I got the latest issue of Wood Magazine in the mail yesterday. I notice
they have an update on the "controversial" glue testing they did a few
issues ago. It seems they basically reversed their opinion on some
aspects of Titebond III and now it gets their "Editors Choice" rating as
the best glue.

Maybe it was just my imagination, but the tone of the article almost
seemed as if they had been chastened by a parent. I wonder how much
pressure they received from Titebond's company, since they are an
advertiser. Did anybody else get a weird vibe on the article?

"Mark Blum" wrote in message
...
I got the latest issue of Wood Magazine in the mail yesterday. I notice
they have an update on the "controversial" glue testing they did a few
issues ago. It seems they basically reversed their opinion on some
aspects of Titebond III and now it gets their "Editors Choice" rating as
the best glue.

Maybe it was just my imagination, but the tone of the article almost
seemed as if they had been chastened by a parent. I wonder how much
pressure they received from Titebond's company, since they are an
advertiser. Did anybody else get a weird vibe on the article?

Are you suprisedby the retraction? Did you notice that there was no "Best
Glue Ever" advert in the October issue?

What month are you talking about?

"Mark Blum" wrote in message
...
I got the latest issue of Wood Magazine in the mail yesterday. I notice
they have an update on the "controversial" glue testing they did a few
issues ago. It seems they basically reversed their opinion on some
aspects of Titebond III and now it gets their "Editors Choice" rating as
the best glue.

Maybe it was just my imagination, but the tone of the article almost
seemed as if they had been chastened by a parent. I wonder how much
pressure they received from Titebond's company, since they are an
advertiser. Did anybody else get a weird vibe on the article?

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:50:44 -0400, Mark Blum
wrote:

pressure they received from Titebond's company, since they are an
advertiser. Did anybody else get a weird vibe on the article?

Yeah - me!

It was *odd*. It struck me as a complete back-down, a complete
capitulation. Not even the editorial-nads to stand by their testing. I
read it as they defer to the other labs work and then call it "Top
Choice".

"patrick conroy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:50:44 -0400, Mark Blum
wrote:

pressure they received from Titebond's company, since they are an
advertiser. Did anybody else get a weird vibe on the article?

Yeah - me!

It was *odd*. It struck me as a complete back-down, a complete
capitulation. Not even the editorial-nads to stand by their testing. I
read it as they defer to the other labs work and then call it "Top
Choice".

...or maybe they had the stones to admit an error publicly.

Bob

On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:15:12 -0500, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:




..or maybe they had the stones to admit an error publicly.


Then I'd wonder why they name TB III as "Top Dog" with their Numero
Uno logo. If their testing methodology is flawed - then redo all of
the samples against a new methodology. Or stick by your tests - if
their sound, if all samples were treated identically, why capitulate?

Not to prolong this - but I didn't get that vibe at all.
Obviously it's subjective - others may laud their approach.

And, in any case, I've been using TB III on my projects... ;-

wrote in message
Which still doesn't answer the question.
If you were buying a gallon of Titebond for outdoor use today would you
opt for
Type II or Type III?


I'd go with III. I have a glue brush that dried up with TB# on it. Put the
brush in water and three weeks later is was still solid. Not scientific,
but it is more exposure than a rain storm.

I still think Gorilla glue should have been in the comparison tests.

Mark Blum wrote in message ...
I got the latest issue of Wood Magazine in the mail yesterday.
[snip]

"patrick conroy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 15:15:12 -0500, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:




..or maybe they had the stones to admit an error publicly.


Then I'd wonder why they name TB III as "Top Dog" with their Numero
Uno logo. If their testing methodology is flawed - then redo all of
the samples against a new methodology. Or stick by your tests - if
their sound, if all samples were treated identically, why capitulate?

I agree about retesting--this procedure leaves a bad taste in the minds of
the readers, such as they are. I don't know that WOOD capitulated to
advertiser pressure, but they could certainly clear the air. "Innocent until
proven guilty," and all that stuff.

Bob

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:21:59 GMT, wrote:



On 1 Oct 2004 16:57:18 -0700, (Never Enough Money) wrote:

I still think Gorilla glue should have been in the comparison tests.

Is Gorilla glue $28 a gallon?


Yeahbut - it's just bananas to most of us...