James Bella takes a look at the Etch-Mate 3C Precision Photo-Etch Bending Tool by Mission Models.

Link to Item


If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!

A good review! I knew as soon as I saw this thing that it would be crap, and your review just confirms my suspicions. You can't make a PE bending tool out of plastic, even high quality plastic, without sacrificing the precision edge of the clamp. If you do make the edge razor sharp, the plastic will bend and distort in no time.

I know making anything out of metal these days is expensive, but Mission Models should have scrapped the whole thing instead of lowering their standards and going with plastic. Selling this thing is a disservice to their less knowledgeable customers who will end up with a piece of expensive junk. Ausfwerks has done just this and discontinued (unfortunately) their Fender Bender because steel is so expensive these days, and they didn't want to release a lesser product out of inferior materials.

And not to go too off-topic, but Mission Models customer service has been really crappy as of late. Their site can run like sloth at times, they don't seem to update their stock very often, and they take forever to answer emails, if they ever answer them at all.

I'm glad I waited for this review before buying one. I had been tempted to get some sort of tool as I'm warming up to the use of PE parts (do I have a choice?).

Just wanted to say the original version of the EtchMate (the metal one) is excellent. I did get a set of the plastic fingers and they work fine with the older version.

I don't have a dog in this hunt but I think there are a couple of points people should consider:
First, I doubt material cost has anything to do with going with the "plastic" over the aluminum. Steel, aluminum, tin, copper, whatever are at or near record highs but Mission Models would just pass that cost on to us. We do it here at the foundry with a surcharge. The cost savings comes from the machine time. They cast the parts instead of setting the billets up in a CNC machining center and 100% machining them. Depending on what kind of castable plastic they are made out it may be more expensive per pound than aluminum.
Second, don't sell plastic short. We use a lot of 2 part castable expoxy "plastic" in the pattern shop I supervise. Some of them contain powdered silicon carbide and are actually far more wear resistant than aluminum.

Like this stuff:

http://www.freemansupply.com/RenGel3260SiliconC.htm

Like I said, I have no vested interest what so ever but thought I would toss that out.

Shaun

I get what you're saying, but I read somewhere that Missions Models flat-out said they went with plastic because metal was too expensive. Sure, they could go with metal and pass the cost on to us, but I would assume they chose plastic because they would sell more units and make more money overall.

Ahhh! Sounds like bad news. I bought one one these a few months ago. Have not had the chance to use it yet. I got it on the basis of reveiws of the OLDER metal model etch-mate. Didn't realize it had been changed. Maybe I can unload it on e-Bay.
Anyone recomend the new "Hold and Fold" as a good alternative?? I'm gonna need something! Regards,Steve

That would've made sense if they were selling the plastic version for less than the metal version.

Unfortunately, I have a 3C and can confirm it's useless - I ordered right at the point they were making the change and this is what I received. At the time I didn't think much of it but once I started using it I felt robbed!

Glad I held out and looked into the Hold & Fold, I think they were the 1st photo bending acc. out thier before the mission models version. I have never had issues with the Hold & Fold, thier cstmr service has been pretty good when asking questions. I would highly recommend the Hold & Fold over the Etch Mate to anyone and everyone. But in the end, it comes down to which you prefer.

James -

This review was one of the most disappointing reviews that I have read in a very long time. Clearly the reviewer is not knowledgeable or experienced enough to understand this tool is intended to be used in conjunction with PE aftermarket sets and not as sheet brass bending tool - as was demonstrated. This review was using the tool incorrectly and not for what it was intended to do, thus giving it a poor review in the process. A sheet metal break the Etch-Mate 3C is not nor is made for that or marketed as such. It is expressly designed to fold the myriad of aftermarket PE sets available for our models.

Almost every PE on the market come with engraved folding line along where the brass is intended to bend. I use the original Etch-Mate and the newer Etch-Mate 3C all of the time and the results are the same. The tool bends the PE exactly as intended. I use a lot of PE with my models mostly from Aber and Eduard and they both work perfectly each and every time. I've never had a problem, EVER.

The 3C is made out of the same composite found in military aircraft because the price of raw aluminum has skyrocketed since the Iraq War. This is well documented. As production ran out on the original Etch-Mate which sold for $65, a new (even unchanged) aluminum tool would have climbed to well over $80 retail, which was unacceptable for the market. Remember these are made in the USA and Mission Models will not farm out overseas to get a lower price, which is their right to do so - for the right reason I might add.

