When woodworkers say they use hand tools to make pieces , not like a cabinet shop with all those machines and such .
Do modern day hand tool woodworkers use a hand saw to saw the hardwood boards into desirable widths then hand plane smooth and create nice glue joint edges with hand planes ?
Or do these modern day men of wood buy lumber that has been surfaced or use a planer then rip on a power saw and then use hand tools to make made M & T and Dovetail joints and use a scraper to clean up the joints , is that using hand tools ?
It just seems that some of the popular makers of handmade type pieces make smallish cabinets on a stand or other little wall hanging cabinet with Spalted panels . I personally can’t say I have seen any large scale endeavors strictly employing hand tools and methods .
Or were there no large pieces designed simply because of space and material availability ?
dusty
Replies
When woodworkers say they use hand tools to make pieces , not like a cabinet shop with all those machines and such .
I would think they had a few apprentices out on the 'pit' actually saw the logs!
Dusty,
I only ever use hand tools, including the ones with a green button to press with my finger (that's on my hand) through which I then guide the wood (I use hands for that, sometimes via push sticks and stuff).
Some of my WW machines have no motor and I have to really use my hands quite a lot then, as well as the rest of me.
Lataxe, who has no CNC machine.
Hello Lataxe ,
For a man of eloquent speech such as you have your lack of words were surprising, I rather thought you would have some good input on this subject.
You are a maker who uses hand tools but not always and only . That's real to me . You may use a router or Festool or whatever and then the Marcous to smooth things out .
The fellows who sneer at the use of power tools kind of remind me of the bait fisherman and the fly fishermen , only one of them can be a purist or correct according to them .
All I want to bring out, is some machines have probably been used at some point , so at what point is it hand tools only , can anyone really show us anything besides some nice little projects about the size of a bread box made with hand tools?
Or are the hand tool users limited in the scale and scope of what they can produce ? Are these users only retired folk because they have the time to do so ?
I think this is my real question .
dusty,a machine tool boxmaker
Dusty,The demarcation drawn between hand tools (i.e. those without a motor) and power tools seems arbitrary to me. Why is an electric motor or a piston engine "wrong" or somehow less worthy than the human muscle?Well, I suppose you can make an argument about not having direct or personal control of the eletricity or of the fuel for the engine. But then most woodworkers couldn't forge or form the necessary parts for a hand tool; nor dig and refine the ore to get the metal. There is really no meaningful extra control or independence associated with hand tool use-only, except in the case of those who have/use mines and forges to make their own tools perhaps. But why do such rare folk require this control, in any case? Do they ask for it concerning their food, transport, home, heat, water-supply, etc.? Perhaps, if they live a primitive life in the backwoods (0.0001% of woodworkers in the Western World, at a guess).Nor do I understand the desire to pretend that it's another century; or that the practices of that century were somehow better. If one goes down that road, then surely many similar energy-using proceses of the C21st must be eschewed by the purists? But why do this - what does it gain one except some strange feeling of superiority that is, frankly, self-delusion?Many of the "purists" will tell us that hand-squaring a large board, or some similar high-work process, is somehow faster or more satisfying. Ah ha! Let us have a race btween the handplane and my 3HP planer/thicknesser. I will have the dozen rough boards for this or that all square in no time, whilst the hand-planer is on his first one. Moreover, the burping growl of my machine, along with the fine stack of ready-to-use planks it disgorges, will give me great satisfaction. Machines, too, are often a pleasure to use and one may certainly enjoy their roar. (This pleasure is not just for motor bike and racing car chaps tha' knows).*****I enjoy the handtools that work well, achieve a unique effect and/or are a pleasure to use in themselves. Exctly the same criteria apply to the motorised tools. It seems a silly (but all too human) thing to get idealogical about eletric motors.Lataxe, who probably lacked toys when he was young and poor.
Lataxe,
Well said. Many posters have observed that few clients care whether the chest that they purchase has hand-made or machine-made dovetails. The emphasis on "hand made" is made more by the woodworker than the client. I think that the woodworker that finds enjoyment in using hand tools should do so, but I really see no advantage to having to hand plane a piece of rough lumber square. I love to hear the sound of a sharp plane fine-tuning a piece of wood, but that's a lot different from having to do all the work by hand.
Jim
Jim ,
You make some great points from my point of view , I make a living from my work and what ever method gives me the best results is how it's done .
