table tilt accuracy, etc...

Good manufacturers check most of these things on every saw. Hitting
one out of a thousand would put them out of business in a hurry.

The process tolereances and the philosophy for gettting them are what
insures meeting the functional expectations. Or not meeting them in
a statistically relevant manner.



Or, is it sure that the machine you have is even the same model as the
one in the FWW review article? Or have they introduced a "new and
improved" version of the same model? Is it clear that the 1 hp motor on
yours isn't actually stouter in performance than the 1-1/4 hp-rated one
on the sample machine?

All the above, quite likely



None of those are known so if you had the tested machine in your shop
it's quite possible you would be badmouthing it, too, or had sent it
back and gone to something else.

Too many variables and too much unknown to draw more than some general
conclusions on various things such as a general "fit and finish" and the
design features or lack thereof imo.

What I'd like to see would be a subsequent test where instead of 8 or 10
different manufacturers' machines they took a sample of (say) 5 each
from two to make an actual assessment of variability. It would be ideal
if these were procured over a period of at least a year or so and not
all in one bulk purchase as well.

Five better than one, but still doesn't result in a statistically
relevant sample for a capability study. Better to send the tester to
the assembly line and observe the final tests, the number of failures
that are set off, and what is done about them.

Frank

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:38:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

Lowell Holmes wrote:
"B A R R Y" wrote in message
et...
Lowell Holmes wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
I have a Jet 14" 1 hp bandsaw. The FW article is B.S.
I have a Delta X5 that I love. Did you see how well MY saw did? G I
will agree that if you use Delta's stamped blade tension scale, my example
will return the same resaw result the test stated, but I totally disagree
with other comments about my saw.

Remember, the testers get one example of each tool, just like the examples
you and I own.

So much personal preference is involved in any too review that I just use
them as feature reviews and listings of measurable stats. In many cases,
personal methods of work can greatly tilt preferences.
I did not mean the op was wrong. I totally disagree with the article.
That wasn't OP, but me who commented on what the article said and your
point might have been clarified a little...

I think it illustrates what I went on to say that a single-point sample
may (or may not) be an accurate representation of a machine overall.

Then again, maybe the one machine out of a 1000 you happened to get is
the one on the far extreme of the distribution that did just happen to
have manufacturing tolerances come out right.

Manufacturers have process tolerances and a final functional
tolereances. The final functional tolerances on a band saw are such
things as blade tracking,radial and axial wheel runnout, wheel
balance, table flatness, slot alignment, blade speed, arm deflection
under tension, motor power characteristics, overall run vibration,
table tilt accuracy, etc...

Good manufacturers check most of these things on every saw. Hitting
one out of a thousand would put them out of business in a hurry.

The process tolereances and the philosophy for gettting them are what
insures meeting the functional expectations. Or not meeting them in
a statistically relevant manner.


Or, is it sure that the machine you have is even the same model as the
one in the FWW review article? Or have they introduced a "new and
improved" version of the same model? Is it clear that the 1 hp motor on
yours isn't actually stouter in performance than the 1-1/4 hp-rated one
on the sample machine?

All the above, quite likely


None of those are known so if you had the tested machine in your shop
it's quite possible you would be badmouthing it, too, or had sent it
back and gone to something else.

Too many variables and too much unknown to draw more than some general
conclusions on various things such as a general "fit and finish" and the
design features or lack thereof imo.

What I'd like to see would be a subsequent test where instead of 8 or 10
different manufacturers' machines they took a sample of (say) 5 each
from two to make an actual assessment of variability. It would be ideal
if these were procured over a period of at least a year or so and not
all in one bulk purchase as well.

Five better than one, but still doesn't result in a statistically
relevant sample for a capability study. Better to send the tester to
the assembly line and observe the final tests, the number of failures
that are set off, and what is done about them.

All true and don't disagree to varying degrees w/ any of the above points.

The point is, of 14 saws in the sample, point estimates for two for
alignment of wheels wasn't all that great. Now, whether that is
significant functionally is another question not addressed specifically.

Given the two manufacturers whose saws were the two in question, I found
that a most interesting observation in as they are two normally
considered as "better" than the run-of-the-mill imports.

While a sample size of five is certainly small, the results would
certainly be indicative of the variability in the underlying process and
would go a long way towards establishing what could be expected by a
prospective buyer contemplating a future purchase of one of the subject
machines. And, given that few, if any, of us here or in the general
readership audience of FWW are going to be able to go and observe the
actual operating line quality control data from any of the
manufacturers, it would certainly be far more than we know now (or are
likely to know in the future).

Again, it revolves around the product review "game" -- much of it is no
more than that--guys want to write a story and need something to put
into it to make it appear worthwhile...

imo, ymmv, $0.02, etc., etc., of course...

--

Frank Boettcher wrote:
A lot of water has gone under the bridge from then to now.



I figured as much. So sad!

"dpb" wrote in message

machines. And, given that few, if any, of us here or in the general
readership audience of FWW are going to be able to go and observe the
actual operating line quality control data from any of the
manufacturers,

In case you aren't aware of it, the guy you're talking to _did_ just that.



--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 8/8/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Swingman wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message

machines. And, given that few, if any, of us here or in the general
readership audience of FWW are going to be able to go and observe the
actual operating line quality control data from any of the
manufacturers,

In case you aren't aware of it, the guy you're talking to _did_ just that.


Yes, I'm aware of that -- he has lots of inside info that the general
population don't -- but I have a lot more experience in manufacturing
than _he_ may think as well...

--

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:51:40 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:38:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

And, given that few, if any, of us here or in the general
readership audience of FWW are going to be able to go and observe the
actual operating line quality control data from any of the
manufacturers, it would certainly be far more than we know now (or are
likely to know in the future).

We were not discussing the general readership audience but the
testers/writers representing the various mags. At my place they had
an open invitation to come whenever they requested, and often did.
However, none spent a week on an assembly line observing units coming
off and collecting quality data. Would be an eye opener if that were
done on a comparison basis. I would have welcomed it.

And I think that it would be more fun to test a bunch of units in the
lab, and quicker to get the results and go to publication.

Back in the late eighties early nineties, I believe it was, FWW did do
an article on each of the major manufacturing plants, comparing
processes and technology. Somewhere, I have reprints....One
manufacturer stood out for technology, cleanliness and impressive
process control. "like going on the set of Star Wars", I believe was
the quote.

Sadly, that plant is no longer in business, nor, I think, are any of
the others that were in the comparison.

Again, it revolves around the product review "game" -- much of it is no
more than that--guys want to write a story and need something to put
into it to make it appear worthwhile...


While sometimes I would question whether a particular functional
judgement was weighted properly in the larger scheme of things, I've
found the tester/writers to be very knowledgeable, competent and fair.

imo, ymmv, $0.02, etc., etc., of course...

And mine,

Frank

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Jet contracts with a Chinese company to make their equipment.

When did they stop making them in Taiwan?

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:51:40 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:38:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

And, given that few, if any, of us here or in the general
readership audience of FWW are going to be able to go and observe the
actual operating line quality control data from any of the
manufacturers, it would certainly be far more than we know now (or are
likely to know in the future).

We were not discussing the general readership audience

We were? That's news to me!

My comments had to do with the presentation of a single measurement to
the world through the vehicle of a review of a sample of products based
on the measurements taken from that sample. Those are the only data
available to the person reading that article other than some they might
take (if so equipped and inclined to do so) on a similar piece of gear
of their own.

In that respect I questioned the validity of the apparent conclusion
which can be inferred would be drawn by those readers that the data
reported are of value and importance and imply a real difference between
the machines themselves that has some bearing on the selection of one
over another for a prospective purchase. Otherwise, what is the point
of even making the measurement or reporting it other than to have
something to write in the article?

...but the
testers/writers representing the various mags. At my place they had
an open invitation to come whenever they requested, and often did.
However, none spent a week on an assembly line observing units coming
off and collecting quality data. Would be an eye opener if that were
done on a comparison basis. I would have welcomed it.

And I think that it would be more fun to test a bunch of units in the
lab, and quicker to get the results and go to publication.

I don't doubt either of those although it would undoubtedly have been in
the first enlightening and in the second, worthy of discussion and in
reporting. I would doubt though, that the invitation would have
extended to allowing them to publish those data...

Which is what I was driving at. If the vendors would supply the
manufacturing tolerances for the measurements the reviewers thought of
interest and value and those were published as a reference, _THAT_ would
be of real value, far more than an individual number. Lacking that, the
best they can do would be the data from the individual machines. And,
of course, what that leaves out is context of where is this particular
measurement in the overall range of tolerances?

And, of course, there is very little serious evaluation in most reviews
at least of what these measurements _really_ mean in a quantitative
sense of how the machine actually will perform on a comparative basis.
That is where a really knowledgeable reviewer and writer in conjunction
with an open and candid manufacturer could provide a real educational
service to his audience.

Back in the late eighties early nineties, I believe it was, FWW did do
an article on each of the major manufacturing plants, comparing
processes and technology. Somewhere, I have reprints....One
manufacturer stood out for technology, cleanliness and impressive
process control. "like going on the set of Star Wars", I believe was
the quote.
Sadly, that plant is no longer in business, nor, I think, are any of
the others that were in the comparison.

I recall it...it was, as you say very interesting and informative and I,
too, grieve that the subject facility is no more...

Again, it revolves around the product review "game" -- much of it is no
more than that--guys want to write a story and need something to put
into it to make it appear worthwhile...


While sometimes I would question whether a particular functional
judgement was weighted properly in the larger scheme of things, I've
found the tester/writers to be very knowledgeable, competent and fair.
....

I didn't intend anything I wrote to imply otherwise -- my use of "game"
was referring more to the limitations for their reviews owing to the
restrictions of format and volume in a publication. There is far more
to say than can be fit into the available space and many really useful
details are thus never brought out.

--

dpb wrote:
Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:51:40 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:38:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

And, given that few, if any, of us here or in the general readership
audience of FWW are going to be able to go and observe the actual
operating line quality control data from any of the manufacturers, it
would certainly be far more than we know now (or are likely to know
in the future).

We were not discussing the general readership audience

We were? That's news to me!
....
Ooops!

That of course was meant to read as

We were not discussing the general readership audience
but the testers/writers representing the various mags.

We were? That's news to me!

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
Eigenvector wrote:
...

Thanks, actually I'm not necessarily interested in only US equipment, but
rather equipment that ISN'T Chinese manufactured. ...

Well, your choices then get somewhat limited from virtually all
manufacturers of homeshop priced equipment.

Some are Taiwanese or other overseas but very little (if any) is actually
US-made for stationary equipment any more owing to price structure and the
competitiveness of the marketplace...

But, Chinese alone doesn't signify a bad piece of equipment a priori...

--
It does for me personally. I won't purchase Chinese made products unless it
is unavoidable.

Now if JET still makes their stuff in Taiwan I'm sold.

"Eigenvector" wrote in message

--
It does for me personally. I won't purchase Chinese made products unless
it is unavoidable.


Although I'd like to do that, I've been buying tooling from China. Compared
to our US suppliers, it is equal or better quality, half the price, half the
lead time.

Wait until you want to buy a toaster or other small appliance. The only one
I could find not made in China was $225 from England

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Eigenvector" wrote in message

--
It does for me personally. I won't purchase Chinese made products unless
it is unavoidable.


Although I'd like to do that, I've been buying tooling from China.
Compared to our US suppliers, it is equal or better quality, half the
price, half the lead time.

Wait until you want to buy a toaster or other small appliance. The only
one I could find not made in China was $225 from England

Not true. You just have to know where to look A friend of mine takes lots
and lots of overseas trips, airline field engineer, when in Germany he noted
that all the appliances, tools, cars, whathaveyou were actually made in
Germany - even things that when sold in the US were made in China. Now
that's not to say its ALL made in Germany, but rather it would appear the
Germans go out of their way to use German made goods. Hell I'll do that -
arrange to buy German goods and have them shipped over here. It's not like
I buy all the much anyway. I'll gladly buy Chinese made goods when they
stop poisoning us and when they pay their employees comparable salaries and
benefits. Japan is a good example of that - Japan used to equal crap, now
its equal or better to many good and services. It took years of training,
rethinking their business models, and demonstrating those successes to the
consumers here in America to accomplish that turnaround. No reason why
China can't do the same. But for now I'd rather support my fellow American
whenever possible, if not, then my next door neighbors Canada and Mexico.

Eigenvector wrote:

I think you guys think I know more about this than I really do. I was
asking about JET and the replies all mentioned Grizzly and Laguna. Since I
don't read Fine Woodworking I don't really understand what you are referring
to except maybe that JET makes the Grizzly line.

Every few days there is a bandsaw thread and we always talk about the
same few brands (Laguna, Grizzly, Jet, Craftsman, Harbor Freight). You
don't even have to ask here. Either search the archives (Google is your
friend) or just wait a few days.

Big bucks are on Laguna. Grizzly is for serious hobbyists. Jet is for
occasional users. Craftsman is for habitual losers (hey ... it rhymed).
And Harbor Freight is for the likes of me, big ambitions and dinky wallet.

;-)

Bill

--
I'm not not at the above address.
http://nmwoodworks.com


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000764-3, 08/09/2007
Tested on: 8/10/2007 1:32:14 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

In article ,
"Jim" wrote:

"Eigenvector" wrote in message
...
Is JET a decent company for making bandsaws, or are they a cheap chinese
knockoff company? Or heck are they a cheap American knockoff company.

I noticed on their webpage that they list themselves as JET Europe, so
presumably they are European. Are they made in Europe or somewhere else?

Jet contracts with a Chinese company to make their equipment. Jet and
Powermatic
are divisions of the same company.

What you saw on the webpage was the address of the divsion of this company
which distributes their products
to Europe.

Since I don't own any kind of bandsaw, I have no opinion on the FWW article.
However, the Grizzly model certainly
seems attractive.

Jim

Last spring I did a lot of looking, and ended up with the Grizz that FWW
thought was the best value, I have to agree

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:56:58 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:51:40 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:38:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

And, given that few, if any, of us here or in the general
readership audience of FWW are going to be able to go and observe the
actual operating line quality control data from any of the
manufacturers, it would certainly be far more than we know now (or are
likely to know in the future).

We were not discussing the general readership audience

We were? That's news to me!

Is there a joke there?
Your post that preceded this part of the thread:

What I'd like to see would be a subsequent test where instead of 8 or 10
different manufacturers' machines they took a sample of (say) 5 each
from two to make an actual assessment of variability. It would be ideal
if these were procured over a period of at least a year or so and not
all in one bulk purchase as well.

I guess you meant "they" to be the general readership audience and not
the testers?


My comments had to do with the presentation of a single measurement to
the world through the vehicle of a review of a sample of products based
on the measurements taken from that sample. Those are the only data
available to the person reading that article other than some they might
take (if so equipped and inclined to do so) on a similar piece of gear
of their own.

In that respect I questioned the validity of the apparent conclusion
which can be inferred would be drawn by those readers that the data
reported are of value and importance and imply a real difference between
the machines themselves that has some bearing on the selection of one
over another for a prospective purchase. Otherwise, what is the point
of even making the measurement or reporting it other than to have
something to write in the article?

...but the
testers/writers representing the various mags. At my place they had
an open invitation to come whenever they requested, and often did.
However, none spent a week on an assembly line observing units coming
off and collecting quality data. Would be an eye opener if that were
done on a comparison basis. I would have welcomed it.

And I think that it would be more fun to test a bunch of units in the
lab, and quicker to get the results and go to publication.

I don't doubt either of those although it would undoubtedly have been in
the first enlightening and in the second, worthy of discussion and in
reporting. I would doubt though, that the invitation would have
extended to allowing them to publish those data...

Which is what I was driving at. If the vendors would supply the
manufacturing tolerances for the measurements the reviewers thought of
interest and value and those were published as a reference, _THAT_ would
be of real value, far more than an individual number. Lacking that, the
best they can do would be the data from the individual machines. And,
of course, what that leaves out is context of where is this particular
measurement in the overall range of tolerances?

And, of course, there is very little serious evaluation in most reviews
at least of what these measurements _really_ mean in a quantitative
sense of how the machine actually will perform on a comparative basis.

Your contention is that most do not already know how a particular
feature measurement translates into real world comparitive
performance? Do you?



That is where a really knowledgeable reviewer and writer in conjunction
with an open and candid manufacturer could provide a real educational
service to his audience.

Back in the late eighties early nineties, I believe it was, FWW did do
an article on each of the major manufacturing plants, comparing
processes and technology. Somewhere, I have reprints....One
manufacturer stood out for technology, cleanliness and impressive
process control. "like going on the set of Star Wars", I believe was
the quote.
Sadly, that plant is no longer in business, nor, I think, are any of
the others that were in the comparison.

I recall it...it was, as you say very interesting and informative and I,
too, grieve that the subject facility is no more...

Again, it revolves around the product review "game" -- much of it is no
more than that--guys want to write a story and need something to put
into it to make it appear worthwhile...


While sometimes I would question whether a particular functional
judgement was weighted properly in the larger scheme of things, I've
found the tester/writers to be very knowledgeable, competent and fair.
...

I didn't intend anything I wrote to imply otherwise -- my use of "game"
was referring more to the limitations for their reviews owing to the
restrictions of format and volume in a publication. There is far more
to say than can be fit into the available space and many really useful
details are thus never brought out.

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:56:58 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:51:40 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:38:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

And, given that few, if any, of us here or in the general
readership audience of FWW are going to be able to go and observe the
actual operating line quality control data from any of the
manufacturers, it would certainly be far more than we know now (or are
likely to know in the future).
We were not discussing the general readership audience
We were? That's news to me!

Is there a joke there?
Your post that preceded this part of the thread:

See the followup where I corrected my quoting context...perhaps that
helps, I don't know???

....

I guess you meant "they" to be the general readership audience and not
the testers?

I don't think we much disagree at all, fundamentally, but seem to be
having a communication problem (hopefully not deliberately)...

I'll try again...

The "they" in the above paragraph did indeed refer to testing but was
intended generically to include an individual test/tester and/or a
sponsoring publisher such as FWW. I don't care specifically who does
the test and as I replied in the followup, even if it were
vendor-supplied data that would be fine for supplying the population
data currently missing.

That being given though, the point of any testing and reporting isn't
for the benefit of the tester but the readership of the resulting test
report for whom it is at least one if not the primary basis for
selection of or at least a winnowing down of one particular machine for
purchase. So, the overall target of my comments was intended towards
providing more meaningful data for the general readership, yes, and that
is why I said I, at least, was directing comments from the readership
audience pov.

....

And, of course, there is very little serious evaluation in most reviews
at least of what these measurements _really_ mean in a quantitative
sense of how the machine actually will perform on a comparative basis.

Your contention is that most do not already know how a particular
feature measurement translates into real world comparitive
performance? Do you?

For a lot of these measurements reported, no, I don't (and certainly
don't believe the general audience for which such reviews might be of
real value do either). Whether the reviewer does have some knowledge
turns out to be immaterial for the most part because I've never seen
that knowledge or information presented in any review that I can recall.
Some of them are probably not even measurements that are part of the
manufacturer's QA/QC checks, either. That may be because they're
derived measurements controlled by others or because they could be
considered as immaterial.

Really basic measurements such as runout on a tablesaw arbor flange are
pretty clear. The offset in the guide bar on a bandsaw in mils so that
it isn't perfectly straight and therefore might require a tweak of a
fixed guide block type of blade guides when switching from thin stock to
a heavy cut isn't nearly so obvious as to how much is too much. Sure,
it makes sense that "less is better" but it certainly isn't directly
clear that the worst of a reported value is actually enough to make a
real problem in the shop.

The other difficulty in the reports that I was attempting to address is
that if the sample measurement for machine A is 1 mil worse than the
same measurement for machine B, does that imply that if another unit A
and B were purchased and measured that the same differential would be
present or would A even still be worse than B for this pairing of test
machines? Certainly the way test reviews are written and presented
there is no basis for judging anything else but you have done enough
QA/QC testing to know that isn't necessarily so. In fact, the
population mean of the two machines could be the same or even A better
than B instead of what the single sample result indicates. If so, the
poor reader who concludes that B is the better buy in conjunction w/ the
author's "Best Buy" label just might have made the wrong decision if
swayed by the reported numbers. So, I'm simply saying it is an
incomplete service imo to not have context such as that provided in
reviews but recognize that to do so raises the scope of reviews to a
level beyond what would be practical for general circulation magazines.
Hence the "game".

It doesn't imply I think anybody is rigging anything, incompetent, nor
underhanded in any way. They're simply operating under a set of
conditions that aren't optimal to answering some questions in a rigorous
manner. As you have pointed out, vendors have such data and some of
that data would be of real value and lots more of interest (if of little
actual practical value) to at least the more astute and interested in
the general readership. You also noted at least one manufacturer made
such information available if requested, but didn't contradict my
conjecture that such data would not have been allowed to be published
which is certainly understandable for competitive reasons if no other.
I suspect not all vendors were so open to potential reviewers for such
data even then, particularly if they were aware the same reviewer was
visiting other vendors. With the present competitive environment I can
only imagine such pressures weigh even more heavily upon them to
maintain such data closely held proprietary information.

Hopefully, that makes a step forward?

--

"Bob" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Jet contracts with a Chinese company to make their equipment.

When did they stop making them in Taiwan?

I was just using Chinese as a synonym for Taiwanese.
Jim

dpb wrote:
....
The "they" in the above paragraph did indeed refer to testing but was
intended generically to include an individual test/tester and/or a
sponsoring publisher such as FWW. I don't care specifically who does
the test and as I replied in the followup, even if it were
vendor-supplied data that would be fine for supplying the population
data currently missing.

One other thought struck how to perhaps explain the pov I was trying to
get over. I consider the test/tester/publisher as an entity to be a
surrogate for the reader who would like to do what they're doing but has
to rely on them for that service in a practical manner. Ergo, from that
point of view, yes, the "they" does indirectly refer to the readers...

--

"Jim" wrote in message
et...

"Bob" wrote in message
...

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Jet contracts with a Chinese company to make their equipment.

When did they stop making them in Taiwan?

I was just using Chinese as a synonym for Taiwanese.


I don't see why the OP bothered to ask; it seems his mind is already
made up.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:18:07 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:56:58 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:51:40 -0500, dpb wrote:

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:38:12 -0500, dpb wrote:

And, given that few, if any, of us here or in the general
readership audience of FWW are going to be able to go and observe the
actual operating line quality control data from any of the
manufacturers, it would certainly be far more than we know now (or are
likely to know in the future).
We were not discussing the general readership audience
We were? That's news to me!

Is there a joke there?
Your post that preceded this part of the thread:

See the followup where I corrected my quoting context...perhaps that
helps, I don't know???

Not a bit. Still means the same thing.


...

I guess you meant "they" to be the general readership audience and not
the testers?

I don't think we much disagree at all, fundamentally, but seem to be
having a communication problem (hopefully not deliberately)...

I'll try again...

The "they" in the above paragraph did indeed refer to testing but was
intended generically to include an individual test/tester and/or a
sponsoring publisher such as FWW. I don't care specifically who does
the test and as I replied in the followup, even if it were
vendor-supplied data that would be fine for supplying the population
data currently missing.

That being given though, the point of any testing and reporting isn't
for the benefit of the tester but the readership of the resulting test
report for whom it is at least one if not the primary basis for
selection of or at least a winnowing down of one particular machine for
purchase. So, the overall target of my comments was intended towards
providing more meaningful data for the general readership, yes, and that
is why I said I, at least, was directing comments from the readership
audience pov.

...

And, of course, there is very little serious evaluation in most reviews
at least of what these measurements _really_ mean in a quantitative
sense of how the machine actually will perform on a comparative basis.

Your contention is that most do not already know how a particular
feature measurement translates into real world comparitive
performance? Do you?

For a lot of these measurements reported, no, I don't

Well that's too bad, maybe you should study up a little, or better
yet, use your machines to get some practical experience.

(and certainly
don't believe the general audience for which such reviews might be of
real value do either).

Then there is probably no basis for continuing this discussion. I
believe the vast majority do. I base my conclusion on talking with
literally thousands of end user woodworkers at shows and directly
resolving issues as quality manager for a number of years. And your
belief is based on...



Whether the reviewer does have some knowledge
turns out to be immaterial for the most part because I've never seen
that knowledge or information presented in any review that I can recall.
Some of them are probably not even measurements that are part of the
manufacturer's QA/QC checks, either. That may be because they're
derived measurements controlled by others or because they could be
considered as immaterial.

Really basic measurements such as runout on a tablesaw arbor flange are
pretty clear. The offset in the guide bar on a bandsaw in mils so that
it isn't perfectly straight and therefore might require a tweak of a
fixed guide block type of blade guides when switching from thin stock to
a heavy cut isn't nearly so obvious as to how much is too much. Sure,
it makes sense that "less is better" but it certainly isn't directly
clear that the worst of a reported value is actually enough to make a
real problem in the shop.

The other difficulty in the reports that I was attempting to address is
that if the sample measurement for machine A is 1 mil worse than the
same measurement for machine B, does that imply that if another unit A
and B were purchased and measured that the same differential would be
present or would A even still be worse than B for this pairing of test
machines? Certainly the way test reviews are written and presented
there is no basis for judging anything else but you have done enough
QA/QC testing to know that isn't necessarily so. In fact, the
population mean of the two machines could be the same or even A better
than B instead of what the single sample result indicates. If so, the
poor reader who concludes that B is the better buy in conjunction w/ the
author's "Best Buy" label just might have made the wrong decision if
swayed by the reported numbers. So, I'm simply saying it is an
incomplete service imo to not have context such as that provided in
reviews but recognize that to do so raises the scope of reviews to a
level beyond what would be practical for general circulation magazines.
Hence the "game".

It doesn't imply I think anybody is rigging anything, incompetent, nor
underhanded in any way. They're simply operating under a set of
conditions that aren't optimal to answering some questions in a rigorous
manner. As you have pointed out, vendors have such data and some of
that data would be of real value and lots more of interest (if of little
actual practical value) to at least the more astute and interested in
the general readership. You also noted at least one manufacturer made
such information available if requested, but didn't contradict my
conjecture that such data would not have been allowed to be published
which is certainly understandable for competitive reasons if no other.
I suspect not all vendors were so open to potential reviewers for such
data even then, particularly if they were aware the same reviewer was
visiting other vendors. With the present competitive environment I can
only imagine such pressures weigh even more heavily upon them to
maintain such data closely held proprietary information.

Hopefully, that makes a step forward?