Yes, I worked there and helped develop the 3C - but that is over 2 years ago now. So my vested interest is no more than the rest of you. I find the comments disturbing and frankly unfounded. If you use a lot of PE or are thinking about, all the bending tools on the market will perform roughly the same. I find this review given by an unexperienced modeler passing along iffy information inexcusable.

James if you want to bend sheet brass and have it hold a sharp bend, then it must be annealed first or chemically etched to provide a fold line. Metal stretches as it bends and you will never get a perfect 90 bend out of it the way you have shown.

PE sets are expensive and I think it is in the best interests of this site to reconsider reviews of this nature. Use the tool for what it was made for and show it being properly put thru its paces with an associated PE set. Here is an example that I did to show how I think this tool performs and how a thorough test should be made:

Using the EtchMate 3C

I know I am standing up for Mission Models here and the EtchMate 3C, but please this was borderline hilariously if I didn't think the reviewer was being serious.

Best,

Mike

My only comment on the review is to say the same thing Michael said before me, maybe you should try the tool with some A.M. photo-etch sets instead of sheet brass.


Yeah you're right that is off-topic! I have been doing business with Mission for several years now and have never had anything but excellent service. No site problems for me, and I haven't found their stock situation to be any different than other online stores, and in many cases better. My e-mails have almost always been answered in a timely fashion, and if not there was a good explanation. If you have an axe to grind with Mission take it up with them somewhere else please!

Mike

James' results are not unique and he does state in the review that he used parts from a photo-etch set that did have pre-etched lines. The review up on IPMS, while glowing, shows the same issues with the radius on the bends for some parts. The photos down at the bottom demonstrate the bends produced...http://www.ipmsusa2.org/Reviews/Products/mission_models/etchmate_3c.htm...and not all of them are straight, square, foolproof folds...perhaps due to the user, perhaps not.

Furthermore, on the Mission Models site, the following description is provided for those looking into the product: http://www.missionmodels.com/product.php?productid=17875&cat=313&page=1

Etch Mate 3C Features:

New 3 Clamp system for additional gripping pressure when you need it!
New shape upper folding head with outboard adjustable clamp knobs
New high tech composite material replaces low-tech aluminum
Exclusive folding channel
360-degree reversible spring-loaded folding head
Non-reflective surface
6 ½ x 3 ½ unobstructed work surface
Pre-assembled, with folding blades and instructions
Create straight square foolproof folds each and every time (emphasis added)
Quick efficient photo etch alignment
All surfaces utilized for folding
Excellent for all aspects of scale modeling
Only one size needed for all scales
Lifetime guarantee against manufacturing defects!
100% made in the USA.

Nowhere there does it say that it's designed for use only with PE sets with etched bending lines...and we all know that not all sets come with etched bending lines on every part that may require bending...while it does say that it's "excellent for all aspects of scale modelling". It also doesn't mention that one needs to have a certain level of experience in order to be able to use the tool properly...James purchsed the item, followed the instructions, and these are the results he was able to achieve with the tool. It's his fair assessment and the rebuttal by Mike Rinaldi is a fair one as well. However it points out that there are in fact limitations on what the tool can do and be used for...and those limitations are not widely known or noted on the Mission Models site.

As with all Reviews posted on Armorama, the review is the result of the user's experience and perception and is their own opinion. We invite all of our users to submit reviews of this type and will continue to do so.

Michael,
I'm sorry you were disappointed with my review, but quite frankly I'd rather be disappointed with a review than disappointed in a purchase. At least you only lost a few minutes of your time reading my review and responding in this thread, whereas I lost a bit more than time.

And I suppose that I am not knowledgeable or experienced enough to understand that this tool should only be used with aftermarket PE sets, if Mission Models stated this I would have known. Does this mean the sets I have that are included with my DML and Trumpeter kits need to be dealt with differently? Ah, I'm only being a smart-alec here, Michael, I know what you meant. And, yes, I realize this is not a sheetmetal brake.

Sorry once again, but I do not see what military aircraft has to do with the Etch-mate. They share the same material, but I fail to see how that makes this tool better? I'm pretty sure if I dropped my Etch-Mate off my roof it wouldn't break, though the composite material did not help me achieve sharp bends.

Yes, the price of metals has gone up dramatically, but the amount used in this tool before machining is not that great, do not see that as an excuse.

Michael, I did not purchase this tool and perform the review immediately. I practiced quite a bit with it before running my tests, believe me I wanted it to work well. I was not looking for faults, since I already purchased this tool I wanted it to do what it was advertised to do.

Also, I did state in my review that I used etched bend lines with the same result. What I did not mention was that I also annealed test samples, with like results.

I sincerely hope I did not sound rude here, Michael, that was not my intention. Just wanted to clarify things a bit. It's not my style to judge people, especially people I do not know, to make my point. Cheers.

I don't have an axe to grind. The review was about a product the reviewer found unacceptable, something I suspected as well. Along with my comments I also felt I should mention that I was none too happy with the same companies customer service as of late. That's great you've had good service, but I haven't lately, and I feel everyone should speak up when a companies service falters.

If you don't like hearing negative things about a company in a thread talking about that companies product, maybe you should take that up with someone else, somewhere else.

James -

The essence of my reply was that I have spent a lot of time using PE and the tools we are talking about and haven't experienced the problems you've described. Your photos do not show any PE parts that I am familiar with, even those included in kits such as DML, etc. provides. Even though you mentioned the standard PE parts, I have concerns that what you do show in regards to seeking a 90 deg bend is actually on a piece of brass that does not have a chemically etched fold line present. Nearly every piece of PE I've ever bent requiring a sharp angle has had this feature. I've been trying to think of a PE part that needed folding and can't, so if it is a common event I haven't seen it. I can only add to my reply by saying I've personally sold thousands of PE sets and have used around 50 or so sets for my models and haven't seen a part designed as such. Doesn't mean I'm right or wrong, just that I've seen a lot of PE (probably too much!). Small hinges like you mentioned are inherently difficult and I have found other ideas to fold them better. Not sure why, maybe because of the added material on the outside representing the hinge.

Every tool has its limits, as we all know, and an experienced PE user knows that some of those super tiny PE parts are better served with a small pair of flat pliers than any dedicated folding tool. Much like trying to the paint the head of a shovel with an airbrush. It is difficult task to perform perfectly, thus a paint brush becomes the better tool for the same job.

For what it is worth, your 3 larger photos show what is the expected result of a bend in a piece of non-etched sheet metal regardless of what type of tool you would have used - Etch-Mate, Hold & Fold, etc. The metal has no ability to create a sharp square corner and will always show a slight radius, as your photo illustrates for us. This is inherent in the nature of the material being used. Annealing will get you a tighter radius, but it will still have one. Even the PE parts have a very tiny corner radius, but it is so tight it goes unnoticed unless magnified by a camera. The thickness of the material also is a consideration and if you were intending to create a part on your own, you would be better served going with a thinner piece of material. It is the fundamental reason for chemically etching the line in PE parts - to remove material on one side thus allowing the other side to stretch and form into a very tight bend.

This was the main reason why I found this review disappointing and misleading, especially since you did not include photos of more normal PE pieces for comparison purposes. My link shows some for comparative sake. It also shows how a properly folded part is the result, on a average sized part and with a rather tiny piece. I can only go by own experience and maybe the added album link will shed more light on the process.

I also have a lot of concerns about comments regarding the price. Unless someone had all the invoices, material and service costs, packaging costs, etc. in front of you, as I did, you cannot give a truthful and intelligent answer. I too also hate to sound rude (and that is not my intention), but the fact of the matter is a substantial price difference emerged when other non-ferrous material was explored. It is a point of fact and not an excuse by any stretch, nor intended to be given as such. Everything is this hobby of ours is getting more expensive and we felt the price issue was an important consideration to the successful future of this tool.

MM spent a lot of time on that material decision and the point of mentioning aircraft grade composite material is to 1) because it was clearly not aluminum to let you know this is not made from any standard kind of injected grade plastic, and 2) that it is strong and durable enough to withstand any normal PE bending required thus lasting a very, very long time, which adds value to the consumer. It is an excellent non-metal substitute that also allows for increased production rates via steel tooling, another very important criteria for this tool since the numbers to be produced are very large. So you can see the dilemma.

