Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

TiteBond Responce from Headquarters

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Leon

unread,
Jul 12, 2004, 2:43:52 PM7/12/04
to
This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine
glue test. I also responded to his email that "some of us" were concerned
about the actual differences or advantages of TB3 over TB2. I requested an
explanation of how or why TB3 is labeled Water Proof when the Common
Knowledge Definition of Water Proof is so vastly different. I will share
those answers when they come.

Mr. Bridges,

Thank you for your note on Friday regarding the Wood Magazine article on
wood glues. We first viewed the information Friday afternoon, and we as an
organization are shocked, disappointed and concerned about the results
contained in this article. Although I cannot get into the specifics right
now, we have communicated our feelings to the appropriate personnel and plan
to pursue a very aggressive action plan to refute the results and ensure
that all woodworkers know the capabilities of not only Titebond III, but all
of our woodworking glues.

Titebond is the preferred brand of professionals more than 3 to 1 over our
leading competitor, and this is due to performance, reliability and
consistency over a 70-year period. We perform 3rd party, independent
testing on all of our products, and our wood glues have continually
outperformed all other competitors...Titebond III passed Type I
water-resistance and many of the polyurethanes did NOT pass the same test.
In addition, ASTM standard testing continually indicates our products to
have much higher strength numbers. How did the article reach their final
results? We are not sure...but we are going to find out.

In contrast to this article, Titebond III has received excellent reviews
from other woodworking publications, and initial sales (as well as repeat
use) is as strong as we have seen with any Titebond product. Again, thanks
for your interest...if you have any additional questions, please forward
them to my attention.

Craig Stone
Director of Marketing
Franklin International (Titebond)
800-877-4583


jo4hn

unread,
Jul 12, 2004, 3:40:27 PM7/12/04
to
Leon wrote:

> This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
> Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine

> glue test. [snip]

Thanks for working this problem for us. The response seems to indicate
the presence of lawyers and the absence of any technical reasons as to
the ineffectiveness of the glue or the misapplication of the tests. Oh
well, perhaps there will be film at 11pm.
mahalo,
jo4hn

Leon

unread,
Jul 12, 2004, 5:30:52 PM7/12/04
to
Mr. Bridges,

You ask good questions, and I can easily provide answers to each of your
issues. We defined Waterproof as outlined in the ANSI/HPVA standardized
testing, which has been the benchmark for numerous years. It is a very
tough procedure that measure the performance of each glue tested. The vast
majority (if not all) manufacturers of polyurethane glues, construction
adhesives, caulks, sealant, etc. indicate"waterpoof", on their labeling,
when they in fact are not designed for continuous submersion or use below
the waterline. (In our case, our claims are supported by a reputable testing
procedure). Simply put, the liability is too significant for these types of
applications and oftentimes, the substrates can't be controlled
sufficiently. In my office right now, I have a dried film of Titebond II
Premium Wood Glue that has been underwater for over 11 years...the film is
fine. However, it is how the substrates around the glue line react to these
conditions that could impact the overall strength and water-resistance of
the bond.

Having said this, and living the ethical standards established by our
privately-held organization for over 70 years, we absolutely stand behind
our claim of waterproof as defined by the aforementioned criteria. In
addition, the thousands of success stories of Titebond II over the past 13
years, as well as the performance of Titebond III over the past 4 months
lends much more credibility than a magazine article. Are you a current user
of Titebond Wood Glues? If so, what has your experience been? It is
incredibly rare when someone is unhappy with the performance of our
products.

Please note that we are strong partners of Wood Magazine, and together we
have supported woodworking for a number of years. However, we completely
disagree with the results published in this article and will be able to
demonstrate scientifically many of the inaccuracies that we feel compromised
our performance.

How is Titebond III superior to Titebond II?

1. Increased water-resistance according to standardized and recognized,
third-part testing.
2. Approximately 400 psi stronger than Titebond II, according to
standardized and recognized testing procedures.
3. Longer open time, upwards of twice as long. For years, even the most
loyal Titebond II users have asked us for a longer setting glue. Titebond
III takes care of this.
4. Titebond III is effective in temperatures down to 45 degrees, compared
to 55 degrees for Titebond II. Less chalking potential.

Finally, I'm quite concerned about your use of "hype" in reference to our
marketing efforts. As stated above, the ethical standards we support here
at Franklin are extremely high, which is apparent throughout the woodworking
industry as our product performance, technical support and commitment to
woodworking is clearly demonstrated throughout all the top woodworking
publications and associations. I am sorry that you question our marketing
efforts; I simply wish you could understand our position and ethical
standards in comparison to industry-wide practices. We feel good about our
position, our marketing efforts and again, completely stand behind our
claims, regardless of the product.

I appreciate your interest in this situation. Hopefully, this has been
helpful. Take care and have a great day.

P.S. Since we have taken the time to correspond with one another, could you
elaborate on your involvement in woodworking; the types of glues you use and
your experiences with these glues. I'm curious to know from what
perspective you are approaching this situation. Thanks so much.


Mike in Mystic

unread,
Jul 12, 2004, 5:47:06 PM7/12/04
to
Leon,

Thanks for posting these responses and giving us "both sides" so to speak.

I still haven't received the issue of Wood in question and I am very
interested in reading the article, but the response by this guy from
Franklin is pretty professional and he makes a lot of valid points, IMO.
Namely, (and I'm inferring and paraphrasing here) it seems unlikely that the
manufacturer of the glue wouldn't have done thorough and scientific tests to
verify that the TBIII was indeed superior to TBII before marketing as such.
Specs such as open time and working temperature are far to easy to evaluate
for them to simply claim them out of hand. The waterproof issue, of course,
is more difficult to address, but in my experience working for several
chemical and pharmaceutical companies it seems more likely than not that
they verified this functionality of the TBIII just as thoroughly. I do
grant you that using the term "ultimate wood glue" on the label does
approach the limits of "hype", but seeing as they're running a business and
trying to catch the consumer's eye, it doesn't really seem like a misleading
statement (think Budweiser "king of beers", etc. etc. - everyone thinks they
are the best).

Mike


Brian

unread,
Jul 12, 2004, 7:26:49 PM7/12/04
to
A typical marketting oriented response devoid of detail or specfics. I
wonder how long until they withdraw their advertising dollars from Wood
Magazine.

Brian.


"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:IsxIc.7934$Og7....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...

Dave Hinz

unread,
Jul 12, 2004, 8:08:31 PM7/12/04
to
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:26:49 -0700, Brian <bria...@oohay.com> wrote:
> A typical marketting oriented response devoid of detail or specfics. I
> wonder how long until they withdraw their advertising dollars from Wood
> Magazine.

Isn't Titebond the company whose employee was here a month or two
ago posing as a college student doing research, while not mentioning
they were also an employee of Titebond?

Jay Pique

unread,
Jul 12, 2004, 8:59:21 PM7/12/04
to


SONS OF BITCHES!!!

I vote for banishment.

JP

Doug Miller

unread,
Jul 12, 2004, 9:12:12 PM7/12/04
to
Well, the company is Franklin International, actually, and Titebond is the
name of the product -- but yeah, it's the same outfit.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.


Dave Hinz

unread,
Jul 12, 2004, 9:20:37 PM7/12/04
to
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 21:12:12 GMT, Doug Miller <spam...@milmac.com> wrote:
> In article <2lg9dvF...@uni-berlin.de>, Dave Hinz <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote:

>>Isn't Titebond the company whose employee was here a month or two
>>ago posing as a college student doing research, while not mentioning
>>they were also an employee of Titebond?
>>
> Well, the company is Franklin International, actually, and Titebond is the
> name of the product -- but yeah, it's the same outfit.

