See the followup where I corrected my quoting context...perhaps that
helps, I don't know???
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
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?
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...
Well that's too bad, maybe you should study up a little, or better
yet, use your machines to get some practical experience.
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...
That there is no direct correlation of the magnitude of a measurement of
the vertical post alignment to the actual misalignment of the guide
blocks for an adjustment on the height into an actual performance
statistic for the saw as just one example. The last review in FWW
mentions the misalignment can cause a need for readjustment as a general
reason for looking at it but gave no guidelines at all on how much is
too much or would be considered acceptable.
That "smaller is better" is a given, but whether 3 or 10 or 30 is
really, really bad isn't clear to a general audience who is looking to
buy a saw for the first time, certainly, which is a large part of the
target audience of such reviews.
I'd be terribly surprised if you could take a sample of the readers of
any of the general circulation magazines and have even 5% of those who
are owners of a bandsaw and could come anyways close to telling either
what their saw measured for that statistic or had ever actually measured
it or thought to.
And it still doesn't address the issue of how the distribution of
individual machine measurements correlate to the measurements of the
population of machines of which the tested one was a single sample.
All I'm pointing out is that w/o some context, the reviews have some
merit but could be more informative than they are but recognizing there
are limitations to the format.
Don't know what you're seemingly so angry over or feel the need to
denigrate, but whatever you say...
And absolutely nothing in that answer had anything to do with any
statistical supporting basis for your belief that most end users
don't know. As I thought, strictly an opinion. That's fine. I
believe most do. My sample is large, and the vast majority could
discuss those things clearly.
However, as I recall, you're the same guy who believes that end user
woodworkers are relatively dumb and are clamoring for a 10% lower
price to get chinese junk. Your stated belief from an earlier thread,
is that is what is causing the flight to china rather than the
manufacturers "corporate whiz kids", who by the way share your belief,
that is, those woodworkers are dumb, cut the cost by 25%, cut the
price by 10%, give them junk and they'll be happy as clams and we'll
Not angry, just know BS when I see it.
I guess it depends then entirely on who you think the prospective
audience is -- I do think the general audience of the ww'ing magazines
have quite a lot larger proportion of those who are casual as opposed
those who aren't than you apparently do. I don't know that either of us
has anything other than opinion to substantiate that belief.
All I know about the Chinese junk syndrome is what I see about what is
being manufactured and being advertised and reviewed along w/ the
better. If there weren't a market, why are they building it and where's
Still don't see that any of that answers in any regards the simple
suggestion that more data rather than less is a bad idea for anybody in
a review, expert or not--the more expert, the more valuable I think.
But, again, to each his own...
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.
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...
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 ;-)
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
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
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jet contracts with a Chinese company to make their equipment. Jet and
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
Since I don't own any kind of bandsaw, I have no opinion on the FWW article.
However, the Grizzly model certainly
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.