I really hate these kinds of discussions as they tend to lead nowhere fast, so my apologies for that. However, I do hope the site users are more knowledgeable about what has transpired and what is possible with PE and the Etch-Mate series. There is a question raised recently over on Missing Lynx about reviews and what guys want to see in them. I can only say from my POV that I consider the net to be in a very unique position of massive influence. A negative review, right or wrong, has a lot of impact on a lot of people. Poorly molded parts, inaccurate outline, poor fit of parts are all important avenues of discussion and should be undertaken with proper reference to give the best possible and accurate information, and as such reviewing a tool also requires the same level of care and perseverance especially when problems arise. I can hope maybe a more thorough type of review could be the result next time. Perhaps a comparative review format for tools to grade them, and maybe by different level of modelers to give a broader perspective.

I'm not adverse to the 55% rating, just the manner in which it was derived at. I know from a lot of PE bending that when used in that manner it deserves a much higher rating than given. Mission Models also has a long standing and well-earned reputation of producing high quality modeling tools that work and feel if a problem was to arise with their use then a call to the shop could go along way towards clarifying or illuminating a process further. That kind of action and reported information are very valuable to the folks reading reviews, and can't stress enough how talking to a person about their product can help. I also hope my unique position of "being there when it happened" and as a long time "photo-etcher" will be of added service.

Best,

Mike

Michael I am always open to another opinion, may I request your opinion on the ETCHMATE 3C, listing its strong/weak and its good /bad points from your experience having been involved in its design. As for who is right or wrong that can’t be answered as it’s an opinion formed from their personal experience of a product. I myself rarely use PE because I have hands like shovels and old tired eyes (half the time I cant tell the PE from the frame) but if there is a tool out there that will make using PE easy I will invest in one, however I also want to know what it can’t do rather than just what it can.

My sentiments exactly...being involved in the precision tooling business myself, I always make it a point to examine all of the new tooling products on the market for us modelers, and quite honestly, would welcome a detailed review from Mr. Rinaldi, especially because he was involved in the design of the tool, and his overall knowledge on the subject would most definitely be appreciated...as stated by Bill in his post, we invite all of our users to submit reviews of this type and will continue to do so.

That's why we have the option at the end of each and every Kitmaker review for the reader to submit an additional review of the product, to see their findings as well...personally, after reading this review and the posts here, I've placed an order for one, just to see for myself!

I want to extend a personal thanks to both James Bella and Michael Rinaldi for their comments and opinions thus far, and keeping things on an intelligent, even keel........

I too appreciate the level of discussion and the offer to provide more information about the Etch-Mate (and bending tools in general) and PE.

So in that vein, here are some lengthy thoughts about the subject and these are only taken from my own experiences. Your mileage will vary of course, as will your intent and propensity to use a tool like the EtchMate with any frequency, which should also be considered. Combined with the photo album link provided above, I think this gives an honest and thorough overview of the entire process.

1) All the PE bending tools available will work well and along the same basic “metal break” principles. The part is placed under the tool head, clamped down tight, and then the folding process is achieved by using a “blade” or similar object to lift the free end of the part into the desired fold. The Ausfwerks tool has a moving tool head but the effect is fundamentally the same. I found after a brief time of usage that I was able to use a bending tool to improve and be more efficient (i.e. make more consistent and accurate folds) in the use of PE parts. Almost all of my models in the stash have an associated aftermarket PE set waiting in the box, and while I have become far more selective in which parts I actually use, it is likely to be, on average, about half of an entire set. If any of you have tried to use an entire Aber PE set, you’ll know what I mean.

2) The Etch-Mate series is innovative because of the addition of a “folding channel” – the thin groove in the base plate along the edge of the tool head. I liked this feature because it allowed for a quicker alignment of the PE part under the foot via quick visual reference and it also gave the blade a place to snap into and keeping alignment true through the lift and fold process. I had purchased my EM prior to working at MM and at a much lower level of experience that I now am today. I was also lucky enough to see the tool demonstrated to me prior to purchase. While still a newbie at the time it was easy to see the advantages of having one. About a year later I had the chance to compare the EM against a 5” Hold & Fold and while it worked the same (i.e. folding the part just fine), more concentration was required to get the parts and folds to line up repeatedly. And like all tools, your experiences will differ, but it was enough to confirm to me the folding channel was an improvement in design.

3) However, the single clamping knob proved to be a weakness on a very minor level, but one nonetheless. Because the clamping pressure was from the center outwards, the outer edges of the tool head were clamping with less force. On those tiny, tiny parts getting a good tight hold was the only complaint we ever really heard. I took two calls in this regards in my time at MM out of what was easily a few thousand EM’s sold in that period I was working there, so it wasn’t a lot by any stretch. However, we take this [auto-censored] seriously, so we talked to a few of our more experienced PE modeling customers to gauge this problem and it was worth noting for the impending new version.

4) Moving to the newer 3C, and referencing the material change detailed in my previous reply, the clamping pressure issue was addressed with a two-fold solution. The first idea was to design the shape of the tool head with a slight bow or arch, allowed via the injected molded process chosen. Because of this arch, once clamping pressure was applied it would spread itself outwards more evenly providing greater strength on the outer edges. And secondly, each side of the tool received its own clamp that provides additional holding strength – thus the 3C title = 3-clamps. These outer clamps also allow for one side use on those easy and simple box type parts, meaning you clamp one side down and then just use the other side for quick and easy part folding because you only need to loosen one clamp to slide the part under and then clamp it down quickly.

5) Another handy feature of the EM style head design, that I admittedly learned much later after watching Jon demonstrate the tool at the IPMS Nats in Atlanta, was the steps formed along the outer edge of the tool head are also a folding surface – again designed for the simpler single bend parts. To use this feature, take the part and place it against the corners of the steps in a vertical alignment with the etched folding line facing outwards and running parallel to the length of the tool head. Then place the blade in the etch line and press down towards the inner face of the step. The step will act as a 90 deg guide and the part will be folded into the step. Maybe that sounds more complicated than it is, but I think you understand the intent. Thus the EM gives you that choice to use the tool in a variety of ways to bend the PE parts, or the process you like to work within.

6) Invariably there are going to be those stubborn parts that are either too small, don’t provide enough of a surface to clamp it with, have funky bends, etc. and this is where I find it more appropriate to use a pair of flat nose pliers, or high quality tweezers to initiate the fold with. German WWII tool clamps jump to mind. Because there are so many at times like on a Pzr IV, I just find it easier to handle by hand vs. using the bending tool. Other tanks like Shermans don’t have a lot of normal box-style PE and the parts like headlight and periscope guards don’t fit into the nice world of PE bending tools. A casual modeler might struggle with these areas, but those more dedicated or experienced know there are better options to perform the process. I don’t build ships per se, so can’t really comment (even though I have the Hasegawa Mikasa with full PE sets waiting), but I also build AC and cars, and the cockpit PE sets I have for those kits don’t look like a ton of bending is required unlike those of armor PE sets. However, some of the more intricate flap and bomb bay sets look serious, so a good tool would be appropriate to own – the Eduard 1/48 Trump. Wellington sets jump to mind. Again, what you use the tool for will make a difference along various subject lines. My recommendation to customers was that if you use more than 3 PE sets in the course of a year’s building, then owning a good bending tool should be on list of necessary purchases. That was my sentiment after ruining a few sets prior to owning one.

7) The online album link provided previously is a good visual guide of the folding process. It really isn’t very difficult with time and patience being your friend. Starting out is always going to be difficult and expect to make some mistakes. Nothing really new there, but do take it easy and don’t force a part. If it doesn’t want to do what you want it to, take a step back and breath then reassess the situation.

8) Regarding scratchbuilding and sheet metal bending in general. Honestly, I have moved away from using raw brass sheet on my models and more into styrene. I find the material change suits me better and I like the ease of using styrene. However, some things cannot be avoided and when necessary to use brass sheet (I tried to make new fenders for the MiniArt T-70M kit prior to the release of the aftermarket sets), and annealing the part provided the best solution for the required bends. I also found that the initial bend may not yield the best results and often it was necessary to keep working with the parts until I was happy. I don’t feel this was a fault of the EM tool, but more the result of using non-etched sheet to make my part. My comments about the review and what was shown is from this point of view when bending metal. A heavier duty tool like the steel Ausfwerks may prove to be the better choice if this is the type of work you will foresee using it for. The use of a chemical etching set like those available from Micro Mark could also make a big difference for the scratchbuilder type. Curved and rounds parts are a different topic, such as barrels and exhaust shields, and I continue to use brass a lot in these areas. Annealing and the use of the MM Multi-Tool are very helpful for rounded parts.

9) Soldering is also another method to improve your work with PE. I wrongly thought it was harder than it sounds and hadn’t used the process, preferring to stick with CA for my gluing needs. However, after reading a few threads online and talking to some friends that do solder, I have since purchased an inexpensive set-up from Hobby Shack. I have done some minor tests and very quickly realized the error of my ways. It is another big improvement and is worth considering if you want to maximize your PE usage. While not relating directly to the use of a bending tool it is worth mentioning for the serious PE consumer.