I sense a disturbing trend.

Leon

unread,
Jul 12, 2004, 9:29:40 PM7/12/04
to
Yeah Mike Mr. Stone has been very helpful and I believe that this is a good
product. Its just that labeling seems to be trying to reach out there and
grab you, as well it should, but maybe cutting it a bit too close.


Leon

unread,
Jul 12, 2004, 9:32:01 PM7/12/04
to
Another e-mail with Mr. Stone has indicated that they don't seem to want to
change their relationship with Wood Magazine but rather they will certainly
get to the bottom of the test conclusions to see why the results were not
more favorable and he indicated that he will be issuing a response to the
test later this week.

"Brian" <bria...@oohay.com> wrote in message
news:10f5pg0...@corp.supernews.com...

Message has been deleted

Edwin Pawlowski

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 3:23:16 AM7/13/04
to

"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:IsxIc.7934$Og7....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
> Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine
> glue test. I also responded to his email that "some of us" were concerned
> about the actual differences or advantages of TB3 over TB2. I requested
an
> explanation of how or why TB3 is labeled Water Proof when the Common
> Knowledge Definition of Water Proof is so vastly different. I will share
> those answers when they come.

I'm looking forward to the next issue of Wood Magazine. I wonder if they
are re-doing the tests.
Ed
e...@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome


Old Nick

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 3:52:24 AM7/13/04
to
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:43:52 GMT, "Leon"
<removespa...@swbell.net> vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:

remove ns from my header address to reply via email

But does it work on _concrete_?

Nate Perkins

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 5:19:32 AM7/13/04
to
"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote:
> This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
> Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine
> glue test.
(snip)

Seems like an entirely reasonable response. I'm an engineer myself,
and I've seen many examples where it is easy to unintentionally skew
an experiment and come up with flawed test data. It's possible that
is what happened in the Wood test.

Remember, the people that make Titebond are not likely to be amateurs
in test methods. It's likely that they are more competent in running
controlled tests than are the folks at Wood Magazine.

Todd Fatheree

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 5:56:39 AM7/13/04
to
"Nate Perkins" <n_perk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8664d343.0407...@posting.google.com...

Also an engineer (a PE even...at least in my previous non-IT life), and all
I can say is that people aren't just sitting on ASTM standards subcommittees
because they enjoy the company of other engineers. They create meaningful
tests that are designed to test products in real-world conditions. That
way, you don't end up with some cockamamie (sp? you get the idea) test that
doesn't end up proving anything other than someone doesn't know how to
design a test that means something.

todd


Message has been deleted

Todd Fatheree

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 7:27:41 AM7/13/04
to
<Wayne...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:fnu6f0904rp7jvl5t...@4ax.com...
> On 12 Jul 2004 22:19:32 -0700, n_perk...@yahoo.com (Nate Perkins)
wrote:
> Did you stop to consider that TiteBond III isn't ready for prime time but
they
> released the product anyway.
> There was a lot of money spent advertising TB III before it was even in
the
> bottle.
>
> Maybe they decided to take a page from software developers and release a
> defective product hoping to fix the formula before anyone noticed.

Well, we sure won't know with the lameass test that Wood Magazine did. I
get the impression from the response that Franklin has done the relevant
ASTM testing to back up their claim. Maybe the thing to do is to ask for a
copy of the test results.

todd


bri...@thanks.com

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 9:02:41 AM7/13/04
to
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 06:06:25 GMT, Wayne...@address.invalid wrote:

>On 12 Jul 2004 22:19:32 -0700, n_perk...@yahoo.com (Nate Perkins) wrote:
>
>Did you stop to consider that TiteBond III isn't ready for prime time but they
>released the product anyway.
>There was a lot of money spent advertising TB III before it was even in the
>bottle.
>
>Maybe they decided to take a page from software developers and release a
>defective product hoping to fix the formula before anyone noticed.
>

do you have a basis for saying that other than the pleasure of hearing
yourself spout?

Edwin Pawlowski

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 9:42:50 AM7/13/04
to

<Wayne...@address.invalid> wrote in message

> Did you stop to consider that TiteBond III isn't ready for prime time but
they
> released the product anyway.
> There was a lot of money spent advertising TB III before it was even in
the
> bottle.
>
> Maybe they decided to take a page from software developers and release a
> defective product hoping to fix the formula before anyone noticed.
>

I'm sure they would not try to print that they meet certain standards with
no basis in fact. The liability would be far too high to ever think about
doing that.
Ed


Mike Richardson

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 10:29:01 AM7/13/04
to
I missed this evidence of the failure of the product......

Seems like you should offer more than this below to back your comments.

Mike
Brisbane

<Wayne...@address.invalid> wrote in message
> There are quite a few older craftsmen that will tell you that Titebond
products
> just don't measure up in this regard.
>
> Why do you think I had 3/4 of a gallon of the stuff 18 months old.
> I've never had a problem with it but I distrust the company and have heard
> enough negative comments that I stopped using it.


Mike Richardson

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 10:31:11 AM7/13/04
to
What is wrong with advance advertising?

Yeah - that woudl be smart way to destroy 70 years of good will...

Mike

RKON

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 10:36:14 AM7/13/04
to

"Todd Fatheree" <fathe...@NOcomcastSPAM.net> wrote in message news:ya-a

before anyone noticed.
>
> Well, we sure won't know with the lameass test that Wood Magazine did. I
> get the impression from the response that Franklin has done the relevant
> ASTM testing to back up their claim. Maybe the thing to do is to ask for
a
> copy of the test results.
>
> todd
>
>

A Response like this makes me realize how people get so defensive over
something they feel is the best. To me it is a sign of insecurity and the
failure to admit they may be wrong in their purchasing decision or their
favorite product. If you believe everything a corporation has to spew on you
then I have some Enron stock to sell you, Firestone Tires for your Ford
Explorer, or some swamp land in Louisiana. A perfect example of this is to
go out to Edmunds.com and look at the comments on all of the vehicles people
have bought. Everyone loves their vehicle it is the best and there is
nothing wrong with their decision. Although, the vehicle has been in the
shop 3 times to fix a weird smell from the a/c, the electronic door locks
don't work properly and etc...

What did Wood Magazine have to lose by this evaluation? What does Titebond
have tolose by the evaluation. It seems to me Titebond has more to lose.

Rich

RKON

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 10:53:27 AM7/13/04
to

"Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:u8OIc.250$W01...@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...

>
> I'm sure they would not try to print that they meet certain standards with
> no basis in fact. The liability would be far too high to ever think about
> doing that.
> Ed
>
>

The ANSI standards is a board consisting of industry companies writing the
standards in which they create products that adhere to those standards. It
is a nonprofit that gets all of its funding from all of the 100 dollar
reports and member dues. It doesn't mean Sh&% to the consumer unless you are
a gullible moron. there is nothing on ANSI.org geared for the consumer. Try
doing a search. It is just a bunch of hogwash they use.

Franklin is trying to redefine the word for waterproof. Would you buy a pair
of waterproof hip waders for fly fishing if you couldn't immerse the in
water for more than 20 minutes?

In the software world there is always jockeying over the standards and what
constitutes them. In the electronics world it is the same. A perfect example
of standards today's is DVD's. It is an absolute cluster on how many
different standards there are. Utterly confusing when picking out DVD media.

The standards for Glue is absolute Bull. It either works or it doesn't. I
have both TBII and Elmer's and I really don't give a hoot. If Wood Magazine
has exposed TB for what they are worth that is great. Isn't that what you
want from the magazine? to Give you fair and unbiased information?

Rich


J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 11:52:44 AM7/13/04
to
bri...@thanks.com wrote:

Some people seem to labor under the impression that "business" (including
the blind guy selling pencils on the street corner) is automatically evil
and will never do anything but lie, cheat, steal, and eat babies unless
monitored constantly by hordes of government inspectors, who we all know
are always perfectly honest and incorruptible and would never interfere
unnecessarily and are certain to be unfailingly polite.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Doug Miller

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 1:04:56 PM7/13/04
to
In article <gf06f0h7tb0j5dujt...@4ax.com>,
Wayne...@address.invalid says...


> There are quite a few older craftsmen that will tell you that Titebond products
> just don't measure up in this regard.

Meaningless. "There are quite a few older [fill in the blank] that will
tell you that [fill in the blank] products just don't measure up..."
works with almost anything you care to put in the blanks.


>
> Why do you think I had 3/4 of a gallon of the stuff 18 months old.
> I've never had a problem with it but I distrust the company and have heard
> enough negative comments that I stopped using it.

So the product always worked fine for you -- but you stopped using it
because other people said they didn't like it.

How much sense does *that* make?

Leon

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 1:44:35 PM7/13/04
to
LOL


Leon

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 1:53:19 PM7/13/04
to
This morning I received an e-mail form Craig Stone and I have extended an
invitation to him or a company representative to participate in the group.
If some of you would also like for them to participate, please make that
request to Titebond also so that I am not the only one they see offering the
invitation.


TBone

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 2:26:12 PM7/13/04
to
Perhaps you should forward that question on to Mr. Stone.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving


"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message

news:7HRIc.8133$ow5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
> LOL
>
>


RKON

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 2:51:27 PM7/13/04
to
I sent a letter this morning. They dod not address any of my concerns and
did not address my queries on what the ANSI/HPVA standards are. My bottle
of TB2 is going in the garbage. But is this response canned or what?

Good morning, thank you for your response. We defined Waterproof as
outlined in the ANSI/HPVA standardized testing, which has been the benchmark
for numerous years. It is a very tough procedure that measure the
performance of each glue tested. The vast majority (if not all)
manufacturers of polyurethane glues, construction adhesives, caulks,
sealant, etc. indicate"waterpoof", on their labeling, when they in fact are
not designed for continuous submersion or use below the waterline. (In our
case, our claims are supported by a reputable testing procedure). Simply
put, the liability is too significant for these types of applications and
oftentimes, the substrates can't be controlled sufficiently. In my office
right now, I have a dried film of Titebond II Premium Wood Glue that has
been underwater for over 11 years...the film is fine. This would support
the claim waterproof as you defined it..."Impervious to or unaffected by
water". However, it is how the substrates around the glue line react to
these conditions that could impact the overall strength and water-resistance
of the bond.

Having said this, and living the ethical standards established by our
privately-held organization for over 70 years, we absolutely stand behind
our claim of waterproof for Titebond III as defined by the aforementioned
criteria. In addition, the thousands of success stories of Titebond II over
the past 13 years, as well as the performance of Titebond III over the past
4 months lends much more credibility than a magazine article.

Please note that we are strong partners of Wood Magazine, and together we
have supported woodworking for a number of years. However, we completely
disagree with the results published in this article and will be able to
demonstrate scientifically many of the inaccuracies that we feel compromised
our performance.


Finally, I'm quite concerned about your feelings regarding our product
marketing efforts. As stated above, the ethical standards we support here
at Franklin are extremely high, which is apparent throughout the woodworking
industry as our product performance, technical support and commitment to
woodworking is clearly demonstrated throughout all the top woodworking
publications and associations. I am sorry that you question our marketing
efforts; hopefully you have a better understanding of our position and
ethical standards in comparison to industry-wide practices. We feel good
about our position, our marketing efforts and again, completely stand behind
our claims, regardless of the product.

Thanks again for your inquiry. Take care and have a great day.


"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message

news:gVzIc.14772$Di....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> Mr. Bridges,
>
> You ask good questions, and I can easily provide answers to each of your
> issues. We defined Waterproof as outlined in the ANSI/HPVA standardized
> testing, which has been the benchmark for numerous years. It is a very
> tough procedure that measure the performance of each glue tested. The
vast
> majority (if not all) manufacturers of polyurethane glues, construction
> adhesives, caulks, sealant, etc. indicate"waterpoof", on their labeling,
> when they in fact are not designed for continuous submersion or use below
> the waterline. (In our case, our claims are supported by a reputable
testing
> procedure). Simply put, the liability is too significant for these types
of
> applications and oftentimes, the substrates can't be controlled
> sufficiently. In my office right now, I have a dried film of Titebond II
> Premium Wood Glue that has been underwater for over 11 years...the film is
> fine. However, it is how the substrates around the glue line react to
these
> conditions that could impact the overall strength and water-resistance of
> the bond.
>
> Having said this, and living the ethical standards established by our
> privately-held organization for over 70 years, we absolutely stand behind
> our claim of waterproof as defined by the aforementioned criteria. In
> addition, the thousands of success stories of Titebond II over the past 13
> years, as well as the performance of Titebond III over the past 4 months
> lends much more credibility than a magazine article. Are you a current
user
> of Titebond Wood Glues? If so, what has your experience been? It is
> incredibly rare when someone is unhappy with the performance of our
> products.
>
> Please note that we are strong partners of Wood Magazine, and together we
> have supported woodworking for a number of years. However, we completely
> disagree with the results published in this article and will be able to
> demonstrate scientifically many of the inaccuracies that we feel
compromised
> our performance.
>
> How is Titebond III superior to Titebond II?
>
> 1. Increased water-resistance according to standardized and recognized,
> third-part testing.
> 2. Approximately 400 psi stronger than Titebond II, according to
> standardized and recognized testing procedures.
> 3. Longer open time, upwards of twice as long. For years, even the most
> loyal Titebond II users have asked us for a longer setting glue. Titebond
> III takes care of this.
> 4. Titebond III is effective in temperatures down to 45 degrees, compared
> to 55 degrees for Titebond II. Less chalking potential.
>
> Finally, I'm quite concerned about your use of "hype" in reference to our
> marketing efforts. As stated above, the ethical standards we support here
> at Franklin are extremely high, which is apparent throughout the
woodworking
> industry as our product performance, technical support and commitment to
> woodworking is clearly demonstrated throughout all the top woodworking
> publications and associations. I am sorry that you question our marketing
> efforts; I simply wish you could understand our position and ethical
> standards in comparison to industry-wide practices. We feel good about
our
> position, our marketing efforts and again, completely stand behind our
> claims, regardless of the product.
>
> I appreciate your interest in this situation. Hopefully, this has been
> helpful. Take care and have a great day.
>
> P.S. Since we have taken the time to correspond with one another, could
you
> elaborate on your involvement in woodworking; the types of glues you use
and
> your experiences with these glues. I'm curious to know from what
> perspective you are approaching this situation. Thanks so much.
>
>


Message has been deleted

Edwin Pawlowski

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 4:58:27 PM7/13/04
to

"RKON" <rko...@spamsucks.yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >
>
> The ANSI standards is a board consisting of industry companies writing the
> standards in which they create products that adhere to those standards. It
> is a nonprofit that gets all of its funding from all of the 100 dollar
> reports and member dues.


It may be hogwash, but it is a standard and a common ground for comparisons.

>
> Franklin is trying to redefine the word for waterproof. Would you buy a
pair
> of waterproof hip waders for fly fishing if you couldn't immerse the in
> water for more than 20 minutes?

No, but I'd buy a glue that is suitable for intermittant watering because
that is the conditions I'm using it in. If it was to be submersed, I'd
either use epoxy or put in into hip wader for protection.

Franklin? They are taking advantage of an already mis-named standard. I
have no idea who came up with the terms and conditions, but I'd blame the
ANSI people and the industry representatives that puts them together. I
have no doubt that they meet the standard.


>
> The standards for Glue is absolute Bull. It either works or it doesn't. I
> have both TBII and Elmer's and I really don't give a hoot. If Wood
Magazine
> has exposed TB for what they are worth that is great. Isn't that what you
> want from the magazine? to Give you fair and unbiased information?

OK, does it work or does it not? Wood Magazine did not test according to
any published standard. What they told me was it is not so good when
submerged for 24 hours. OK, I'll buy that, but will it work for my lawn
furniture subjected to rain at times? They don't tell me that. They gave
me Bull and Hogwash, not facts that I can use to make a decision for my
particular use.

Had they done test with 1 hour, 2 hour, 3 hour, etc. exposure, I'd take it
for what it is worth. They skipped the meaningful data. That is
questionable as to bias, for sure, not at all fair. Nothing wrong with a
torture test, but let us know at what point it failed, not what point beyond
normal use it was not good.
Ed


NoOne N Particular

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 5:02:56 PM7/13/04
to
Don't you mean Ford PINTO? LOL


>>>>>>>>> Huge snippage <<<<<<<<<<<<<

patrick conroy

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 5:21:35 PM7/13/04
to

"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:jPRIc.8136$dy5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...

>
>
> This morning I received an e-mail form Craig Stone and I have extended an
> invitation to him or a company representative to participate in the group.

I'm in... Do you have the email for Mr. Stone?


patrick conroy

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 5:21:36 PM7/13/04
to

"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:jPRIc.8136$dy5....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
>
>

Never mind - I see you posted it already...


Dave Hinz

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 6:21:13 PM7/13/04
to
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:58:27 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
> "RKON" <rko...@spamsucks.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >
>>
>> The ANSI standards is a board consisting of industry companies writing the
>> standards in which they create products that adhere to those standards.
>
> It may be hogwash, but it is a standard and a common ground for comparisons.

The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? I think that's
the point), my question is - how touchy is this product that an experienced
woodworking outfit such as Wood magazine can use it wrong, such that it's
not going to perform right? If the process for using it is substantionally
different than other glues, maybe they need to do some more R&D before
releasing the product.

Dave Hinz

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 6:22:32 PM7/13/04
to
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:02:56 GMT, NoOne N Particular <twob...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Don't you mean Ford PINTO? LOL

No, the Firestone tires on the Ford Explorer, in combination, caused
more than a few major accidents. The odd thing is that those tires are
fine on other vehicles, and other tires are fine on that vehicle,
or so we've been asked to believe.

Todd Fatheree

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 6:52:27 PM7/13/04
to
"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:2lingoF...@uni-berlin.de...

Apparently, Wood's problem is in reading the directions. The bottle says it
is not mean for continuous submersion. Is there something unclear about
that?

todd


Dave Hinz

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 7:01:22 PM7/13/04
to
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:52:27 -0500, Todd Fatheree <fathe...@NOcomcastSPAM.net> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:2lingoF...@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
>> magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? I think that's
>> the point), my question is - how touchy is this product

> Apparently, Wood's problem is in reading the directions. The bottle says it
> is not mean for continuous submersion. Is there something unclear about
> that?

How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous submersion",
exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
able to do something it can't.


Message has been deleted

Leon

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 7:14:15 PM7/13/04
to

"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:2lips2F...@uni-berlin.de...

Uh Huh... and,,,, most the other glues have the same stipulations and still
performed better in this particular test TB3.


Todd Fatheree

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 7:15:44 PM7/13/04
to
"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:2lips2F...@uni-berlin.de...

Why don't you read the relavant ASTM/ANSI standard and get back to me? This
appears to be a case where the common-sense understanding and the technical
meaning of a word in a specific context are at odds. Most likely, you
should take your complaint to the relavant standards subcommittee rather
than berating Franklin for following a standard which they may or may not
have had a hand in writing.

todd


Dave Hinz

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 7:24:52 PM7/13/04
to
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:15:44 -0500, Todd Fatheree <fathe...@NOcomcastSPAM.net> wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:2lips2F...@uni-berlin.de...

>>
>> How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous
> submersion",
>> exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
>> able to do something it can't.
>
> Why don't you read the relavant ASTM/ANSI standard and get back to me?

I'm not taking an attitude here, Todd, so why are you?

> This
> appears to be a case where the common-sense understanding and the technical
> meaning of a word in a specific context are at odds.

OK, so it depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is, then?

> Most likely, you
> should take your complaint to the relavant standards subcommittee rather
> than berating Franklin for following a standard which they may or may not
> have had a hand in writing.

Standards aside, if someone claims their product is waterproof, or
unbreakable, or non-staining, or "transparent when cured", or whatever,
then it damn well ought to be waterproof, unbreakable, non-staining,
or transparent when cured, not "Transparent when cured as defined by
a standard which defines 'transparent' to be something other than
transparent, and 'cured' to be defined as cured in specific, unusual
laboratory conditions". If they claim it's waterproof, but that it can't
be put in water, then it's not waterproof. "Well, it's water _resistant_",
fine, but don't say something is waterproof* and have the disclaimer on
the back somewhere saying "* Not for continuous exposure to water", 'cuz
that ain't waterproof.

J T

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 7:15:48 PM7/13/04
to
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 4:58pm (EDT+4) e...@snet.net (Edwin Pawlowski) says:
It may be hogwash, but it is a standard and a common ground for
comparisons.<snip>

You'd expect the government to step in and make them only say
waterproof if it actually is. But, the government is the ones that said
Clinton didn't have sex, Grade B beef is now Grade A, and so on. Common
ground for comparison is probably the best we can look for.

What they told me was it is not so good when submerged for 24 hours.

<snip>

I'd like to know what the results are after they've dried out for a
few days. Even more, I'd like to know the test results if they'd let
the glues set for a month or so before their test.

That's for curiosity only, doesn't really matter, I'm not tossing
my Titebond II, and when it's gone, I plan on getting more. If I
needed lower glue-up temps, or time, then I'd consider III. But, I
don't, so it's II.

JOAT

We've got a lot of experience of not having any experience.
- Nanny Ogg

Leon

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 7:28:51 PM7/13/04
to

"Todd Fatheree" <fathe...@NOcomcastSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:PoWdnfrhYaZ...@comcast.com...

>
> Why don't you read the relavant ASTM/ANSI standard and get back to me?

I think that these standards are credible and needed.

But, also IMHO Titebond could have taken the "High Road" and on its label
immediately under the words "Water Proof" added the stipulation of the
Standards. A simple "Asterick" would have been enough of a warning that
"This" Water Proof" label may not be up to an individuals Water Proof
Standards.

Todd Fatheree

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 7:31:41 PM7/13/04
to
"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:bwWIc.15030$Us6....@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

Look...I don't own stock in Franklin, so I don't really have a stake in the
outcome of a test. It's just that as an engineer, I want a test to be
representative of the conditions that the product is designed to be applied
in. So far, all I know from the Wood test is that if I was going to
continuously submerge a joint, TB2 would be a better choice than TB3,
although you probably don't really want to use either. How about this? I
know this is crazy-talk here, but why doesn't Wood just do a test that tests
a real-world application of the product that's in line with the
instructions? Then, whichever product wins, fine.

todd


J T

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 7:38:08 PM7/13/04
to
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 6:21pm (EDT+4) Dave...@spamcop.net (Dave Hinz)
puts out:
The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? <snip>

Well, all in all, I'm thinkg Wood magazine WAS using it wrong.
And, no, still haven't read the article.

You gonna build a boat that's gonna be left in the water for long
periods of time, and not use an appropriate adhesive? That's what it
sounds like Wood magazine was doing. You're experienced enough to build
a boat, you're gonna be sharp enough to follow recommendations in the
plans on glue. I doubt people makng boat plans are gonna recommend
anything but epoxy, rescorcinal, etc., particularly if the boat it apt
to be left in the water for awhile. HOWEVER, any protective coating
over the glue, paint, epoxy, etc., which is usual on a boat, would also
give different test results - which I think Wood magazine should also
have included. Since the Titebond label aready says not for
prolonged submersion, or below the waterline on boats, the test was
pointless, in the long run, except as a way to fill magazine space, or
to kill some time.

Now, if they were to make a few boats, all to the same pattern,
nothing fancy, just knock together in a day or two type, say three for
each type of adhesive. One, no paint, or other protection. One, just
paint. One, paint and/or epoxy and fibreglass. Then test them for a
year, trailer, car-top, or in the back of a pickup, to the water, in
the water for a few hours, then back. But, a few times leave them i the
water for two, three days straight. That I would call a realistic type
of test. They could give a monthly update, that'd give some useful
information, fill magazine space, and kill time for these people. Hell,
even a couple of weeks might give some useful results.

Message has been deleted

Leon

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 8:25:54 PM7/13/04
to

"Todd Fatheree" <fathe...@NOcomcastSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:tfCdnRbdsK4...@comcast.com...

>
> Look...I don't own stock in Franklin, so I don't really have a stake in
the
> outcome of a test. It's just that as an engineer, I want a test to be
> representative of the conditions that the product is designed to be
applied
> in.

I can certainly understand your point of view. But engineers are not a
majority of the population that will be using TB3. For the rest of us, let
the label say what it really stands for. Let them be UPFRONT with the
stipulations. An "asterick" beside the words water proof could point to
this on the back label.
ADHESIVE, TYPE I FULLY WATERPROOF: Forms a bond that will retain practically
all of its strength when occasionally

subjected to a thorough wetting and drying; bond shall be of such quality
that specimens will withstand shear and two cycle boil test

specified in ANSI/HPVA HP (2000).

And IMHO that would make all the difference in the world as to whether one
might mistake it for something that they might be really looking for or not.

It's the smoke and mirrorsmarketing approach that upsets most of the
woodworkers buying and not just using what the boss supplies.

With the Mad Cow desease some people in the USA may want to insure where
their beef is coming from. The labeling on the hamburger meat sold in the
grocery store says pure 100% American grown beef.

The fact that it was grown in Chili, South America does not make the lable
wrong but it certainly does not imply that it was NOT grown in the USA.


Dave Hinz

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 8:36:08 PM7/13/04
to
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:25:54 GMT, Leon <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> "Todd Fatheree" <fathe...@NOcomcastSPAM.net> wrote in message
> news:tfCdnRbdsK4...@comcast.com...
>>
>> Look...I don't own stock in Franklin, so I don't really have a stake in
> the
>> outcome of a test. It's just that as an engineer, I want a test to be
>> representative of the conditions that the product is designed to be
> applied >> in.
>
> I can certainly understand your point of view. But engineers are not a
> majority of the population that will be using TB3. For the rest of us, let
> the label say what it really stands for.

Ahem. Engineers aren't real keen on marketing people redefining
words with established definitions either.

> With the Mad Cow desease some people in the USA may want to insure where
> their beef is coming from. The labeling on the hamburger meat sold in the
> grocery store says pure 100% American grown beef.
>
> The fact that it was grown in Chili, South America does not make the lable
> wrong but it certainly does not imply that it was NOT grown in the USA.

Great example of this sort of a tactic.

Leon

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 8:42:56 PM7/13/04
to

"J T" <Jakofal...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11536-40F43A20-533@storefull-

You gonna build a boat that's gonna be left in the water for long
periods of time, and not use an appropriate adhesive?

So buying a glue that is labeled WATER PROOF is not an appropriate adhesive?
Exactly what label whould we be looking for???

Since the Titebond label aready says not for prolonged submersion, or
below the waterline on boats,

The label FRONT LABEL does NOT say that at all. It simply says WATER PROOF
with absolutely no reference to lead you to believe that it has
stipulations.

The FRONT label is suppose to indicate what you are truly buying.


Charlie Self

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 8:47:28 PM7/13/04
to
Dave Hinz writes:

>How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous submersion",
>exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
>able to do something it can't.

Quite easily, I think. My trench coat is "waterproof" but I'd hate to wear it
underwater and expect it to keep me dry.

Charlie Self
"Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." Ambrose
Bierce

Leon

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 9:20:10 PM7/13/04
to

"Charlie Self" <charl...@aol.comnotforme> wrote in message
news:20040713164728...@mb-m19.aol.com...

> Dave Hinz writes:
>
> >How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous
submersion",
> >exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
> >able to do something it can't.
>
> Quite easily, I think. My trench coat is "waterproof" but I'd hate to wear
it
> underwater and expect it to keep me dry.

But uh... Never mind you.. LOL... Would it harm the water proof raincoat?


Leon

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 9:26:31 PM7/13/04
to
Correction ,

The Front label is suppose to "indicate" or "point to" what you are truly
buying. Otherwise all the stores should turn the merchandise backwards so
that you can see what you are really getting. Why should the front label be
different from the back label or not refer to the back label.

It really is in the best interest of the consumer and the manufacturer to be
up front with claims of what the product will or will not do. If there is a
possibility that the label could mislead, note that stipulation on the label
making the claim.


Dave Hinz

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 9:28:53 PM7/13/04
to
On 13 Jul 2004 20:47:28 GMT, Charlie Self <charl...@aol.comnotforme> wrote:
> Dave Hinz writes:
>
>>How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous submersion",
>>exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
>>able to do something it can't.
>
> Quite easily, I think. My trench coat is "waterproof" but I'd hate to wear it
> underwater and expect it to keep me dry.

Do you expect it to come apart when wet, Charlie? A glue has a specific
purpose, to hold things together. A trench coat has a specific purpose,
to shed rain. If either of them fails to do so in wet conditions,
then it fails to be "waterproof".


RKON

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 9:37:01 PM7/13/04
to

"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:2linj8F...@uni-berlin.de...

The issue was that they hid the problem. But yes, it was a deadly
combination.


Dave Hinz

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 9:47:31 PM7/13/04
to
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:26:31 GMT, Leon <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Correction ,
>
>
>
> The Front label is suppose to "indicate" or "point to" what you are truly
> buying. Otherwise all the stores should turn the merchandise backwards so
> that you can see what you are really getting. Why should the front label be
> different from the back label or not refer to the back label.

Right. How about this:
"Fizz Beer" on the front, but on the back:
"Fizz is actually cat urine. Not to be used as beer."

> It really is in the best interest of the consumer and the manufacturer to be
> up front with claims of what the product will or will not do. If there is a
> possibility that the label could mislead, note that stipulation on the label
> making the claim.

Or change the words to "Water resistant" or "More water resistant".
The word "proof" implies an absolute - this won't break, it won't burn,
it won't dissolve in water, etc. If it's just pretty good in water,
then it's resistant. If it's actively going to disintergrate in water,
call it "water absorbant" or "removable with water" and make it a
feature.

Leon

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 9:52:28 PM7/13/04
to
I think that reflects the true problem with the labeling.

RKON

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 9:56:43 PM7/13/04
to

"Todd Fatheree" <fathe...@NOcomcastSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:PoWdnfrhYaZ...@comcast.com...

> Why don't you read the relavant ASTM/ANSI standard and get back to me?
This
> appears to be a case where the common-sense understanding and the
technical
> meaning of a word in a specific context are at odds. Most likely, you
> should take your complaint to the relavant standards subcommittee rather
> than berating Franklin for following a standard which they may or may not
> have had a hand in writing.
>
> todd
>
>
The Standards that TB adheres to is ANSI/HPVA. In my letter to TB I asked:
"Both of these organizations require purchase of a document in order to
understand what the specifications are. Please tell where I can find this
informationn free of charge."

The Response I received was: "If you go to our website www.titebond.com,
select FAQs, and then go to Woodworking Glues. Scroll down and it will
provide a "layperson" description of the two ANSI/HPVA tests. If you are
looking for the actual test method, which is cumbersome and difficult to
read, feel free to contact our Technical Support Group at 1-800-347-4583."

I did and the here is what is posted:

"What is the difference between the ANSI/HPVA Type I and Type II
water-resistance specification?
Both of these tests are conducted using 6" by 6" birch laminates glued
together to make three-ply plywood. The test for Type I is clearly more
stringent than Type II, and involves boiling the glue bonds and testing the
specimens while they are wet.

Type I testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 1" by 3"
specimens, boiling them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 145°F
oven for 20 hours. They are boiled for an additional 4 hours, then
immediately cooled using running water. The specimens are sheared while wet,
and the bonds must pass certain strength and wood failure requirements to
pass the Type I specification.

Type II testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 2" by 5"
specimens, soaking them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 120°F
oven for 19 hours. This is repeated for a total of three cycles, and the
bonds must not delaminate to pass the Type II specification."

Fair Enough.

Did anyone notice the glaring omission? It's right in front of you. This is
what Leon has been saying all along.


RKON

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 9:58:33 PM7/13/04
to
Amen !! That is what Leon has been saying all along.

"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:2lj3jjF...@uni-berlin.de...

B a r r y

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 10:03:34 PM7/13/04
to
On 13 Jul 2004 21:47:31 GMT, Dave Hinz <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:26:31 GMT, Leon <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> Correction ,
>>
>>
>>
>> The Front label is suppose to "indicate" or "point to" what you are truly
>> buying. Otherwise all the stores should turn the merchandise backwards so
>> that you can see what you are really getting. Why should the front label be
>> different from the back label or not refer to the back label.
>
>Right. How about this:
>"Fizz Beer" on the front, but on the back:
>"Fizz is actually cat urine. Not to be used as beer."

Well put. <G>

Barry

NoOne N Particular

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 10:13:24 PM7/13/04
to
There was also Firestone tire problems in the days of the Pinto. Self
destructing tires and impact explosive gas tank.

Wayne

"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:2linj8F...@uni-berlin.de...

Todd Fatheree

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 10:22:40 PM7/13/04
to
"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:2lj3jjF...@uni-berlin.de...

> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:26:31 GMT, Leon <removespa...@swbell.net>
wrote:
> > Correction ,
> >
> > The Front label is suppose to "indicate" or "point to" what you are
truly
> > buying. Otherwise all the stores should turn the merchandise backwards
so
> > that you can see what you are really getting. Why should the front
label be
> > different from the back label or not refer to the back label.
>
> Right. How about this:
> "Fizz Beer" on the front, but on the back:
> "Fizz is actually cat urine. Not to be used as beer."

It wouldn't bother me any. If it doesn't say "Guiness" on the front, I
don't care what the back says. ;-)

todd


NoOne N Particular

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 10:32:59 PM7/13/04
to
<<<<<<<<<<<,, snip snip >>>>>>>>>>>>>

> You'd expect the government to step in and make them only say
>waterproof if it actually is. But, the government is the ones that said
>Clinton didn't have sex, Grade B beef is now Grade A, and so on. Common
>ground for comparison is probably the best we can look for.

Please don't give anybody ideas about another way for the government to
control our lives. Let the market decide. If Franklin gets enough
complaints, or if sales falter, they will "fix" it. It is early yet and I
am still willing to give Franklin an opportunity to respond. Besides, I am
not going to build anything that is going underwater for more than a few
seconds or minutes, and I don't think that 99.999% of the people that
purchase TBIII will either. Personally, I think they either need to remove
the waterproof labelling because that implies that water will not affect the
product at all, or more clearly define their definition of waterproof on the
container.

Wayne


bri...@thanks.com

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 10:37:35 PM7/13/04
to

if you're building a boat you go to the marine supply to buy glue.
what you will find there is epoxy.

if you're building cabinets and furniture you go to the lumberyard or
the hardware store. what you will find there is yellow glue.


J T

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 10:41:49 PM7/13/04
to
Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 8:42pm (EDT+4) removespa...@swbell.net (Leon)
puts out:
<snip> The FRONT label is suppose to indicate what you are truly buying.

Then why's there a back label?

Message has been deleted

Leon

unread,
Jul 13, 2004, 11:37:08 PM7/13/04
to

<Wayne...@address.invaIid> wrote in message
news:sup8f0tahba2sk25u...@4ax.com...
> LOL!
> Do you actually do any woodworking, or just hang out in usenet groups
making an
> ass of yourself.


I think bridger has adequate wood working credentials.


Message has been deleted

Charlie Self

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 12:09:04 AM7/14/04
to
Leon responds:

Surely. More so than Mr. Kelly has shown.

Dan Cullimore

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 1:53:35 AM7/14/04
to
Dave Hinz <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<2lips2F...@uni-berlin.de>...

>> >>
>> How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous
submersion",
> exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
> able to do something it can't.

Here's my take on this controversy, having NOT read the Wood review:

Waterproof means the product will not fail when subject to getting
wet. Yellow glue is not waterproof because if it gets wet it fails.
The submersion test could only be relevent to define the outside
limits of the material: obviously, 24 hours under water is too much.
It doesn't define what the useful limit is (as someone else in this
thread has pointed out). A fine point of distinction, this
"waterproof" vs. "not meant for submersion", but valid none the less.
If you must submerge your project best use epoxy. I used TB2 on an
exterior deck about a year ago to patch knot holes in old redwood, and
the stuff is still tight. Can't complain.

Dan
"I can...but I don't want to."

Jules

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 2:00:49 AM7/14/04
to
dave, are they miscreants?

Wayne...@address.invalid wrote:

> Of course this won't matter to people who spend all their free time preaching in
> a usenet news group and none in a workshop.<g>

Edwin Pawlowski

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 2:31:10 AM7/14/04
to

"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message

> The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
> magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? I think that's
> the point), my question is - how touchy is this product that an
experienced
> woodworking outfit such as Wood magazine can use it wrong, such that it's
> not going to perform right? If the process for using it is
substantionally
> different than other glues, maybe they need to do some more R&D before
> releasing the product.

Did you read the article and see how it was tested? Not a question of being
touchy, it was put to a test it was not intended to be used.

OK let's compare a Bradley tank and a Chevy. The auto editor takes the
Chevy to the woods and bashes into a tree. He then declares it no good
because it cannot take down the tree.

Same as the Chevy is not made for or intended for knocking over trees,
Titebond is not designed to be used submerged. You think that more R & D is
going to get that Chevy to be capable of knocking down trees?
Ed
e...@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome


Edwin Pawlowski

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 2:41:59 AM7/14/04
to

"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>
> Do you expect it to come apart when wet, Charlie? A glue has a specific
> purpose, to hold things together. A trench coat has a specific purpose,
> to shed rain. If either of them fails to do so in wet conditions,
> then it fails to be "waterproof".