I think the client wants Custom made , just for them . In over 25 years in the business not one client ever asked if I use M & T . In all honesty I don't offer DT unless it is a piece of furniture not a kitchen box .
Being proficient at using hand tools is to the process like knowing how to set up the shaper is just as important in a cabinet shop .
There are different skills required regardless of the tools used , the skilled machine shop workers produce as do the hand tool specialists .We are all mechanics , at some level .
The craftsmanship and quality can be observed but imo how it was made can not be seen at first glance ( without taking it apart , you know what I mean ).
regards dusty
Depends on the person. I've made pieces from the log with hand tools only, but that's the exception. Most of the things I've made with hand tools use boards obtained from lumber suppliers "in the rough". Those are ripped, squared and the joinery cut with hand tools only. Obviously, the lumber suppliers were using (very large) power tools to saw the lumber from the log.
Adam Cherubini is a pretty good example. To my knowledge, the only power tool he owns is a lathe. Everything else is by hand - including some fairly large pieces like a desk and (more recently) a joined form (low, long bench) and a table.
Most windsor chair makers I've met make things from the log - no power tools at all.
Well, I learned most of my WW "skills" by working, and later teaching, in the woodworking shop of a small restored village, a la Williamsburg on a strict budget. ;-) That shop had a full compliment of wooden planes, hand saws, auger drills, even a 6' behemoth of a treadle lathe. And, for some reason I still don't understand, we were actually allowed to use most of the old tools! (I just found a photo of the shop on the Web. Man, I love the Web! You can see the drive wheel of the lathe in the back right corner.)
View Image
There was only one power tool in the place -- a small table saw in the (locked) back storage room that the head carpenter used to rough cut some of the pieces for each beginner's first project. Other than that, it was all muscle and sweat. It was VERY cool to have 8 people all building furniture at once and be able to talk to each other in normal conversational volumes. It was also very cool to actually be working in a true 19th century shop on well-worn 100-yr old benches. I made quite a few pieces using only the handtools I carried into the shop in a small-ish homemade wooden toolbox.
Every once in a while, I'll still do a complete project totally by hand, starting with rough stock, just 'cause it's cool. Nobody but a practiced woodworker could tell the difference between that and a plug-in project -- but I can. I have a special affection for the projects that I build that way. You somehow get a closer connection to the wood and the finished piece when you do one that way.
I am not one to "dis" power tools -- heck, I own and use enough of 'em myself. But I do think that anyone who doesn't take the time to learn to use hand tools is missing about 80% of the fun, IMHO. Kinda like hiking the Appalacian trail vs. taking a plane from Georgia to Maine. The results are the same, but the journey . . . .
Mike Hennessy
Pittsburgh, PA
PS: I still have the bottom half of a highboy that I made entirely by hand, but never glued together, piled up at the end of my workbench. So yeah, large projects are included. And no, before a certain someone asks, I do NOT plan to put the thing together -- I'd have to sand it by hand and that's the only hand operation I hate. ;-)
Edited 9/19/2008 12:14 pm ET by MikeHennessy
Mike , that's a very cool shop you got to work in , I basically would tend to agree with you . I learned first with hand tools then went on to machine tools .
dusty
I think there are only a handful of guys who actually work entirely by hand. The reality is that working complicated projects by hand efficiently requires tools and skills few possess.
The other challenge is that many guys want to build machine made furniture with hand tools which is essentially unprecedented.
Lastly, there's a weird macho thing about working wood by hand. Some aren't always forthcoming about what they do by hand and what they don't. More than a few pros use deceptive language (like "bench made". I really don't think the customer cares. But woodworkers seem to want bragging rights, which I find kinda goofy.
Adam
Hi Adam ,
Well I guess you figured I also feel the same as you , as far as reality .
I thought you were supposed to be some Oger er sumthun and here you are not acting the purist that you kinda sorta must be and darn near seeing it the way I do .
I only always hear wonderful things about your skills and works .