10) Lastly, almost all my experience has come from using sets from Aber, Eduard, Lion Roar, Voyager, Royal Model, PART and Hauler in 1/35 and 1/48 scale. What PE I have used that come with kits from resin companies like Accurate Armour and Cromwell are similar to the more commercial sets; same goes for PE provided by Tamiya, DML and Trumpeter. So by and large my experience hovers in these categories and might be different from those that model in other scale like 1/72, 1/87, 1/144, 1/350, etc.

11) After further thought, I think the term "/review" might be mislabeling the intent of the process. Tools are a lot like techniques, or methods, if you will. How one uses them will differ from one to the next. One's skill level and experience also plays at hand. How I use a technique might yield entirely different results from someone else, thus making it very hard to accurately apply a ranking number such as Armorama or PMMS use. Does the process change after a modeler has used the tool for a few years? How does that Iwata spray after painting 6 models in a row? Would these types of question alter a review over time? Is there a system in place to address these issues? Using tools simply is not a black and white process. A 55% review mark might be someone else's 80%. Thus I think here is the fundamental difference between a kit review where a point of measure or accuracy can be applied. Is the lower hull 1mm too long? Or is the intake opening misshapen? Or how Part A fits into Part B has a definable and quantifiable property. Food for thought.

I hope these comments have added some more value to the conversation.

Best,

Mike

I have read with interest what you have written here, it’s good to see you refer to alternate bending tools and that some of these other tools are better at achieving the results that are sought in some circumstances. You have verified that the piece written by James is accurate as to the results he had with bending sheet brass and again have suggested the better tool to use for this purpose. I appreciate the fact that you specify there are better and/or easier ways of achieving the bend you require depending on the size of the piece being bent.

I can’t help feeling that the biggest problem with all the different PE bending tools that are out there is they fail to mention what it is NOT recommended for (such as bending sheet brass). This results in negative reviews of a product that is fine for a targeted purpose. Add to this that these tools are purchased by people of various skill and experience levels who expect to obtain a certain result from its use, which cannot be obtained without practice.

If I’m honest it stands to reason you need practice with this tool or any other for that matter, but I was thinking place (A) into (B) up to point (C) and use (D) to bend here, what could be easier which as it turns out couldn’t be further from the truth. So you end up with a $60 tool which sits in a dark recess never to see the light of day again because you are given un-realistic expectations of the results you can achieve from day one by the manufacturers advertising.

I would like to say a very big thank you to James for clearly pointing out its weaknesses from his experience with the ETCHMATE 3C and I would also like to say a big thank you to Michael for pointing out its limitations and making very clear that practice makes all the difference. In addition these two reviews have given me a very clear picture (at least to my mind) of what to purchase for what purpose and that the ETCHMATE 3C has its place, a place that was not made clear prior to me reading the reviews here.

Hi Guys, just a note or two from "The designer" of the Hold & Fold 5 Speed together with (co designed with the late and great Pete Forrest) the H&F Bug and H&F 8"MkRv2 .

Like Mike I am NOT now connected so like Mike and as the designer I thought I bring some more info to the thread and would make some corrections to a couple of errors and omissions.
I WILL keep to topic and only comment where I feel it is required. As I had 7 years of "intensive" folding tool action (production, selling use trains plane auto blah blah "the Tools Wars" balh blah, I thought I could offer some thoughts

1. The "COST" of aluminum was never an issue and even when it did rise the % was increase minimal. The real reason costs increased for us at the time was the costs of machine shop time, eg people. This was true for both production plants in the UK and I believe in the USA, to put it simple, put a hand on it and pow, you have costs, increase the head travel distance and needing to up grade to a 6 head production machine and you have more, the trick is to keep it down by clever design. Thus the more complicated the design, the more the cost. then add all the shipping costs. your folding tool has many a carbon mile on it chaps !.
QA was very problematic with "far eastern production" and numbers were low, we rejected mainly for low numbers (not in the 100's of 1000's but QA came in a very close 2nd with small detail updates also simpler to action by keeping it local

2. The material of choice remained aluminum at the time of production BUT we were investigating a number of "plastic" options , the reasons were numerous for staying with the aluminum but in reality as we were not suffering on material costs we stuck with what we knew worked and had proven itself over a long time (The H&F was after all designed by Pete years before any of the clones came out and at the time we had over 10 years with it)
Because of the unique thin edges of the fine fingers on the Hold and Fold designs, we also needed to make these as stiff/strong as possible but not brittle, we did this by using the combination of our specific alloy choice, the anodizing which is functional and adds stiffness and surface hardness as a process as well as by forming a structural outer shell matched to the very specific webbing design.
[iThis was by far the hardest part of the design to achieve in reality and it took the us and production units many hours of trials to get it all working correctly before we started production.

3. We rejected all the resin options offered (there are some very good specialists in the Bristol area with Airbus, Westland Helicopters etc local) for two reasons.
The first (and this relates to our designs only and does not reflect on the MM tools as these are very different , esp. the edges which are thicker by some margin and WILL perform differently from Hold & Fold design) was the lack of strength in the profile we required. To archive the thin micro edges we uniquely needed resulted in the material fracturing, bending or fretting. Resin was rejected as it would of compromised this fundamental and unique design improvement, all very specific to our design.

The second reason concerned "creep" or "material flow" distortion. Under a constant sheer load ALL resins can suffer this problem as can all metals to either a higher of lower degree, it is often mis identified as bending which is a "forced distortion". The massive improvement in resins has been in this area as well as surface erosion resistance. We had to look.
It was only when as said above, a combination of all aspects both functional and material gave us the stiffness needed and the resistance to creep distortion in aluminum that we decided to stay with what we knew best.

4. It is possible IF you screw down tight enough, to bend even a H&F at the edges or even a thin finger BUT you really have to be ham fisted and misuse it but you can !.
I would imagine any tool can be damaged.
As part of the cost we always just replaced these and used the opportunity to educate a little more.
Pete always used to say, if you need to screw it down hard your DOING IT WRONG !, Me, I say “these are high quality modelling INSTRUMENTS and should be used that way, they are not "tools" guys.

5. We decided that the principle of the “groove” was not advantageous to vertical stress on the tool head edges during folding. No need to further comment as this has been argued over long and hard in the past.

6. The H&F 5-SPEED and the other two tools CAN BEND SHEET BRASS, There are selected fingers to enable this. These are thicker and have a specially designed profile to allow this. Naturally there are thickness limits and un etched parts will have the radius profile the review and Mike are talking about. A tip here, by scoring a few times with a knife on the inside side, when you fold this up, instead of buckling it will “spill away” giving a slightly tighter fold. I also agree with Mike that heating is required for un-etched folds but I would like to add this should always be carried out after EACH time you move the metal with thick material. It is a good habit and in machine shops it is good practice to ensure you always work to reduce the stress on the tool head. This will improve your technique and results will be tighter and reduce load on the tool head.

7. Allied/Sherman headlamp guards and stuff, the 5-Speed or 8", they both have the top plate “shaped bending profiles”. This was a MAJOR factor in the justification of the new designs, the design brief we did included the wish to get every surface working. This area is often over looked for some reason


As said, this is for your info, I hope it gives a better insight into these tools and the choices the differing makers of such have to balance to get it to you guys J

Aj

Like-wise!

Listening intelligently, with open understanding to all sides of the story, helps the individual modeler/consumer/hobbyist to make a better judgement of the product in question, and exactly just what to expect from said product...as with any tool, there is going to be positive and negatives, and no one tool will work the same for everyone (trust me, I know my limitations! )

Regardless, I do believe that this product will have it's own niche in the hobby! Thanks again to all involved in the discussion thus far ( Hi, Mr. Johnston, nice to see you about!).

Thank you Alasdair, for the input on the HOLD & FOLD, its interesting to know what type of decisions and thoughts go into making these tools. As mentioned before, here on the website and within my circle. I love the H & F, its great, never had complaints with it. I've reommended it to many and will continue to do so.

I have been very impressed with the quality of information given and level of respect and civility displayed here. I don't bend a lot of brass, and I'll probably have to blow a bunch of dust off my H & F the next time I try to, but in any case I have learned something here, and I always appreciate that.

Thank you gents, I am very glad I helped.

What I did not cover were the "real" costs and numbers. This is private info and it would be wrong to pass about as it is sensitive to those who now retail/manufacture the product, they never make a fortune I can tell you
The "$1.00 to make if you have a milling machine " comments often seen are rubbish as well

Aj

Thanks to both Alasdair and Michael for bringing a very welcome additional perspective to this complex subject.

This is one of the most informative threads I can remember in ages...