IMO, pretty much any new blade, no matter what brand, should be sharp enough, properly flat and otherwise aligned to make perfectly clean cuts for, at least, some reasonable time period. Beyond that, how its sharpness and alignment (flatness or teeth) holds up, for continued perfect cuts, is another matter.

Given the info, I would suspect the Forrest blade was likely defected, in some way.

Sonny

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 06:22:22 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Yeah I seriously doubt they would say you are still in warranty, return
it to us and we will give you a certain percentage refund. ;~)

Not sure what you're saying. I'd guess that Forrest would want to know
what was wrong with a disappointing blade. After all, it reflects
directly on them whether or not it was a shipping/handling damage
problem.

On 7/27/2012 6:58 AM, Dave wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 06:22:22 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Yeah I seriously doubt they would say you are still in warranty, return
it to us and we will give you a certain percentage refund. ;~)

Not sure what you're saying. I'd guess that Forrest would want to know
what was wrong with a disappointing blade. After all, it reflects
directly on them whether or not it was a shipping/handling damage
problem.



I was kiddingly referencing the Promecell warranty/policy.

On 7/26/2012 8:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

I agree that the HF blade is not better than a Forrest as a general precept.
That was not what I was trying to say.

Well, then, I certainly have no idea what specifically it was that you
_were_ trying to say...

You never proposed that something could have been suspect in the
comparison--either the blade, the saw, a combination to explain the
grossly unexpected results; only afaict a willingness to blindly accept
that a very inexpensive run-of-the-mill blade would outperform an
obviously flawed cut made w/ a blade from a recognized premium industry
leader...

I'll throw out one more war story as a _possible_ albeit unlikely
culprit -- many years ago I bought a matched pair of blades (not Forrest
but another of similar reputation and price point) specifically to cut a
bunch of tenons for a large project. The first trial w/ them went very
badly indeed and left a mark much like that OP described on one side in
particular.

Investigation (and not a terribly intense one ) uncovered the fact
that one of the two center holes was just a wee fraction small and would
(and did) not fit over the unthreaded portion of the arbor shaft on the
PM66 and so was cockeyed rather than resting flush against the arbor
mandrel face.

Whatever it was that happened in OP's case, _something_ caused that
blade to score agreed, but to draw a general conclusion from that one
cut is just not supported w/o additional data and followup.

For example OP didn't report what he learned from Forrest when he
contacted them to get their input before deciding to return it. It
sounds like he was simply relieved he could justify getting the money
back that he really didn't want to spend to begin with...

--

dpb wrote:
On 7/26/2012 8:02 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

I agree that the HF blade is not better than a Forrest as a general
precept. That was not what I was trying to say.

Well, then, I certainly have no idea what specifically it was that you
_were_ trying to say...

You never proposed that something could have been suspect in the
comparison--either the blade, the saw, a combination to explain the
grossly unexpected results; only afaict a willingness to blindly
accept that a very inexpensive run-of-the-mill blade would outperform
an obviously flawed cut made w/ a blade from a recognized premium
industry leader...

You are correct. FWIW - I had just assumed that the Forrest must have been
defective. They have a great reputation, and to me, it is inarguable that
they are a quality product. Most of my thoughts in my responses, centered
around the suggestions that the saw must be out of tune - since that makes
no sense to me if one blade cuts fine and another does not.


I'll throw out one more war story as a _possible_ albeit unlikely
culprit -- many years ago I bought a matched pair of blades (not
Forrest but another of similar reputation and price point)
specifically to cut a bunch of tenons for a large project. The first
trial w/ them went very badly indeed and left a mark much like that
OP described on one side in particular.

Investigation (and not a terribly intense one ) uncovered the fact
that one of the two center holes was just a wee fraction small and
would (and did) not fit over the unthreaded portion of the arbor
shaft on the PM66 and so was cockeyed rather than resting flush
against the arbor mandrel face.

Whatever it was that happened in OP's case, _something_ caused that
blade to score agreed, but to draw a general conclusion from that one
cut is just not supported w/o additional data and followup.

Agreed. I did not try to draw any generalized conclusions - at least not
intentionally.


For example OP didn't report what he learned from Forrest when he
contacted them to get their input before deciding to return it. It
sounds like he was simply relieved he could justify getting the money
back that he really didn't want to spend to begin with...

Perhaps. From my experiences with other types of products that are in the
league of a Forrest blade, I would have expected Forrest to have offered to
somehow make good on the blade with (most likely...) a replacement.

--

-Mike-

On 7/27/2012 8:14 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

You are correct. FWIW - I had just assumed that the Forrest must have been
defective. They have a great reputation, and to me, it is inarguable that
they are a quality product. Most of my thoughts in my responses, centered
around the suggestions that the saw must be out of tune - since that makes
no sense to me if one blade cuts fine and another does not.
....

OK, but I surely didn't get the first thought--maybe I didn't read
carefully enough, I don't know...

If the other blade isn't true it could smear out the single clean score
mark the other (true) blade left. If OP is only used to an out-of-tune
saw it's quite possible never has recognized a truly in-tune cut to
clearly judge just what might have gone wrong. Certainly he saw a
problem but immediately assigned blame to the blade instead of digging
in was/is my biggest problem in the reported conclusion.

I wasn't/am not familiar w/ the particular saw so I did a search--John
White of the FWW shop did do a introductory evaluation of it and reports
it is a pretty nice machine overall. The test machine as received he
noted was pretty accurate other than the fence was somewhat out of line
and noted it was a real booger/time-consumer to align properly.

--

dpb wrote:
On 7/27/2012 8:14 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

You are correct. FWIW - I had just assumed that the Forrest must
have been defective. They have a great reputation, and to me, it is
inarguable that they are a quality product. Most of my thoughts in
my responses, centered around the suggestions that the saw must be
out of tune - since that makes no sense to me if one blade cuts fine
and another does not.
...

OK, but I surely didn't get the first thought--maybe I didn't read
carefully enough, I don't know...


It's just the nature of a medium like usenet I think. There are generally
multiple thoughts that can be replied to - or multiple aspects of a thought.
It is as clear as day in our mind, as we reply, but does not come across
quite so clear to others when they read it. Either because of they way we
say it, or because of the filter of their own thoughts in the whole thing.

The only thing that really ****es me off when that happens is when the
reader responds with "you said..." and ignores any attempt on your part to
explain what you really meant. No shortage of that kind of thing here.

I appreciate your flexibility in this discourse, especially since it clearly
took a little flexibility on your part to extend that.

--

-Mike-

Lew, I was not trying to save money, I was more than willing to plonk down
the cash for the Forrest - I just wanted it to work at least as well as the
HF blade - thinking the C4 would make it last a long time with the way I use
my TS.

BTW -- I recut the side of the red oak that I had used to test the Forrest
with the HF blade - baby butt smooth. So, all of you who were saying the
blade had to be defective, were probably right.


Deb





Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Pat Barber" wrote:

We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any
real
difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next
time
you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips
going a few hundred feet per second toward you:

1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??

2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?

3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500
r.p.m. ?

4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?

Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.

Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
woodworking.
----------------------------------
Nuf said.

Trying to save $80 on the cost of a high performance (high risk) tool
such as a carbide tooth saw blade is pure folly IMHO.

Lew

"Dr. Deb" wrote:

Lew, I was not trying to save money, I was more than willing to
plonk down
the cash for the Forrest - I just wanted it to work at least as well
as the
HF blade - thinking the C4 would make it last a long time with the
way I use
my TS.

BTW -- I recut the side of the red oak that I had used to test the
Forrest
with the HF blade - baby butt smooth. So, all of you who were
saying the
blade had to be defective, were probably right.
-----------------------------------
Glad to see you appear to have isolated your problem.

My first move would be to contact Forrest.

Don't personally have any Forrest equipment, but my guess they have
too much at stake not to want to get to the bottom of this problem and
solve it.

Lew

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:5011ab1c$0$51116
:


"Pat Barber" wrote:

We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any
real
difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next
time
you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips
going a few hundred feet per second toward you:

1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??

2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?

3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500
r.p.m. ?

4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?

Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.

Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
woodworking.
----------------------------------
Nuf said.

Trying to save $80 on the cost of a high performance (high risk) tool
such as a carbide tooth saw blade is pure folly IMHO.

Lew








I agree with Pat and Lew on this one. My WWII has been in constant use
for the last two years and it still cuts as smooth as the day I put it
on.

Steve wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:5011ab1c$0$51116
:


"Pat Barber" wrote:

We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any
real
difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next
time
you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips
going a few hundred feet per second toward you:

1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??

2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?

3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500
r.p.m. ?

4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?

Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.

Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
woodworking.
----------------------------------
Nuf said.

Trying to save $80 on the cost of a high performance (high risk) tool
such as a carbide tooth saw blade is pure folly IMHO.

Lew


Does anyone here recollect having a carbide tooth fly-off during
operation? It seems like something one would remember. With all of the
cheap blades and circular saws around, I would think it might make the
news once in a while?

Becoming "all too familiar" with my box-cutter, I was slashing through
several layer of plastic yesterday and sliced across my thumb. I almost
didn't want to look. I felt very lucky that I only needed a band-aid!
If the blade had been sharper, it might not have happened (or something
else might have happened), but I don't want a "do-over". Careful out there!

Bill

Bill wrote:


Does anyone here recollect having a carbide tooth fly-off during
operation? It seems like something one would remember. With all of
the cheap blades and circular saws around, I would think it might
make the news once in a while?

Well - they sure would if that were ever more than a rare occurrance. The
fact of the matter is that carbide flying off of blades was a very rare
event - even with the cheapest of blades. The hype was bigger than the
actual occurance.


Becoming "all too familiar" with my box-cutter, I was slashing through
several layer of plastic yesterday and sliced across my thumb. I
almost didn't want to look. I felt very lucky that I only needed a
band-aid! If the blade had been sharper, it might not have happened (or
something else might have happened), but I don't want a "do-over". Careful
out there!

No - careful in your shop Bill. Close calls are better lessons learned than
lessons shared.

--

-Mike-

On 7/30/2012 5:31 PM, Bill wrote:
Steve wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:5011ab1c$0$51116
:


"Pat Barber" wrote:

We all have our favorites and while you don't think there is any
real
difference in a $100 and $20 blade, just think about this the next
time
you are standing in front of that spinning blade with blade tips
going a few hundred feet per second toward you:

1. Who brazed those tips on and with what ??

2. Who inspected that blade and made sure it was perfectly flat ?

3. Who made sure that the blade is perfectly balanced for 4,500
r.p.m. ?

4. Has the person doing that ever seen a table saw ?

Finding a serious comparison is very unlikely.

Don't forget to wear your safety glasses and Kevlar vest while
woodworking.
----------------------------------
Nuf said.

Trying to save $80 on the cost of a high performance (high risk) tool
such as a carbide tooth saw blade is pure folly IMHO.

Lew


Does anyone here recollect having a carbide tooth fly-off during
operation? It seems like something one would remember. With all of the
cheap blades and circular saws around, I would think it might make the
news once in a while?

Becoming "all too familiar" with my box-cutter, I was slashing through
several layer of plastic yesterday and sliced across my thumb. I almost
didn't want to look. I felt very lucky that I only needed a band-aid!
If the blade had been sharper, it might not have happened (or something
else might have happened), but I don't want a "do-over". Careful out
there!

Bill


Absolutely, I have had Freud carbide tips come off and if you hit
something imbedded in the wood, Look out.

Sounds like you aren't using it its designed purpose and probably only need
the cheapo blades. Higher cost does NOT necessarily indicate better quality
first, but instead special uses.



In ,
Dr. Deb typed:
Some time ago I asked if any of you were in a position to
try a comparison between the Forrest WoodWorker II and
the Harbor Frieght blade (SKU 46231)

http://www.harborfreight.com/10-inch...-bevel-design-
novelty-combo-blade-46231.html

Harbor Freight having the reputation they do for selling
cheap tools, I got no takers, and was not overly
surprised.

SWMBO, gave me a "US Grant" for Father's Day and I put it
back in the deepest recesses of the wallet. Finally, I
decided to take the plunge and buy a Forrest WoodWorker
II (40tooth, 1/8" kerf). So shopping around I found it
on Amazon for $107.00 and hit the "Order" button. The
package arrived today and, of course, I had to check it
out.

After peeling the protective coating off it, I mounted it
in my Ridgid 3650 tablesaw and made a couple of test
cuts. I stepped back, scratched my head and said,
"Hmmmmmm." So, I got a fresh HF 46231, mounted it and
made a couple of test cuts. Then I remounted the Forrest
WWII, got a 7/4 piece of Southern Red Oak and did an an
crosscut and an rip cut. Swapped out the Forrest for the
HF blade and made the crosscut and rip on the other end
and side of the same pieces of red oad.

Bottom line, the Forrest is going back. There was very
little, if any noticable difference. If there was a
difference the HF blade gave the better cut. On the
first pass in the rip cut with the Forrest, I noticed a
tooth mark, rather severe, so I moved the rip fence over
1/4" and recut. It had the same thing, in the same
place.

The HF blade is only C3, so it will need to be sharpened
a bit more often, but at $19.50, you can almost get a new
blade rather than have it sharpened.


To be very honest, I was extremely surprised. But, it is
what it is.

As a disclaimer, the ONLY HF blade I would use is the
46231. My bandsaw blades are Woodslicers, my router bits
are all name brand. In other words, I do want quality.

What I would really like to see is a lab test between
these two. But for my test, on my saw, in my shop, there
is no justification in paying six times the cost of the
HF for the Forrest.

Deb

On 7/30/2012 3:31 PM, Bill wrote:

Does anyone here recollect having a carbide tooth fly-off during
operation? It seems like something one would remember. With all of the
cheap blades and circular saws around, I would think it might make the
news once in a while?

I didn't mean to state that it was a common occurrence, but that it was
one of "many" things that can go wrong with cheaper products. I have
lost teeth on my Freud($200) dado set on occasion and that is because
carbide tips are VERY brittle and chip quite easily.

Your experiences might be different.

I will continue with Freud.