In apprenticeship I started with hand tools only , first thing they told me I had to learn to sharpen a chisel , hmm , they were smarter than I knew . Drawing was next . We restored true antiques and some museum pieces and repaired furniture and made a few reproduction pieces . Then came the machines.
regards dusty
I don't like the term purist because it suggests I do what I do for some esoteric reason. I use 18th c references because I don't know of anyone alive who knows as much about woodworking by hand. From my perspective, an 18th c saw isn't purism. It's pragmatism. If one is going to work by hand, the old saws are just plain better. Call it what you want. All of this is just the result of seeing things from a different perspective. I think there's a fairly bright line between doing stuff by hand and kinda doing stuff by hand.Adam
Edited 9/19/2008 7:48 pm ET by AdamCherubini
I'm in the middle of building the prairie settle from the recent FWW issue, for fun, not profit. I'm building from rough lumber with a bandsaw and a router as my only power tools. I do have a SCMS, acquired in a moment of renovation-inspired weakness, but that's the extent of my power tools.Hand tools are very quiet. Many times I've thought how quickly some operation would be with a power tool, and then I remember that I wouldn't get it done at all because I'd have to wait until the family isn't sleeping. Several sessions over a few days to work by hand is faster than waiting several days for each operation by power. I have also learned that machines have to be good to be any good, and that means expensive. The amount of time I have spent trying to get machines to do what they're supposed to do, i.e. cut flat or straight or square, I don't want to think about, and the amount of money I've spent on extras like blades and so on... They are also tremendous space hogs. I have neither space nor money. I'm suspicious of "added spiritual value from handwork" theories. I just find it "fits" me and it's really fun and satisfying. The other day I had a saw sharpening revelation and had to dance a little jig coz it was so exciting to see it drop through a piece of oak. I know I could build whatever I want, with what's in my basement right now.
JulianBE,>Hand tools are very quiet. . . . quickly with a power tool, vs wait until the family isn't sleeping.>Machines have to be good to be any good, and that means expensive. . . time spent to get machines to do what they're supposed to do . . . I have neither space nor money.> "fits" me and it's really fun and satisfying.I agree with you ! I do not have a super dust collector ($1000 + are they serious? and then where to put it in a small garage under the house). When I fire up a high speed power tool the whole shop winds up with a thin layer of dust and since I work with metal that means cleaning the whole shop just to "save time" making a few mortises.On the other hand It seems the fervor of the hand tool purist may decrees with the influx of ready cash to buy power tools.When I started I was hell bent on getting a small, very nice european table saw like an Inca. Now that I have found my favorite projects and way of working it would rarely get used. I would still love to have one but that much cash at one time has just not been there since our illustrious leader decided to change the world. But if I had that much at once I might take a high end class or tour the Smithsonian and other museums for a month or two (or three).I have easily spent as much or more time learning to sharpen and use hand tools as I have getting my piece of poo table saw to cut right etc. But I use those skills every time I work and would not trade my hand tool knowledge for a boat load of power tools and a shop to put them in. Learning all this stuff is just too fascinating and there is no end to it !To the shop me hardies !
Edited 9/21/2008 11:33 pm by roc
Adam ,
That is one interpretation of the word purist , I said it as a compliment to you . I hope no offense was taken because none was meant .
Maybe the reason more of us don't use more hand tools is because , many of the tools of today are simply not capable of producing fine results even with a skilled user imo .
I once bought an old tool box full of good old and sharp tools , there was an old Disston crosscut and rip saw in it . I was amazed the first time I actually used the crosscut saw . It was set right and sharp and cut right on the line , imagine that . I am still using the tools from that box .
regards from Oregon dusty
No no. No offense. I understood what you meant and I appreciate it. I was just trying to explain why there are such disagreements and that they point to the fundamental truth you eluded to in the original post.Adam
Adam -- Do you have a portfolio of your work posted somewhere? I think many (including myself) would be interested in seeing furniture made without the use of any powertools. The OP suggested that he'd seen only small scale projects made entirely by hand. I suspect you've done more ambitious work?
Could you also tell us more about the nuts and bolts of your shop work? How much time do you devote to basic operations like stock preparation for a case piece? Do you buy pre-surfaced lumber, or do you start only with rough stock?
Are you building furniture full time? If so, what does your volume look like? How many pieces to you complete in a month/year?
I've heard a great deal about the efficiency of 18th century techniques, but I've never gotten a sense of what the practical realities of such a shop would look like. Please fill us in!
Thanks for your input in these forums!
Google me. There's so much information about me on the web, it's silly to repeat it here. There's even an interview podcast available on iTunes. Adam
Adam,
You are certainly a prolific writer, and I know googling you will produce an abundance of information. Perhaps you can direct me to something specific? I've followed your articles and read your blog with interest, but I am still curious about how the theoretical/historical translates into the practical. For example, I've browsed your website, but you've posted very few pictures of your furniture. I enjoy and admire your writing on using 18th century tools and techniques to produce more authentic 18th century reproductions, but that all seems abstract (and difficult to evaluate) without the context of both seeing the final product as well as understanding the practical realities of your shop (time needed for various operations, rough stock or presurfaced, what your volume of furniture production is, the breadth of types of furniture made, etc.). Forgive me if there already is an article/interview/podcast/blog/post/gallery that addresses this (and please direct me to it if there is).
I appreciate your questions as I had similar questions when I started. There's no easy answer since different woodworkers have different financial situations that effect what they do and what they don't. My prices should help you. I think that I've never seen anyone work like I do. I think it would be helpful if you actually saw me work. Maybe I should make a video. I really don't spend a lot of time prepping stock. S4S is no advantage for me. I tend not to prefer it. I never use it as is. I'm also very choosy about stock. I don't try to work badly twisted, or cupped stock. And I can saw pretty darn fast. I'll be teaching classes in different spots next year. Maybe you should consider taking one. I think it would be helpful. Are you going to the thing in November? That will be an excellent place to see different approaches to this topic. I'll have nearly my entire shop set-up there.Adam
Adam -- Do you have a portfolio online?
Hello Houston;
I have suggested to Mr. Cherubini that his website needs a gallery section, and maybe some updates. There would be more incentive to explore some of the techniques if you could see the fruits of the methology. I googled "Adam Cherubini" in "images", and didn't find any pictures of tea tables, or bonnet-top high chests, etc., just a photo of part of a William and Mary piece. The google image engine is kind of difficult to find things with though, so the photos might be out there somewhere.
I recommend a simple site like my friend and mentor Randy:
http://www.randallodonnell.com/furniture.html
He has a handful of pix on his site that represent a small portion of his output over the years. The pictures are clickable to large photos, like Mark Soukup's website. He is very prolific, and I wish he would have more of his projects photographed. I am sure Mr. Cherubini could put something like that together to lend gravitas to his internet and magazine presence.
Edited 9/24/2008 10:11 pm ET by johnjesseph
John - I perused Randy's gallery. If those pieces were done largely by hand work, that's a very impressive portfolio (and they'r pretty impressive if they were mostly done by machine). One of the things about net photographs, unfortunately, is that it's difficult to distinguish between a handtool-made and a machine-made piece. In person, the difference is usually obvious and glaring.
Adam's published a good deal of his work in his column in Pop Woodworking - I'd suspect he's somewhat limited by his contract to publish the same on his personal website and/or on forums like Knots.
Over the last two years, I saw Randy make a couple of bombe' chests, a high chest, two small bowfronts, a Newport clock, some beds, a couple of small endtables, a small pie-crust candlestand, a New England lowboy. In the shop now, he has a couple of piecrust tables half done, a completed Goddard chair, a good start on a turreted tea table, and another bombe'. I am sure I forgot some stuff. He makes liberal use of the table saw and router, and thicknesses stock with a timesaver belt sander. He also uses a gigantic bandsaw with a huge blade. That's it for the power tools for the most part- he is very non-standard in his approach, both from power tool and hand tool usage standpoints.
But if you look, for example, at that piecrust candlestand at the bottom center of his gallery, there is not a huge amount of work you can do with power tools. Yes, the sliding dovetail sockets were routed. I don't see that as a time savings, but he does I guess. Yes, the top dishing was done with a router. To paraphrase him, you don't want to take much chance with the rough work on a 500 dollar piece of wood in a high-dollar project. After some bandsaw work and a bit of turning, you are left to work all by hand after that.
I have seen (and am inspired by) the great furniture at Colonial Williamsburg, but I personally have not seen and am not aware of anyone else who does ambitious large scale work solely by hand...
I think your mentor's methods are pretty common to the individuals that build repro 18th century pieces. Most all use power tools to rough out stock, and for some joinery operations. The Headley's shop's like that, he even wrote an editorial in the last American Period Furniture journal about what "hand made" means. His argument is that so long as the piece is a one-off (i.e., without interchangeable parts), then it doesn't matter whether the individual maker uses power tools or not.
To some extent, I'd agree with him, at least on the primary surfaces of a cabinet piece. It doesn't really matter whether a router or bandsaw removed the bulk of the material if the final surface was left by a hand plane and/or a scraper.
That said, though, my own experience in examining antiques and viewing reproductions as well as making them in my shop suggests that there's a big difference between a repro that has moldings made by a shaper or router table followed by sanding and those same moldings made with wooden hand planes. The router made moldings are, for the most part, completely uniform, and the pieces on antiques rarely are. The secondary and tertiary surfaces are remarkably different - most of the time, adze and rough saw marks can be seen on the inside of cases of antiques, and at the very least every drawer bottom has the distinctly scalloped surface left by a jack plane.
One of the most glaring examples of this dichotomy I've seen was on a reproduction of an 18th century Moravian cabinet for sale at Old Salem in NC. This cabinet is quite famous - it has the dimensions one would expect of a spice box, with a prominent fylfot inlaid on the door. The reproduction was well made (and fairly pricey at $2500), but there were several jarring juxtapositions in it - the dovetails were hand-cut, but the drawer bottoms were machine-smooth. On a repro clock in the same shop, the gooseneck moldings in the pediment were obviously hand-carved, but were mitered onto returns that still retained the distinctive radial marks left by a shaper or router.
I guess the point I'm making is that the methods used to make pieces of furniture meld with the style. It'd be really ridiculous to find errant hand-tool marks on a Stickley Morris chair, but I find it just as ridiculous to see Norm put a quartz battery-powered movement in a Dominy clock.
"It doesn't really matter whether a router or bandsaw removed the bulk of the material if the final surface was left by a hand plane and/or a scraper."
I used to believe this, but the more I work by hand, the less I do. Just like your description relating to moldings, I think the same sort of things happen with panels. legs, and various other sticks. When you work by hand, you end up relying very little on measurements. Like the days before assembly lines - every individual piece is hand fit. As such, you approach the stock differently, you don't care about machine precision or exact measurements - you just care is it all fits well and looks good. The result has a distinctly different feel from something merely surfaced by hand.
By the way, I'm not a purist in this regard. I use power tools because otherwise I'd rarely finish a project. That said, I use hand tools as much as possible, because invariably, I find the results more pleasing.
I think we have an almost identical attitude - you'll note my comment about using power tools to rough out parts - Like breakdown a 14' X20" 16/4 mahogany board into the sections that will be the legs, table top, casesides, drawer fronts, etc... from th best grain orientation from the plank. Generally, though, I will 4-square the 20" 4' long section that's going to be the legs of a highboy and rip the rough profiles with a handsaw and a turning saw. Most of the turning saw marks wll be eliminated, but a lot of the handsaw marks will remain in the backsides of the legs and aprons, as they are on the originals.
Edited 9/26/2008 10:05 am ET by dkellernc
I know I'm not expressing myself very clearly, but it's more than surface marks. It's the process and where it demands precision versus allowing deviations from the regular (i.e., the woodworker's hand). These deviations from the regular can take many forms - the panels making up a carcass may very in thickness slightly - the chamfers may be irregular - the carvings/turnings of identical parts vary - each tenon fits best into its particlar mortise - etc etc.
Wow, Randy is lucky to have the gift, wish I could claim a part of that.
Jim
I haven't made any bonnet top high boys or piecrust tea tables! But if you're buying, I'm making!As for gravitas, and internet creds, I'm heading in the opposite direction. I don't mean to say this in a mean way, but I simply don't care what you guys think of me or my work. I don't write to be popular. Beyond that, I'm concerned that internet gravitas or whatever you call it is taking over ww publications. What do I care if you are impressed by my abilities? Is that what ww magazines have come to? Braggadocio? One upsmanship? In my latest series, I've taken on a project that is really too hard for me and it's really not going well. In fact, it's a train wreck in slow motion and my readers are going to see every mistake, learn why it happened, and what I did to correct it. Who are we trying to kid? The neat thing about writing magazine articles is that you can help somebody. Forget about impressing them.I just wanted folks to know that some projects really are hard, and why specifically they are hard. Every year my column has a theme. This year, it's about failure. I think it's a road worth exploring. Try and fail and deal with it. It's how we all learn. I hope to validate those who have struggled and I'm continuing my parting of the ways from the "build a Chippendale highboy" in three pages articles. Those articles are impressive, they may be inspiring, but I personally don't find them helpful. And what are ww magazines supposed to be about anyway? If it's hard, let's show it.Sorry this is a little off topic. This is something I've been thinking about and recently blogged about (stunt man). Adam
Edited 9/25/2008 9:51 pm ET by AdamCherubini
Cool post, Adam.
I look forward to your series.
I think many of us who are essentially teaching oursleves worry that it may not be hard for everyone - just us. It'll be good to share the fact that none of it is easy. It may be easier for those who have already made the mistakes, but you need to start somewhere.
Here's me learnng my 49 again last night:
View Image
If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style.
................................................
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES...THEY ARE NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING, BUT...THEY STILL BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN YOU PUSH THEM DOWN A FLIGHT OF STAIRS
Adam ,
When the folks were telling you they thought you should post pictures and I guess promote yourself moreso the way they thought you should ,,, it seemed like they were wanting something to chew on , so to speak .
They meant no harm imo but your choice to defer to your personal sites and info was a more discrete way to handle it on this site .
Bravo
dusty
Adam,Whilst I sort of agree with Don Green's comment about giving in to failure too easily, I applaud this post of yours, which sounds like a sea-change from some of your previous stuff. I also applaud your ability to change and improve your (writing) attitudes in light of experience and conversation. The direction you describe is a brave one; somehow I expect you to follow up the reports of any train wrecks with reports about the successful salvage.You are one o' them writers whose style often gets my goat into a butting mood; but at bottom you are quite stimulating. Perhaps we can now look forward to some other changes of character, such as giving up on the historical story-telling? Reading of your own experiences and theories about your doings is so much more informative and meaningful than them peers back into a murky past though a glass darkly. So easy to see patterns in the swirling mist, eh? :-)Anyway, I look forward to more of your New Model Adam column in PW - not something I ever expected to say.Lataxe
>giving up on the historical story-telling?< (Lataxe the Prolific Poster)There's more than one opinion on that. The historical stuff is the stuff I find interesting about your column.
Ed,Why not make up your own stories? (Ah, I'm forgetting - you do).History - tells much more about the historian than what he purports to explain. Of course, it's always interesting to listen to such stories, especially the fairy ones that always seem to suit our present desires, hopes, prejudices and so forth.Lataxe, a skeptic.
Spare me the ten-cent philosophy, pal. Probably more suited to others.You've got your own hopes, desires, prejudices, reasons for being here, presumably, ("Toss me a bone, Taunton! I so love it when you do that!" Lataxe the performer of pet tricks). Others have their own interests.I have an opinion. I expressed it. No more net sum gain than that fact. I do like the historical stuff in "Arts and Mysteries." Not only is it something that PW has that FWW no longer has (but not the only thing), without it, Adam would be just a giant ego that would barely fit on my 20 inch Macintosh screen. I even like it when he gets stuff wrong and people endeavor to correct him online.I am also intrigued conceptually about writing about learning from failure. Having taught many people to fly helicopters, I believe that failure happens at many levels but that teachers are enablers and builders-of-confidence, and people either have it in them to learn things themselves or they don't. The best helicopter students that I had could teach themselves - all you had to do was to unlock the door for them and nudge them away from the small missteps. Note that this is quite a different theory than the RN or RAF uses to teach people to fly helicopters (their's could be described more as a "beat and belittle to force the sink or swim moments"). One of the lovely aspects of British educational philosophy that I learned from working with those guys for a couple years.I believe that some hand tools are self-teaching like that. Tried and true patterns and designs. Mess with it. Build cabinets, chairs and small boats. Make the common mistakes and you will learn how to use it well. The "Jimi Hendrix Theory" of learning guitar,...hold it in your lap long enough and you will learn how to play as well as you can whistle. Off for a ride in the mountains. Thanks for the "op" to do a little "opinionating."
Edited 9/26/2008 2:42 pm by EdHarrison
Well, thanks Adam- I am also looking forward to the articles. Sort of a different angle on the theme of inspiration...
I am firmly in the camp of "form follows process". I agree with Adam et. al. that method and tooling affect the final form of the project- chair, sculpture, instrument, whatever. In some cases it is subtle, and some instances there are glaring telltale signs of process. Usually we are talking about sanded and polished things being too contemporary, but I have seen people leave nasty carving tool marks in places the original makers almost never did, as kind of an affectation. My take is that as long as the finished item is not too slick and sterile, what's wrong with idealizing it a bit by starting with straight and square stock? Is will we still be faithful to the intended design? It is an individual decision.
I also find it interesting that two people can use identical tools and processes and have different outcomes- almost like handwriting. I draw well, but don't like my style a lot. I don't mind my woodworking and carving style.
Randy mildly scolds me for "re-enacting", which is his derogatory term for doing something by hand that he deems to be more efficient by machine. I bite my tongue. He has handled, measured, photographed, and reproduced multimillions of dollars worth of Americana. He has great connections in woodworking and museum communities. He has elevated my connoisseurship tremendously. We agree to disagree on this subject- I am convinced that one can become very facile, accurate, and fast with stock prep and joinery.
I am not confident that one can read Moxon/Roubo/Nicholson, some old account books, do some reverse engineering from old furniture, and then feel confident that we know "how the old guys did it". Not to say it's not worth trying- I certainly am...
"I am not confident that one can read Moxon/Roubo/Nicholson, some old account books, do some reverse engineering from old furniture, and then feel confident that we know "how the old guys did it". Not to say it's not worth trying- I certainly am..."
Perhaps not each individual craftsman of those days, but I'm betting that the process is pretty dang close - akin to the variations in work habits and tool usage you'd expect if you could do a shop-by-shop survey back then.
Besides - I'd challenge your mentor to sort of a "Turing Test" - if you set one of his reproductions next to the original, would an ordinary woodworker be able to tell the difference? I'm betting the answer is "yes". Would they if they put one of yours, mine Eugene Landon's or Adam's next to an original - I'm betting the answer is "maybe".
A fair number of reproducers think this is a trivial point, but I don't.
"Maybe the reason more of us don't use more hand tools is because , many of the tools of today are simply not capable of producing fine results even with a skilled user imo."
Yeah, but that's changing, which IMO is a good thing. 15 years ago you couldn't get a halfway decent backsaw without seeking out an antique. Now we've got many people making them, and at least 3 companies. Heck, in 1990 when I set up my shop, getting a decent handplane meant finding a decent-shape antique and prying it away from a collector. Now we've a bunch of companies making them.
Still a few tools that need to have more players - traditional bowsaws, compass planes, hollow and round molding planes, etc..., but it looks like a revolution is underway. It'll be amusing when I see my first "Delta" logo on a handtool....
dk,
How about the Stanley hand router , remember them ?
I agree it is great that some interest in quality hand tools has been revived , lets hope the economy won't stifle the demand for such tools .
dusty
Yep, got one, though I prefer the Lee Valley version I bought last year. I typically use it to do stopped grooves in stiles for doors, and the precision I can get out of it is a bit better than the Stanley antique.
Funny thing is that it seems that small handtool manufacturers are about the only business these days with full order books. Might bring on more toolmakers - they're certainly easier to sell than handmade furniture...
For 30 plus years I did all of my woodworking by hand. As the years wore on so did my strength and have resorted to using more power tools. But there is a sweet sound to a sharp, well-tuned plane jointing a board. I never had to wear hearing protection but did sweat like a defensive lineman in south Texas two-a-day football practie. I built large and small pieces by hand but not for pay, out of necessity. For a long time I used only joinery techiques, no mechanical fasters. From time to time now I get out my grandfather's rip saw (he was a master cabinet maker) and I will cut some lengths of wood that I need for a project just to stay connected. I have found that I have become quite happy with my power tools and while I don't make a piee entirely by hand it is made entirely by me even if I do check the square rather than hand plane the lumber. I still handcut dovetails and pins, mortise and tenon joints and really enjoy using my old Stanley shaper plane when the bursitis doesn't grind me to a halt.
What i offer is simply this, build a few things by hand and you will appreciate the rewards of your powered shop tools.
Well said!Norman
"I personally can't say I have seen any large scale endeavors strictly employing hand tools and methods ."
My sense is that there are lots of people who have been down that path over the generations, and they weren't and aren't in magazines and on the internet...
JJ ,
I'm not against the use of hand or power tools I was merely making an observation , if large scale pieces were not that unusual we would see some .
I would also take your statement to realize there are many fine works out there that have not been recognized , but that does not diminish the quality of the work or the makers skills .
dusty
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled