I’m interested in segueing from historical inspired work, to true reproduction. Is there any tangible definition, or is it a personal affair. I would appreciate any and all thoughts. Thanks.
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
yes there is definitely a difference. True reproduction means using most of the same techniques and a definite emphasis on hand tools as most of the older styles (especially Queen Anne and Chippendale as well as the Federal period) do not lend themselves well to using machines for the details.
It also means eshewing the use of manufactured materials such as plywood. Solid wood only and that means you need to pay attention to wood movement. That said there were some methods of construction used that didn't deal with this problem well and there were others that did.
You will also need to learn the proportional system that the old time furniture builders used and how it relates to the five orders of architecture. They relied heavily on ratios of whole numbers and also on the golden rectangle.
Purchasing good reference books will help you a lot. A good one to start with would be Albert Sack's " the fine points of furniture " if you are lucky enough to find a copy.
Also his " the new fine points of furniture" is excellent. I have reproduced a couple pieces from that book myself. It will give you a good grounding in what separates a really nice piece from a mediocre one. If you are going to reproduce a piece you might as well pick a nice one. Sometimes I combine elements from a couple different pieces as long as I am still using features common to the same period. An example would be changing the backsplat in a chair of the same style. There can be many variations .... all of which are correct.
If you are into Queen Anne, Norm Vandal has a great book on building several Queen Anne pieces with excellent measured drawings and clear instructions. I have built some of the pieces he has listed though I have changed a few things on a couple of them. But only changes which are evident on other pieces of the same period.
You have to decide how far you want to go with it. I am a stickler for authenticity as are others on this forum , Rob Millard for example.
However being a stickler doesn't mean that you need to throw all your power tools away. You use them to do what they do best and use handtools for what they do best and to remove all machine marks. there should be no machine marks visible on a reproduction. All surfaces should be handplaned but the inside need not be planed as smooth as the outside. In fact some marks left from the scrubplane make it more authentic.
One needs to realise that the early cabinet makers used apprentices and (sad to say) also slave labor to do most of the surfacing and sizing for them. In effect to accomplish the same tasks as the tablesaw and jointer and planer today. this left time for the master to do what he did best. In my mind my power tools do the same for me as their apprentices did for them. It makes no sense to spend all afternoon thicknessing a few boards when you can accomplish the same task very quickly with the planer. Then remove the machine marks and smooth the surfaces with a good handplane. The end result is no different and the piece is every bit as authentic as one created entirely with handtools.
this post is already too long so I am going to end it here. It will give you some food for thought and I will be happy to answer any questions you might have .
Very good, thoughtful information.
thoughtful, yes, definitive, not sure. It appears that the definition is subjective. Has anyone/group tried to standardize it's meaning?
I would say a real repro. piece would be done without electric jointers and planers. One rarely fully eradicates the telltale marks of the scrub plane or whatever plane was used in the initial flattening of the stock, i.e. the electric planer makes the stock too perfect. I suppose one can go back and apply tool marks, or use a smoother with a *relatively* profoundly radiused cutter, but this defines the word ersatz in my opinion.
Building the piece like the original maker would have is the soundest, least gimmicky approach.
I'm always surprised at how imperfectly perfect (not my phrase but I like it) original period pieces actually are.
Using the planer and jointer as one's "apprentices" has some practical appeal, but unfortunately this appeal rarely equates to an accurate period surface. And it's all about the surface. It is presumed that the serious maker of period reproductions has mastered the requisite techniques necessary to build the piece - the dovetails fit, the carving is of high quality, the piece is adequately researched and proportioned properly, etc., etc. It really does boil down to the surface, the toolmarks, and the other evidence that the piece was hand made. The use of production machinery on a single piece (as opposed to a run of 15) doesn't give the collector or purchaser much comfort. At least it wouldn't me. Production machinery is production machinery.