OK, lets get back to the test. They said it failed at a particular point of
pressure. What does that mean? It means the glue held for a long time,
maybe longer than we would ever expect it to under normal every day
conditions of rain, snow, sleet, or hail as long as the mailman is still
making his rounds. They did NOT say it failed to hold up in outdoor
furniture. They DID say it did not hold up as well as others in extreme test
done in a way the product was not intended to be used in.

In real life situations, the test tells us nothing.
Ed
e...@snet.net
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome


Leon

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 2:45:47 AM7/14/04
to

"Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:OV0Jc.787$4L7...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

> OK let's compare a Bradley tank and a Chevy. The auto editor takes the
> Chevy to the woods and bashes into a tree. He then declares it no good
> because it cannot take down the tree.
>
> Same as the Chevy is not made for or intended for knocking over trees,
> Titebond is not designed to be used submerged. You think that more R & D
is
> going to get that Chevy to be capable of knocking down trees?

The interesting part of the Wood test though is although the test was beyond
the TB3 limits, it was WAY beyond the TB2 limits and the TB2 did better than
the TB3.

J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 3:51:55 AM7/14/04
to
bri...@thanks.com wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:42:56 GMT, "Leon"
> <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"J T" <Jakofal...@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>news:11536-40F43A20-533@storefull-
>>
>> You gonna build a boat that's gonna be left in the water for long
>>periods of time, and not use an appropriate adhesive?
>>
>>So buying a glue that is labeled WATER PROOF is not an appropriate
>>adhesive? Exactly what label whould we be looking for???
>>
>> Since the Titebond label aready says not for prolonged submersion, or
>>below the waterline on boats,
>>
>>The label FRONT LABEL does NOT say that at all. It simply says WATER
>>PROOF with absolutely no reference to lead you to believe that it has
>>stipulations.
>>
>>The FRONT label is suppose to indicate what you are truly buying.
>>
>
>
>
> if you're building a boat you go to the marine supply to buy glue.
> what you will find there is epoxy.

Or resorcinol.

> if you're building cabinets and furniture you go to the lumberyard or
> the hardware store. what you will find there is yellow glue.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 3:56:49 AM7/14/04
to
Dan Cullimore wrote:

> Dave Hinz <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:<2lips2F...@uni-berlin.de>...
>>> >>
>>> How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous
> submersion",
>> exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
>> able to do something it can't.
>
> Here's my take on this controversy, having NOT read the Wood review:
>
> Waterproof means the product will not fail when subject to getting
> wet. Yellow glue is not waterproof because if it gets wet it fails.
> The submersion test could only be relevent to define the outside
> limits of the material: obviously, 24 hours under water is too much.
> It doesn't define what the useful limit is (as someone else in this
> thread has pointed out). A fine point of distinction, this
> "waterproof" vs. "not meant for submersion", but valid none the less.
> If you must submerge your project best use epoxy.

Actually, best use resorcinol, phenol-formaldehyde, or one of the other well
proven technologies. While epoxy is decent, its real benefit is the
variety of materials that it will bond, not its resistance to water
immersion. Water penetration of the bond line is a well known problem with
epoxy that the vendors and the aerospace and marine communities have been
battling for decades--the current stuff is better than what was available
20 years ago but it's not as good as a technology optimized specifically
for bonding wood. It doesn't happen quickly, but it does happen.

> I used TB2 on an
> exterior deck about a year ago to patch knot holes in old redwood, and
> the stuff is still tight. Can't complain.
>
> Dan
> "I can...but I don't want to."

--

J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 3:50:40 AM7/14/04
to
Leon wrote:

>
> "J T" <Jakofal...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:11536-40F43A20-533@storefull-
>
> You gonna build a boat that's gonna be left in the water for long
> periods of time, and not use an appropriate adhesive?
>
> So buying a glue that is labeled WATER PROOF is not an appropriate
> adhesive? Exactly what label whould we be looking for???
>
> Since the Titebond label aready says not for prolonged submersion, or
> below the waterline on boats,
>
> The label FRONT LABEL does NOT say that at all. It simply says WATER
> PROOF with absolutely no reference to lead you to believe that it has
> stipulations.
>
> The FRONT label is suppose to indicate what you are truly buying.

If I were building something on which I was going to depend for my life I
would rely on test results from third parties, not words on a product
label. The only thing I would be looking for on the product label would be
the brand name and product identification.

Robert Bonomi

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 5:03:57 AM7/14/04
to
In article <EAIIc.842$BH3...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
Edwin Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>"Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net> wrote in message
>news:IsxIc.7934$Og7....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
>> This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of
>> Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine
>> glue test. I also responded to his email that "some of us" were concerned
>> about the actual differences or advantages of TB3 over TB2. I requested
>an
>> explanation of how or why TB3 is labeled Water Proof when the Common
>> Knowledge Definition of Water Proof is so vastly different. I will share
>> those answers when they come.
>
>I'm looking forward to the next issue of Wood Magazine. I wonder if they
>are re-doing the tests.

It'll be more than one issue out, if they do. 2 months is the absolute
_minimum_ lead-time for something to make it into a magazine of this type,
and space is generally assigned 4-6 months in advance.

Assuming a serious flaw/problem/issue in the testing procedure, one might
see a 'minimal' announcement of 'test results problems' 2-3 months after
publication, and a re-do of the story another 2-3 months after that.

RKON

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 10:53:42 AM7/14/04
to
In the response I received back from TB on the use of waterproof on their
bottle I asked about the ANSI/HPVA tests. Where is information that I can
view without paying $75 Dollars..

The Response I received was: "If you go to our website www.titebond.com,
select FAQs, and then go to Woodworking Glues. Scroll down and it will
provide a "layperson" description of the two ANSI/HPVA tests. If you are
looking for the actual test method, which is cumbersome and difficult to
read, feel free to contact our Technical Support Group at 1-800-347-4583."

I did and the here is what is posted:

Frome website FAQ:

"What is the difference between the ANSI/HPVA Type I and Type II
water-resistance specification?"

Notice how they say Water-resistance specification. Where is the word
Waterproof???????????


answer:

Leon

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 1:31:55 PM7/14/04
to
Wood did state in the article that the water testing was beyond the limits
of the glues tested. I suspect the they may simply renounce that statement
and stick to their guns.

Leon

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 1:35:36 PM7/14/04
to

"J. Clarke" <jcl...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:cd2b4...@news2.newsguy.com...

> If I were building something on which I was going to depend for my life I
> would rely on test results from third parties, not words on a product
> label. The only thing I would be looking for on the product label would
be
> the brand name and product identification.


Yes, so would I. But how many people going into the local Wal Mart or
Woodcraft store are looking for Water Proof glue for a project that their
life is going to depend on?


Leon

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 1:48:09 PM7/14/04
to
I read one of the descriptions of Type I and found the words Water Proof
only in the title.

Notice that Water Proof is only in the Name of the test and not in the
description. I suspect this is where Titebond gets its Water Proof
definition.

I got this information from
http://dl1.woodinst.com/pdfdocs/2003-MM/03Glosry.pdf

ADHESIVE, TYPE I FULLY WATERPROOF: Forms a bond that will retain practically
all of its strength when occasionally

subjected to a thorough wetting and drying; bond shall be of such quality
that specimens will withstand shear and two cycle boil test

specified in ANSI/HPVA HP (2000).

ADHESIVE, TYPE II WATER-RESISTANT: Forms a bond that will retain practically
all of its strength when occasionally

subjected to a thorough wetting and drying; bond shall be of such quality
that specimens will withstand the three cycle cold soak

test specified in ANSI/HPVA HP (2000).


Charlie Self

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 2:01:16 PM7/14/04
to
Leon writes:

Why would they renounce the statement? The tests were beyond the design limits
of the glues tested. It's hard to renounce the truth, outside of politics.

One thing bothered me: all the test sizes shown were of small blocks of wood.
If the submersion testing was of similar sized pieces, the porosity of the wood
had to play an important part in the results, with the possibility of water
seepage through the test blocks during the 24 hour period.

Charlie Self
"When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight
D. Eisenhower

Charlie Self

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 1:02:23 AM7/14/04
to
WayneKelly blares:

>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:37:08 GMT, "Leon" <removespa...@swbell.net>
>wrote:


>
>>
>><Wayne...@address.invaIid> wrote in message
>>news:sup8f0tahba2sk25u...@4ax.com...
>>> LOL!
>>> Do you actually do any woodworking, or just hang out in usenet groups
>>making an
>>> ass of yourself.
>>
>>
>>I think bridger has adequate wood working credentials.
>>

>He doesn't know shit about glue.

And you are...what kind of expert?

bri...@thanks.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 2:58:02 PM7/14/04
to


that is interesting. it makes me wonder if they mixed up the samples.

bri...@thanks.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 3:01:16 PM7/14/04
to


seems most publications have space reserved for "corrections" near
where letters to the editor are. could be a notice there.

bri...@thanks.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 3:03:10 PM7/14/04
to


what, and claim that franklin claims titebond is intended for
continuous submersion? that'll do wonders for Wood Mag's
credibility....

J. Clarke

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 2:10:48 PM7/14/04
to
Leon wrote:

If it's a boat that is going to be used in water deep enough to be over
their head and far enough from land that they can't swim the distance
easily then they're depending on it for their lives.

If it's a pool toy and it comes apart, then they either learn from their
mistake or don't and so what?

Message has been deleted

bri...@thanks.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 3:29:28 PM7/14/04
to
On 14 Jul 2004 01:02:23 GMT, charl...@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

>WayneKelly blares:


blatant troll...


>
>Charlie Self
>"Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as
>distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." Ambrose
>Bierce

Charlie-

please do not feed the trolls.

bri...@thanks.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 3:38:20 PM7/14/04
to
On 14 Jul 2004 14:01:16 GMT, charl...@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

>


>One thing bothered me: all the test sizes shown were of small blocks of wood.
>If the submersion testing was of similar sized pieces, the porosity of the wood
>had to play an important part in the results, with the possibility of water
>seepage through the test blocks during the 24 hour period.
>
>Charlie Self


while small blocks of wood don't accurately represent a lot of actual
use situations they do present one type of worst case in that the
sample will saturate quickly. what they don't cover is the stresses
generated in pieces where large wooden parts are glued together cross
grain. as the wood soaks and expands the stresses could get pretty
large.

once again, if you're building something like that intended for
underwater use it would be wise to rely on something like big bolts
rather than yellow glue.

bri...@thanks.com

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 3:40:21 PM7/14/04
to
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:10:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jcl...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <jcl...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:cd2b4...@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> If I were building something on which I was going to depend for my life I
>>> would rely on test results from third parties, not words on a product
>>> label. The only thing I would be looking for on the product label would
>> be
>>> the brand name and product identification.
>>
>>
>> Yes, so would I. But how many people going into the local Wal Mart or
>> Woodcraft store are looking for Water Proof glue for a project that their
>> life is going to depend on?
>
>If it's a boat that is going to be used in water deep enough to be over
>their head and far enough from land that they can't swim the distance
>easily then they're depending on it for their lives.


sounds like darwin awards stuff- man builds boat with glue from mall
wart and takes it out on the open sea....

Message has been deleted

Dave Hinz

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 4:07:38 PM7/14/04
to
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:31:10 GMT, Edwin Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>
>> how touchy is this product that an
> experienced
>> woodworking outfit such as Wood magazine can use it wrong, such that it's
>> not going to perform right?
>
> Did you read the article and see how it was tested?

Not yet, probably tonight.

> Not a question of being
> touchy, it was put to a test it was not intended to be used.

OK, ...

> OK let's compare a Bradley tank and a Chevy. The auto editor takes the
> Chevy to the woods and bashes into a tree. He then declares it no good
> because it cannot take down the tree.

More to the point, the Chevy is called the Chevy Treecutter, but buried
in the owners manual is a statement "Not to be used for taking down trees".

> Same as the Chevy is not made for or intended for knocking over trees,
> Titebond is not designed to be used submerged. You think that more R & D is
> going to get that Chevy to be capable of knocking down trees?

No, I think they shouldn't call it the Chevy Treecutter.


Dave Hinz

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 4:09:55 PM7/14/04
to
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:41:49 -0400, J T <Jakofal...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 8:42pm (EDT+4) removespa...@swbell.net (Leon)
> puts out:
><snip> The FRONT label is suppose to indicate what you are truly buying.
>
> Then why's there a back label?

Er, front tells you what it is, back tells you how to apply it, I would
guess. They shouldn't give conflicting information if the seller isn't
lying to the customers.

Mike Richardson

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 4:33:38 PM7/14/04
to
Two labels?

Milk Bottles good reason for two labels,
Top says see other end for instructions.
Bottom says?


Open other end.

Elegant solution for ocmplicated issue.


So for front back, we could arrange a committee to get wording right, would
have to choose twist versus rotate vs flip etc..


OK Joat?


"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:2ll46jF...@uni-berlin.de...

Edwin Pawlowski

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 5:13:56 PM7/14/04
to

"Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>
> No, I think they shouldn't call it the Chevy Treecutter.
>
>
Right. While I don't absolve Franklin for touting waterproof, (as opposed
to resistant) it does meet the ANSI standards. The front label should have
an asterisk pointing out the standard it meets. It should be tested in
accordance with intended use to be meaningful to the consumer.

If the tester says "this is good for strength, but turns black" I will not
use it on my whirligigs, but it will be my first choice for the ebony
laundry cart I'm building.

In this case, even though it failed at a fairly low psi, it is perhaps more
than I'd need anyway. Wood Magazine did not bother to tell us that.
Ed


Tim Douglass

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 5:19:45 PM7/14/04
to
On 13 Jul 2004 19:01:22 GMT, Dave Hinz <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:52:27 -0500, Todd Fatheree <fathe...@NOcomcastSPAM.net> wrote:
>> "Dave Hinz" <Dave...@spamcop.net> wrote in message

>> news:2lingoF...@uni-berlin.de...
>>>
>>> The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
>>> magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? I think that's
>>> the point), my question is - how touchy is this product
>
>> Apparently, Wood's problem is in reading the directions. The bottle says it
>> is not mean for continuous submersion. Is there something unclear about
>> that?


>
>How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous submersion",
>exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be
>able to do something it can't.

I guess the question that leaps out at me is what do you call a glue
that is actually *waterproof*, that is, usable for continuous
submersion? I've only ever seen glues labeled as "water resistant" or
"water proof" I don't recall anything beyond that. So how do you
differentiate between the "waterproof" glue that is not appropriate
for continuous submersion and the "waterproof" glue that is?

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Dave Hinz

unread,
Jul 14, 2004, 6:40:31 PM7/14/04
to
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:19:45 -0700, Tim Douglass <tdou...@bendcable.com> wrote:
> I guess the question that leaps out at me is what do you call a glue
> that is actually *waterproof*, that is, usable for continuous
> submersion? I've only ever seen glues labeled as "water resistant" or
> "water proof" I don't recall anything beyond that. So how do you
> differentiate between the "waterproof" glue that is not appropriate
> for continuous submersion and the "waterproof" glue that is?

Sums up my point better than I have. Thanks, Tim, for putting it so
clearly.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages