# "It's a Tool" as an excuse for poor workmanship



## Anglepoise (Jun 21, 2008)

Lately I have noticed allot of posts where poor workmanship, bad fit and finish, mismatching of finish and other flashlight blemishes have been attributed to the fact that the item in question is a 'Tool' or is being used as a tool. 

This somehow is meant to cover a whole lot of quality control areas that in the past might not have passed inspection.

Yes.....This post is made somewhat tongue in cheek, but I feel I can talk for Machinists everywhere, in that we take great pride in the condition and quality of our tools and some go so far as to keep them in beautiful wooden boxes that cost an arm and a leg, and we intend to keep it that way. So maybe 'they' need a new word.........


----------



## HoopleHead (Jun 21, 2008)

i think that you cant exactly compare an item hand crafted by a single machinist with personal pride and TLC put into it to something mass produced... theres obviously going to be a degradation in some areas, but as long as the overall end product meets a high (maybe not perfect) quality standard, then...


----------



## kooter (Jun 21, 2008)

I think its a terrible excuse, unforgivable. :thumbsdow


----------



## gadget_lover (Jun 21, 2008)

When I buy a tool, I sometimes trade a quality finish for a cheaper price. I'll ignore the blemish in the lacquer finish of a hammer that is going to get banged up anyway. I don't expect Dewalt quality from Harbor Freight tools, though I sometimes get it. * Sometimes I buy a tool for a specific job, knowing that I'll never use it again.

But there are other times when the fit and finish are just as important as the functionality. A hand crafted anything should be as close to perfect as the craftsman can make it. When I pay a premium for "top of the line" I expect top of the line fit and finish too.

I'm with Anglepoise. There needs to be a new word for utility grade tools. 

Daniel

* My HF purchase have not been that outstanding... Sometimes the premium brands are disappointing.


----------



## Mirage_Man (Jun 21, 2008)

When is comes to flashlights I put them into two different categories ...

1) Every day use and abuse (don't give a hoot if it gets dropped).
2) Shelf Queen, work of art, collectible. 

Each category has it's place and certainly it's price point. When I buy a light that's under $50 I don't expect the same level of quality as a $500 or more light. I treat each accordingly. Now if someone is trying to sell a $500 light that has bad fit and finish or poor quality then I'd have an issue.

That said there are some lights in the sub $100 area that have truly surprised me in their quality others have not.

As a man that makes custom parts for the CPF community I do the best job I can given my equipment and level of experience. As both increase so do the level of quality I'm able to achieve. Anyway that's my $.02 now I gotta get back to the shop and keep grinding out those ti parts .


----------



## cat (Jun 21, 2008)

Mirage_Man said:


> When is comes to flashlights I put them into two different categories ...
> 
> 1) Every day use and abuse (don't give a hoot if it gets dropped).
> 2) Shelf Queen, work of art, collectible.



I don't do either of those (except for my car, which is in category 1,) so I add a third: 
EDC, or used when needed or suitable, not abused, and I do care if it's dropped.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 21, 2008)

gadget_lover said:


> ........ There needs to be a new word for utility grade tools........
> 
> ......



How about utility grade tools? :nana:

You guys bring up a significant issue and consideration and I know I personally am guilty to some extent in what, hiding behind "It's a Tool"?

I know for a fact that i could set a reasonable and measurable finish qualification on the lights that I offer which would have me reject 100% of the yield. With such a QC qualification in place, I would either not offer any lights or figure out what it would take to pass the QC standard. I could pay a significant premium to the machine shop to improve the fit and finish of my components. I could put more time into the actual design to tighten tolerances on the assemblies. I could put extra labor and more personal attention into each and every light and I would still likely reject a fair amount of them. Who pays for the rejections? Is the cost born by the units sold with a higher unit price or do I just eat the loss and hope to do better and keep afloat? 

I think it is up to the builder or manufacturer to reasonably and accurately represent the item they are offering. If it does not meet with ones expectation then one need not acquire it?!?

There is often a fine line between an "excuse" and a simple statement of fact. Focusing in on HAIII natural for one, if any of you guys will show me where cosmetic criteria are included in either the mil spec or even definitions of the process or finish as practiced by the anodizing industry, I will come over to your side. 



> A hand crafted anything should be as close to perfect as the craftsman can make it.


I suspect that the vast majority of lights here are not hand crafted beyond the fact of hand assembled. The finish has been imparted by a machine controlled by computer. The anodize is done by equipment controlled by sensing equipment and not painted on by the hand of a craftsman.

Don't get me wrong, I think the level of workmanship and craftsmanship does vary considerably and it can be excused or justified to some extent or not. However, the workmanship and craftsmanship should be identified where it is in play and one should consider what aspects are automated. Those areas where automation has been at play are not a case of workmanship or craftsmanship beyond the skill and parameters in use by the programmer.

Who sets the go no-go standards? Who sets the QC parameters and guidelines? The manufacturer or the customer?



> .....This somehow is meant to cover a whole lot of quality control areas that in the past might not have passed inspection.


Perhaps these quality control areas are no longer in place. If that is the case then an item can't fail at a criteria it is not being judged on. Why would such quality control areas be abandoned? Well perhaps because they entail additional costs which are not acceptable or required by the market the item is intended for. It may be intended as a utility grade tool and not a fine specimen to be kept in a fine, hand crafted wood box?

Where others fail is a place of opportunity for others to succeed.

It is one thing for the manufacturer to fail to comply with the standards and qualities they have set and claim to stand by. It is something all together different when the manufacturer fails to meet the expectations of its customers. To avoid expectations not being met, the manufacturer may go out of their way to disclose what they consider significant and not in terms of quality, fit, function and cosmetics. What may be offered up as a reason may be taken as an excuse.

Many have posted here from a personal point of view. I am going to get personal in my point of view. I am selfish with my time and I don't enjoy spending time on maintenance. I will pay premium where ever and when ever possible for low maintenance and long lasting items. When I get a fine precision tool that arrives in a wood box, I typically toss the box because the box requires too much space and I want quicker access to the tool. I do not coddle or attempt to keep that tool in the pristine finish and state it arrived in if it requires any time to do so. It is my hope (but not expectation) that that tool can hold up to the environment without special feeding and care by me. I will keep that tool for as long as it provides me with the function and utility I require of it. If I must put time and elbow grease into maintaining a tool I will do so but not with appreciation and enjoyment but rather resentment and disappointment. It is a case of different strokes for different folks. I understand that for many, a Sunday afternoon spent in detailing, washing and waxing a car is a time of pleasure. For me, it is anything but! :green:


----------



## cat (Jun 21, 2008)

Mirage_Man said:


> When is comes to flashlights I put them into two different categories ...
> 
> 1) Every day use and abuse (don't give a hoot if it gets dropped).
> 2) Shelf Queen, work of art, collectible.



I don't do either of those (except for my car, which is in category 1,) so I add a third: 
EDC, or used when needed or suitable, not abused, and I do care if it's dropped.


----------



## Mirage_Man (Jun 21, 2008)

cat said:


> I don't do either of those (except for my car, which is in category 1,) so I add a third:
> EDC, or used when needed or suitable, not abused, and I do care if it's dropped.



EDC to me is the same as "every day use".


----------



## dulridge (Jun 21, 2008)

gadget_lover said:


> When I buy a tool, I sometimes trade a quality finish for a cheaper price. I'll ignore the blemish in the lacquer finish of a hammer that is going to get banged up anyway. I don't expect Dewalt quality from Harbor Freight tools, though I sometimes get it. * Sometimes I buy a tool for a specific job, knowing that I'll never use it again.



I usually buy the cheapest - which tends to mean junk. However, I tend to replace the ones I break with decent stuff - in the UK Halfords' "Pro" stuff is as good as most and a lot cheaper. However, for the forces I apply to tools nowadays (More to do with what I most often take apart which is computing & networking hardware as opposed to motorcycles) I don't need strong stuff so the cheapest does just fine.

Depends what you need it for really. For me a tool is something that is going to get knocked around and used hard. However, it is expected to be able to perform its intended function under hard use.


----------



## Mirage_Man (Jun 21, 2008)

McGizmo said:


> How about utility grade tools? :nana:
> 
> 
> I think it is up to the builder or manufacturer to reasonably and accurately represent the item they are offering. If it does not meet with ones expectation then one need not acquire it?!?



Don,

You brought up many good points which, if I were a manufacturer, I would certainly need to consider. 

I think the statement above sums it up. If the item for sale whether it be flashlights or anything else for that matter is not accurately represented then there's a problem. In the end though there is always gonna be someone that finds a product not up to their standards no matter how good it is. You just can't please everyone. 

The real killer is when dealing with vendors. Your point about HAIII hits home with me. When I first did a HAIII [email protected] GB I found out. The plater was perfectly happy with a certain finish which I would estimate 90% of CPF'ers would scoff at. I had to strip them and do them again. This is the reason I don't do HAIII anymore, I can't control the level of quality. I can however control what I produce on my lathe one at a time. But then again I'm not trying to support my family doing this.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jun 21, 2008)

I think Don and I had a similar discussion years ago. As a manufacturer (well, a designer who farms out the manufacturing) Don has to deal with the same issue from a different point of view. To demand perfection (or close to it) from his vendors will cause either more work in setting up and checking tools or it will cause a higher reject rate. Either way, Don has to pay extra, and that cost is passed on to the buyer.

Ironically, the perceived quality is seldom the quality that matters. The fit and finish seldom contribute to the usefulness and longevity of the tool. The proper design and materials and assembly does. Unfortunately that aspect is often overlooked as well.

Producing quality lights is as simple or difficult as you make it. A simple step some mass producers employ is to cherry pick through the parts. If you have 100 flashlight heads, bodies and tail-caps, you can find a good match of "flawless" parts that are color matched for maybe 10 to 30 lights. These sell as "premium". Then you match a flawless head and body with a tailcap that has a nick and sell them as regular grade. When you get down to the point where the only thing left is flawed parts, they sell at a discount as "Blems". This gives you zero reject rate and the cost of cherry picking is covered by the premium prices.

There are many utility grade lights. I consider my Streamlights to be utility grade. So are the Garrity and Dorcy models.

By the way, it's not "hand crafted" if a person does not directly control the build process. If it's all jigs and CNC and tumblers in batches then it's just another assembly line.

Daniel


----------



## Robocop (Jun 22, 2008)

I agree with many of the posts here and can see how frustrating the problems with fit and finish can be for a dealer or manufacturer.

The problem I see most is that a dealer will offer a higher cost or even average cost product knowing full well it will be fully evaluated by many here on fit and finish. Sure it may be the brightest, toughest, smallest however if it does not "look" good we all know what it will be judged on.

Now knowing this no dealer should complain or offer excuses when their light is evaluated on poor fit or finish. I am not saying fit and finish make a better light however the simple fact is that regardless of features or performance fit and finish is important to what seems to be the majority. Sure it is frustrating and yes it is a constant debate here however it does not seem to ever change. 

Think of it for a moment.....we all have lights that are average performers at best however they "look" very good. A dealer may sale many lights with poor fit and finish however I will argue with any who say they will not sale more if they look better. The simple fact is many are missing out on sales for lack of fit and finish. Agree with this or not it does seem to be the trend around here or at least it does to me.

Yes some of my lights are tools and they all show tool usage after years on duty. Each one of these tools once looked brand new with no blemishes and I was very happy when I bought them....and yes regardless of their intended usage for the cost I paid I would have returned any of them that had crappy fit and finish when first purchased.

I remember watching that show "how its made" on Discovery and they were showing how those John Deer Tractors were made. These are designed for heavy use and usually after a week or two in the field they look like scratched up junk. Regardless the maker spent much time painting and prepping them before shipping to the dealers. The maker was being interviewed and was asked why so much time making something so pretty that would just be torn up in a few weeks. His reply was classic and he simply stated "it is a matter of pride"


----------



## koala (Jun 22, 2008)

I don't believe a man made item can be flawless because we as human are not. But I don't agree with the excuse "It's a tool" when you are paying a premium for it. 

If the product is crap, be up front with it. What is wrong with that? Honesty is the first step to gain trust. Got some scratch or blemishes? let the people know about it. It's nothing wrong with the operation, just it's looks. Don't give stupid excuses. Why risk the reputation.

I don't mind at all if the finish is less than perfect, as long as it does the work as advertised. It is even worst when it does not work as advertised. I hate these companies, they they cousins of Nigerian spammers.

Having said that, manufacturers put a lot effort in perfecting the 'look' of their products. Leatherman for example. Most of my Leatherman are banged and scratched up after a few weeks of use, if I give it to a kid he would probably toss it. But my Leatherman is nice and shiny when new. Why don't they just leave the surface unpolished since it will be soiled when used? Cars for another example. Why the plastic sheets over the seats, why rim protectors when shipping? Which electronic goods that you bought lately is not covered with a plastic bag that risk suffocating kids. Does these protectors ensure it's functionality? I doubt so. Do they help with the perception of the product quality? Maybe.

Some manufacturers call their less than perfect goods "factory refurbished". I myself have bought a few of these items. They function correctly, one of them has an interesting surface. It came with a QC note, that the item was soiled by an over-lubricated packaging machine. Obviously this is not a defect so I don't agree with the term "factory refurbished", I call this misleading, a lawyer will describe it as a scam. In the end of the day, I am still happy because I paid less for the item which I do not care for the finish. If this item was marked new and I paid the full price for it I am pretty sure anyone would want a full money return, not just me. And I would avoid the brand from then onwards.

I have a few CMG Infinity Ultra, they are discontinued, I like them so I bought a few. One is used and scratched. I put it in my car, knowing if my car is ever broke into I won't feel that bad losing the light. I kept the new CMGs safe in my treasure drawer. In the CMG Infinities I loaded them with Sanyo NiMH AA cells. They are *always reliable* cells. They have this colorful plastic sleeve which is designed to protect the cell from shorting out. They are very impressive from the looks alone. Companies like Sanyo know the value of their products. A slight error in printing(of the sleeve) will result in a lot of confusion. Fake Sanyo cells are being made and savvy consumers are worried about it. What do you think Sanyo will do? Trash the typo plastic sleeve or sell them? Comon, "It's just a battery".


----------