Regarding time - I built a small Colonial inspired cupboard for my wife. About a meter high, one door, dovetailed corners, dovetailed housings for the shelves. The stock for the item was roughsawn 4/4 Poplar. I flattened and thicknessed all the stock for the piece in a ridiculously easy afternoon with breaks for changing CDs, making coffee, playing with the dogs, etc. I think we overestimate at times how quickly even this mundane work can be done. You don't know until you've done it enough to develop the economies and efficiencies that comes when a woodworker does any task enough times to become proficient. Flattening stock with hand tools used to really give me heartburn until I developed a smooth routine. Now it takes only a very few minutes per face.
Edited 11/24/2004 5:15 pm ET by cstan
Are you building the stuff for yourself?....or for a customer? While I take a certain amount of satisfaction in knowing that the trestle table I built for my dining room was done with 250 year old pine boards and rosehead hand forged nails that were about the same age, would anyone else appreciate it? Probably not. So if I was building this table for a customer, I would have to ask myself "would he want to pay the price for authentic antique nails and wood"? maybe, maybe not. This is the question that you have to figure out before going hog wild with the "true authentic reproduction". If you cant get paid for the added work that is involved doing it the old way using only hand tools, you better be doing it for your own satisfaction. What peole say they want and what they will pay for are two different things. Lets not kid ourselves with this; it is all about getting paid. I have a 12 room house and i dont know how much of my own stuff I can get in here now so I am working on pieces for sale. Hand tools vs power tools ( to an extent) in and of itself is less of a consideration that the time involved in the project if you want to get paid. If this is not a consideration then get some beach sand and a piece of hide and rub away
Cstan
while I sympathize with your concern regarding machine marks I do not agree with your contention that it is impossible to duplicate period toolmarks. No do I agree that it is difficult to do.
You are correct in that period pieces are often very rough inside and underneath. For this reason I do employ a plane with a radiused iron for the inside surfaces. And I don't bother to remove the marks it leaves. I also handplane my drawer bottom bevels and the bottom sides with it just as it was done on most period work. But to surface everything from rough sawn to finished entirely by hand doesn't make sense to me. Nor does it make the piece any more authentic.
My view is shared by some of the best period furnituremakers out there, including Eugene Landon ( a true stickler for authenticity if there ever was one) and Norm Vandal as well. There are many others who feel the same way.
Another case in point would be the cabriole leg whether Queen Anne or Chippendale........ There is nothing to be gained by roughing out the legs with a bowsaw although that would be perfectly acceptable. But the Bandsaw is much faster and a lot less labor. After which the lathe comes into play...... now is the fact that my lathe has an electric motor instead of a treadle or a great wheel turned by an apprentice going to make a difference. I think not!! And from there the leg is going to be shaped with rasps and files followed by scraping anyway just as the original would have been. Or you can use spokeshaves if you prefer. It is still handwork and handtool marks. It doesn't make any difference how you choose to get it ready for the handtools. Nor is it going to make any difference in the authenticity of the piece.
The point is to never let the capabilities of a machine change the authenticity of the design nor dictate the finished surface. Use handtools where they are efficient and powertools to supplement them. An example of this would be in cutting the dovetails and their sockets for the drawer dividers on a piece such as a highboy or chest of drawers.
In my case I can actually do this quicker by hand than setting up a router and all the fooling around laying it out making guides for the router etc.
But that may not be the case for someone else and if so they need to make a decision which way they would attack the problem.
Again another long post but period furniture is very dear to me and I am passionate about it.
Mark
What I disagree with is the notion of 'adding' toolmarks. I think the marks should come from actually using the tools for their intended purpose, not coming behind machines in an attempt to cover up the rotary machining marks they leave.
Regardless of the "famous" craftsmen who use a mix of machines and hand tools, all other things being equal (skill, quality of stock, etc.) the guy who uses all hand tools will produce a surface most like the original being copied. That the piece will be an accurate reproduction in all other respects is assumed. We are talking about two master craftsmen, one who uses machines and one who does not.
If one has to use machines to make one's operation commercially viable that's one thing, but what we are talking about here is what strategy will make the most accurate reproduction of a period surface.
I agree that the lathe might be a case in point, as the tools that touch the workpiece are both identical. However there are those who would argue that the surface left when a pole or treadle lathe is used is very distinguishable from one left by an electric lathe whose speed is much more constant. Again, it's that notion of 'imperfect perfection' coming into play.
Cstan,
You are free to have your opinion but it doesn't make it so. I challenge you to show me the difference on any of my furniture or any of the others I mentioned. I have had the pleasure of looking at and actually handling some of the old pieces and have seen their insides. Have also spent hundreds of hours researching photos and other text material regarding the same.
As I stated previously I never allow a machine to dictate the design or execution of a piece. And for the record it isn't "adding toolmarks" it is taking a machined surface and finishing it by hand to achieve that sublime surface left by the handplane. There is no greater proponent of handtools than myself but to dismiss power tools is ridiculous (and an argument that has come up here before)
even for a hobbyist to work entirely by hand makes no sense provided he has the tools available. Now if he chooses to do so that is his perogative and may be justified by a variety of reasons including the desire to learn new skills. And that is fine. Or if he is just trying to relax or doesn't have the tools available. A lot of people think you can't be a woodworker if you don't have a shop full of power equipment and that is also wrong. YOu can though some operations may take longer.
But to say that you can't build just as authentic a piece of furniture using a combination of power and handtools is just incorrect. I believe in both and use both
Please excuse my lack of knowledge in this department I didnt go to school for wood, and learned in the power tools camp. Im an over-educated finish carpenter and painter for money.
In all my woodworking books I cant come up with a great reference. Could you explain the difference between these planes, and if you work colonial do you use them all in order? I had to go to ebay to see what a scrub plane is. When I go and try to choose my next purchase Im always confused.
Not including moulding planes and the specific sort, I have a block plane, get the concept of a bullnose, and the fine finish of a cabinet and hand scraper, (even though I havent figured out sharpening it), but whats the difference between a smoothing, jack, scrub, and I guess any others that I dont know? And are there ones that just sit in the cabinet and dont really get used- whats worth the investment?
thank you,
another professor
Here's a good link try this one.
http://www.cianperez.com/Wood/WoodDocs/Wood_How_To/INDEX_How_To.htm
thanks I guess you got me back.
That's a great link. That's the one I've been looking for, with all of Bob Smalser's articles on it. Thanks. Ed
Edited 12/8/2004 7:40 pm ET by Ed from Mississippi
Zendo,
I guess you have had your question at least partially answered but I will elaborate a little more for you especially in regard to your questions with respect to the way I work personally.
A scrub plane uses a thick blade with a pronounced radius to it. It is used for the initial surfacing when the desire is to remove a lot of wood in a hurry and get rid of the rough sawn marks. It leaves a rough furrowed surface behind. How rough depends on how agressively it is set. the deeper the cut the more chance for tearout. I personally use an old wood bodied plane with a worn out mouth(too wide for fine work) on which I have ground a shallow radius. The radius has probably about a 1/8 inch crown to it across the width of the blade. This is not quite as agressive as some of the metal bodied scrub planes which may have that much across a 1 1/4 inch wide blade. Mine is about 2 1/4 wide. Remember the old work was all done with wood bodied planes.
next I either go to the jack plane (#5) or directly to the smoothing plane (clifton #4) . The choice here is determined by the size of the piece of wood. Makes no sense to use the longer plane for short pieces. Then depending on the surface left I either use the smoother or not. Depends on the quality of the surface.
Sometimes it is necessary to go to the scraper from there. I use card scrapers and am also partial to the Stanley #80 although I prefer Veritas' version of it. I have two and they are head and shoulders above the Stanley.
In period work one of the places you will find a lot of coarse plane marks are the bottoms of the drawer bottoms. The plane I mentioned earlier with the radiused cutter is the tool of choice here for me, as I use it to reduce thickness and also to bevel the edges close to the layout line after which I go to the jack plane to finish the last sixteenth or so. It will remove a lot of stock in a hurry. I can actually do this by hand almost as fast as could be done on the shaper. And it is done right.
I also rely heavily on chisels and gouges for a number of different things including knee blocks, carving fans, and other details.
You should also have a shoulder plane no matter what kind of furniture you do. It is invaluable for trimming tenons to final thickness or correcting a slightly out of square joint. It has a multitude of uses and I find myself reaching for it often.
I highly recommend you get "the handplane book" by Garret Hack. as it will give you a wealth of knowledge and practical tips as well.
One other thing which you didn't mention, I use a lot of moulding planes as well. Most of my mouldings are made with them rather than on the router. I have a full set of hollows and rounds as well as a number of planes designed to cut dedicated mouldings. A couple of Stanley #45's which I use quite often. I also have a plane with a swing fence which by turning it end for end and locking it enables me to make both the tongue and the groove with no setup. If I am just doing a few pieces it is quicker than setting up the router table.
I have to warn you though, once you start to use and become proficient with handtools they are definitely addicting. At last count I had well over a hundred planes in the shop and probably twenty five or thirty handsaws. Most are antiques. A lot of them just sit there and look pretty but I do use a lot of them too.
However that being said I still have a long list of power tools I wish to aquire in addition to the ones I already have. I guess I am just a tool afficionado at heart.
Hope this helps.
thank you for your insight I picked you because you seem to be willing to be thorough. ... and I thought power tools were expensive. They are all going to kill me when I start dumping money into tools that all look the same.
I have an old wood plane that is probably 2 ft long, I dont happen to have it close by but could that be many things? Im going to have to pick it up and see if it is straight I cant really remember the condition.
If I was interested in giving a reproduction a shot, would the Albert Sacks "Fine Points" book be where to look for shop drawings or some reference to originals?
Let's take your questions in order:
first regarding the plane. it is no doubt a jointer plane or as the old masters called it, a "trying plane" used for truing edges and flattening tops of large surfaces before using a smoother on them. It can leave a beautiful surface if properly tuned and used. A lot of the time it will be all you need to do. Once again it would behoove you to get "the handplane book" by Garret Hack. It will open up a whole new world for you .
As for Albert Sack's book ........ it will give you a good insight into styles and the good and better/best points of the 18th century. No measured drawings though and no construction details. Once you learn how to scale a drawing and what the insides of a typical period piece look like it is invaluable.
For measured drawings and great instructions I would highly recommend Norm Vandals book "Queen Anne furniture" published by Taunton. It is excellent for the pro or the novice. If you follow his instructions you will end up with a great piece. I often do things differently than he does as I look for the fastest best way to achieve the results but I have been woodworking for a long time. He instructs in such a way that most people of reasonable ability can achieve excellent results if they are careful.
There are also some books published by Dover and authored by Lester Margon which have excellent measured drawings covering a wide variety of pieces of originals. He has instructions in most of them but you will have to use some interpretation of your own and have a basic knowledge of furniture techniques and methods of construction appropriate to the period.
Dover also has some authored by Franklin Gottshall which are very good but I must caution you that he substitutes materials and methods which if followed, will not result in a piece which will be a true reproduction. Also you need to be very diligent in making sure his measurements add up. But they are well worth having and contain some very good drawings of great pieces.
I think that ought to give you some food for thought.
I will try to look up some titles for you on these guys. Also FWW's best of series has some excellent material if you want to go that route. Traditional furniture techniques is a great one. They have several others as well. Some with measured drawings and some just for techniques.
Highland hardware also sells plans by Carl Lynch (now deceased) who did some very good measured drawings of actual antiques. He was known for doing a great job of this and also in gaining access to some very fine pieces including Duncan Phifes tool chest.
BTW I am not a professor in real life...... just a General Contractor and furniture builder. Some of my high school buddies nicknamed me that because they didn't understand any word over two syllables. So when they asked for a nickname on this forum ........ well , you get the idea.
Thank you again for a wealth of information. I have copied all the titles and will look into them.
I was a professor in real life, and I couldnt pay for the education that got me there, so now I own a finish carpentry and paint business. There are many professors that are there because thats the only aspect of life they can hold down. As a General you prove everyday that you can multitask, juggle, and people are willing to loan you a ton of money on faith. As a furniture maker you hold yourself to a high standard where mistakes are measured 4x smaller increments then the rest of the people in similar business. (64ths)
There was an old saying that you made me think of... The people that got the A's in school invent things. The people that got the B's work for the people that got the A's. The people that got the C's own and run the companies that employ the A's and B's.
The Framer says why are you so picky, and dont worry about it the finish carpenter will take care of it. We bid this job.
The finish carpenter says its ok, the painter will caulk it, we bid this job.
The Drywaller says close enough the painter will sand the rest and bring the 3/4 inch paint.
Then the General says to the painter I need it done in 2 weeks for half the price. Anyone wonder why the painter is always pissed?
Just having fun, you've been a big help.
actually I know you were just having fun but you don't realize how close some of what you said is to the truth. I am referring to GCing.
I'm glad to help.
Who knows work,who dont knows order,who dont works nor order is the manager!Universal truth!Universal thruth!
yes, you are getting there....
if you tie two birds together, even though they have four wings they still can not fly.
zendo,
Try to find a book called Mechanick Exercises, by Joseph Moxon. Originally written in the 18th century, it covers joinery, turnery, house carpentry, blacksmithing, and masonry practices of the time, with illustrations of the tools, and description of how they are used. Fascinating reading.
Regards,
Ray
I'd be happy to provide you a laundry list of furniture experts who will happily howl with laughter at the notion that a true period surface cannot be distinguished from even the most adept copies being made today.
If you believe otherwise, you're delusional.
go ahead and provide it. I think you are getting two hundred years worth of wear and patina confused with the toolmarks typical of period furniture. Not to mention the fact that there are still a number of pieces being built by basically the same methods used then, Colonial Williamsburg being one such example. David Salisbury and Mack Headley have devoted their careers to producing furniture with the same methods used on the originals. But they don't artificially age the piece by beating it with chains etc. to mimic the wear and tear. Go tell them they aren't reproducing as faithfully as humanly possible.
This discussion is about reproducing pieces not faking them. The use of machines for some things does not preclude that end. You are free to have your opinion but personally .... I think it is you who is delusional. For you to make blanket statements such as you made, I believe you have let your handtool purism take over your logic.
That is your perogative but don't tell someone who is asking questions about building reproductions that they have to do it your way only, or they are not building a reproduction that is historically accurate. Because that my friend, just ain't so. To use your logic all of our lumber should be cut with a pitsaw or some such thing for it to be accurate. When a board has been surfaced with handplanes ..... regardless of if it has been thru a planer or whatever..... when those marks are evident (the handplane marks) it makes no difference what the previous machine operations have been.
Hi cstan,
Does heating your shop with a fireplace, and lighting with candles enter into your formula for a more authentic piece? Just teasing, but your notion that using a smoothing plane to remove plane marks is better than using it to remove planer marks is hard for me to understand.
Not to take anything away from, or be at all critical your shop practices, but just to say that there are other, equally acceptable means to the same end.
Regards,
Ray
Additively, a project built with jointers and planers (not to mention bandsaws and tablesaws) will look too uniform and perfect. The stock will be too flat, the thickness too uniform, etc. Simply removing planer marks has nothing to do with these attributes.
What is difficult about the concept that the most accurate repro. work results from using the same or very similar methodologies used to build the originals? Sure seems like the simplest, most direct approach to building a faithful copy to me.
Why not just build an 18th century reproduction with essentially the same tools that would have been used in the 18th century? Again, not sure why the logic of this seems lost on some of the participants in this thread.
cstan,
I won't try to convince you of the accuracy that was commonly achieved by period craftsmen working with period tools. As far as I am concerned, having surfaced 20" wide boards with hand tools when they are too wide to go thru my 12" Parks planer, and mating them with narrower stock that I've removed machine marks from with my smoothing plane--there's no measurable difference. Your results may vary.
I am not afraid or reluctant to use period technology. I often demonstrate traditional 18th century woodworking, from dressing stock to chopping dovetails, to sawing tenons, carving, whatever, at shows. My experience lets me determine whether a power tool's use would compromise the integrity of a period design.
Understand that I am not being critical of your approach to building furniture. I have a close friend who built a flat top Queen Anne highboy entirely with hand tools. He was interested in learning hand tool techniques, and the furniture was essentially a by-product of what he was about at the time.
I'm trying to earn a living at this trade. It's not practical for me to dress, by hand, 75 bd ft of cherry, and 100 bd ft of pine, for the chest on chest I'm currently building. Neither my clientele,nor my joints, would stand it. In 28 yrs of building furniture full time, I've had 1 client ask for an entirely hand-made piece.
Others' experience may vary, or their goals and aims may be in a different direction. I once visited the shop of a craftsman, a friend, as he was finishing up a nice 4 drawer Chippendale chest. Ogee feet, qtr columns, etc. He was putting on a piece of plywood for a backboard. I started razzing him about not being authentic and using solid wood. "I'd have to ship-lap a board back; this'll keep the dust out better. If they'd had plywood back then, they'd have used it. Besides," he said,"I'M USING BRASS SCREWS!" In his mind, he was doing better than the original maker. I couldn't fault him. That's what makes horse races, and elections--difference of opinion.
Cheers,
Ray
I don't disagree that possibility of accuracy is absolutely there. My own experience indicates that it is. My study of pieces over the years has indicated that it was rarely achieved, nor necessary. I have been an avid collector of antiques for longer than I've been a woodworker.
A study of how shops were run in the 18th and early 19th century will indicate that initial surfacing and flattening was done by the lowliest shop labor. Like you, the craftsmen of the era we are talking about were making a living at their trade. If a particular component did not have to be dead flat it was not worked to dead flat for to do so added precious time to a job that was already labor intensive.
As for primary surfaces, it is impossible, in my opinion, to achieve an accurate period primary surface coming behind machines with a smoothing plane. Removing rotary tool marks from a *comparatively* dead flat, uniform-in-thickness component is a far cry from those worked up with the planes used during this period. This is not to mention secondary surfaces which were left surprisingly rough.
I feel comfortable that beyond getting all the dimensions, turnings, and carvings correct that the exclusive use of hand tools will produce the most accurate repro. work. And I also believe that this can be done cost effectively.
FWIW, dressing a hundred or so board feet of lumber can be done on one eight hour day. I've done this much and more in a day. Once you get a routine down it's not that tough. Tiring, but not nearly the God-awful chore that it is commonly assumed to be.
stan,
Hey, if it works for you, go for it!
Cheers,
Ray
professor,
Well said.
Regards,
Ray
thank you Nikki
<<early cabinet makers used apprentices and (sad to say) also slave labor >>
Is asking my wife to stain and varnish considered slave labor?
<<early cabinet makers used apprentices and (sad to say) also slave labor >>
Is asking my wife to stain and varnish considered slave labor?
LOL .. Probably not but it might not be the smartest thing to do unless she is both happy to do it.... and good at it.
I would cry to see a piece I had put so much time and effort into messed up by a lousy finishing job.
<<early cabinet makers used apprentices and (sad to say) also slave labor >>
Is asking my wife to stain and varnish considered slave labor?
LOL .. Probably not but it might not be the smartest thing to do unless she is both happy to do it.... and good at it.
I would cry to see a piece I had put so much time and effort into messed up by a lousy finishing job.
Professor,
I make it, she puts on the finish. Much better at it than I am. I like the noise, dust, and tools. She likes the more artistic work.
sounds like a great arrangement to me.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled