Something struck me yesterday, and I wanted to get your take on it because it’s bugging me. Last night I picked up a copy of the “Woodworker’s Journal 2013 Annual Review: Woodshop Tools and Supplies”. Generally I enjoy looking through review guides like this and always pick up a few ideas on things I can’t live without. My wife jokingly calls me a “tool snob” because I do love good tools.
The first article in the Handheld Power Tools Section was a review of ¼-Sheet Palm Sanders by Sandor Nagyszalancy. I have a few of his books and consider him a pretty knowledgeable guy. Little did I know how much his stock was about to drop (at least in my eyes). He identified things he looked for and factors he considered. Those were power and sanding performance, ergonomics, ease of paper change, and dust collection. Sounds good, right? He included a review of the RTS 400 EQ in the article. The first two sentences are “By far the most expensive sander in the test group – more than 10 times the cost of the low cost Craftsman 11177 – Festool’s RTS 400 technically is not a ¼-sheet sander: It accepts only the company’s 5-1/4” x 3-3/16” rectangular hook and loop sandpaper. The Festool sheets are relatively expensive…..”. Hmmmm, I thought. Two dings on cost in the first two sentences. Where was the cost in the list of things he looked for and factors he considered? It seemed to be a bit biased. Then I got to the clincher in the last section entitled “Picking the Winners”. He wrote “To further narrow the field, I eliminated the otherwise terrific Festool for simply being too expensive”. WHAT????????????? [mad] At that point I had to stop reading because the smoke issuing from my ears was making it hard to see the words. What happened to power and sanding performance, ergonomics, ease of paper change, and dust collection as being the important factors? Nope – Festool is too expensive, so it’s outta here, even if it is an otherwise terrific sander. I only have one thing to say – Shame on you Sandor Nagyszalancy! And shame on Woodworker’s Journal for publishing an article that doesn’t even follow its own stated criteria.
I started wondering what Sandor would say if I wrote a magazine article saying his books were otherwise terrific but weren’t worthy of consideration because they were too expensive. I imagine he would say “But they are worth the money because of all the good stuff inside them”. I would agree. Isn’t that the same issue here? You can indeed buy a sander for $20-30, but the more expensive ones have a lot of good stuff inside them.
I started thinking about what is probably the most maligned tool in our recent arsenal – the Domino. I struggled for years with a sub-standard excuse for a biscuit joiner and hated every minute of it. The first time I used my Domino, I thought I could almost hear angels sing because it worked so well. The problem is every woodworking acquaintance I talk to about it says “But they’re too expensive!”, and ends the conversation there. Really? I remember about 10 years ago a certain Mr. Norm Abrams on the New Yankee Workshop used a biscuit joiner from Lamello, and everyone had to have one. It was the best thing since sliced bread. I also remember it was around $700 at the time for the pro model. Isnt $700 about 10 years ago just about the same as what we pay for a Domino today? Strangely, I can’t remember one person complaining about the cost. You paid it and smiled. And without taking anything away from Lamello, we can do 10x as much stuff with a Domino as we can with even a high-end biscuit joiner. I also recall the Lamello Joiners being included in the magazine reviews. I still have a couple in my archive. What was said about the cost then? Nothing!
It just seems to me that there is a bias against higher-end tools by reviewers these days. The average DIYer doesn’t need higher-end. I get that. If you use homeowner or DIY-grade tools and they do what you want and do it well, by all means use them. I just wish the reviewers would also include a phrase like “If you’re tough on your tools, use them a lot, or want more precision or higher quality, look hard at the Festool”. Is that too much to ask?
What do you think? Is there really a bias in tool reviews, or am I looking at this the wrong way? I’d like to hear your thoughts.
The first article in the Handheld Power Tools Section was a review of ¼-Sheet Palm Sanders by Sandor Nagyszalancy. I have a few of his books and consider him a pretty knowledgeable guy. Little did I know how much his stock was about to drop (at least in my eyes). He identified things he looked for and factors he considered. Those were power and sanding performance, ergonomics, ease of paper change, and dust collection. Sounds good, right? He included a review of the RTS 400 EQ in the article. The first two sentences are “By far the most expensive sander in the test group – more than 10 times the cost of the low cost Craftsman 11177 – Festool’s RTS 400 technically is not a ¼-sheet sander: It accepts only the company’s 5-1/4” x 3-3/16” rectangular hook and loop sandpaper. The Festool sheets are relatively expensive…..”. Hmmmm, I thought. Two dings on cost in the first two sentences. Where was the cost in the list of things he looked for and factors he considered? It seemed to be a bit biased. Then I got to the clincher in the last section entitled “Picking the Winners”. He wrote “To further narrow the field, I eliminated the otherwise terrific Festool for simply being too expensive”. WHAT????????????? [mad] At that point I had to stop reading because the smoke issuing from my ears was making it hard to see the words. What happened to power and sanding performance, ergonomics, ease of paper change, and dust collection as being the important factors? Nope – Festool is too expensive, so it’s outta here, even if it is an otherwise terrific sander. I only have one thing to say – Shame on you Sandor Nagyszalancy! And shame on Woodworker’s Journal for publishing an article that doesn’t even follow its own stated criteria.
I started wondering what Sandor would say if I wrote a magazine article saying his books were otherwise terrific but weren’t worthy of consideration because they were too expensive. I imagine he would say “But they are worth the money because of all the good stuff inside them”. I would agree. Isn’t that the same issue here? You can indeed buy a sander for $20-30, but the more expensive ones have a lot of good stuff inside them.
I started thinking about what is probably the most maligned tool in our recent arsenal – the Domino. I struggled for years with a sub-standard excuse for a biscuit joiner and hated every minute of it. The first time I used my Domino, I thought I could almost hear angels sing because it worked so well. The problem is every woodworking acquaintance I talk to about it says “But they’re too expensive!”, and ends the conversation there. Really? I remember about 10 years ago a certain Mr. Norm Abrams on the New Yankee Workshop used a biscuit joiner from Lamello, and everyone had to have one. It was the best thing since sliced bread. I also remember it was around $700 at the time for the pro model. Isnt $700 about 10 years ago just about the same as what we pay for a Domino today? Strangely, I can’t remember one person complaining about the cost. You paid it and smiled. And without taking anything away from Lamello, we can do 10x as much stuff with a Domino as we can with even a high-end biscuit joiner. I also recall the Lamello Joiners being included in the magazine reviews. I still have a couple in my archive. What was said about the cost then? Nothing!
It just seems to me that there is a bias against higher-end tools by reviewers these days. The average DIYer doesn’t need higher-end. I get that. If you use homeowner or DIY-grade tools and they do what you want and do it well, by all means use them. I just wish the reviewers would also include a phrase like “If you’re tough on your tools, use them a lot, or want more precision or higher quality, look hard at the Festool”. Is that too much to ask?
What do you think? Is there really a bias in tool reviews, or am I looking at this the wrong way? I’d like to hear your thoughts.
