Greetings Knots:
In Fine Woodworking issue #193, we published a letter to the editor from a furniture maker and woodworking instructor in San Francisco, Calif., who wondered about the ethical and legal implications of copying another maker’s furniture design for profit.
He claims that a factory in China is mass producing a stool similar to one of his own design from 1975. And we’ve all seen the rise of Maloof-inspired rockers.
I know this subject has come up before in Knots, but we’re looking to host another discussion on this topic. Here’s your chance to share your thoughts about authorship and design protection in furniture making.
Cheers,
The Fine Woodworking Editors
Replies
I don't know how the legal stuff works for furniture designs but awhile back there was a to do regarding a boat design. A company claimed exclusive rights to build the design and threatened to sue anyone who copied it. As it shook out, the tiniest change (add an inch to the over all length, for example) in the boat's construction qualified it as a different design and the company had no claim. Apparently this happens somewhat regularly with wooden boats and it seems as though it is difficult to control.
What happens if a design is copied mostly verbatim but perhaps there is a change in the joinery? I can imagine this might be the case in a production piece where, dowels or staples might be used instead of a mortise and tenon. Or suppose the angle on the back of a chair is changed by a couple of degrees. Does that make it a new design?
I have no idea what the right answer are but am interested to see how this discussion goes. Thanks for bringing it up, Matt.
Matt,
Unless you (Taunton) set a few parameters to direct the discussion, it will be somewhat pointless. Prior discussions of this sort have always gotten misdirected due to the question of what is exactly legal. There are so many permutations of conditions and so few legal scholars here, the discussion becomes fractured and aimless. I would suggest to you that you narrow the focus. You need to provide the legal answer to that writers question. Tell us just when "copying" is legal or not. The ethics of the matter are personal and their discussion make for a lively time.
I am surprised that you have asked this question because other publications have gone out of their way to thwart such a discussion. Even though copyright only protects the artistic expression, some woodworking magazines present this topic as though it were a patent issue, which it is not. The worst case I have seen about this is where a publication implied that a Stickley “Reproduction” design could not be copied by readers without violating copyright. However, the fact that it is a reproduction work automatically precludes it from copyright protection.
Because 99% of all woodworking designs today are derivations from past designs, it is almost impossible to get legitimate and enforceable copyright protection for a design. The Expanding Table I built earlier this year is unique, but it is not unique enough to be protected by copyright--it is based on the Robert Jupe design from 150 years ago. My mechanical design is probably unique enough to get a patent for it, but that is not the same as protecting the artistic design.
Copyright prevents someone from reproducing the text or artwork from a story, but it does not prevent someone from reproducing the woodwork described in the story. If the design is unique from an artistic standpoint, then it can be protected.
No they don't. They are no different from Wood Mag in that they imply they have done something that they cannot do.
You would probably need to categorize everything to keep it all straight. First in one column you would have the type of work. Then in the next column would be the type of copying that is going on. For instance, if it were a one of a kind turning commissioned by a party that is being copied is it being copied by another turner on an occaisional basis or a factory overseas in mass production. Or perhaps is it a craftsmans own design of a chair that he builds for many customers that is being copied under either of those type situations.
One of the lures of woodworking is to learn new skills through emulation of master craftsmen so there will always be some design copying going on, that is how we learn. What happens eventually in this case is that the copying craftsman generally ends up adding his own twist to the piece and at some point it becomes his design. Case in point there are a lot of woodworkers out there that never sell a piece of work but they build for there own home and families. I myself love Arts and Crafts era furniture, can I afford an authentic Greene and Greene piece, probably not. The only alternative to bring that type of work into my home is to build it myself. I understand though that this is not an issue really, but more something we don't want to get rundown in the pursuit of larger scale knock offs.
I feel that if the mass production infringement even looks like a custom made original that the creator should have rights. These rights should be garanteed for a given amount of time and protect the artisan domestically and overseas as well. Basically I am saying that if Wal-Mart cotracts with an overseas manufacturer to build a wooden chair like the one that so and so builds and so and so has gone through the proper steps to protect his design then they should either have to pay a royalty or the product should not be allowed to be sold here. The big question would be what reasonable steps should one have to go through to protect his work, how long should that protection last and how to decide when infringment has occurred.
Much to my surprise, Moser does have some patents on some rather basic designs. But then again, I don't believe this is very typical in woodworking unless the design is being mass produced. More importantly, patents are very different from copyrights.
I truely believe that there little brand new in design. Like said in other answers almost everything design wise has evolved from previous work. With that said I do think that an artist should have some rights to what they create. For instance, if a factory in china decided to start making Maloof knock-offs then he shold have some sort of recourse. There are plenty of makers know that have copied his design and make his rockers and sell them. But at least they give credit to the original.
I think that one that outright copies a design is wrong. It's been said that Thomas Moser has patents and cpoyrights on there design. That's really good, but if I were to reporduce a piece of theirs there would be no way that it would be the same. A change in size and different method of construction. It would have to be a absolute complete knock-off in everyway in order for a lawsuit to be made. Then you would have to think about the cost you or they would incure for the lawsuit. I think it's more a scare tactic than anything else.
http://www.kalafinefurniture.blogspot.com
I was taught a long time ago that the strength and value of a patent, trademark, copywrite, etc., was only as strong as the willingness of the holder to take some one to court based on their claims. Even in these cases, the patent holder is only the senior in the claims but can be challenged by such things as showing that the idea was not truly original, or that the protected idea was actually obvious to one skilled in the trade or any number of other things. It is a very expensive and long drawn-out process and only has meaning if the eventual win returns enough money to more than cover the costs and any lost time and effort in pursuing it. The courts are the only avenue for redress, since having a patent, etc., is not enough to have the sheriff come close you down. It is a civil matter.
Edited 8/1/2007 9:03 pm ET by dherzig
dherzig got it right (and yes, I am a lawyer that has experience with intellectual property issues). Patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade dress, and any kind of intellectual property is meaningless unless you have the means to enforce your claim in court. And by "means" I mean a deep pocket. And by "deep" I mean six to seven figure deep. For hobby and solo professional woodworkers, this is a real issue. We just don't have the means to undertake costly litigation to enforce our unique designs and creations.
Plus, even if you have patents covering your work (a la Tho. Moser) it may not be valid and enforceable. No one has mentioned the fact that you can go to the patent office and get a patent for just about anything. I could, for example, probably get a patent covering the special way I make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. But that doesn't mean I will have a snow ball's chance in hell of actually enforcing that patent in court against another party. In the world of furniture and turnings, I suspect that there is very little that is new, unique, and useful enough to qualify for patent protection. That's why I'm a little skeptical of the Moser's claims of patent protection. They may have patents. But unless they've invented some new technology relating to an ancient craft (doubtful), there is a real chance that their patents aren't worth the paper they're written on. It sounds good, and is useful in intimidating wood be hacks that try to copy their designs. Other than that, good luck.
Copyright protection is probably the most applicable. Basically, all artistic, creative expression (writting, painting, sculpture, design, etc.) is covered automatically by copyright law. The problem with copyright law, however, is that it only precludes direct copying -- photocopying for example. Even the slightest of modifications to a preexisting design can avoid copyright infringement. But here again, even if you have a decent claim of copyright infringement, it is meaningless unless you can afford the trip to the courthouse (again, unlikely for most woodworkers, even the pros).
I've seen this letter published in the latest issue of Woodwork Magazine. While his stool looks close to the Chinese knockoffs, I'm not sure he has a case for copyright infringement. Both stools share the same design details but the in both cases, the top seats are shaped differently from one another, the legs on the Chinese chairs are thicker and splay out more. Joinery on the original is a wedged through mortise and tenon while the chinese versions aren't. The original stool has five rungs while the Chinese version has four so I don't know. I think if he did take his case to court, he might have a tough time convincing a judge or jury he was violated on.
Hi Matt,
I'll second that the conversation scope would need to be refined somewhat. There is a difference between what is legal and what is ethical. :-) And there are differences between copyright and patents.
Patents allow you to preclude another from creating a similar manifestation of one's work. Whereas a copyright allows the prevention of copying of your work, including derivatives thereof.
That having been said should a design / patent / copyright be changed in a materially substantial way then it is a new design / work of art. Switching from an M&T joint to a dowel or dovetail joint may prove to be a substantial difference in design and would therefore invalidate a prior claim to the design.
But I'm neither a copyright nor patent lawyer, so it would be wise to consult both.
Along with our question of materially different, we have an additional question of how long the 'right' (copyright / patent) has existed. Patents expire, and so do copyrights despite the poor efforts of Congress to the contrary. A Maloof chair may well be outside the range of it's copyright based upon it's age. A design from '75 would be outside it's patent but probably would be within it's copyright.
And finally we get into a discussion of prior art. Given the preponderance of prior art in our field, it becomes difficult to distinguish "new" works from old as everything is simply a variation upon the past to one who is skilled in the art.
The ethical realm of design and authorship are actually a completely different conversation than what is legal in the US or elsewhere.
Glen
Matt,
This subject is about as old and as much discussed as sharpening. We have all be around and around the flagpole. Just as there has been no "one answer" in sharpening, there is none here. Let the lawyers figure it out.
Of all of the responses to your message, IMHO, Kaleo's is the best, by far. Kaleo sees deeply into the souls of woodworkers. Pay attention to Kaleo. He may be the next Matt Berger.
Of all of the writeups that I have ever seen in Knots on this topic, the best (yup, even better than Kaleo's here) was one last year by Ray Pine (joinerswork). I don't remember the words exactly, but in his own inimitable way, with humor, incisive wit, and deep understanding based on enormous experience and analysis using his boundless intelligence, he concluded that if we had to send checks to everyone whose ideas we used, then Thomas Chippendale would have had to send money to a bunch of older Chinese and Roman furniture designers.
Actually, I would rather converse about sharpening or shoulder planes again, than to plow this ground again.
I like and respect people who are proud of their designs and take it as a distinct compliment that someone else would deign to copy/modify them. A really good designer does not make one design and then modify it for the rest of his life. A really good designer (IMHO) is one who is continually excited by the design process, and wants to get on to the next one. I find the T. Moser approach to be anathema. I find it to be a wimpy gutless soul-less approach to furniture design and to life. They would be on a "higher plane" if they kept designing, and being proud of the few people who copied their stuff.
If any of you want to copy any of my stuff, I would be happy and proud. I would be impressed by your advanced sense of style and by your discriminating taste. Indeed the thought of people wanting to copy my designs is so exciting and pleasing, that I might be tempted to pay the first few people who are willing to do it. It is high time that people recognized my talents and paid me respect by copying my stuff. If the world was a fair and just place, it would have happened a long time ago.
Ray and Kaleo have said it all.
There is no more to be said.
This case is closed.
We can all go home now and make furniture.
WHATEVER YOU DO, YOU WILL BE HAPPIER IF YOU DON'T TAKE YOURSELF TOO SERIOUSLY!!!!!! We need more genteel humor in this world, and fewer pompous, self-absorbed fools who see the world as revolving around them. (Ah, I got it out. I feel so good. I am coming out of my shell. (One small step for a woodworker. One large step for mankind.)
:-)
Have fun,
Mel
PS as they say in this modern, Moserian world, "Sue ya later!"
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel, and All,
Being one of those scum-sucking sob's that build copies of furniture that was designed before litigation became a way of life, I will say that the only times this topic personally became an issue for me (being on the receiving end, that is) was a couple of times that I provided a scaled drawing as a proposal for a customer, and that person ended up shopping my proposal to others. The solution to that is, of course, not providing a drawing until the order is placed, and deposit is in hand.
As far as someone copying a piece of furniture that I'd already built, I don't consider my self innovative or special enough to take offence. Not that anyone ever thought highly enough of my stuff, to want to copy it in the first place...
As far as being flattered by imitation, I'm reminded of what B. Franklin said about a steer being called a bull, "He's grateful for the flattery, but would rather have that returned, which had been taken from him." Now, the question is, what has been taken away from, or lost by, a craftsman whose table has been knocked off and made by the thousands by a foreign factory? Is one of those knock offs in any way a replacement for a piece of custom made and designed furniture? Would any of the buyers of one of those knock offs have been a customer of his anyway? Would he have wanted to build those tables by the thousands if he'd been asked? Only an attorney can find out.
Ray
Ray and All,
My take on the making of reproductions is that it's a tribute to the original maker and the piece itself. I also regard interpretations the same way. How many others in the world have the wherewithall, patience and SKILL to make an exact copy of your work?
It has been said by others that in the process of making reproductions they have incorporated modifications to correct problems with original joinery and such.
Would you allow the term original reproduction?
Now about that Being one of those scum-sucking sob's statement. How's about bourbon in stead of scum!
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 8/3/2007 9:59 am ET by KiddervilleAcres
Bob,
" How many others in the world have the wherewithall, patience and SKILL to make an exact copy of your work? "
I think the answer to that is, a lot, if you have listened to the comments I have at craft shows. "I have one at home just like that, and it only cost xx$!" "I could build one of those for half the money!"
Someone asked me, after I'd given him an estimate for a piece, and he'd shopped around a bit, "(so-and-so) says he builds the same bed, for $1000 less. What's the difference?" "The difference," I answered, "Is that he can't see the difference." I then explained to him what the differences were. I didn't get the job because they weren't that important to him.
Mmmm...bourbon.
Ray
Morning Matt...
A copyright or patent lawyer I am not for certain. I sat for 13 days on a jury in a copyright dispute that got that far once and frankly, I had rather have spent 13 days "covert" in Laos back in the late 60's. Boring stuff having to listen to pages and pages of laws and arguments between defense and prosecution.
I had my own company for years that directly replaced stolen and damaged OEM (original equipment manufacturer) wire wheel covers for U.S. made cars for 6 major insurance companies. About all GM.. Ford and Chrysler cars had them as standard until the late 80's when aluminum wheels became prevalent.
There were several companies making clones of the expensive manufacturer's patent covers, but their clones had variations that were obvious to the eye. But... those same companies made the mistake of duplicating GM.. Ford and Chrysler inserts (emblems) of the manufacturer's logo for the center of the wheel covers.
GM targeted the largest infringement which was a company down in FL. After the smoke cleared with expensive legal battle (GM had no shortage of lawyers and funding.. the copy company didn't) GM won a 7 million $$ law-suit and the company was ordered to pay.
Needless to say.. the company filed bankruptcy and that was their last hooray which GM intended to make their point! But.. the other companies that were not filed against simply made tiny tweaks in those logos on advice of their lawyers. Some as minute as reversing colors in a given detail of design. That made them exempt from law-suit and they went about their business without concern.
I don't have a hard opinion on this matter, as at my age it is of no major concern to me or mine. I just thought I would shed what light I know of these matters to point out that the laws governing them are very complicated and can be detoured around very easily with minute changes to the original design from what I have personally seen.
Regards...
Sarge.. john thompson
But... those same companies made the mistake of duplicating GM.. Ford and Chrysler inserts (emblems) of the manufacturer's logo for the center of the wheel covers.
Sarge: that was more of a trademark issue. GM, Ford, etc. have unique trademarks that enable people to tell at a glance that they are looking at a product made by a known entity. If someone copies the trademark onto a product, the legal question to be answered is whether someone is trying to pass off a product as a Ford product, when it is made by someone else. "Liklihood of confusion" is the most important factor. Thus, a minor change in the logo may not be enough to avoid a successful infringement claim. Unlike copyrights or patents, trademarks last forever, so long as the holder takes necessary measures to protect them.
If I make a chair for sale and put a label that says "Maloof" on it, even if it doesn't look like a real Maloof (and any chair I make probably won't look like a chair, let alone a Maloof chair), I have infringed on his trademark, but not on his copyright because I am trying to pass off my work as his, benefitting from his reputation, not mine.
A copyright or patent lawyer I am not for certain.
Me neither.
Morning SM...
And what you say about trade-marks sounds perfectly logical to me. As I stated.. it's all very confusing in reality to those of us that are not trained in that field of law. What can you and what can't you do and can you get away with it?
I suppose that's what you have to pay to have lawyers advise you of if those particular issues fall into your own lap. I'm glad at this stage of life that I am not in a position to expose a lap for such matters of that nature to potentially fall into. ha.. ha...
Thanks for the in-sight as it definitely sounds as if that may be the case indeed. And again.. it re-enforces my personal theory that this is all a very complicated affair when all is said and done.
Regards...
Sarge.. john thompson
I HAVE BEEN COPYRIGHTED ON!!!!
I sold a Liberty Bell plane a year or so ago on ebay and was looking around the internet at antique tool websites when low and behold, the very two pictures I used to sell the plane appeared at the top of the page. http://www.handplane.com/archives/271
This guy is making $$$MILLIONS off my pictures!!!! BLAST!
yes, but was your's mfg from 1977 to 1918 per the add ;-)
yeah you gotta point.. plus I think he resized the photos so he put his artistic creativity into it.. damn!
Mike,
Not to mention his creativity with dates!
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Since Matt Berger hasn't felt it necessary (or brave enough) to jump back into this "discussion," I thought I'd post my heartfelt thoughts of the ethics involved. Anyone who knowingly copies or nearly copies another's work without permission and then sells his own effort, is a scum sucking sob. The individual may be exonerated by the law, but society in general and all that person's family, should shun him.Edit: I added the part about permission and selling the copy. I don't want you hobbiest ww'ers running after me waving rusty chisels.
Edited 8/2/2007 4:46 pm by sapwood
Thanks for calling me out on this one Sapwood. I have to admit, I'm just the messenger. Since I'm the Knots guy around here, I was responsible for posting this discussion, which was conceived by the magazine guys.To that end, I think everyone in this thread (less the sarcasm) has done a better job than I could arguing both sides of the argument and supply facts and talking points.Personally, I feel like copying someone's work is a great way to build furniture for yourself, because you know how it is going to turn out and you can take advantage of other people's great designs. However, when you turn around and sell it as your own, that's when it becomes an ethical problem. [EDIT: It just dawned on me that this doesn't really apply to Stickley, the Shakers, and other historic figures whose work is associated with an entire genre or style.] The flip side to that argument is that, great minds think alike and you can't always determine who came up with an idea first.As far as legality goes, I can't speak to that at all.MB
Edited 8/2/2007 7:21 pm ET by MBerger
I think a lot of it has do with the scale to which your design has been reproduced, and how much that company or person is making off of your hard work. I would have no problem if some woodworker on the other side of the country was told by a client that they liked my design and wanted him or her to reproduce it. Odds are I never would have gotten the commission due to geographical location alone. Now if say IKEA were to steal my design and make millions of them with their substandard construction techniques and garbage materials, I'd be pretty ticked off!
I did actually come across a copy of a japanese bench I designed a few years ago (link below). http://mysite.verizon.net/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=560&linkpath=http://mysite.verizon.net/vzenvq2h/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/1100-0023_img.jpg.w560h420.jpg&target=_self
As you can see it bears a striking resemblance to mine. (link below)
http://www.jensenfinefurniture.com/japanesegardenbench2.html
It was actually quite flattering that someone thought enough of my work to make one for himself. Anyways, that's my 2 cents. Cheers everybody.Russ.http://www.jensenfinefurniture.com
Anyone who knowingly copies or nearly copies another's work is a scum sucking sob.
Since all work is derivative... Then I guess were all scum.
What about the poor guys that do reproductions?
...great post! I love the humor.but after I stopped laughing I took you seriously.
if you can PROVE that the actual photographs are yours (did you think to watermark them??), then you do have a legitimate right to say you've "been copyrighted."
Here is what I have learned on this subject ...
The value of a patent or copyright is directly related to the owners willingness to defend their claims of intellectual property in court.
That being said, you can probably go on practicing your craft on a commissioned basis and never hear from someone claiming infringement. However, should you become wildly successful and highly visible outside of most craftsmen's relative obscurity, be prepared.
As an attorney (although not in the patent field) and as an admittibly non-original woodworker I will add my two cents worth.
I know as an attorney that it is next to impossible for numerous reasons to enforce a patent on intellectual property. No need to expound on that side of the discussion.
Now for the moral side. And yes, attorneys, at least some, concern themselves with morality. I would have no qualms about copying (although I hate that word) someone elses design which I fall in love with if it was for my personal use. Conversly, I would have no problem with someone else copying my unique design if it was for their personal use. I would be flattered.
However, it would bother me to copy another's design and then market that product as my own. I simply wouldn't do it. As my brother in law likes to say: "its jest not raht."
PMM
Since others have remarked on the randomness of past threads on this topic I'll add some random thoughts of my own!
Actually, what really prompts me to respond is that before seeing the gentleman's letter in FWW I saw an almost exact copy in the latest Woodwork mag by the same author, or at least that was the attribution <grin> Perhaps he falls into the trap of , as Shakespeare put it, protesting too much.
At my local community college, as part of the business planning segment of the woodworking course, we had a guest speaker turn up to address this very issue (plagerism not protesting too much). As others here have pointed out there is little one can do about it with one major exception and that is if one can demonstrate that one has been caused direct or indirect material harm. In other words if your pocket book has been negatively affected by loss of business now or in the future you MAY have a case. It still costs a lot to prosecute.
Finally, I was intrigued by the focus of some posters on Thom. Moser. I have a copy of his book, "Thos. Moser's Measured Shop Drawings" published 1985. In the foreword he both gives thanks and attribution to past and/or present employees such as Christian Becksvoort (1974 - 1982). Seeems that Moser saw the inevitability of being copied and so decided to beat them to the punch and make a little extra in the process. If he has copyrights on his work they are robably not on the 70 odd design published here. So, does Mr. Becksvoort have a case? :-)
Thos Moser may have patents on their design innovations but I'd be surprised to learn of any enforcement action on their behalf. Companies often patent anything and everything they can if for not other reason than they make for good sticks to wave at competitors.
The last place these companies want to find themselves is in a court of law where patents that are obvious extensions to pre-existing work can be invalidated. In other words, the threat of a patent action is more effective than actual litigation.
This in fact just happened in a recent Supreme Court decision involving intellectual property law. In KSR vs. Teleflex the Court found that obvious incremental extensions to pre-existing innovations cannot be patented; in the process the Court struck down a critical test lower courts had used to determine whether or not extensions were in fact qualified for new patent protection.
Intellectual property law in the U.S. is seriously broken. Nonsensical patents are granted to things like business processes, and large companies with limitless resources are using the patent system to suppress innovation from individuals. I am confident that Thomas Jefferson would today be appalled at the state of the system he was so intimately involved with creating.
All of this doesn't address the second question about ethics. I think most reasonable people would agree that to take someone else's unique work and duplicate it without attribution is unethical.
If I recall correctly, there has in fact been at least one suit filed by Moser against a manufacturer alleged to have used "signature" design elements. I don't remember the outcome.
One on-line message suggested that this suit was filed in Federal Court in Georgia and was "settled" with Moser retaining proprietary rights to many (but not all) of his designs. I have no idea whether this source accurately portrays what happened, nor do I know who was the alleged infringer.
Edited 8/6/2007 10:55 pm ET by SteveSchoene
I just did a search on the Fed databases and could not find any cases with "Thos Moser" or "David Moser" as the plaintiff. Settlements may be sealed but the original filings are not in this case.
Try J. Thomas Moser or Thomas Moser as plaintiff. The time frame would be early 90's, I think.
Nothing, same as previous search. Couple of Maine Arts Commission docs, quite a few government procurement records (good to know our taxpayer dollars are being spent on expensive furniture), and a bunch of labor commission documents.
fyi for people interested in patents, Google has one of the best patent search services and, of course, it's free.http://www.google.com/patents
OH, well. Sounds like suit was threatened, not filed, and settled before even getting to the court house. Or, the District Court filings system hasn't picked it all up that far back. As I recall, Pacer and CM/ECF has been implemented rather inconsistently.
Edited 8/7/2007 10:24 pm ET by SteveSchoene
Good luck to anyone hoping to get protection for a woodworking design. Excepting an exact copy, or the copier pretending something is what it is not, chances are it would be pretty easy to get around a design patent or copyright.
Think of a stool: "a simple seat without back or arms". I've seen stools with 1 leg (yes), to a solid base (basically, an infinite number of legs). How can anybody claim to an original design for a stool? Lets say 4 legs and certain details on the legs. Ok - are those details unique? Never been used on anything ever made by anybody anywhere in the history of woodworking? Not likely!
So, a guy made a stool in 1975. That's 32 years ago, almost 2x the life of a patent. Maybe copyright could apply, but its 'similar' (?). Does he really think some fellah from China traveled to San Fran (maybe back in time) to rip off his design it was that good? Maybe the Chinese designer was 'inspired' by the same source he, and a thousand others, were inspired by?
Lets say he had a got a design patent (which hadn't expired), or claimed a copyright. He could sue. Sure. Anybody can sue anybody for anything. Usually patent damages are based on imputed royalties and an injunction against further infringement. Lets say I make 100 copies of a stool and sell them for $1,000 each. You going to sue me for, what, $100,000? Damages would likely be only a few percent of the total sales, say $5,000. We are talking small claims here, not even worth the call to the lawyer.
Mass production is a different story. In any event, his patent would have long ago expired. Now, in copyright, things get interesting. A little while ago a Canadian won a famous literary prize for a book which was inspired by a Brazilian (?) book with a similar story. No copyright infringment there - wasn't even sued. He didn't rip off the guy's idea, just ran with it.
A while back I read a letter to the editor where a large tool company was complaining that one of the "shop tips" was about its patented gizmo, so the mag duly apologized. Thing is, you can more or less freely knock off patents for your own use, provided you don't sell your gizmo. There is a no harm/no foul rule in place. Obviously, the tool company didn't want people to think they could make their own ('twas a simple gizmo, and they really shouldn't have been granted a patent). The mag didn't help by apologizing. The company's 'invention' was easy to copy, shown in their catalog, and you could even download the patent for free, so what did the mag do wrong?
So is it ethical? I dunno. Getting a patent these days is a question of filling in the paperwork - there's lots and lots of 'garbage patents'. Business decisions are made from a risk reward perspective. Personal decisions are another matter. I caught grief from a tool store when I wanted to buy, from them, a Taiwan copy of a well known machine, because I was 'ripping off' the original company! Patents expire for a reason, after all ...
Getting back to furniture, what would have become of Maloof is he had been sued for making rockers that were 'inspired' by stuff he had seen? You know he didn't invent the rocker, right? What if the first guy to make a TV stand for flatscreens managed to get a patent on "An Entertainment Systems for Bigscreen TVs"?
What we do (in my case try to do) is craft. Heaven help us if the lawyers get involved.
There is an old saying "there is nothing new under the sun". Although woodworking hasn't quite reached that point yet, it has been around as long as mankind and who is to say that a piece made of solid wood is an original design. Regarding the stool in question, it looks to me like it has characteristics of early Chinese pieces. By the way, it is very difficult to copy a piece exactly from a photograph. As I look at the stool. I see nothing in the way of design details that has not been done before. I do not blame the maker for using design details taken from others but where does he get off in saying that it is totally his design. Here is a qoute taken from Fww issue No 50 as stated by David Pye. "If you want to enable someone to sit, it will be idiotic to proceed in the way that students of design are sometimes advised to do, and think out the whole problem from first principles,as though all the people who for the last four thousand years have been making and using chairs were half wits. Where the problem is old, the old solutions will nearly always be best (unless a new technique has been introduced) because it is inconceivable that all the designers of ten or twenty generations will have been fools."
Anyone who has a design that he is so selfish about should not have it published in books for craft folks. Woodworkers as a group are usually given to sharing their ideas and or designs with others. That is one of the things that is so nice about our craft. My suggestion to the fellow who is so upset is to 'lighten up 'and enjoy the idea that your design or you arrangement of other peoples ideas and techniques is good enough for others to follow. If he can't do this, he should keep it to himself and not have it published. Without an audience, what good is it to brag? By the way, I don't hear Sam complaining. Most people aren't capable of exact copies of his work.
"The last time it came up, I emailed the Thos. Moser company. Without reproducing the private email I received I can tell you that Moser has both copyrights and design patents on the furniture the company makes."
So does every machine manufacture out there. How many do you see that look very much alike.
So a little tiny detail has been changed to make then innocent of copyright or patents infringement.Good, better, best never let it rest until your good is better & your better best.
Edited 8/7/2007 7:47 pm by OB
Edited 8/7/2007 7:58 pm by OB
Edited 8/7/2007 7:58 pm by OB
I wrote a long post on this about two years ago; I'll just give the link:
http://forums.taunton.com/n/mb/display.asp?webtag=fw-knots&msg=18776.35
As to the letter writers remark: "In a world of Wal-Mart and globalization, can i protect my little object?", the short answer is "yes, get a design patent". If you don't bother, then it's fair game: remember, the system is set up to favor the interests of consumers (e.g., anti-trust and IPR law is alwasy judged from that point of view), and consumers are benefited by the choice of multiple suppliers, including cheap ones fron Wal-Mart. Capitalism is supposed to be a fiercely competitive, dog-eat-dog world.
I just wanted to put my 2 cents worth in. I would like to thank the guys who have shared their original products in all the wood working magazines that are out there. When I first started woodworking I looked at pictures of work and said I would like to make that. I didnt have plans on most of those projects but took the idea and produced work that looked like the pictures. I then had guest over and they asked if I could make one for them. I did and charged them for it. Without other peoples ideas I wouldnt have been able to pursue a fulltime job of woodworking. In the process came confidence to try new things and my own plans and I hope that I will be able to inspire others(it may not be on a national scale but maybe a new woodworker see something I made and it inspires him). Most of our work would represent such a small share of the market anyway. The people who buy my projects like what I make and they know that it will not come cheap. Some people just like to support local artists. I appreciate all who help and share and that is one thing that I love about the woodworking community. The experts have made sure that they continue to pass on the skills and ideas that keep new generations going. I wish everyone would buy from idependant woodworkers instead of chain manufacturers. Mike
I was a bit mystified by the appearance of the letter in the same issue as an article on signing your work. The reason I was mystified is that there was a total lack in the article of anyone asserting copyright. A work does not have to have a registered copyright to be protected by copyright law. But for any protection you must do three things. Sign your work in a visible area, accompanied by the date it was made, and the copyright symbol. It has been ruled that including these things shows that you as the maker intend for copyright protection to apply. This will entitle you to sue for damages. However it will not allow you to recover legal fees, to recover legal fees the copyright must be registered with the library of congress.
The above mostly pertains to artwork, and this is where the difficulty arises with furniture. The only protected part of a piece of furniture is that which can be separated from the function. thus changing the angle of the back a couple of degrees or changing the number of legs isn't going to make it as something that is protected by copyright law. something like Wendell Castle's molar chairs are an excellent example of a copyrightable design. the artistic design can not be separated from the function so it could and probably is copyrighted.
A few years ago a photographer sued a well known sculptor for copyright infringement and won. the sculptor made a sculpture based on a greeting card. The sculptors claim was that by making the image 3 dimensional he made enough changes to make it a derivative piece, and not actionable, rather than an infringement. the judge did not agree. I would imagine that changing the joinery or the species of wood would not work either for a piece of furniture protected by a copyright.
Now for another issue apparently in the same topic. As an artist choosing to work in furniture I am deeply offended by the thought that someone would feel free to copy my work. I went to school to study art and then completed an apprenticeship as well as put in many years of hard work refining my designs. if anyone would like one for "just their personal use" they may feel free to contact me and purchase one. They may not freely copy a design that I have spent countless hours on. If you lack design skills than you should contact the magazines you subscribe to and ask for more content to help you develop these skills. There is no reason to expect that design skills should not take as long to develop as the technical skills needed to build the design.
Good post... I couldn't agree more. But watch out, the philistines here will be out after you with their rusty forks.
I did a quick google on the molar chair thinking it would be something along the line of a maloof rocker. Dude, that's one butt ugly chair! Why someone would copy that thing to begin with, is beyond me? Hope he did not pay much for the copyright process. I guess one mans art is another man's garbage. Or is that the other way around in reverse.
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
I went to school to study art and then completed an apprenticeship as well as put in many years of hard work refining my designs. if anyone would like one for "just their personal use" they may feel free to contact me and purchase one. They may not freely copy a design that I have spent countless hours on. If you lack design skills than you should contact the magazines you subscribe to and ask for more content to help you develop these skills. There is no reason to expect that design skills should not take as long to develop as the technical skills needed to build the design.
I do find myself divided on the topic, I think truly inovative designs deserve to be protected. My concern is what people consider to be truly original. Woodwork Magazine had the pictures of the writters stool, a very nice design... but I wouldn't say it was very original. It was fairly similar in deisgn to most other asian influenced stools I've seen. In fact Taunton published an article in 1988 (Issue 69, Building a Stool) by Gary Rogowski which shows a similar stool.
Some 'designs' are iconic, they are ingrained in our society. Maloofs rocking chair is an example. It's hard to look at many modern rockers and not see at least some influence. So many current designs are really just copies, or 'inspired by' the designs before them.
Interestingly it seems that popular designers like Sam Maloof don't seem overly concerned regarding copies. The following link takes you over to an interview, and interestingly enough he doesn't seem to mind as long as it's not a manufacturer. In fact he says 'I'm able to make a living and that is all that matters.' Very wise words.(http://www.woodworkersjournal.com/ezine/archive/88/todaysww.cfm)
BlueRider,
I read your post on "design ownership" with great interest. I read the responses with great interest. Stanford (a very very fine woodworker) congratulated you on your post. Take that as a great honor. He says what he means, and he doesn't mince words. I don't believe I have ever disagreed with him on matters of woodwork, but that would be because he has much more experience than I, and he has woven that experience into woodworking wisdom.However, on matters of "faith and morals", it is possible that I differ from you and Charles. Of course, that doesn't mean much, since my opinions and $4.50 will get you a coffee at Starbucks. It is difficult to find the difference between right and wrong on some issues. Sometimes they are moral issues. Sometimes they are legal issues. When I get confused, or when I cant figure out such things, I try to go to a different plane and explore things. I try to find out "how the alternatives feel". Do they lift my spirits, or do they drag me down? I know these are fuzzy ideas, but we are in fuzzy areas.I find that I really like to hang around with people who are;
- good people
- hard working
- honest
- generous.I find that in a meeting of 50 woodworkers, I will eventually end up with those who share freely and openly, and who really enjoy doing that. I never charge for "lessons". If I know how to do it, and you want to find out, I'll show you. I like folks who feel the same way. I like folks who are generous with their ideas and their "lessons learned". I like to hang around with folks who would be pleased to have me use their ideas. Personally, I am thrilled when anyone wants to use any of "my" designs. I feel it is a compliment. I also don't feel like I have ever designed anything. I can trace roots to everything I have designed. So why not share freely. I don't feel like someone "Took something from me" when they borrowed all or a part of a design that I did. I feel they gave me something - respect. I have no interest in building anything a second time, so if someone "takes" my idea, what's the loss? No loss. Now there are two happy woodworkers. I thought I'd share my ideas with you. It is easy to talk with people who have similar ideas, but I find that I learn more by exploring ideas with people with different approaches. I guess that in the past, I have found that the people I knew who didn't want to share "their" designs were kind of "uppity" and pompous. Being with pompous people drags my spirit down, so I generally bug out Maybe after I have met more people who don't want "their" designs "stolen", I'll find many who are different than those whom I have encountered in the past. I agree with you that this argument crosses the line into painting and other forms of art. I hope I didn't offend you. That wasn't my intention. You did state your ideas strongly -- very strongly. I usually take that as a reason to write and express other views. I hope that is how you meant it. Enjoy.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
No offence taken, I greatly respect someone whose opinion differs from mine when they can articulately express why they disagree with me.
I make my living with my designs. It is complicated a bit in that I also make my living by using my wood working skills to build my designs. I don't appreciate someone who benefits from my efforts without compensation. I don't know of an accurate analogy, but it really is intellectual property theft when someone copies one of my designs. The closest thing I can think of is a singer songwriter. they make their living by writing and performing their songs. they are also compensated when another singer records their song. if you wish to sing one of their songs at a karaoke bar they have already been compensated by the company that sells the karaoke recordings. I suppose you could argue that you are free to sing one of their songs in the shower, but to do so you have to have heard the song either from a recording you purchased or from the radio where the songwriter has been compensated somehow.
If I were to write a book or even an article in a magazine detailing how to build a particular piece I would in essence be licensing that design to the readers of that publication. Occasionally you see this in an article where the author gives permission to build one copy for personal use. I have chosen not to do either at this time but may rethink that in the future. This is not a value judgement just not something I wish do do with the designs I currently have.
Please don't confuse my desire to retain ownership of my designs with a reluctance to share with others. We all have learned from others and I try to repay that when I can by freely sharing how I made a particular detail or how something is built. I have had many discussions with wood workers at craft shows about some of the details of my work. I usually try to end these conversations with instructions to take what I have shared and make it their own, to integrate it into their own visual design vocabulary.
Last month I asked another exhibitor to come take a look at one of my pieces because I have an unusual design for wine storage. While most of my designs qualify for a copyright, my wine storage design is one of the few I have that may also qualify for a design patent. I am not interested in becoming a manufacturer of wine storage systems and so I shared this design with another woodworker with the comment that I thought they may be able to integrate it into their designs. The difference here is that the wine storage system in my piece was inside a cabinet and was not the entire design but only a part of it, a detail.
When I mentioned the need for more articles on design I did not mean that I thought there should be more measured drawings but rather articles that help woodworkers make their own measured drawing, though I myself prefer not to work from drawings of any kind. A while back Michael Fortune wrote a wonderful article about how to make your designs better. This is what I am referring to. current articles could discuss the aspects of the design that make the project a successful design. This would be helpful in more ways than one. It would over time instill a working knowledge of design to enable some to make their own designs, it would also enable others to take a design they like and alter it to adapt to their preferences and particular needs.
I have no problem with my designs being viewed in this way. for someone to take one of my designs and use it as the inspiration to make their own version. One of my favorite designs is a Danish modern foot stool designed by Ole Wanscher http://www.danish-furniture.com/designers/ole-wanscher/#ole-wanscher-egyptian-chair. It is his interpretation of a 3,000 year old Egyptian design http://www.designboom.com/eng/education/folding/egypt.html. he didn't copy the Egyptian design but rather made it his own by applying his distinctive design vocabulary to the design to make it in his style. it looks like it came from Ole's hand rather than something that was copied. Poul Hundevad later made his own version of the stool and again did it in his own style http://www.dmk.dk/details/13177/. the interesting thing here is that hunevad also made his version into a table as well as a stool. This process is what we all do when we are at out best.
I would also point out the similarity in the joinery of Ole's work to that of Sam Maloof. Here too is another instance of an artist taking inspiration from another and making it their own.
I hope this helps you understand how I feel about design plagiarism vs design inspiration.
BR,
Thank you for a very informative response. You do woodworking for a living. I do it as a hobby. That may account for a portion of our different perspectives, but not all. I have a doctorate in applied psychology. My specialty is "Human Factors", which roughly translates into "how to design things and systems so that people can interact well with them." So when I "design" something, my first concern is for "usability". I design for particular users (some are kids, for example). I try to figure out ahead of time, how a person could screw up my piece. How could they misuse it? How can I prevent their getting hurt by doing this? (eg, tops on toy chests). I saw a sign once. I loved it. It said
"To err is human.
To anticipate is design".To me the most important part of the design process is the focus on anticipating uses, misuses, creative uses, etc. When others speak of "design", they are referring to the decorative aspects of the shape. Is it a Chippendale piece? Is it Hepplewhite? Oftentimes, adding on the "frills", gets in the way of the human factors aspects of design (anticipating and preparing for human usage of the piece). Unfortunately, most of the folks that I have dealt with, who consider themselves "designers", tend to deal with what I call the frills and the curlicues. What I focus on is more difficult to see. One sees it only when the design didn't anticipate something about usage.It sounds from reading your messages that you focus both on usage and on shape. I wish you the best of luck and good fortune in your endeavors. More importantly, I wish you happiness. I hope that your "designs" make people happy. I hope we meet someday, and that I will be lucky enough to see some of your designs. Do you have a website? I am sure that I could a lot from you. As a final note, I am reminded of the 13 year old boy who jumped up in English class and said, "O my gosh, I never realized that all of my life, I have been speaking in paragraphs." When I design things, I feel much the same. I realize in the process of design, how hard (impossible for me) to come up with new paradigms. Just as I speak in paragraphs, I design in the idioms that have become a part of my knowledge base without my consciously realizing it. The process of design is a humbling experience. While I enjoy it, I can never wait to get to the actual fabrication. That was an enjoyable conversation. Have fun, and good luck.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Since you are a designer by trade, could you post some links or pics of your stuff. Sounds like it would be interesting and unique.
/Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
"I went to school to study art and then completed an apprenticeship as well as put in many years of hard work refining my designs."
In other words, your designs, just like everyone else's, were not created in a vacuum, but instead were developed after extensive study of existing designs.
I understand the desire to protect that which is truly one's own, but I am bothered by what too often looks like overreaching. As good ol' Isaac Newton once said, "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." We are all standing on the shoulders of giants.
I, too, went to school for a long time to learn a skill (nothing to do with woodworking), and am fortunate to have a job in which I am paid well to exercise that skill. The flip side is that I have also spent many, many hours over the years freely offering my skill and experience to others; you can find my designs all over the Internet, some with attribution, others without.
My own philosophy is pragmatic: If the fact that someone else is using my design does not impact my ability to survive, then it's simply not worth worrying about.
-Steve
My own philosophy is pragmatic: If the fact that someone else is using my design does not impact my ability to survive, then it's simply not worth worrying about.
Well I guess that sums it up for me too. I think sharing design is essentially a good thing, and will eventually lead to better design.
Hoarding a design in hopes that someone will purchase it is self defeating in many ways. In terms of being a hobbiest, I don't buy custom furniture. That said, a pro using anpothers design to make money... well that just unethical.
Buster
Buster and Steve,
I agree with both of your responses. I am a firm believer in sharing designs, and then getting on with more designs. Getting stuck on an old design is a sign that the designer has run out of steam, in my estimation. I thought the Beatles were great for lots of reasons, but one of them is that their songs all sounded different!! They were great designers of song. They kept being creative. Others write one song, and then just do minor modifications, and worry about people stealing it. Charles Stanford,
I disagree with your admonishment that people not put their designs up on Knots. The Knots Gallery is my favorite part of Knots. I learn a lot by seeing what others do. It widens my perspectives. I like it when everyone is being generous with their knowledge, rather than hiding it because someone might take one of their ideas. All,
Maybe we should all send checks to the descendants of the folks who developed the dovetail and the mortise and tenon joints, and raised panel doors. Maybe we should send checks to the descendants of the person who determined that wood would be a good medium for furniture. How about those who first used straight lines or curved lines in furniture design. How about the idea of joining wood for furniture rather than just sitting on a stump? What about the idea of putting a "finish" on furniture? Can I use the Golden Rectangle? or is the use of that technique in design an act of theft. Suppose I took a course from Professor X on "Good furniture design practices", and I use those practices to design something. Do I need to send a check to Professor X for stealing the use of the principles he told me about?Just what exactly qualifies as a "new idea" in furniture design?
Suppose I decide to make a Chippendale style chair out of egg crates and paint it blue? I don't think that idea has been used before. I'll gladly share it. Suppose I come up with a new style that combines the best of "Danish Modern" and Hepplewhite, and I call it "Dan-lewhite"? Is that "My" idea? Suppose that I decide to use Gorilla glue when making Federal period furniture, but I decide to let the glue that expanded out of the joints on the pieces as decoration. That's creative. It's kind of dumb, but it is creative. Just what exactly are the new types of ideas in design that shouldn't be shared? What differentiates them from the ideas that are in the public domain and thus are ok to share? I suppose that we could assemble a hundred great furniture makers and have them deliberate this, and come up with a report. But I am afraid that if I listened to the debate I would feel much like Jesus did before he threw the Pharisees out of the temple. We should be splitting wood, not hairs. I invite all of you out there to take any aspect of any piece of furniture that I have ever created, and use it without giving attribution to me. I will be in your debt for doing so. Indeed, I would be honored. I read something on chip carving in the last month. The author said that it would be impossible to be creative and do something new in chip carving. He said that about all you can do is rearrange the chips. So what is the difference between that and designing a chair? How many things are there to rearrange? I hope that these ideas cause good critical thinking, but I also hope that they do not cause hard feelings. I enjoy discussing ideas with people who disagree with me. I am also realistic in that I have no expectations of changing anyones mind. Discussion mostly just drives people further into their own chosen corners. With that, I have just convinced myself that I have wasted my time. However, I am intrigued by the intellectual aspects of the argument of what parts of design should be considered proprietary. I have worked at NASA for the last 28 years, so I know about "proprietary designs" in the field of spacecraft, but I haven't seen a single idea in furniture design that I would consider worthy of being proprietary. The think that I find so fascinating in furniture design and construction is the many different ways that craftsmen find to enjoy the process. A big part of that, in my experience, has been in sharing the experience. But then again, I am a social being. I like people. I like to be generous with them. If I can give them something, like one of my designs, and it costs me nothing to do that (since I don't make anything twice), it is very cheap for me to be generous in that regard. I am thinking about carving a statue of Diogenes with his lamp. The only thing I would change is what he is looking for. In the days of old, he was looking for an honest man. I would have him searching for a piece of furniture which has no design features which are traceable to past furniture.Have fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Now that the serious folks have weighed in (seriously, that is not deprecation) it's time for levity:
"No Your Honor, I did not copy the plaintiff's work. I believe that mine is better proportioned, and more pleasing to the eye. Were mine a copy, would I have bothered to carefully chip out that section on the top? And the grain: plaintiff seems to have a preference for 'matching', while I obviously prefer the random wild cathedral look. Do any of the legs on his table have a 1/32" waver along one edge as does the right rear on my so-called copy? No! Plaintiff does not add interesting details at random locations--I call them 'Easter eggs'. For instance, please note, Your Honor, that plaintiff does not add interesting and decorative glue spots around the joints as do I. Plaintiff does not carefully add brush strokes, and leave a bristle embedded in the finish to prove that it's hand craftsmanship. Finally, Your Honor, if it pleases the court, I would like to closely inspect plaintiff's Exhibit A to measure several dimensions which are not apparent from the photgraphy, and to inspect the joinery--to prove, of course, that mine is not even a close copy."
About a year ago, I saw a copy of a rocking chair that I designed featured in an article in Woodworking News on an East coast furniture show, that was sold by a small New Mexico shop. I originally built this chair over 20 years ago and The plans for this chair are available from American Furniture Designs and are also taught at the American Sycamore School. The plans allow the buyer to build one copy for private use only. I contacted the shop and they stated that "everyone does this and that they had modified the design" Their other main selections were a variety of Maloof copies. Recognizing that they were a small shop and apparently did quality work, I suggested a compromise: That I be given design credit and they pay a small royalty (about 2%) and I would then support them and even give them a link. They declined and said that they were designing their own chair soon and only did a couple of pieces. They did list my name(misspelled) on their website as their inspiration. About 2 weeks ago, I did a google image search for rocking chairs and found this same image to be the number one hit of some 70,000 plus. Number two was their copy of a maloof rocker. I've been in contact with the web-gallery host of their site and he has contacted them, removed the page and says that they are designing their own chair soon. I've tried to come up with a win/win solution, but only hit a brick wall.
At least one would think that a chair actually built by Maloof should be the number one google hit.
Edited 8/12/2007 2:49 pm ET by dcwood
Edited 8/12/2007 2:51 pm ET by dcwood
If you don't want someone to copy what you've done, don't show or tell anyone about them. That's why I keep all my best designs and ideas in my mind, where they are safe until I take the tin foil off my head! ;)
QC,
Many years ago I applied for and received a design patent for a desk specifically designed for PCs. I was told by a lawyer that if I wanted to show my design to anyone I needed to get a non disclosure agreement so as to protect it.
At the time I was in search of a manufacturer to mass produce the desks. Before contacting a prospect, I had a ND agreement drawn up such that they could not divulge any details to anyone.
Never had anyone challenge it to the best of my knowledge. I did end up making 11 of them with an artisan with a small shop.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 8/13/2007 7:11 am ET by KiddervilleAcres
Edited 8/13/2007 7:14 am ET by KiddervilleAcres
Many years ago I applied for and received a design patent for a desk specifically designed for PCs. I was told by a lawyer that if I wanted to show my design to anyone I needed to get a non disclosure agreement so as to protect it.
Well that's "belt and suspenders". Once the design patent was issued, the NDA wasn't needed in order to have control over the design. In fact, the NDA was probably invalid once the design patent issued, since the USPTO would then make it public information, and thus non-confidential. You can't make a contract with someone not to divulge something, when the government has already divulged it to the world.
NDA's are common before a patent is issued, but you need to be very careful about what, exactly, they say. Whatever protection you have for your trade secret is dependent on the exact wording in the contract.
Bob,
Lawyers will do endless unnecessary documentation as long as they are getting paid, the one certainty with the legal profession. These agreements are notoriously difficult to enforce and never seem to have the desired effect with those who are not already holding themselves to a high ethical standard.As was also pointed out, once a patent has been issued it is part of the public record, therefore non-disclosure is moot.
The plans allow the buyer to build one copy for private use only
That may be written on the plans, but it's an essentially meanlingless statement. The copyright for the plans only apply to the plans themselves; i.e., you can restrict making copies of the plans.
As for the chairs themselves, one can easily build copies from looking at the first one built, or draw an independent set of plans from the first built, without restriction (the so-called "clean room" technique). Copyright does not apply to the chair design itself. You need to get a design patent to have any sort of over the chair design.
Hi Dan,
I used to partake in sour mash (Jack D.) and have done a bit of 12 year old bourbon (Pappy Van Winkle's Family Reserve), scotch was a favorite, but only on the rocks and perhaps a dash of water.
Lately I've taken to brewing my own beer as it agrees with my metabolism, or so it seems.
Keeps me hopping!
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 8/27/2007 9:04 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
I love Moser and the work of his company. I also love the books he's penned on HOW TO BUILD... I find it interesting that they chase copyrights and patents in light of this.
Anyone remember when Harley Davison sued some Japanese motorcycle manufacturer for copying it's "look, feel, sound"? I bet we could draw some parallels here with aritistic expression and such. HD lost by the way.
My view is that if you INVENT something truly worthy of protection because it's significant and you're making a profit off of it - then you should get some form of protection for awhile. Putting a unique bevel on the edge of some piece wouldn't qualify...
Charles,
Good to hear from you.
What you said is absolutely true.
I can't remember where I went wrong. Possibly it was at the Catholic University of America, where I had a minor in Philosophy. That can ruin anyone. I got to enjoy philosophical discussions. I was never concerned with the outcomes of the discussions, but rather the discussions themselves. Some people are wonderfully creative in how they frame questions, how they analyze issues, how they take curves while looking like they are going straight.
On this issue of proprietary designs, I have found the discussion to be almost content-free. It sounds like one side versus another side, but neither side has done an even adequate job of defining what they mean by terms. Given that, it is impossible to make any real progress. But while I have been disappointed by the lack of real "meat" in these discussions, it is interesting to see who pops in and out and which side they take. Generally, it seems, the professionals side with proprietary, and the hobbyists side with sharing. Not much news there, is there?
About the only interesting fact that I have ever heard on this topic was raised by Ray Pine. Once someone asked him for a proposal on a piece of furniture. He gave his drawings and measured drawings to the potential client, who then shopped them around to see if she could get a lower price. That is ABOMINABLE behavior. Ray did the work. I believe that everyone would agree that what the lady did was not good. But Ray didn't cry about it. He simply changed his methods of doing business. Now that doesn't happen to him anymore.
But that is not the aspect of "design" that I was interested in, as far as being proprietary.
Anyway, this topic is not that important to me. My mind was just wandering and I had too much time on my hands, as you said. I have been spending a lot of time in the shop. Been doing a lot of carving lately. Love it.
Hope all is well with you. I remember well our first conversation on Knots. It was on learning to sharpen saws. You offered to send me two saws for the price of shipping them. That was a kind and generous thing to do.
I read your posts. You have the knack of getting to the nub of things faster than almost anyone else. Keep up the good work. I believe your ability to do that comes from the simple fact of a great deal of real experience.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
A content-free thread, eh? Perhaps.
With big issues like the one in question there are only clear cut answers for people with clear cut minds - the ones that think in black & white or ones and zeros. In the real world everything is analogue, as you know better than me, I think.
In a society that values individual rights and freedoms (especially one where the individual's duties are rarely mentioned) it is almost certain that the concept of property will arise. It's a short step from creating physical property rights to the creation of intellectual property rights, especially when the society is a technical one like that of the Western World.
Personally I feel (as well as think) that property rights are a temporary memeplex representative of the evolutionary state of the memesphere just now. But let's be clear, like other rights they are entirely legal.
Some will claim them to be moral rights also and this would be correct if "moral" means "the firm, overwhelming and important majority opinion" and most people were actually for intellectual property rights. Extensive copying of music, video designer-goods and virtually any other thing says they are not.
However, what is moral today may easily become immoral in a short while. Consider the institution of slavery, women's voting and homosexuality in the last few decades. It is not inconceivable that property rights will become immoral then perhaps illegal, as the socio-political memes in all our heads evolve. Of course, I have no idea what they might evolve into or when.
One aspect of evolution is that it is constant flux. In genetics there are quiet periods of stability followed by sudden upheavals and rapid change, often triggered by something in the ecology but sometimes just a result of chaotic changes and the associated strange attractors.
In memetics the rate of change is many orders of magnitude faster; and accelerating. Consider the changes (and the rate of changes) to ideas or philosophies or what is real or right over the past 2000 years of relatively well-documented history.
One aspect of these rapid evolutions is that the number of memeplexes and their juxtaposition within the cultural ecology becomes numerous and diverse. At present I find myself out-of-synch with huge swathes of the culture that engendered "me"; and with many other cultures that we all interact with these days via our fantastic communication ability. I think this is a common human condition today and one not quite so familiar to our parents or grandparents, who lived in a more (apparently) fixed world.
One memplex I am finding it hard to "believe in" concerns rabid property rights, especially intellectual property rights. I have come to "believe" that human progress and/or survival depends on sharing knowledge so that the most people have a chance to use it for "good". Some, especially those in power and with wealth, will think the opposite (knowledge will allow the mad people to destroy us with super weapons; and ruin my profits).
Like you, I suspect, my attitudes are informed by both the scientific community and by the hippy freeware behaviour still operating on the Internet. Knowledge is shared, communicated and thereby enhanced to the benefit of all (except the rabid capitalists who would like to create monopolies, of course).
Well, who knows which position is "right" (or how many other options there are)? In the final analysis, only legalities really matter these days as "diverse moralities" is a normal condition across much of the Western World, where each individual is his or her own moral arbiter. The Century of the Self is here.
So, I will copy stuff whenever I can without running foul of the law. I will understand if some Ego gets narky when I copy their particular thang; but understanding does not mean agreement. I might even acquiesce to their demands not to copy, if they have a big stick; or if my copying really would hurt them (as opposed to knocking a tad off their giant profit margin). But I feel no moral pressure not to copy.
Lataxe, a copycat (ie all too human).
Lataxe,
The other night, I opened a book of selected writings of Thomas Jefferson. Today, I read selected writings of Sir Lataxe. I am amazed at the overlap. Tom had a lot to say about property and ownership, and I believe he stole his ideas from you. I was absolutely enthralled in reading Tom's stuff. He was a genius of the first order. In reading his analyses of ownership rights, or of appropriate forms of government, it became obvious to me that he could not cover any of these topics in one paragraph, as we often try to do in Knots. He needed a few pages to cover difficult topics. It was his treatise on rights of ownership that got me going on this Knots thread.I am fairly sure that your ideas and mine on this subject are either in complete agreement or at least are quasi-isomorphic. All of my "Designs", and I use the term loosely, are combinations of permutations and adaptations that I have seen in other pieces, as modified by the size and functionality requirements of my wife. I take pieces and parts ideas from lots of places. The one place that I would not take them from is from someone who was sensitive about this issue. There are so many ideas to copy, that I can't see taking any from a whiner. Let them enjoy the solitude that derives from being a hoarder of ideas.In any case, I have enjoyed being edified by you and your use of a preposterously immense vocabulary of ideas. You must be a voracious reader.Y'all have fun. (and don't forget -- keep thinkin'. Failure to do so could put you in charge of an entire country)
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Man, you intrigue the heck out of me. What do you do-custom one-offs? Do you have a "line"? Do you actively shop yourself, or have you reached a point where your rep sells and people shop for you?
All serious questions, and possibly out of line with the original post, but curiosity has finally gotten the better of me. Maybe I'm late to your history, and beg forgive if so.
Most nights are crystal clear, but tonight it's like he's stuck between stations.
Aha, thanks. Sounds like a pretty sweet setup. It must be nice not having to troll for clients. I can see how you are able to keep your designs out of the public eye-by the time someone is seeing your work, they are a qualified prospect. That sound about right?
Most nights are crystal clear, but tonight it's like he's stuck between stations.
Strive for quality in your woodworking and the rest will take care of itself. Your work will not be easily or profitably copied and even if it is, the demand for your work will not be affected by the knock-offs.
Windsor chairs come to mind. I've seen lots of people's versions of the classic versions, but I'd like to own one of Curtis Buchanan's. His methods and aethetic as well as his hand create something that is uniquely appealing to my eye.
Samson,
I think you have hit the nail on its head, reet smartly. It is, in the final analysis, concrete things and their production that remains essential. The informing designs are just a language; and a language is useless if not shared as what then communicates with what? What matters is the quality of the emergent product(concrete furniture objects in this case).
If Anant were to copy a Marcou plane tomorrow whilst making it function nearly as well, at a cost of $99.99, I would buy it. Mr Marcou would moan a bit then make an even better one and I would fork out the $1999.99. Do I owe Philip a living? No; although I am pleased he manages to make planes better than any other for what, today, is just the right price (for me). A happy and mutually beneficial arrangement.
(Of course, as your post intimates, Anant will never manage the $99.99 thang, even if Philip were their consultant, as high quality is an ideal often requiring the input of time, care and ability). :-)
The idea that someone has a right to make a living from furniture making (or owt else) is laughable. They gave such rights to various factories and their workers in the old Soviet Union. The result was drossy objects, as no one had to try - their right to work and get paid was unrelated to the quality of their goods.
When information, including that concerning design, is free then competition in the free market will be enhanced and we may all benefit - makers will get better; customers will buy more of the better stuff from all and sundry. Consider the cases of Lee Valley and Lie Nielsen, along with their performance viz-a-viz both Holtey/Marcou et al (at one end) and Record,/Anant et al (at the other). Once there were only nasty blue things or fixup an old one.
I believe this is a basic tenet of capitalism (competition). Intellectual property rights reeks of monopoly. Where would we be if Record had patented all them plane designs? (Swearing in the shed, is where).
Lataxe, a vicious and demanding customer bloke
Uh, actually Record, Stanley, et al, did patent those plane designs.
And as was the intent of the patent laws they expired and became public domain. Lee Valley actually does a little inovation on them to improve the product, while Lie Nielsen is pretty much just reproducing the old patterns with a "if it aint broke, don't fix it" frame of mind, he does produce them with a very high standard of quality however.
Jigs,
I hereby suggest that the patent expiration period should be no longer than one hour. This will give self-appointed heroic designers ample time to enjoy a glow of superiority before the hoi polloi come tumbling over their hill to take up their originals and make them the everyday possesions of the ugly masses.
The heroes (being heroic) will simply design another Great Original and we will all be duly grateful (well, I will).
Lataxe, idea-thief (otherwise known as a human).
PS I see you have allowed Charles to hook you from a quiet pool under the bridge. He is good at fishin' and has all kinds of bait.
Edited 9/1/2007 12:02 pm ET by Lataxe
I enjoy the discourse. But I fear it may be like arguing whether photography is art with someone, who refuses to define "art" before the discussion begins. (BTW, most of those who argue it isn't aren't artists in any meaning of the word.)
It is positively amazing to me that there are so many here that are quick to denounce individual creativity and unique design. And this among a group of individuals who, collectively, surely must desire to and be actively seeking ways to advance in the woodworking craft. It seems a natural progression for those individuals to extend that craft into a means of self expression. But the majority of opinion thus far seems the opposite. Most are perfectly content to not only reside within a homogeneous pool that continuously regurgitates but they question, find fault, and deny those that dare to ideate. This stagnant attitude simply baffles me. I would have expected the opposite.
Sap,
Your reading of this thread - that it somehow condemns original design - is not mine. Nor is that my attitude.
Human history is full of innovation and wonderous invention, in the arts and crafts as well as many other modes of life. Personally I admire those who are very creative, especially those who can make a large step from "what was" to a significant "what's now/new".
That's not to say I believe that creative people, however revolutionary, are somehow distinct from and outside of the culture in which they live and work. Even a genius tends to use the common languages of his or her society. Even the most visionary of inventors uses what went before to a greater or lesser degree. How could it be otherwise, for no baby could grow in isolation to become anything like what we call human.
More to the point of this thread, it seems to me to be a mere current cultural convention that we associate new inventions or designs with some form of exploitative ownership protocol. I can easily imagine a culture in which those inventors, artists and producers of the new/unique are content to put their work immediately into the public domain with no thought but that others may use and build upon their product.
In fact, I don't have to imagine that kind of culture as it is prevalent in the world of scientific research and the world of freeware. You will also find it in a thousand clubs or associations, where knowledge new and old concerning every subject you could think of is given away freely to those who wish to learn. Why, just last week one of the more wild-eyed habituees of the ladywife's allotment society showed her a very clever way to grow asparagus.
And then there's Knots, where some teach and learn whilst others merely boast of a claimed heroic design ability (sans evidence - we might steal it you see) or cast a jaundiced eye on the teaching and learning types.................
Lataxe, clever enough to copy good stuff and be grateful to the inventor (but not grateful enough to pay).
Jigs,
Your mention of photography prompted me to recall various stuff I've read in the last year or two concerning landscape photography. As with woodworking I began by trying to understand and acquire the mechanical and artistic skills (as well as an undertanding of the tools) but this led on to the question: what do you want to photograph in the landscape and what are the objectives of doing so?
It's a surprisingly similar question to the one concerning why one wants to make this or that style of furniture and what drives the choice.
Anyway, to put the bigger question to the side, we could ask: what about a landscape photograph (if anything) could be meaningfully copyrighted? The legal answer is, the actual photograph (ie the negative or electronic file). But what can one say should another photographer go out and take the same view, in the same light, with the same equipment? (That is, produce a nearly indistinguishable "copy").
Well, I doubt you can copyright a view or a photographic technique or collection of equipment. That second photographer could be considered a plagiarist by the more egotistical originators of photos; or merely another human who liked that photo so went to the trouble of re-creating it legally (as opposed to taking a copy of the first photographer's negtive or whatever).
Is there any difference when a woodworker copies a design, however faithfully? After all, they have gone to the trouble to acquire the tools and skills; and to apply them through a working process. Surely the design is like the landscape - a metaphysical collection of shapes, surface textures and so forth but not something that can be owned in the normal sense of ownership.....?
Well, just a thought.
And I agree that photography can produce art as well as can any other medium - if art is (amongst other things) the the communication and/or clarification of intellectual and emotional meaning in a condensed, forceful and enlightening form.
Lataxe, once a smudger.
Charles,
I am intrigued by your thought that a professional has little to gain by posting pictures of his stuff on a website. As we all know, the world is not black and white, but shades of green. If a furniture maker were to post photos of his stuff, and others copied it so much that he lost his ability to make a living from the "stolen" designs, I can almost see that you have a point. But not really. If a furniture maker is worth his salt, he has more than one "design" in his head. He should just move on to others. But then again, I am a hard-nosed SOB when it comes to making excuses - I don't like excuses. To many of them make you weak.
So let's take the case of Philip Marcou and Mike Wenzloff. They design and make planes and saws. They openly publish their designs here on the web. They are also VERY VERY openly generous of their knowledge, wisdom, time and energy on Knots. That has gained them an immense number of friends. My guess is that because of their good products (not just one), and because of their wonderful personalities and their generosity, they have made lots of friends who want their wares, and who spread the word about their wares. By the fact of their openness and generosity, they are increasing their business base. Or am I missing something?
Can you imagine Philip or Mike saying "I am not going to show photos of my wares because someone may take one of my design ideas." They should speak for themseves, but I believe they would think it would be absurd and bad business sense to hoard and hide their designs for fear of someone copying them. Heck both have invited me to make tools and have sent instructions. Hot damn! I nominate these two folks as saints in the church of their choice.
Take a look at Routerman (Pat Warner). He makes his living off of his router wisdom and products. He publishes the photos of all of his products, and their specifications, and he has a website with many of his ideas on designing and making router tables and accessories. When people ask router questions, Pat gets back to them quickly with brief messages aiming them at pieces of his website (which is a treasure trove).
I may be blind, but I cannot see the logic of not showing your wares on Knots if you want to be successful. I have referred many to Pat, Philip and Mike because of their openness (and great technical skill).
Oh well, that doesn't leave any time for your other super-interesting thought about Knots-like sites being hot-houses for establishing pecking orders. We should take that on as a thread someday, because it is a wonderfully complex and interesting topic which is relevant to all of us.
I can't (or won't) stop myself from making one comment on that. There are two types of pecking orders.
Type 1 - when someone says something like, "I am a well known woodworker (or author or toolmaker) and I have won lots of awards, and I mostly like to converse with others who are important". Obviously this is a vast overstatement, but some small aspects of this exist on Knots. Here in Type 1, someone tries to put themself in a high position. I believe that they actually do damage to themselves because it is usually fairly obvious when someone with an inferiority complex feigns a superiority complex. I am not saying that these uppity people don't have good skills. I am just saying that I put them at the bottom of my pecking order, regardless of their skills, just because I don't like uppity people. I like down-to-Earth people like you and Lataxe.
Type 2 - when someone like Derek Cohen talks about hand tools, people listen, not because he says he's important. Derek never pats himself on the back. There is no need for him to do it, because others do it for him. People listen because he is obviously very knowledgeable and very willing to share it. There are dozens of such people on Knots, and I include you in that number, who have amassed a great deal of knowledge in woodworking and toolmaking, and who are willing to share it with others. After a while, people notice and pay attention. You can say that a "pecking order" has developed. I wouldn't disagree with that. But I don't mind it because the people that I list high on the Knots pecking order never asked to be there. I put them there of my own free will. I don't like uppity people. No Knothead will ever rate me as a better woodworker than you, Charles, and that is a good thing, because you are a real Master, whereas I am in the middle of a long learning curve.
There, I got it out of my system.
Now I can get back to the shop and make another masterpiece (which is partially copied from things I saw elsewhere. Yuk yuk.)
Have fun.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
There is a flaw in the argument regard Mr. Marcou and Mr. Menzloff displaying their designs on Knots. We are one of their target customers, whereas we are not target customers for custom woodworkers.
However there is something missing in Stanfords discussion. The purpose of knots is to share and discuss knowledge of woodworking. Part of that is design, and from that part of it would be to show your work.
There seems to be a real decision in the discussion between those that are making a living at woodworking and those that are hacks (like me). The division is based on the perceived threat to ones livelihood. A man has a right to make a living...
Buster
Buster,
you and I are hacks who are in full agreement.
Thanks for letting me know.
I understand your distinction between Philip/Mike as tool makers, and fine furniture makers putting photos of their work on Knots. I agree. I thought of using Ray Pine as an example, but he does reproductions. Rob Millard does reproductions. So I guess they don't count in this discussion because they are essentially "stealing" designs from specific periods of furniture making which are considered to be in the public domain. That leaves furniture makers who design "modern" furniture as the only people that this thread is applicable to. Since I do not place much value in modern furniture designs, I have just about lost interest in the thread, which has pretty much run its course.
Thanks for writing.
Us hacks gotta hang together.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel, having steadfastly kept out of this thread and merely observed its meanderings I'll mention that some of my work has been copied, and some pieces copied several times by different people. Unfortunately for you it's contemporary flim-flam so you won't think too much of it, but that's neither here nor there.
I know of several copies because each maker wrote and asked if it would be okay. In each case I agreed on the basis that using the honour system the copy was for their own use. I've helped a few makers with drawings and plans that I photocopied and sometimes charged a nominal fee to cover my costs.
In most of the cases where the final piece was photographed and an image sent to me to have a look at I've been a bit surprised at how less refined I think the copy looks compared to my original-- that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong on that front of course. But I notice things like different timbers used that don't seem to work aesthetically, notchiness in the leg shaping or profiling, gappy joints, drawer spacings that are uneven, and incongruous small design changes that I think detract from the overall look.
Those copies don't bother me as those makers probably wouldn't be buyers anyway, and it's quite flattering that someone likes my work enough to want to make a copy.
One incident that did get up my nose was a working maker that copied a piece of mine for a client. That bothered me somewhat, but the client was in North America somewhere and I'm in the UK, so it seemed reasonably harmless. However, evidently his copy of my piece wasn't good enough to photograph and stick on his website, but my original photograph of my original piece of furniture he seemed to think was good enough to put on his website, along with a bit of bull about the originality of the design and so on.
That really got me going and there ensued a bit of bilious, snot laden and heated emailing from my end about stealing my copyrighted image and blah-de-blah-de-blah. Eventually the image was pulled from his website, but prior to that there was a bit of self-righteous bullishness on his part about the image being out there and fair game, etc..
Yes, the images are 'out there' and available for anyone to copy, even for a working furniture maker-- notice I don't say 'professional furniture designer maker'.
Anyway, I just thought I'd pass along that wee story for your delectation. Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Those copies don't bother me as those makers probably wouldn't be buyers anyway, and it's quite flattering that someone likes my work enough to want to make a copy.
Thanks goodness. I've been copying your funirture for years and was starting to feel guilty about it... My are not as good, do you think you could send some pictures of yours so I could post them on my website... Oh wait nevermind...
Okay, I've never actually made any of your pieces, but I do visit the web page occasionally to see how bad I actually am.
Buster
There is a flip side to this.Imagine my surprise a few days ago to see something I built featured on Fine Woodworking's web site. My name was no where to be seen and boy was I relieved. I also didn't make a lot of the design decisions, the guy I was working for directed some of it.I had taken a part-time job while recovering from surgery on my arm and I knew in advance the recovery would take some time. I thought the job paid okay given that I was going to be working with only one arm for most of the year I committed to.One of my projects was to build six or seven utilitarian objects. It's been a few years and I don't remember the exact number. I was pointed to a bunch of hardware, a pile of scrap maple shorts, and some trashed out plywood for the project. Because my background tends to be more inclusive of this particular product than his, I had some pretty strong feelings about what should be done. He disagreed and I did it his way. My heart sank a little when I saw it on this web site because I believe those who use this product are handicapped somewhat by lack of function.While things my own company has produced have graced the pages of Fine Woodworking a couple times; I am amused that something I'm less than proud of, something made from scrap, and something I made with one hand is featured here. Maybe I should get a blindfold and really show what I can do. Nah, what I do now is the most difficult demanding work I've ever done and we do it very well.Should he have told me about these items being featured and even shop drawings that were produced long after the fact being published? Maybe, I suppose. If he had asked about mentioning me, though, I'm sure I would have asked him not to.
Larry,
I was fascinated by your story about photos of some of your past work showing up in public places, when the work was not your proudest. I doubt that will affect you negatively in any way.
Think about the people who are really affected by their past sneaking up on them at surprising times in surprising ways -- POLITICIANS. I can't imagine why anyone would run for public office anymore. Every email message you ever sent, and everything you ever did is fair game for the front page of the New York Times. I was thinking that it might be fun to have a "Blunders month" in which we each post a photo of something that we have done in the past that just didn't work out as we had hoped. I wonder if folks would participate. It certainly would be fun. It would be hard for me to pick out just one of my blunders. Enjoy.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Richard,
Great post.
I admire your willingness to let others make a copy of your work for their own use. As you said, those people were not potential customers anyway. You seem to be a rather practical fellow rather than a flag waving iconoclast who is forever fearing that there is a copyist lurking about in the shadows. I have learned a great deal from this thread. It seems that the problem of "stealing" designs is quite limited. It has nothing to do with people who do period furniture repros, such as the Rob Millard or Ray Pine. It really has nothing to do with people like me, "gentlemen hobbyist woodworkers" who are not buyers of fine furniture. It really only has to do with professional furniture makers who are working in modern styles. That doesn't make the issue less important. It just means that it doesn't affect as many people as I once thought.
The fact that modern styles are not my favorite is of as much consequence as the fact that strawberry ice cream is not my favorite. Modern styles require as much skill as any, and are just as "valid". One of the great things about woodwork is that we can all pick our own poison, so to speak. My next jog in woodwork is to try to attain the skills to reproduce some baroque carvings. It isn't that I am enamored with baroque styles. It is just that it looks like a fun challenge. Then maybe I will try to demonstrate that I can be as good a carver as Grindling Gibbons (fat chance). Then, I would like to teach woodworking philosophy and humor at one of the U.S.'s finest universities. But before I can do that, I need to find someone who will fund the chair for woodworking philosophy and humor. Are you interested? Finally, I will try to start a chain of drinking establishments aimed at affluent woodworkers. If all goes well, I should wrap up these goals in 273.4 yeas. Enjoy.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
"I will try to start a chain of drinking establishments aimed at affluent woodworkers."
It'll be a pretty empty chain of boozers then. Affluent and (professional) woodworker are two words that rarely belong in the same sentence.
By the same token I'll have to rebuff your plea for me to fund your chair of woodworking philosophy and humour--- unless a couple of scrunched up dollar bills will do.
I think I need a drink. Slainte.Richard Jones Furniture
Sgian,In earlier days, one of the best clients I had was a woodworker. He was very successful and lived a quite comfortable lifestyle. I did some of my very best work for him and his wife and I really liked the jobs they turned me loose on. They are some of the nicest people I ever met.They made pallets for Wal-Mart.
Larry, it looks like a missed an opportunity.Twenty five years ago I had a contract to make boxes for potatoes-- things that when full of tatties, fork lift trucks picked up and put on to the flat bed of lorries (trucks, in the US.)
How could I have missed the opening that was there? Today of course goods constantly move around the country by road from huge central warehouses to far-flung retail outlets.
It never occurred to me to get into that game, and until you mentioned the WalMart pallets I'd excised that contract from my tea drinking, pinkie pointing, effete and precious furniture designer maker's mind, ha, ha.
What a plonker. I could be rich and employ skivvies to knock out the pallets and other goods carrying containers, crates, skids, etc: by now I'd surely have the manufacturing farmed out to eastern Europe or somewhere. The rest of my time would include indulging myself in a little hobby furniture making just for fun. Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Edited 9/2/2007 9:45 am by SgianDubh
"The rest of my time would include indulging myself in a little hobby furniture making just for fun."Yea.... it'd be a different world. You'd knock off someone's unique design and find yourself in a nasty lawsuit. You'd be signed on here as "Richardthethirdworldfurnitureking" and complaining of those petulant designers who want real money for the rights to their creations. The majority would boo you down into a sniveling puddle. You'd give them an indignant huff and sail to Greece for a holiday (tax deductable of course). The forever joke at Knots would be: Richard I I I wanna cry, who?Alas........Reality: You must grovel like the rest of us for a few scraps of wood and a bit of attention. Thank goodness!
Richard,
All may not be lost.
You lost out on the boom in pallets. But that is in the past.
Let's think of the future. This is a thread about creativity.Here is the next big thing in furniture. WHen young couples get married, they don't have much money and they have to buy furniture so they buy cheap stuff. When they die, they are more wealthy and they buy nice caskets. We need a way to let them enjoy fine furniture from the beginning. Here is my plan. Have people buy their caskets when they marry, and pay them off at a low rate, since presumably they have a long time to live. The caskets will not look like caskets. They will not have the old casket shape. They can be rectangular or any shape that a human body can be stuffed into when needed. Coffee tables would be a good use for these caskets, as would bookcases. The satin cloth could be bought when needed and easily attached to make the bookcase into a casket. For those who want to be cremated, all that is necessary is a nice little spice cabinet, or a breadbox. I believe this multi-use furniture has real prospects. In keeping with this thread, woodworkers could make caskets using Maloof styling and joinery, or in the style of Art Carpenter, or any other that they would like, and it would be harder to see that they had actually adopted the styles of others. After all, it is easy to recognize a Maloof-style rocker, but who would expect a Maloof style casket that can be used as a cofee table. There you have it. You have the opportunity to get in on the next big trend in fine woodwork. Get rich. You deserve it.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
I've ignored this thread because the same issue has been flogged into dust several times before. But when it hit over 150 posts I just had to look.
You know what...if someone copies my design, who gives a rodent's arse?
Neither I or anyone else here is going to come up with such a stunning innovation in design that it would protected in any legal manner.
And if so much time is spent niggling and sniping over a moot point, what the hell are you worried about? Some scurrilous woodworker is going to copy your freakin' birdhouse design?
My!... you are quite the gentleman.
(blushes....) thank you!
Mel,
One problem to overcome, is the unwillingness of most of us to contemplate the actuality of our own impending death. I have an acquaintance who, some time ago, expressed a desire to buy one of my boxes as a future container for her to-be-cremated ashes. She doesn't seem to be in any hurry, however, to actually complete the transaction. I suspect she may feel that as long as she doesn't have the box, she won't need it.
Marketing may be the solution to this problem.." Buy now, makes a great birthday gift for your mother-in-law (ex-wife, ex-wife's divorce attorney, etc)!"
Ray
http://www.casketfurniture.com/
One wonders why in a thread approaching the magical 300 posts nice people would propose copying other people's ideas.
;>)
Bob,
Thanks for the website on casket furniture. How did he know that I had come up with this idea already? He stole my idea before I ever told anyone about it. :-)
Enjoy,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Richard! HI!having steadfastly kept out of this thread and merely observed its meanderings I'll mention that some of my work has been copied..What you expect? You make Beautiful stuff! What can I say!
Charles,
I know that there is more to fine woodworking that Knots and Fine Woodworking Magazine. There are also places like Woodcraft and Rockler.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Ha ha...so no Shaker repro line for you.
Good work. (I'd still like to see some of it.) Seems you've done well for yourself.
Most nights are crystal clear, but tonight it's like he's stuck between stations.
This is a real interesting discussion. I think the key words are" for a profit". I don't think as a professional that we should be stabbing each other in the back like that. I would love to see pictures of the original stool and the copy, that way we could see if it was a blatant rip off or just similar design.
I have no problem with an amateur copying my designs if they see them somewhere and if they take the time to ask that's even better.if I have a spare moment I'm more than happy to talk about it.
I had a chair picture published in the old American Woodworker and got a call from an editor from anoher magazine who wanted to talk about the back design. I ended up sending him a drawing of it and he sent me back a very nice little bowl. When he was done he sent pictures and he ended up using the back design but changed it a fair amount to make it his own.
Tom
It's like the cover tunes for a band trying to break their own music.
Most nights are crystal clear, but tonight it's like he's stuck between stations.
Very good point. Posting images on knots is also voluntary, and I don't think we can critisize anybody for not posting. Regardless of the reason.
Regarding the best sources of criticisims I have to agree. Woodworkers (specifically hoobiests like me) tend to be less interested in the overall design and more interested in what joints were used.
Some of the best critisim I've received hasn't been from artistic types at all... rather the end users of the furniture.
"If your definition of 'theft' is that it is only theft if the designer is actually hurt by the matter then I vigorously disagree with that."
I certainly wasn't saying that, and I don't think Mel was, either. What I was saying was that if someone happens to be stealing my ideas, I don't care, as long as it doesn't affect my ability to make a living. In other words, the question isn't, "Is it theft?" Rather, the question is, "Why should I care?"
There are far more important things to worry about....
-Steve
Charles,
You keep wondering why I think that all non-reproduction furniture is modern.
Well, my mind is very limited in its capacity. I haven't been able to think what other genres one could make non-reproductions in. Please give me some examples. Don't feel shy about doing that. My wife does it quite frequently, and with a sly grin on her face. That is the way I learn.
For example, one could design a piece "in the Eastlake tradition", but which is not an exact reproduction of a specific piece. I don't think of that as stealing. I do think of it as a reproduction. Same for Chippendale or Hepplewhite.
I don't think that anyone does "perfect reproductions". Adam tries to come close, but his boards probably weren't made by a top sawyer and a bottom sawyer, and he uses electric lights to make it easier to see. I use modern eyeglasses that wouldn't have been available to our ancestor woodworkers. All of those things change the situation. Life and furniture-making is much easier now. Air conditioning, inside plumbing make it easier.
I hope you don't think that I am picking nits. This philosophy stuff is tough. When is something a "copy" and when is it not? When I said this thread was content-free, I meant that I have not seen much about the parameters which determine the degree to which something is a copy. If I make a copy of one of Richard Jones pieces, but I only use antique tools, and he used modern tools, is my piece a "copy"? If my piece looks like his, but I used different internal joinery, is that a copy? If I use some of Maloof's joinery techniques, but on furniture that doesn't look like his, am I OK in not sending him a check?
If I copy one of Buster's designs but I use a Roman ogive curve where he used a regular ogive curve, is that a copy? Suppose I make a "copy" of one of Ray Pine's Chippendale pieces but I use all modern equipment and modern finishes, but I use biscuits or Festool Dominos for joinery, who do I have to send checks to? Suppose that I try to copy one of your sets of chairs, but I do it so badly that you laugh at them, are they "copies"?
To me, the most reasonable approach to handling "copies" was the one by Richard Jones. He is a practical guy.
Have fun.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Hi Mel,
I have designed and built several entertainment centers/ tv cabinets, in traditional styles, from Shaker, to Shenandoah Valley Piesafe, to Chippendale. Also more than one "coffee table" in the Queen Anne style. Even, once, a telephone stand! Are they modern, or reproduction? Of course there was no such thing in the 18th century for me to copy, so is it an original design?
From where I'm standing, as a fellow who makes a living (well I guess you could call it living)
1) building furniture from photos provided by customers, photos which may be of antiques, or others' original designs--sometimes it's impossible to tell when looking at a postage-stamp sized picture-
2) designing furniture to agree in style with customers' existing furnishings, antique or new
3) frankly copying furniture-antiques or reproduction-for the folks who own the originals being copied, or for those who could never afford the things they admire in books and auction catalogs.
I'm starting to get a real inferiority complex. It's hard for me to imagine creating something original. And beautiful. Much less worth copying; even less so, getting upset by the copying.
The etymology of the words we are using is interesting and revelatory, I think.
Original comes from the Latin word that means "I arise" (not seen before)
Design, again Latin, "From a mark." (a drawing)
Derivitive:"From the river" (taken downstream from the source)
And I can't help feeling that the guys whose work is being talked about the most as being copied or copyrighted are, well, derivitive themselves. D'you suppose that Maloof never saw an "arrowback" Boston rocker, or that Moser never saw a Windsor chair? What was the name of the "last stone age man"- the Indian who was found in California back in the 30's? Maybe he had an original design. But I believe his arrowheads were pretty traditional, too.
Ray
Darn it, Ray.
You come in and throw water on the fire. Now the fire is out, and we are left with the nothing but the pile of facts that you threw at our pile of unstated assumptions.
I don't know why I am fascinated with this area of copying designs. As a hobbyist, a good deal of what I build is from the plans that others have published. When I look at the world out there, I see a lot of furniture that is far more beautiful (in my eyes) than the designs that I make myself. Luckily many of the designs that I see and like are in books which have the plans alongside them. I buy the book, make the piece, and help my daughter get it to her house. That is the "natural law". It cannot be disobeyed.
I do empathize with the professionals who make their living at it. I am not sure how that is done. Maybe someday, you and Charles Stanford and Richard Jones can come my Woodworkers Guild and give a talk on how to make a living by making fine furniture. The three of you would have to split the $45 honorarium.
You and I have discussed this area a lot of times. I agree with your view of the situation. The only place I really disagreed with Charles is when he said that it is not in the best interest of professionals to put photos of their work on a website like Knots. I believe that the professionals on Knots don't have much to worry about in terms of the hobbyists stealing their designs. If we tried, we'd fail. I have never seen Charles' work but I have seen yours, Richard Jones', Rob Millard's, etc etc etc., and if I continue to improve at my current rate, it will be late in the year 3067 before I am capable of reproducing them.
Thank you for continuing my Latin education. After three years of that in High School, I thought I was finished. The Latin meanings of design, derivative and original are quite informative to this discussion. Also:
Non illigitimi carborundum. "Don't let the illegitimate ones get you down."
Quid me vexari. "What me worry."
Designo, ergo sum. "I design, therefore I am."
Actually, I just made the last one up.
Have fun, and thank you.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
A little more latin.
Sharpei Diem – Seize the wrinkled dog
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? - How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Domino vobiscum – The pizza guy is here
Fac ut gaudeam - Make my day------------------------------------
It would indeed be a tragedy if the history of the human race proved to be nothing more than the story of an ape playing with a box of matches on a petrol dump. ~David Ormsby Gore
That was an excellent set of Latin wisdom, Dude.
I will have to carve some of those Latin sayings in oak, using nice Roman capitals. Have a nice weekend,
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
don,
And the one that keeps me in my place:
Quid rides? Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur.
Why are you laughing? If the name is changed, the story is told about you.
Ray
Edited 8/31/2007 5:09 pm ET by joinerswork
Ray,
Perfect!
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
If your definition of "theft" is that it is only theft if the designer is actually hurt by the matter then I vigorously disagree with that. Most vigorously.
With due respect, can you explain why? Is loss not one of the elements of theft? Why begrudge someone an apple from your tree if had he not picked it, it would have fallen to the ground and rotted? I understand that I have the conceptual "right" to have my apples rot as I please, but why would I care to enforce such a right?
The matter is further complicated in furniture design by the quicksilver aspects of trying to put your finger on what consistitutes a proprietary design. I'm not familiar with Art Carpenter's portfolio, so I'm curious what is it that he makes that is so original that others ought not make similar pieces? How much variation is enough to make a similar piece merely derivative and not objectionable?
Charles,
Your point about the man who made a living by copying the designs of Art Carpenter is a very poignant one. It really made me thing. It seems that Art was not hurt by this. My thought is "No harm, no foul." If I were Art, I would be pleased that someone else could make a living by trying to copy my stuff.
Elvis has lots of impersonators. None of them are very good, but they are entertaining. Elvis did a favor to a lot of people by giving them something to copy. There was a time when the Presley empire went after everyone who was producing images of Elvis on velvet cloth. I was very disappointed by that. If I were in charge of the Elvis empire, I would sponsor annual Elvis festivals and have competitions for the best "Velvet Elvis" paintings of the past year.
Before your message, I had never heard of Art Carpenter. I just googled him, and saw a number of his designs. He definitely is ####very creative guy. His stuff is kind of wild. With all due respect, I can't imaging anyone buying it. But then again, my tastes may not be all that well developed, and no one pays any attention to my ideas on style, so I doubt Art will be upset by my reaction. Art is far more creative than I am. I try to be creative, but still, most of my stuff looks "derivative" and it is. As I said, I am a hack to enjoys woodworking and enjoys trying to improve my skills. It is quite possible that my taste will never improve.
I just went back and look at more photos of Art's work. The more I think about it, the more his stuff looks "iconic". His music stands look like lots of modern style music stands. His spiral staircase is nice, but not much different than other modern spriral staircases. Nice stools. Wild tables. Can he prove that his stuff was not based on other similar designs that exist? Actually I wouldn't ask him to do that.
I gotta go, and do some woodwork. I have surpassed my word limit for the year.
Have fun.
Thanks for the challenge. This has been enjoyable.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
If you haven't heard of Art Carpenter then you really ought to bow out of threads like this.
Give me a break. One can meaningfully debate intellectual property topics without having encyclopedic knowledge of famous woodworkers and styles past and present.
Forgery is wrong. Blatent knock offs are galling to the original artist. Obviously.
In every art form from music to painting to architecture to wood working, this is issue is always present. Everything is derivative, and little is honestly new or original. People will invariably ape what they perceive as good. It is a spectrum however that runs from counterfeiting/forgery/knock-offs at one end to the completely never before seen on the other. The middle is huge, and the ethical boundaries far more blurred than stark.
Charles,
Did you try to insult me by saying that I should bow out of this thread because I have never heard of Art Carpenter? :-)
Actually, I have very thick skin. I don't take offense. If you read what I wrote, I insulted myself more than anyone else could insult me. I really am aware of my limitations. However, I not only do a lot of woodworking, I do an awful lot of reading, and am learning at a rapid rate. Now I am aware of Art Carpenter, because of you, and I thank you for that. I know of all of the other people you mentioned, and have read a lot of their stuff. I have probably seen writings on Art but just skipped over them quickly because my interests lie in other styles. No harm meant. I only have so much time. Of course, I would have more if I didn't spend time on Knots.
I was very surprised by your saying that making furniture "in the style of" is not copying. It seems to me that most of the comments that I hear about copying are about copying the style of Sam Maloof, not about copying exact pieces that he has done.
In the fashion world, you hear phrases like "In the style of Versaci". To say that someone else designed something "in the style of Versaci" is essentially to say that the designer is not doing "his or her own stuff." but rather is making money by using ideas developed by someone else.
If doing something "in the style of" is not copying, than I have never copied anything in my life".
I hope we are still friends. I guess you used to think too highly of me. Now you know more of my flaws. I am merely a hobbyist who is trying to improve, and to do in such a way that I enjoy the journey. I doubt I will ever be recognized as a great woodworker by anyone other than the members of my family who get all of my products for no cost. My having a Knots conversation with you is analogous to my attempting to play a duet with Yo Yo Ma on cello. I would be out of my league, and both of us would know it.
I have learned a great deal from you in the past, and in this thread. Thank you for widening my horizons, if not my taste. The latter would be too difficult. I was raised blue-collar. :-)
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
It does seem appalling for a furnituremaker (amateur or professional) not to know who Art Carpenter is, although I'm sure you do.
I'm a hobbiest woodworker. Never sold a thing and have no plans to. I'm also pretty terrible with remembering names sometimes. When you first mentioned Carpenter, I couldn't summon a mental picture of his works. After a quick Google search I was reminded of having seen articles and interviews several times - including in FWW, if I recall correctly (band saw boxes, shell desk, etc.). His work is indeed memorable and wonderful, even if for me, his name had been misplaced in my neural file cabinet.
I endeavor to trod the path of the follow-your-nose/muse (self-taught because it inevitably leads to a measure or originality) styles of folks like Carpenter and Maloof. By style, I don't mean the style of their pieces necessarily, but instead their approach and attitude of making pieces informed by organic curves and the human form and intended use of the objects. We all have certain woodworkers who strike chords for us - whose work resonates with us and inspires us. We don't aspire to make copies of the works from their hands, but instead we identify with their approaches and attitudes as expressed by their actions, words, and their pieces themselves. Masters like Maloof and Nakashima are in this area for me, but so too are newer talents like J. Rusten and many others. All that said, I wish to be exposed to more, because I learn something every time I see another woodworker's take. It helps develop my sense for quality generally - a sense I can then apply to my own meager efforts.
Charles,
Thank you for an edifying discussion. That was fun. Thanks for clueing me in on Art Carpenter, and what is that other guy's name, Da Vinci?
I hope we get to meet someday. I'd like to see your shop and the type of work that you do.
I plan to spend a lot of time in my humble shop this weekend.
Have fun.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
I am not sure how you could make that assertion. I spent a bit of time just now looking at everything I could find online of attributed to Art Espenet Carpenter.
His work is very good, but is also very similar to a host of other "organic" modern works from the same time frame.
He taught for years. Are you sure the guy you say was ripping him off, might not have been a past apprentice, who Art himself had shown how to do those works? Which can result in a marked similarity.
Stanford,
So if I make an exact copy from a Carlyle Lynch drawing, who's going to sue me?
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Charles,
Creating original works.
I was gonna say, yeah, my children, moreso than any furniture. But even so--
Well, it depends on your interpretation of original. In the sense of "never before seen", I don't think so. In the sense of "not quite like that one over there", maybe. Sort of like the bumper sticker that reads:
"You are unique. Just like everyone else."
Design, I can claim, as I draw most of my projects, or at least lay them out (mark them) before I start cutting.
But are guys like Nakashima, or Krenov "designers", when as they say, they let the wood "express itself" thru their work, rather than imposing their ideas on the wood? (A bit of arrant nonsense, by the way) OOOps, I guess I answered my own question, there, dint I?
Ray
To start with, your attitude and tone are obnoxious.
There is damned little "original" work out there to copy. All things are derivative. The only "new" works are driven mostly by changes of materials, or tooling. This is true for nearly all of the art forms. Everything else has pretty much been done. Try to do anything photographically that wasn't done by the West Coast photographers from between the wars, (Cunningham, Weston, Adams, et al). There isn't anything in any photographic style that one of them didn't do, and do as well as it could be done. The advances in the medium and equipment were all that allowed anyone to do any better technically and their form and composition is still unexcelled.
I know there are many tremendously talented artists out there. I also know that many of them are doing things that are extremely similar.
If two artists are working with materials that are very much alike, and designing to the same aesthetic, their work will look very much the same. Yes, there will be small differences. But the major form and lines will be the same.
The West Coast organic modern style is/was driven by a movement back towards things that are not straight and true. Carpenter and Maloof both are examples of that style.
Why did they move towards the flowing lines? Because, with the advent of inexpensive power equipment it became very easy to make things that are straight and true. Jointing a 12-foot piece of wood with a hand plane is an art. Jointing that same piece of wood on a jointer that has a bed the size of the deck on the Enterprise is far less so. Making a fair curve by hand is still an art form that few seem to master.
It was a reaction to the advances in tooling and materials that the commercial shops had available, and a move towards what the machines would have a hard time duplicating. Similar to the Roy Crofters, and Craftsman pieces driven by the advent of power tooling that could do joints that could only be done by hand before then. The machines made it possible to mass-produce things that could only be done by craftsmen until then. The craftsmen adapted to a style the machines couldn't duplicate. If you look at most recent "styles", they were driven by the production of elements the machines couldn't do.
I read an interview with Sam Maloof, where he commented on a style element, (a style of drawer front, iirc), of his that had been stolen by the guys up north. As I read the description of what the element was, I thought to myself that it was a simple fix to a common problem, that given the underlying nature of the style they were all working in, had occurred at about the same time in the near vicinity. Same problem, same tools, same materials, same esthetic, will almost always result in a very similar solution. If you asked the guys up north, I would bet that they would all say Maloof stole it from them.
Charlie,
I am glad to see that you are still operating in Black & White mode- you almost looked mellow in a couple of your previous posts. :-)
I am hoping you will one day manage a post of ony 1 character - a minimalist and stark posting with even more meanng than you convey in your slightly longer missives. Perhaps a "!" or a "$". Then again, there is always "-" which sums you up nicely (forgive the pun).
Ah, if only the world were really Randian - one feels you would be happier were there only 3 heroes and 6 billion vicious fools. Would you yourself be one o' the heroes, a fool or merely a wise observer from that planet Superman came from?
Lataxe, a Charlie fan
PS If only you would have a good idea now and then - I would steal it just to keep you happy.
Charles,
Some of the things the Carlyle drew for Old Salem are (or purport to be) protected, and according to a note on the drawing, may not be reproduced for profit, except by agreement with Old Salem . At least that's the case with the Old Salem drawings I have, from the 70's. Other museums that allowed him to copy things may feel the same way, I don't have all his drawings.
Ray
Charles,
Jaded.
You've heard the story about the young bull, and the old bull? They were penned in, in the upper pasture of a farm. One fine afternoon, the young bull says to the old bull, "Man, look at all those pretty, young heifers, down in the lower pasture. What say, we run down, bust thru the fence, swim the creek, break into their pasture, and breed one of those fine looking young things?!?"
His older companion gives him a look. "Let's walk over to the gate, nudge the latch open, stroll down to the bridge, go up the lane into the pasture, and then we'll breed 'em all."
Maybe I am jaded. Hey, I've been at this for a while. Maybe I reached a point where excessive ego is more baggage than I want to carry. Seems to me, that self-promotion is the biggest part of achieving acclaim as an "artist" nowadays. And if it satisfies you to think of and promote derivation as originality, that doesn't take a thing from me.
There are folks who advertise in the back of magazines, who will paint your portrait in the style of a famous (dead) artist. Is that an original piece of artwork, or good craftsmanship? That is essentially how I see what I do. Is the performance of a piece of music by an instrumentalist or singer, an original work- or a reproduction of the composer's work? While he or she may impose a certain amount of individuality on it, it is still recognisable as Chopin or Bach. The best I can personally summon up from my muse, is a "variation on a theme". I'm not going to beat my chest about it, and call it original. You, and the art world may disagree with me. That's okay with me. I'm sorry that disapoints you, but I'm betting you'll be able to cope. ;-))
Ray
Cbarles,
A guy in at work had a cartoon on his wall. It was of two dogs talking to each other. One was typing on a computer keyboard, and saying to the other dog, "the nice thing about the internet is that no one knows that I am a dog." If you think about it, it is quite poignant. It is more trouble than it is worth to find out if someone who makes posts on a website is who and what he says he is.
When I meet someone new on Knots, I look up their past posts to see if they have posted any photos of their work. I actually do that after I google them to see if they have a website. That isn't a perfect way of finding out what they do, because even their website could be a fake, but in the case of woodwork, it just wouldn't be worth the trouble
I have seen Richard Jones' work, Ray Pine's, Rob Millard's, etc. I don't "copy" any of it. I do that to get an idea of the type of work the person actually does. I look for the work of the other hobbyists as well as the professionals. It really gives me a feel for what they are interested in and capable of. That influences what I ask them.
I know you are VERY protective of your work. I have tried to google you. I find posts of yours everywhere -- lots of words, but no photos. Is there any way I can see some of your work. Even old work would be good to see. I guess that if it is an old design and you aren't making it anymore, then it wouldn't hurt to put a photo up.
Any chance that we could see a piece or two of your work?
I am beginning to wonder if you are actually an agent for the FBI and you are looking for bad people on the net, and "woodworking" is your cover.
No evil intent here. From your posts, you seem to have a great deal of experience. You are the person on Knots who claims to be a professional woodworker, whose work that I have not seen. You challenged me the other day to become more knowledgeable of the great woodworkers. You might just be one of those great woodworkers that I need to learn about.
I hope that you don't think that I am too forward in asking for this. I am trying to become more like you -- and say what is really on my mind. I believe that in the past, I have been too courteous and self deprecating. Maybe the world needs another personality like Charles Stanford. I feel it coming out now! You love to challenge peopled. OK. Now that I have totally changed and become like you -- I challenge you to put up a photo of your work. It just may be that you have been copying my work. I'd like to find out. :-)
Darn, that felt good. I like my new personality. I gotta go now and try it out on my wife. There are some things about her that I want changed, NOW! She'll be a lot better off after I give her some advice.
Well, I guess I am not exactly like you yet. I used a :-) above, and I haven't seen you use one yet. I wonder if Knotsworld is ready for the Mel II . I may even adopt a few new Knots names. Do you have any advice for the new me?
Mel II (aka "Chuckie")
PS - From now on, when I sign "Mel II" or "Chuckie", Knotheads will know where I am coming from. This is going to be fun.
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Charles,
Gotta love the internet! I went to edit my post and deleted the whole thing.
I can understand not photographing your own work, if you would prefer to have professional lighting, etc. But what about the website? Surely that would be a way to reach more customers? Just curious.
Lee
Charles,
Thank you for your willingness to send me some photos. I will not publish them, or post them or anything. I will look at them and then erase them.
Thank you for your offer to do a commission for me. I am not in a position to have people make furniture for me. I don't sell any of my stuff. I just make it for my wife and I, and for our kids.
But your offer brings up an interesting point. Mapleman just asked you to publish photos of your work so that we can all see what you do. I am positive that I am not the only person who wants to know what your furniture looks like. I don't understand how you can get commissions without going out and actively advertising. It must be that you are so good that you have no need to advertise. That is possible I don't think you will get many commissions on Knots. Most folks here make their own furniture.
I have dreamed about buying some things here on Knots because of the photos that have been posted, but my bank account doesn't allow it. If I were to buy anything, it would be:
1) a piece by Ray Pine. I have seen his work face to face, and he is one of the best (IMHO). Besides he has the best sense of humor of any woodworker I know.
2) a piece by Rob Millard, because I drool when I see his work, and because he tries to help others learn.
3) a plane by Philip Marcou, because of Philip Marcou.
Those three "mental purchases" will only become real if I hit the lottery, but it is nice to have dreams.
If you notice my list and my reasons above, my "dream purchases" are more based on the person who created them than on the piece of furniture itself (although all three are incredible craftsman). These are three folks who I admire. First I look at the person -- woodworking comes second. Actually in the scope of issues in the universe, woodworking is not very important. It is just one of zillions of things that people can do to improve themselves and the world. To become a great woodworker, but to have failed to evolve as a person is not a worthwhile goal, in my way of thinking. I hope that when I am gone, the people who knew me feel that they were better off for having known me. I don't want to be remembered as being "right", but as being someone who was liked and respected. I guess it would be nice if they remember that I tried to be a good woodworker, but it wouldn't be that important. I don't think that St. Peter is going to ask me if my tenons fit in to my mortises with a "piston fit".
I am really looking forward to seening the photos that you are going to send me. Please rest assured that I will not spread them at all. Through those photos I will get to know you a little better. As you pointed out, places like Knots tend to have heirarchies or pecking orders. After I see your work, I will know where to put you in my idea of a heirarchy of woodworkers. As of now, I have no evidence that you belong on such a heirarchy. Please read my last statement as if you had written it. You have no idea how much you have influenced my thinking (about dealing with people). You have not influenced my ideas on woodworking at all YET, because I still do not have any evidence that you have actually produced anything. Soon that hurdle will be crossed. I am looking forward to it.
After seeing your work, I will look at you as a woodworker, rather than just a writer.
Mel II
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Hi Mel
It is true that Charles sent me photos of a couple of his pieces, a cabinet and a chair. Both were beautifully built and I really liked the designs. There is little doubt in my mind that Charles is a very accomplished cabinetmaker.
I did promise him that I would not distribute the pictures.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,Good to hear from you. Charles told me that he sent photos of some of his furniture to you. Glad to hear that you thought they were good.
Charles said that he is going to send some some photos too.
I can't wait to see them.
Like you, I will honor his request not to let anyone else see the photos. MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Charles,
And, it's hard sometimes to separate originality, from artistic merit. To continue your writer analogy, Edgar Rice Burroughs had one he11 of a vocabulary, and a vivid imagination. That doesn't make him a great writer. I really liked his novels, in the 8th grade. By comparison, Ernest Hemingway apparently didn't have, or at least, need, much of a vocabulary. As you say, it's how they put the words together.
I think that a lot of artistic types put too much stock in "novelty", trying to be original, and too little in creating objects of beauty. That staircase-clock in the recent FWW magazine is a case in point.
And, I'll freely admit, that I am lacking a certain something that allows me to appreciate the avant garde. Maybe I'm wrapped up too tightly in my own insecurities to accept there's something worthwhile outside my little cell I call "classical beauty".
Ray
Charles,
Awww...shucks. (Head down, toe scuffing the dirt.) I knew we'd come to an agreement. We both think I'm terrific.
Ray
my little cell I call "classical beauty"
Awww...shucks. (Head down, toe scuffing the dirt.) My comments would have been...I call a "classical beauty" a brunette!
Awww...shucks. (Head down, toe kicking a beer can.) We all have different ideas about what is 'beautiful'
I for one like (almost any work) I see that was made by anyone that uses wood. I would not knock anyone (well Andy below) because I do not have any idea what 'ART' is. Not the side of my brain I use. Although I think 'some of the things I make are at least 'kind of nice?' and when I see something I REALLY like it must be ART or at least great woodworking..I see things I 'think' are goofy but what do I know.. The person making it probably LOVE it! To me sort of like looking at something Andy Warhol did.. To me it is all trash! But then again I just 'LOVE' almost anything by Salvador Dalí...No hate here just my old brain thinking and gettin' me in trouble again.
Hi Will,
Good to see your name here again. I married a brunette with classical beauty. You are right of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. ANDY(not Warhol)Rooney is a woodworker. The desk he sits at while being a curmudgeon on the show "60 minutes", is one he built himself. While it looks to me like he was trying to be G Nakashima when he made it, that's fine with me. I try to be like T Chippendale sometimes. ART Buchwald might be a woodworker, I don't know, but I bet he'd like his work, too, if he was one.
I don't believe in kicking a can when it's down.
I like Dali too, have since I saw "the land before time" or whatever it's called when I was about 10 and we went to Washington DC on a school trip and saw it in a gallery. He had a great moustache. Moustache with panache.
Ray
Charles,
After I see the photos that you aaid that you would send, I will do three things:
1) determine for myself whether you have the credentials to be considered an adequate furniture maker.
2) see how I would rank you with other furniture makers whose work I covet.
3) check to see if my finances have taken a dramatic turn for the better.
I don't understand you, Charles. I really want to know that you have adequate woodworking skills. I am not the only one, as you can see from other posts. Why won't you show us that you have demonstrated woodworking capability, and not just a good knowledge of woodworking terms?
You said that you used to have a website but it drew the wrong people. I have seen many woodworking websites. All reflect their maker. It may be that if your website were different, you would get different results. Here is an offer.
I will help you put together a website which comes across positively to people who might be interested in buying high end furniture. I will do it free of charge. But in order to help you, I need to have some photos of your work. If you have good capabilities, I can show them in good light. The rules for a good website are fairly straightforward.
People respond to how they are treated. People who get insulted, talked down to, not given information, etc, generally react negatively. That is not a good thing if one is trying to sell
I don't know what you are really like. You have a distinctive "persona" on Knots. Of course, your Knots persona may have nothing to do with the real you. You try very hard to sound like you are talking down to people. Please note that I am not commenting on how often you are correct or incorrect. I am only commenting on your style -- one which is guaranteed to put people off, and not to get them to buy from you. This is not new, and your new name is not the first name under which you have acted like this.
In my 64 years, I have only run across a few handfuls of people who acted like they have a superiority complex. When I looked closer at each of these people, I found the obvious -- they don't have a superiority complex. Just the opposite. They talk big because they don't feel important.
Suppose that you are a great woodworker. Who knows? We may establish that sometime, if you provide any evidence. If you are a great woodworker, and you keep your current persona, you will not be a good salesman. I recommend two things:
1) demonstrate your competence -- show people that you can build furniture.
2) demonstrate that you can be a person who people want to buy from.
If you do these two things, I believe you will have a happier and a fuller life, both as a person and as a woodworker.
I have noticed that you treat the professionals on Knots well. It is the hobbyists that you try to speak down to. That is completely in keeping with the thought that you just don't have high self confidence. Some with self confidence would find no reason to treat anyone poorly. Why would they bother? Why would anyone bother to do that? The only possibly good outcome would be that it boosts you own ego. (and that is not a good thing).
Given how poorly you have treated me, I wonder why I still want to see you do well. But I do. Let me help. Please stop talking about my buying your furniture. It is not about to happen. Instead, let me help you modify your persona to become someone that people like to deal with, and might want to buy from. It won't be easy, but we can do it.
Tell me. Has anyone else on Knots been as nice to you as I have?
You can do it, if you really want to.
Come on. Give it a try.
Be nice to everyone. Treat them with respect. Complement what each does well. Be generous. You said that you respect Derek. That is good. He is all of the things that I just said. Try to emulate him. You will learn something that my mom told me at least a million times:
You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Let me help you. You are helpable, I think. In any case, it is worth a try. Think positively. Read that old book "How to win friends and influence people." It could change your life.
I gotta tell you. When you deal with someone, and you see them smile, it gives you a good feeling. Give it a try.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Charles,
I just read your message to Ray Pine. Congratulations. You were very nice to Ray. By the way, I read your response to Ray after my last message to you in which I said that you tend to treat the professionals well on Knots and the hobbyists poorly.
You have shown that you can do it.
Now try treating everyone like you treated Ray, not just the ones who are better woodworkers than you.
Nice going. There really is hope for you.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Charles,
I'm no nuclear physicist here, but I don't see why Mel would commission you to build a piece of furniture for him when:
He is a fairly accomplished woodworker
You spent the better part of 10 posts belittling him
I think he just wants to know (like about 100 others of us) that you can build furniture as well as you can stir the pot. I'm beginning to think that all of this smoke and mirrors about you quoting on a job for Mel is hogwash. If you have photos to send to Mel, you can post them here for all to see. You would lend a great deal of credibility to your posts if there was proof to back up the things you say. And sorry, but a note from your mommy (Derek Cohen) won't do. Show us the homework or get a failing grade.
Regards,
Lee
Enough is enough....................For whatever reason, you are obsessed (a deliberate word choice on my part) with finding neat pigeon holes for everyone who regularly participates at Knots. Me thinks your thinking has been too much influenced by the DSM manual ......................While there are a few here who have stepped out of the closet to show their woodworking wares, most remain anonymous. In real life we give weight to a person's words based on all sorts of extraneous factors -- their job, their socio-economic status etc. But here, these anonymous contributors are judged by the worth and sagacity of their woodworking advice/comments -- without consideration of whatever merit badges they may have gathered in their life.And I'm fine with that. In fact I count it as one of the pleasures in participating at Knots -- i.e. figuring out, based on their words, who is worth listening to, and who is not. As far as your offer to administer "nice" pills to Charles -- I was offended, and I can only imagine what his reaction must have been. Clearly, he is perfectly capable of tailoring what persona he chooses to display to our little community, and he certainly does not need any help from you. Charles has been wandering these halls for years with his various identities (my favorite was TaunTon Macoute). Acerbic, sarcastic, always ready with his shiv to puncture a position or argument -- altogether a genuine curmudgeon. Even though he has pulled his shiv on me a time or two, I appreciate his presence here.Unlike you, I further appreciate the fact he is not engaged in a popularity contest, vying for the Mr. Knots title. He calls 'em as he sees 'em, and he most certainly does not have to post pictures of his work here to validate his existence and justify his participation.********************************************************
"It is what we learn after we think we know it all, that counts."
John Wooden 1910-
Nikki (& Mel),
Knots needs Charles - no doubt about that. There is oftimes a lot of niceness (in the Elizabethan sense) and even outright flattery within Knots - both are (to use an American term) icky. One day Knots might well become like some other WW forums, full of shy folk who do not want to scare a goose. (Why go there)?
Personally I find Charles' aggression "stimulating" but also amusing. I doubt it's because he is hiding an inferiority complex with a superiority one. More likely he is hiding his megalomania with a mere high-handed attitude. :-) But the world needs more eccentrics (it really does, in this time of rabidly individual clone-people).
Charles sometimes says a thing to make one think. He rarely argues in any meaningful sense of the word but one may still find one's little philosophies of life jiggled a bit by his hard-and-fast pronouncements. Sometimes he will even have a proper discussion with someone he admires, although one has to extract it from a strange and icky wrapping of sycophancy. (What is going on there)?
Whether we believe Charles' work is great, poor or non-existent doesn't matter. In reading a Knots post I look to learn about all sorts of stuff besides what someone else likes to make and how, as you point out in your post Nikki. Charles provides a somewhat hot & spicey flavour but perhaps that's better than even the biggest dish of vanilla gruel.
You can't help liking him, in the same way you admire a Yorkshire Terrier, even when it chases your cat or bites your ankle. (They are feisty little tykes, albeit most amusing when they are biting someone else).
Still, Like Lee and others, I wish Charles would just give us some woodworking wisdom now and then, inclusive of the demonstrative arguments and illustrations, instead of constantly indulging his terrier gene and substituting Stark Pronouncements for reason. Perhaps if he put away his Ayn Rand and immersed himself in Fenyman's "Six Easy/Hard Pieces" for a while........? (A different style but probably a lot more heroic).
Lataxe, admirer of wild thangs.
Lataxe,
Good to hear from you. I have always enjoyed our exchanges. You are very interesting to converse with because you are quite intelligent and very clever. (If you think I am being icky, you are wrong. Rather I am being extremely incisive. If you cant deal with my being as blunt as I am, please let me know, and I will tone it down.)I just responded to Nikkiwood, and he said that he likes to have "Genuine Curmudgeons" around. I agree, and I used you as an example of a genuine curmudgeon. You are interesting, and you get very incisive, but you do it cleverly. To respond to you requires cleverness, knowledge and intelligence. It is like doing the the really difficult crossword puzzle on a weekend. The challenge is quite enjoyable. To me that what being a curmudgeon is all about. It is the sauce that flavors the meat. Just saying what you think doesn't make someone a curmudgeon. Hitler said what he thought. He was madman and an evil person. My guess is that he was one of those people who felt they should say whatever they want, but others should not. I don't feel that is curmudgeonly. Rather it is cowardly. "Give and take" is fun, but it has to be done with a pure heart, and among friends. I would rather that the President of the US and the Premier of China not play around with unprepared "give and take". Too much room for a misunderstanding with bad consequences. PLease note that you wrote to me about Charles. I am responding without regard to Charles, and except for this one time, I won't use his name in the rest of my response. The reason is: the point of the discussion is about appropriate behaviour on a website. So lets continue in that vein. Suppose you are in my workshop, and you see me about to do a "free form cut" on my table say. I believe you would be right and correct, and yelling and screaming invectives and doing anything to catch my attention before I did something dumb and life threatening. That is GOOD behaviour, even if you resorted to insults while doing it. But after you had saved me, I would hope that you remind me that you were only trying to get my attention and save my life. There is a story about the turtle and the scorpion. The scorpion asks the turtle to give him a ride on his back, across the stream. The turtle says, "If I do that, you will sting me and I will die." The scorpion says, "of course, I won't do that, for if I do, we both die." So the turtle agrees. Half way across the stream, the scorpion stings the turtle. The turtle says, "Why did you sting me? Now we are both going to die." The scorpion responds, "Because it is my nature."Now you know what I think about curmudgeons and Hitlers. Hitlers are scorpions. It is their nature. They are not "give and take" type people. Curmudgeons may "talk with flavor", but their nature is not one of a scorpion. So now we have come to the nub of the issue. Curmudgeonly talk is fun from someone with a good heart. But when it comes from someone who is genuinely being nasty, it is not only useless, it is harmful. It does not add to the quality of a discussion in real life or in Knots. I suppose you could do an experiment. Try being curmudgeonly with your wife in a truely nasty way. (Actually I don't recommend this.) I was just making a point. Mom always said "Treat others as you would have them treat you." She was right. You get away with it because you do it with a pure heart. You have a good nature. If you get "incisive" with me, I feel I can make a retort in the same vein, and you will take it as it was meant. Keep being yourself. You do it well. Please allow me be myself. I think I do me as well as anyone that I know. I know that you do you better than anyone else.
Enjoy,
Mel
PS - in all of my time on Knots, I have only had two disappointing encounters. One was with Riverprof. Remember him? The other was the one that got this discussion started. Given the large number of wonderful exchanges, one can only conclude that Knots is a great place. I hope we keep it that way.Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
This is a rambling post, in honour of your own proclivity (and mine). :-)
You plead: "Please allow me be myself. I think I do me as well as anyone that I know. I know that you do you better than anyone else".
Old chap, I cannot prevent you being yourself, only you can do that (as Mr Roark might say).
In truth I do sometimes wince when you do the flattery and the nicey-nice, as I read Charles Dickens as a lad so am wary of unctiousness. But you are Mel, an interesting, capable, voluble and worthwhile correspondent, in my view. It is no hardship to gulp a bit of your sweetness down as there oftimes is meat under the sugar coat.
Why worry about changing your self if it's really "you" typing away? More to the point, why try to change others into something you somehow imply is better or more appropriate? That's like trying to own a cat, keeping it indoors and cutting its claws off so it can't be "naughty". An unnatural act.
***
I read lots of your posts and usually get something out of them, often what you intend and maybe other things too. Isn't that all either of us can expect or ask for?
I hope I do not sneer or belittle, unless to reflect a similar attitude from another (not you) as it is my hobby to practice a crude Kingsleyism. (I love Mrs Do-As-You-Would_be_Done_By but feel a Mr Do-It-Back-To-Em-With-A-Will is a legitimate extension of the personality type).
Lataxe, one of your interlocutors, not your best friend.
PS I am fascinated by your carving tales - an aspect of woodworking I have not yet even attempted but glance at enviously, from time to time, in a second-hander fashion.
Lataxe,
I am responding to the message you said is long. I didn't think it was. The great Albert Einstein once said "An explanation should be as simple as possible, but no simpler." When you tackle difficult issues, more space is not only appropriate. It is necessary. You spoke of change. At our ages, not many of us change out stripes. Changes are incremental, not monumental. There are a lot of people on Knots, and they are quite different. When humans get into large social situations, they tend to hang with folks with whom they feel comfortable. I am a social being. I enjoy making friends. A surprising number have taken me up on my offer of dinner and a visit to my home and shop. Each of those has been both fun and useful. Luckily I have found more than enough people on Knots who I want to correspond with and who are willing to correspond with me. So things are good. Now lets get back to talking about woodwork.
Most messages end without a "complimentary close". I will separate from custom, and give two here. You can pick whichever you choose based on whether you like icky or curmudgeon.1) Nice talkin with ya. Write back soon.
or
2) Y'er ugly and yer woodwork looks like it was made by a sick beaver. Mel
PS, so how was my "curmudgeonly complimentary close"? Did I get it right? Did it make you happy? Do you see how far I am going to be seen as less icky?
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
Don't go changin'
Just to please me.......
I like you just the way you are.
Lataxe, who could have been Frank if he wanted but not Billy (stayed David after all).
David,
I won't be changin.I saw your last post to Ray Pine, and then I read your message on your Marcou planes. They blew me over. Just a few days ago, you said that I am too nice (icky), and that I use too many words. Then I read those two posts by you, and I looked up how many posts you have made. You have made many more posts than I. If I hired ten full time writers to help me, I couldn't catch up to you on words written to Knots.Then when it comes to niceness, I am not worthy to touch the hem on your garment. While I fully agree with both the tone and the content of your letter on the Marcou planes, I could never dream of being as syrupy sweet as you. I have seen others have the same excitement as you. They had just come back from a revival meeting and had found God and been baptized. They, like you, were in full rapture. They were caught up in the light of niceness, just like you. You write so well, that when I read your thoughts on the planes, I became as enraptured as you. I felt your joy at a distance. I used to rank order people on niceness. I used to think that God is the nicest, followed by Mother Theresa, and then Bob of Kidderville acres, followed by Rob Millard, then by Ray Pine, and then ......Well, after reading your messages on the planes and the one to Ray, I have changed my niceness rankings. Here are the new ones
1)Lataxe
2)God
..
5)Mother Theresa
..
7) Bob of Kidderville Acres
..
10) Rob Millard
..
27) Mel
..So back to your message to Ray. You took the right tone in speaking reverentially to Ray. Here is why. And no one else knows this. Last Saturday, I was walking by a stack of Festool Dominos at the local Woodcraft store, and a bright light appeared. An angel stepped out, wearing a plaid shirt, halo, long flowing white robe, etc, and spoke to me.The angel said "Mel, God asked me to speak to you about the woodworking community. You know, what with monitoring the Internet and everything, God is too busy to look at everything that is going on in the world, so She has sent representatives to various communities as her agents, and that they report directly to Her." I was so excited. I asked, "Who is God's rep to the woodworking community? Is it Thomas Lie Nielsen, Leonard Lee, pzgren, who, who, who????" The angel said, "Calm down, Mel. None of those is the chosen one. God appointed Ray Pine to report on the woodworking community, because he is very nice." I was so excited, I said to the angel, "Great. Ray is a great guy. By the way, is "niceness" a good thing to be? Lataxe says I have gone too far with it." The angel responded "Lataxe knows about great planes, but he doesn't know everything. Help him." The angel continued "God told me to let you know that you could only pass this information on to one other person." Then the plaid-shirted angel disappeared into the bright light near the pile of Festool Dominos.So in keeping with the wishes of God, as expressed to me by the angel, I have decided to help you by choosing you as the only one I would tell about Ray's position. It turns out that your decision to be deferential to Ray is a very very good thing. His connections are even bigger than I thought. Please don't spread this around. If you spread the word, everybody will be sucking up to Ray. Already I hear that Ray is telling woodworkers that he will put them high on the list he sends up each week if they buy a piece of his furniture. I hope he doesn't get in trouble. Well, I gotta go. I want to go back and wait by the Festool Dominos to see if the light reappears. I have a lot of questions that I still want answered by the angel. Should we be using oilstones, waterstones, or diamondstones? Is the new Tormek worth the extra money? Should I get the low angle smoother or the York pitch for figured woods? What about the new extra fine ceramic waterstone from Shapton? If Ray gets fired, who is likely to replace him. I'll keep you posted. Meanwhile, keep them Marcou planes smokin'. It's good for the upper body. Write a book on the use of hand planes. You could become the Tiger Woods of the handplane world. Watch out, David Charlesworth! Move over, Rob Cosman! Here comes the new King -- King David (hey, that has a nice ring to it.)Have fun.
Mel (back in fine fettle)
PS See, I told you I wouldn't change. My posts are still too long.Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
I started an archive of some of the more humerous posts here in Knots nearly a year ago. It was/is hoped to write a novel from these but after this discussion I am beginning to have second thoughts about the legalities, etc.
When I read your post I thought, "Oh Great! Here's a new one for the book!" Well, I started down through the many entries and you know what? Nearly all of the were from Ray! As a matter of fact, they all were! Not one of mine made it..........
So now I must plod back through all the posts and make sure I didn't miss one. I'll post an update when I get back.
As for the potential legal issue I have hired a legal person of the highest caliber as recommended by a police officer from Istanbul. Also, he rides a yak so he must be good.
By the way, I'm more than just a little chagrined from my downgrade in the Nice Guy standings which points to further evidence that I'm getting to be a crotchety old f#rt.
Would you recommend that I start taking estrogen and become a prefessional wrestler? Then I could vascillate between a Nice Guy and a curmudgeon! Oh what fun that would be!
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob,
You have my permission to use any of "my" stuff for your book.
Actually, I have not written any of my stuff. I have copied all it from old books by Art Buchwald and Andy Rooney. None of these words are mine. All of my humor is derivative. However all of my woodwork is "mine and mine alone." I have been noticing that some of the stuff at Sears looks like some of my stuff so I have to go check it out. It is hard to believe that anyone would steal my designs. And then there is that Nakashima guy. I was thinking about some stuff, and he steals the thoughts from out of my head, and goes and builds the stuff and writes about it. That is just unfair. I thought of it first! About your niceness ranking: you are still pretty high!About Ray's writing: I am amazed at the guy's mind. I was about to say that he is a great writer but that is not exactly the best way to phrase it. Actually he is a great thinker. His writing is only average. :-)Darn. I hope he doesn't read this and then lower my ranking on his weekly list for the Big Girl up there. Have fun.
Mel
PS is there any chance that this thread will reach 500 posts? What exactly is the record?Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
That angel was really Richard Jones (did ye no notiss th' wee burr in yis voice)? He likes to take the mick. Of course it could have been Charles - although you would then have been instructed to "Get that Toohey"!
I am posting lots at the moment as the plane-playing has taken a bit of my shed-momentum. However, I have just begun a large oak trestle table for my mate who has decamped to Scotland. (All his abandoned timber is mine-all-mine in exchange for making the table). Many will be grateful that this means I'll shut up and bugger off for a while.
Inevitably, the table design has been pinched and adapted (from a Frank Lloyd Wright original).
Lataxe, who has been showered with gifts from heaven just lately, so must be Good.
PS I am an unchristened pagan and my favorite god is Pan (love the hooves and curly black hair, not to mention the bad attitude). That god you're on about is an invention of the second-handers and a means to persuade us all to self-sacrifice (or so I read somewhere).
Lataxe,
Good luck with the table. Nice way to get good wood!!!Sorry your mate is in Scotland. I gotta go there sometime. My wife is of Scottish extraction, and we have to check out her roots.My plane-playing has not been as glamorous as yours, but two days ago, I flattened the sole of a 1968 Sears Craftsman Jack plane. What a workout! I sweat like a pig for over an hour. I used sandpaper glued to the jointer bed. It would have been nice to have a big belt sander. When I finish up this plane, it will have taken a number of hours and will be worth about $25, but it is great exercise. The plane was unused. It was still in the original box. Please post photos of the table when you are done.
Slainte,
Mel (channeling Richard)Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
All,
There is no doubt in my mind. Mel smokes crack, then visits the Festool display, then posts on knots. If you see him in the hardware store, RUN AWAY!!
Ray
Ray,
I know an Indian fettler can make your Injun glow like new!
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 9/6/2007 2:21 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Hi Bob,
Radium paint?
Ray
Ray,
It was not crack.
It was bubinga.
I was sanding and not wearing a mask.
I think I got a "sander's high".
As soon as I stop sanding, and only use planes, I'll be ok. Actually, I was thinking that since Jesus spoke in parables, maybe I should try the same thing. I thought it was a pretty good parable.
I learned about that stuff while doing exegesis for two years at Catholic University in the early '60s. Can you imagine? A group of people sitting around trying to figure out what someone meant 2000 years ago? It did make for some great arguments among those who tried to look like they really were taking it seriously. MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
You and Jesus sitting around, telling parables to one another. Incomparable!
Ray
Ray,I looked at another thread, and I found some guys talking about woodwork. What do they think they are doing? This is Knots. Then I read another thread on Lataxe's purchase of 235 Marcou planes. Well maybe not that many, but a lot of them. And someone commented that this discussion on planes and sharpening was yet another excuse to ignore real woodworking. AHA! What an insight. When I first got on Knots, that is all I could think about. When I saw people in the Cafe, and all of the other threads on whether your plane ought to have a backbevel of 5.3 or 6.7 degrees, or whatever happened to the high quality of Delta tools, etc, I began to see the light (not the same one that I saw near the pile of Festool Dominos). It seems that there are a lot of professional woodworkers who want to converse with other woodworkers, but they need a break from real woodworking topics. Heck, woodwork is what they do all day. So "tangent topics" are the order of the day. It is a wonder that newbies can find the needles in this haystack. (Notice how I, a mere hobbyist, am "talking down" to the newbies.") Even the dog needs something to kick. (son of a gun, maybe there is a little of Charles in me.)It took me a long time to figure out why these threads either get away from woodworking or they get esoterically focussed on an etherial detail. The fact that I realized this reminds me of the 14 year old kid in English class who stands up and shouts, "OH MY GOD, ALL MY LIFE, I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING IN PARAGRAPHS". Sometimes the obvious eludes us for a while. Then when the wind settles, we get back to basics -- oilstones, handplanes, and mind altering substances (damn, that bubinga dust is powerful). Well, there is another parable.
My next one will be an hour and a half long and will explain why the people who built the first hand planes used them in a "pushing" fashion rather than in a pulling fashion. I still need to develop some plausible explanations, and an excuse to include some photos of good looking women.
Have fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
What's this theory of yourn? "........will explain why the people who built the first hand planes used them in a "pushing" fashion rather than in a pulling fashion".
Just this arternoon I've been pulling (and a bit of pushing) at an ebony Mujingfang try plane whilst jointing the geet big oak boards for the table promised to my marra who's gone north of the border (Scotland). This jointer plane is a far eastern thang and looks like it was invented in 5467 BC. It is far down the evolutionary ladder compared to a mad coo, anyway.
So, why is pulling the thing the natural way? Perhaps it's our property instinct, so we don't naturally push the desirable article but rather pull it towards us in a physical act of greed? "Come to daddy my precious"!
Or, it may be simple genetics - perhaps biceps are stronger than triceps, despite their numerical disadvantage?
Of course, western planes are all pushed. Perhaps it is symbolic of our individualistic modern mindset: we are pushing away the world and all its realities in favour of a daydream more to our liking. This is how fingers get cut off and then the realities return with a vengeance.
Of course, all this is entirely theoretical but why should having no experience of a thing stop one from making up hard and fast rules then purveying them as the obvious truth? An added advantage of such rules is that may exclude everything but "What I Do" and then one's chest can puff up a bit.
In my next post I may recommend that all woodworkers adopt the fretsaw and throw away their other saws, as I once read a book by Aloysius Cantanker who recommended the fretsaw and sneered at owt else. He was a Master, or so it said in his book.
Lataxe, Theoreetician Extraordinaire.
I saw.. So, why is pulling the thing the natural way? Perhaps it's our property instinct, so we don't naturally push the desirable article but rather pull it towards us in a physical act of greed?Yes.. I'm a man I hardly ever push a woman.. I usually pull her towards me. The Japan folks not stupid!
WillGeorge,
I liked your response to Lataxe on the Japanese approach to saws and women -- pull them toward you. You sound to me, like a genius of the first ilk. I am going to have to ditch my Lie Nielsen dovetail saw and get one of those Dozukis. I want see if I can cut dovetails while hugging my wife. Previously my thinking was more conventional, but listening to your reasoning kind of reminds me of Bill Clinton. He could be working on anything and still have the capacity to work a woman into the scene. He opened mens minds to things what we never dreamed possible. I don't know what else he did. I think he may have been president. In any case, this is just my way of saying hello. You hang around with important people like Ray Pine, Bob of Kidderville Acres and Lataxe, so you must be important too. I am not. I am a hobbyist woodworker from Northern Virginia, who enjoys Knots. Every once in a while, there is something on Knots about woodworking. I read that stuff too. I do case furniture and carving. I don't sell anything. The kids and the wife take it all, which makes me feel good. I am looking forward to trading ideas with you here on Knots. Of course, that assumes that I can generate an idea to trade. If I can't, then in the spirit of this thread (Is Someone Copying Your Design?), I'll just have to steal a few ideas. :-)
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Lataxe,
To be a theoretician is to reach the pinnacle of human intelligence. For to be a Theoretician, one must have the cognitive capacity to format, organize and integrate existing knowledge and from that to formulate an explanation which transcends what has come before. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. I told Ray that I was going to develop a parable on why planes are pushed rather than pulled. No need to do that now. Instead, in the spirit of this thread, I will just "borrow" yours, if you don't mind. I certainly couldn't do any better.By the way, I don't know this WillGeorge character who has also written to you, but I want to get to know him. I saw his answer to you, and I like the way he thinks. He worked the idea of women into the argument with no difficulty. A guy like that has a deep appreciation of how the world should be prioritized.I saw Ray's message to Philip in your thread today. I think Ray is just jealous that you have more and better planes than he does. I know that I am. Enjoy,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
You recommend: "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis".
Let us not forget the final bit: application in the real world (experiment & technology). Many do forego the bit connected with reaity and then we have the isms, dogmas, catechisms and (in the worst cases) burning those with "incorrect" (no proof required, either way) theories at the stake.
Sometimes I suspect there are one or two Knotters who would like to round the rest of us up and conflagrate us in a bonty of our own furniture and tools. "Heretic!", they would cry, as they danced wild-eyed around the pile, waving their copy of Frid or Cantanker, enjoying our cries of woe and accusations of injustice.
Then they would go home to beat their wives (failure to be as theoretically wife-like as they oughta).
Lataxe, philosophy student.
Lataxe,
I don't think you have anything to worry about. For the most part, I see a "live and let live" ambiance in Knotsworld. This is a fun place to see how many other woodworking life-styles exist. I enjoy how enthusiastic you get about your woodworking adventures. If I didn't know better, I would assume that you are Italian. (coming from me, that is a high compliment).
Enjoy.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel, (and Lataxe),
NOT JEALOUS, G-Dammit! Envious. I'd be jealous, if Lataxe had MY Marcou. Since he has one (or four), and I don't, its envy, pure and simple.
Ray, the semantician
Ray,
You sound like a Jesuit that once taught me philosophy.So you are envious of Lataxe for his Marcous. Me too. But my plane envy has lessened in the past few weeks. I have come into an old wooden try plane made by the New York Plane Co. I would not part with this plane for love nor money. I'll show it to you someday. My set of planes may now outnumber yours. I have:
- two old Stanley block planes. One low angle, and one std.
- a 1968 Sears Craftsman Jack Plane,
- a Stanley Bailey #4 that came from my father in law.
- an old Stanley router plane that I bought on EBay
- a Stanley #78 duplex rabbet plane,
- a wooden Maloof-type block plane that I made,
and the old wooden try plane that I told you about. Actually I have one more, that my wife keeps in a display that she has made. It uses a razor blade as its iron. Very clever, those early American tool makers. Now if Thomas Lie Nielsen sends me one of his #8 jointers, I'll be able to get by very well. Well, maybe a Stanley #55 would come in handy too, for cutting part of the patterns for linenfold carvings. Let me know if you see any holes in my set of planes. Thanks,
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
If you only have two wooden planes, you need more, lots more. Hollows, rounds, fillesters, ploughs, ogees, ovolos. Used to know a fellow who had shelves full of 'em. He gave me a wooden bead plane, my first molding plane; and a lot of other old stuff he didn't want. I think he liked me--maybe he was using me as a trash dump! A friend and I used to frequent his antique shop. Hewas a salty New England transplant, with a mouth like a sewer. He'd berate me and my friend for hanging about the shop drooling over his antique tools, instead of working on projects we could sell and then spend the money in his shop. "Gyad-dyammit, whaddya boys doin' wit' all yer spare time??!! "Gyad-dyam bunch a jokahs!!"
He had a silver mounted,ivory,four-fold 12" rule. That was a thing to be envious of.
Ray
Ray,
Glad to see that you drool over tools too.
You must be part human.
I will acquire more planes as I learn to tame the beasts in my shop.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
I'm part human. What are you?
Are you part human too?
Don't tell anyone.
They'll banish us, you know.
Ray, shamelessly stealing Emily's design (to return to the topic at hand)
And, of beasts, from Stephen Crane:
In the desert
I came upon a creature, naked, bestial.
Crouching in the sand,
He held his heart in his hands, and ate of it.
"How is it, Friend?" I asked.
"It is bitter, bitter," he replied.
"But, I like it, because it is bitter; and, because it is my heart."
Ray,I read your poetry.
You "steal" well.
Nicely done.
You are the poet lariat (cowboy poet) of Knots.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Too bad Maslow didn't cover the need to barf on the way to self-actualization.
Tauntin'
As long as you clean up after yourself, ya rough old cob.
Ray
Mr Acute,
I would actualise myself if the little homunculus inside that is the "I" could be found. Alas, there seems only to be a set of semi-automatic biological processes along with an emergent complex thang that thinks it is "myself" but is just a rationaliser of the biologcal process decisions after the fact.
Lawd, what are we to do? No worries, we (who ever that is) will do something as to do nothing means there is effectively no one. Some will do more than others and therefore have to rationalise after the fact very hard indeed. Some will come to believe themselves heroes with free will (until a biological process lays them low; but even then "they" will lie to "themselves" and pretend they willed better health - unless they die of course).
Now, some folk like to emulate a vegetable. But even the veggies live and act; I have watched them down at the ladywife's allotment, growing and wilting. Of course, they cannot skip out of the way of that bluddy great rabbit that hangs around down there. Is this not the fate of all biological entities - to meet their rabbit? Even the rabbit must meet the thang that de-actualises their little rabbit-self! (It's a weasel or a .22 perhaps).
"I" blame the memes, the little parasites. Without them, we would not be so self-conscious and fashion designers would have to find another job.
Lataxe, who is never sick (strong stomach).
David, I mean Ray,
Be careful.
Keep a watchful eye on your Injun. I think you're being goaded into a trade for a Magoo. I've seen reference to it in several posts. Placing an Injun between your loins is just not proper.
I have an army of Mr. Stanleys standing at the ready should you need them. Just whistle towards the backhouse and they'll be on their way, ridin proudly on their reproduction Injuns!
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob,
I will be vigilant. A visit from Mr Magoo himself is being discussed. Perhaps he'll diagnose a mechanical problem on the Chief while he is here: "Must be a faulty MAGNETO!" Peering thru oversize specs.
Unless his plane leaves atrail of broken parts in its wake, it wouldn't be a fair trade. He'll have to come up with something else, to boot.
And 530# of cast iron between ones loins has been suggested to be a substitute for deficiencies in the same region. damhikt Don't mention it to the wife, either. A knowing laugh when the topic is raised is unsettling.
Ray
Or perhaps the 530# of cast iron is merely what is required for proper support of an overendowment.------------------------------------
It would indeed be a tragedy if the history of the human race proved to be nothing more than the story of an ape playing with a box of matches on a petrol dump. ~David Ormsby Gore
don,
Now why didn't I think of that?
Ray
Mel,
"By the way, I don't know this WillGeorge character who has also written to you, but I want to get to know him."
I know him. He is quite alright. Seems to be more prone to the charms of the ladies than most of us, but who can hold that against him?
Meanwhile, I really wish folk would stop making references to the "fondling of Marcous etc".(;)
As it is I don't know if I am Arthur or Martha in this Kiwistan place.....
Philip Marcou
Philip,
Thank you for letting me know about Will George. Sounds like a good guy.About your reputation -- I don't think what Ray and others was about you. IMHO, it was about a way of woodworking that Ray has gotten to be very good at over decades of making a living at making high end reproductions of Chippendale furniture, etc. Ray is the ultimate professional woodworker in my eyes. He doesn't collect tools. He gets and uses what he needs and if he needs something else, he gets it. Lataxe, IMHO is the essence of today's gentleman woodworker. He is playing at woodworking and trying to become very good at it, but not at selling it. He wants to have the best tools that he can get. Both approaches to woodworking are quite valid. Lataxe's requires planes such as yours. Ray's doesn't. It isn't about you. You are only mentioned because of the fact that Lataxe bragged about getting some of your planes. By the way, if I ever get one of your planes, I will do as Lataxe, and show photos, and brag, and show off. My wife refers to people like Lataxe and me as "yuppie woodworkers". But she doesn't realize that that phrase covers a lot of ground. I very much enjoy getting a new diamond honing stone even though I don't really need it. I do buy some tools that I don't need. I enjoy learning about them, and trying them out. The difference between Lataxe and me is only a matter of degree. One could buy all of the tools in my shop for around $4000. Most were purchased in used but good condition. I am not looking for sympathy. I am very proud of my shop and my woodwork, and I invite other woodworkers over all the time.It is an interesting discussion -- what tools do we need? What is "need"? The house I live in is better than I "need". My wife and I have three cars but only "need" two. So what about Lie Nielsen and Lee Valley planes, which are much cheaper than yours? Some of the professionals are saying that one can easily get the job done with old wooden planes or metal planes from bygone decades that can be bought for much less. They are right. They do it all the time. So if one doesn't need the "quality", whatever that means" of a LV or an LN, does one need a "Marcou"? My analagy comes from the auto industry. No one "needs" a Lexus or a big Mercedes, but people buy them all the time. That is a good thing. IMHO, your planes ore the Lexus's. They are works of art as well as of technology and craftsmanship. They are desirable for more than their ability to remove shavings from a plank. In the history of the world, once humans were fed and clothed, they develop music and art. Are they necessary? I believe so. Maslov developed a wonderful heirarchy of needs. I believe that your planes will be used by the woodworkers who buy them, but they will also be treated like a fine collectable painting. They will be passed down from generation to generation, and they will be called out by name in the wills and testaments. They will be like Van Goughs and Michaelangelos. Anyway, that is the way I see it. You should not take any offense from the comments that were made. No one meant any offense. Just continue to make and sell those beautiful planes. Last week, three people criticized me for being too "nice" and too free with compliments. I was saddened by that (but I had some chocolate ice cream and got over it.) I don't think that I am. You are the only maker of planes that I have ever given high compliments to. A compliment from me and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at the local Starbucks. My words are straight from the heart.MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
I hope I have not come across the cyberways as as being offended-or that I am wishing to offend anyone (worthless exercise).
However, having been in both camps (professional and no professional) I tend to try and see things from the relevant point of view: which means I could be in the position of not knowing if I am Arthur or Martha, but that is another story.It also means that at times I feel that one or the other may be missing out by sticking to "what he knows best, has always had and always does".
Right now, I am not sure if my little S45 bevel down smoother will be useful (to either camp) if it is fitted with a bevel up blade sharpened at 45 degrees-for scraping. I will be trying it out as soon as I have that blade returned from heat treatment. I also have the perfect example here in which I would not expect, say Ray, to have any use for this plane, but I do know of an elderly Kiwi buddy up the road who would use it to advantage (assuming it tests out well): this person makes the most superb small boxes using exotic highly figured stuff. His hands are arthritic, (Card scraper causes difficulties)and he tries to keep dust to a minimum-allergies. He would rather cut than sand or card scrape. So both Ray and Ralph are professionals, but one has more affinity to a change in blade angles than the other.
Incidentally, Will George has a great affinity to Bubinga....
Edited 9/8/2007 8:49 pm by philip
Hi Mel ,
Some thoughts based on your post .
As example , you could pay as low as $179.00 for a 10" table saw , or up to about $7500.00 or more for one as well .
You could most likely make the lower cost saw do what you need it to . The bucks up model will do the same or better job with a higher degree of proficiency and accuracy with less effort on your part , for a longer period of time .
I think the same is true with a truly fine hand tool in comparison to a lower cost imitation . Do we need them ? Or do we simply want them ? Will we do better work if we have them ?
Imo I think we can do the job more efficiently and with more consistent results when we use the best tools we can get , in general . If you have never used a hand plane it may make little difference which you used on a given project . However it may take less time to become proficient with the better models .
For those who want and can afford the more expensive and finer models , they buy them . Like Brother Lataxe , that's why he is still driving that 1958 MGB car.if I feel it's worth paying more for a huge jointer as opposed to a guy who needs a gynormous lathe then that's a personal judgement or value or maybe desire based on the type of work one desires to do .Others may be fine with a smaller version of whatever tooling .
To put things in perspective I would ask you this question ,,,
As much as we all want the Marcou's , would you trade your $4,000 worth of equipment and tools for the same value of planes ?
This is in no way meant to dis credit any product or custom tools , rather to put things into perspective .
Personally being a machine tool junky wood butcher that I am , I could make one heck of a pile of beautiful thin and provocative shavings while flattening and edging fine boards with a few Marcou's , for sure . Now if I could keep my other stuff and still have the Marcou's , life would be sweet indeed .
dusty , da wuud butcher
Dusty,
You think better than I do, and you write better than I do.
Nice post.Psychologists have still not figured out what people mean when they say they "need" something. It is a strong emotion, and certainly not one which humans often attempt to overcome with incisive reasoning.Think of the overweight person who "needs" another helping of French fries. Think of the smoker who needs another cigarette. Think of the curmudgeon who "needs" to insult another human being. Think of the alcoholic who needs another drink. Think of the woodworker who needs a Festool Domino! What's the difference? If we all could overcome our weaknesses, habits and biases, it would be a very dull world. Luckily we are not all that logical and reasonable. Instead, we are human! Three cheers for us. Let us celebrate GOOD TOOLS.
Indeed, if I were to choose a motto for Knots, it would be:
"Liberte. Egalite. Fraternite. Good tools."A demain, A piu tardi, talk to you soon,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
To use a woodworking expression, you hit the nail on the head. I wish I'd expressed myself as clearly as you have done, in my stead.
I learned about Maslow's scale of needs in a psych class in 1971. I thought I needed an Indian motorcycle when I turned 50. Musta been pretty far down the list, from a struggle for food, shelter, and love by then, huh? And today, there are needs I have, that will never be filled, that put a different perspective on all the other "needs" I thought I had.
Ain't life a puzzle?
Ray
Ray,
"Ain't life a puzzle?"Yup, don't ya just love puzzles?
Have fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
Sometimes, not always.
Ray
Ray,
Your response on puzzles was puzzling. Since we are within reach the thread reaching 500 posts (less than 310 to go), I thought I would post a puzzle for you. In the spirit of the title of this thread, did I steal the following poem that I wrote (a long time ago). You will recognize the main character but the circumstances are completely different. So should I have sent a check to the folks who penned the original? Here is "my" take on Puff. I warn you that this poem contains adult concepts (like unrestrained war).THE DRAGON WHO KEPT HIS COOLTwas many and many a year ago,
In a kingdom overlooking a bluff.
A dragon there lived whom you may know.
He went by the name of Puff.
This kingdom was strange as kingdoms go.
For it was made up of dragons solely.
The dragons had an enemy, and they were afraid,
for their enemy was something unholy.Their enemy consisted of a flock of terns,
which are birds of course,
They outnumbered the dragons by a hundred to one,
so they were a superior force.
They would hide in the bushes and in the trees
so their attack would be a surprise.
When the signal was given, up they'd spring,
and scratch out the dragon's eyes.The dragons were aware that the terns were around.
They all went into hiding.
They all lost their cool, except for Puff.
His time, he wasn't just biding.
He was inventing a weapon with which to fight.
His weapon shot off stones.
He'd take his invention and kill those birds,
or at least, he'd break their bones.When his work was completed, he left his cave.
He never said a word.
When the terns attacked, he killed them all,
except for one little bird.
He figured the tern was harmless, because of its diminutive size.
But when he put down his weapon, the tern sprang up,
and immediately scratched out his eyes.This poem has a moral, as the story intoned.
Never leave a tern unstoned.
------
So did I steal "Puff" or did i sufficiently redo the story that the poem is really mine.MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
My opinion: You stole.. Your poem is a reproduction of Puff the Magic Dragon, in the style of Poe's Annabelle Lee.
CStan will say you are the creator, as the words have never been in that arrangement before.
And it is at least somewhat original in that the last line doesn't scan. I happen to like very much poetry written "with apologies to..." It is because I grew up reading Mad Magazine, some of whose doggerel inspired me to look for the real thing.
Are you familiar with Robert W Service's "The Face on the Barroom Floor"?
How's this:
Twas summertime at Newport Beach, a motley crowd was there,
Of bearded motorcycle bums, while cops patrolled the square.
The local shops were closed up tight, with shutters battened down.
For word had spread from mouth to mouth, "The cycle mob's in town!"
Their jackets were all of leather, all inscribed with fearful names:
"The Flying Wheels", "Hell's Angels", "The Roaring Vulgar Dames".
The beer flowed free as each bum spoke with pride of his machine,
When up the darkened street, a Honda sputtered on the scene.
Upon it sat a vagabond, his face alive with fear
As rowdies soon surrounded him to curse his bike, and jeer.
After many more verses, it ends:
The toughs all pulled out hankies to give their misty eyes a wipe.
Such graceful sweeping handlebars! What a gently curving pipe!
The vagrant crouched, and eyed his work, then gazed at those above.
"So now you know," he said, "How I became a fool in love,"
"No life have I, without that bike!" he cried out in torment.
Then forward fell, to leave his face imprinted in cement.
Even though it is a copy of Service's original, I think Mad's version is an improvement, for, in addition to the more meaningful subject matter (motorcycles, vs. unrequited love), it is not maudlin.
One aspect of stealing another's design, is that there is the possibility that the copy may be better than the original. Unpalatable as this may be, it does happen.
Ray
Ray,
I will rest easy knowing that Cstan would say "my poem" was original. Robert W. Service was a genius.
Mad Magazine was a hotbed of genius-ism.
I read it religiously back in my high school days.In these days of internet, finding out what is original is almost a joke. Everything travels at light speed and morphs as it goes. My stolen "Puff" is better than my original poem on Saltshakers.
I wrote this one day in my college cafeteria.Ode to a SaltshakerOh little saltshaker, with top so bright.
The crystals inside you are full of might.
They make the food in this cafeteria,
whose quality is rather inferia,
taste really good,
like food really should.
All hail - the saltshaker.
-----As you can tell by its quality, I stole none of this one. It is all mine, except for the words which I got from the dictionary.MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel, you and Ray should get a room.....
Charles,
That was unworthy of you. I read your post in the "saw" thread. Nice post. When you stick to woodworking, you are a valuable chap indeed. Your "barbs" are so common that they are like a concerto which is all crescendo - loud, boring, uninteresting and not very creative. You sound like a 13 year older in the schoolyard, trying to sound macho in order to gain respect. Most people outgrow that. You have long been like worn-out sandpaper. You have lost your teeth. You could gain them back if you attempted more cerebral give-and-take with insight, witticisms, creativity and relevance. ATTACK FIERCELY, but attack an idea, not a person. That is for misanthropes.Obviously I don't expect you to do much with this information, but I assure you, I will make use of your useful posts on woodworking. If you do want to try to improve your ability in "joshing", please give it a try on me. I will continue to give you objective, clear and understandable feedback which, if taken, will improve your capability to get others to join in on the fun. I have been reading your posts in which you stick with your competence, woodworking. You demonstrate that you can make fine discriminations among tools and among techniques. Think of the fine discriminations you know how to make among saws. You know about set, and tpi, etc. Try to make fine discriminations about verbal sparring. Watch the others who are good at it. You can also learn from prizefighters. They never go out and just just keep trying to land knockout punches. That is a recipe for losing big, and losing in an embarassing way. The boxer who is always trying to land the big punch and failing is a good analogy to your attempts to land verbal punches. But the boxing analogy does break down in relation to verbal sparring. The boxer can instill fear through physical intimidation. The "verbal boxer" who is so unskilled as to always go for the big punch, instills no fear. The verbal boxer who is intellectually astute and does some feinting and schuckin' and jivin' can cause others to be envious of his style, and cause them to be wary of trying to "match wits" with him. I hope this helps you to improve. Until then, you would do yourself a lot of good (or rather you would keep from further embarrassing yourself) if you refrained from crass attempts at insults. I guess I should trying to help you. Maybe I should follow the advice of Napolean, who said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." But when you get right down to it, that is not really relevant here because I don't see you as an enemy -- but rather as a person who is struggling to find a way to stand out in the crowd. Don't look at the world as a giant opportunity to belittle others.
Look at the world as a vast array of potential customers and/or a potential sales network, and treat them accordingly. That way, you will get more commissions.Peace, brother. Now take a deep breath. Calm down. That's it. Now think a nice thought. Doesn't that feel good. Write a message to Adam and tell him how much you respect him as a person. He will be so startled that he will gasp for air. If, instead, you send him an insult, he will just feel sorry for you. Go ahead. Surprise him. Do something nice.MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Tauntin'
"Mel, you and Ray should get a room....."
Padded, I presume?
Ray
Ray,
I just got a call from Queene Anne, and collect to boot! She's mad cause I stole one of her legs!
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob,
Just stay out of her drawers.
Ray
Ray,
10-4. I took the knot outa her and now I've just gotta get rid of the bugs!
Oh and guess what!?
As poster #300 on this discussion, I am going to bestow the first Annual Knothead Award on y'all, AKA. Maybe I should call it the KAKA (Kidderville Acreas Knothead Award, KAKA. Na, I'm too modest.
I've got a piece of cherry that has a knot in it. You are required to make something with it and post a pic in The Gallery within the next year. Think of it as a small token of my appreciation for all your help.
Yeah I know that is really small. Ah come on, let's have some fun.
Next year you can then send a knot, of your choosing, to someone that you designate and the challenge is on for them. Are ya ready for it!?
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 9/10/2007 9:04 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Edited 9/10/2007 9:05 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Bob,
Bring it on, big boy.
2444 Fairview Rd
Mt Crawford, VA 22841
Charles, send me a couple pics, and I'll use Bob's board to copy one of your designs.
Ray
How 'bout I give you another Disston saw, still have a few lying around.....
Edited 9/11/2007 10:11 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
Taun,
You know I only ever use the tablesaw. ;-))
Send one with no handle, and I'll use the knothole in Bob's cherry for a finger loop.
Ray
Ray,
Congratulations on being the 300th poster to the thread.
Can't wait to see the award that will be made out of Bob's board. I have been finishing off some projects.
1) I finished my long chip carving knife, which I made according to the directions in Das Kerbschnitzen. It has a 15" long handle which was made from a 1" diameter walnut dowel. I'll post a photo. There might be a few other carvers out there who are interested in trying to replicate (Copy) the type of work that was done on the facades of houses and churches in Switzerland, Germany and Norway.2) I tuned up an old Sears Craftsman #5 Jackplane. It was an interesting and weight-losing experience. I did have an strange experience while doing it. I went to the local woodcraft to use their long jointer bed to do the flattening, and I asked for a straight edge. I got two of them from off the wall, and both said that the jointer bed was NOT flat. I pointed this out to the guy who runs the shop. He said that the jointer bed is flat, but that the rulers are not-straightedged. He gave me a "real straight edge". I am not sure that it is flat, but it matched the jointer table perfectly. :-)
3) I have been using my new diamond stones to sharpen my chisels and plane irons. Very interesting. They really do have a noticeable breaking in period. At first they are really aggressive. After flattening a few backs of plane blades, they lose some of their original aggressiveness. I hear that from here on out, they shouldn't decrease in aggressiveness. I have read that in a number of places. I am testing it out for myself. So far, I am very impressed at how much faster these things are than sandpaper or oilstones. Now I am going to make another long handled knife with a thicker blade. Finally I will make one with a skew chisel blade on it. The three should suffice. Sounds like you and Bob had a good time breaking the 300 mark. One small step for a man. One giant leap for mankind. Another famous line has been stolen.MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,
At first I thought I saw a bit of Blake's "Tiger, tiger, burning bright," peeking out from behind the salt shaker, but Blake as far as I know, never wrote a mangled limerick. I'll slide this one up on Charles' scale, from "stolen", to "inspired by", how's that sit with you?
The rhyme for "cafeteria" was inspired, imo
Ray
Ray,
Wally Wood was an old friend of mine............. Inspired me to get into woodworking!><{P I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Wood
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 9/10/2007 7:07 am ET by KiddervilleAcres
Edited 9/10/2007 7:08 am ET by KiddervilleAcres
I came to Stanford's defense partly on principle, but also, partly because he is just about the last of a dying breed around here. I like your reference to vanilla gruel, which I think pretty much describes Knots these days. And I don't mind admitting that I value anyone who brings a "hot & spicey flavour" to the mix. BTW, Mel has tried to suggest you fit the "curmudgeon" label, and FWIW, I couldn't disagree more. I don't know what dictionary he reads, but Stanford is the only person I know at Knots that fits the standard definition.And I say that as a complement to you.................********************************************************
"It is what we learn after we think we know it all, that counts."
John Wooden 1910-
Nikkiwood,
I read your post. You indicate that you like good incisive discussions with people saying what they really think. You fought for Charles' right to do that. Yet you seemed to be against my right to do that. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. If you want to be incisive, then the knife cuts on both sides. I was amazed at your comments on me. You think I am running for a popularity contest. You must not read my posts very well. I almost always use humor, but almost always to take the edge off of my point, which is often not a popular one. For example, I often argue against folks who take sharpening to the extreme by recommending that they buy an electron microscope. If you read my posts, you will often see that I am taking a hard shot at a position that I disagree with. However, I do not attack the person. I go after the idea. I have no interest causing someone to feel badly. I am interested in getting at useful information. There is nothing like a good incisive discussion to do that. Life is too short to spend time causing others to feel badly.I find that taking shots at a person actually takes away from the argument at hand. Don't you agree? Knots is a great place to get beyond the cursory, and down into what really works and what doesn't. The best person I have seen at doing this is Derek. He makes beautiful posts with many photos and he demonstrates why something actually works better than something else. He is very effective in making his point. I suppose he could do the opposite, and attack a person rather than shed light on an idea. Then he would be a curmudgeon, in your terms. But would he be more effective? Would it be a better discussion? Would it be a more effective discussion? I sincerely doubt it. Charles says he admires Derek. If so, why doesn't he emulate him? Genuine curmudgeons, IMHO, are actually quite nice. They let you see past their gruff exterior and make clear that they are having fun. Other curmudgeons are not so genuine. They seem to take greater pride in the insult than in the discussion. Lataxe is a "genuine curmudgeon". Lataxe is having fun and it is plain for all to see. I have had many great conversations with him. I really got a kick out of Boss Crunk. He was direct with me a few times, but NEVER mean or insulting. Indeed, one time he actually sent me a compliment. But for the sake of argument, what would think of my acting like Charles when I deal with Charles? Would that be ok with you? (not that it matters). Are you suggesting that Charles be allowed to act like he does, but not me? (not that I would).If I saw one of my kids doing something which I believed to be a behaviour which is not in his or her best interest, I needed to find ways of letting them know that their behaviour has consequences which they were not figuring on. One way to do that is to use a "spotlight and a mirror". Putting a spotlight on their behaviour lets everyone else see it, and hopefully some of the others will give them feedback that will influence them. Putting a mirror on their behaviour lets the person see himself. Do you think that Charles would like to be treated the way he treats others? I think not. I gave him a mild dose of his own medicine, and he did not seem to be happy. But that seems to be the reason he does it to others. He did it to me last week. His insult added nothing to the discussion. I wrote back to him about it, and he seemed to take great delight in what he did. Do you admire that? Is that what you are defending about him?Note that when I gave Charles a bit of his own medicine, I did not insult him as he insulted me. Instead, I merely read back to him what he did. Reading what he did sounds like an insult, because the behaviour was not appropriate. I was merely holding up a mirror to him so that he could see himself. He didn't seem to like what he saw. For consistency, I would guess that if you think it is ok for Charles to act that way, then it is ok for all to act that way. Is that true? Or is Charles special IYHO in some way?Since you like an incisive discussion, please be incisive. Tell me what you think of my thinking. My thinking has nothing to do with Charles. It has to do with behaviour on a website, and what is good, and what should be allowed. I heartily recommend very incisive discussions. However I believe in cleverness and intellectual artistry. It takes much more cleverness and intellectual capability to be incisive on an idea without attacking the other person, than it does to attack the other person. Indeed, attacking another person with words is what kids do in school yards. People who like to "dish it out" can be a lot of fun, if they don't mind it coming back. Interpersonal "give and take" is a fun passtime between friends who give and take and then pat each other on the back and have a beer. "Dishing it out" but not accepting the same in return is merely a disfunctional behaviour pattern.I am not recommending that anyone be charming or try for popularity. I recommend that people be incisive and to use behaviours that help the process continue.Please take this discussion, and let me know your ideas without mentioning Charles. This is not about Charles. It is about appropriate behaviour in a forum. Charles' involvement in this discussion is much like Rosa Parks' involvement in the civil rights movement. She just gave it a push. It wasn't about her. I hope that you don't mind my trying to make this issue "non-personal". I hope when you respond to me, you keep it non-personal. Thanks for writing. This is an important topic.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Your response to me requires more effort than I have time for right now.In the meantime, however, here is a description of the typical curmudgeon that mostly matches my own -- except perhaps the last seven words:http://www.concentric.net/~marlowe/curdef.shtml********************************************************
"It is what we learn after we think we know it all, that counts."
John Wooden 1910-
Charles,I got a message notification from TaunTon Macoute, but it was deleted before I could read it. I know I shouldn't care, but my curiosity is getting the better of me, and I am wondering if it was TaunTon or Taunton who hit the delete button?********************************************************
"It is what we learn after we think we know it all, that counts."
John Wooden 1910-
Excuse for butting in here Chuckie, but can I copy some of your designs?
Wait......no one has seen them.
Nevermind...
Mel, I read here these days more than I participate. But I have read sufficient numbers of your posts to allow me to form impressions of you and your chosen communication style.Let me respond to your points and questions, using my favored communication style: bullets (word used figuratively).... As I would defend Stanford's right to say whatever he thinks around here, in whatever manner he choses to express himself, I feel the same about you, and for that matter, anybody else that steps up to the keyboard to speak at Knots. ... I will admit I often find your posts difficult to follow, and "incisive" is not the word I would select to describe your style. ... Rather, you seem to be a person who would rather write 500 words when 50 would do nicely. Nothing wrong with that, you understand, but I do sometimes lose your train of thought amidst the verbiage.... Your post to me here is a case in point; you asked me to respond to your "thinking", but I am frankly at a loss to pull out your most essential points and offer my reaction. Moreover, you spend half your comments on Stanford, and then you suggest "let me know your ideas without mentioning Charles."... If, as you say, this is an "important topic," I challenge you to boil down the points you most want to discuss to something manageable -- say 3, or 4, or 5. I just reread your post, and I counted 15 items -- either direct questions or points that warrant response from me (that I have not touched on so far).Two points in closing:1) If you want "cleverness and intellectual artistry," you're talking to the wrong guy.2) But as you said, this exchange "... has to do with behaviour on a website, and what is good, and what should be allowed." Like you, I have my opinions, and I am willing to discuss them as "incisively" as I am able.********************************************************
"It is what we learn after we think we know it all, that counts."
John Wooden 1910-
Modern Master #9619 aka , Mel ,
We all see things in our own way . Your almost badgering for Charles to show you pictures of his works and your offer to help him market his goods was interesting , but I think you meant no harm and were actually serious .
The man told us he gets the majority of his commissions from a design firm or the likes I believe . The fellow also told us he is booked way in advance and Imho that would be an indication he needs no help from us , whether we have seen his works or not matters little .
You know all those pigeons you have seen usually near some older buildings ? Just because you have never seen any baby pigeons on the street does not mean they don't exist , the same is true of any of our best works that have gone unseen . Imo this does not diminish our talent nor the beauty we have created .
Show me your's and I'll show you mine , it's an old game , anyone can post pictures .
Mel I think your a kind friendly mild mannered sort of person , but you got a wee tad tunnel visioned on this one , maybe you could find it in your heart to accept what you can't see feel or touch , as with other greater things that also exist .
regards dusty
Dusty,
You are right.
Thank you.
Mel
PS
Nikki challenged me to be more brief. I am trying.Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Nikki,
You are right. I write too many words. Please check my posts in the future. You have changed my life. Take credit for it. Change your tag line to "I changed Mel, and now we are all better off for it." I'll sign that statement. Please tell Charles that I have thrown out all my Olivia records and now only listen to Heavy Metal. At this minute,I am trying to understand the words on this MegaDeath CD. I may buy an Ozzy Osborn T-shirt -- the one with him biting the head off of a live bat. I may go and swear at my wife. No, probably not. She has a mean left hook. Let's let this thing drop. I have sent a message to Charles with a peace pipe attached. Thanks for your help.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Aww, HE was TaunTon Macoute? I wonder how many other people got the reference. Very clever, Mr. Stanford. I was always a big fan of that one.
Most nights are crystal clear, but tonight it's like he's stuck between stations.
Macoute is back!
Edited 9/7/2007 7:38 am ET by TaunTonMacoute
Charles,
I love Olivia Nucular-Bomb. Bet you do too, secretly. "Have You Ever Been Mellow?"
HAhahaha
Ray
Ok, I'm going to be curmudgeonly. Since I'm an old fart and sometimes crusty! Who knows I might start to enjoy it.
Without looking, Does anyone know who the original OP of this discussion was? It certainly has strayed from the starting discussion.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 9/5/2007 8:10 am ET by KiddervilleAcres
Edited 9/5/2007 8:10 am ET by KiddervilleAcres
Charles,
You are right.
I enjoyed Olivia Newton John.
And my favorite TV show was Sgt. Preston of the Yukon.
And I was a Boy Scout.
I am not much of a fan of Rush Limbaugh or ??? Hannity. Mostly just insults, and like-minded people talking down their "opposition". Too much bile. Not much intellectual content.
Nikki asked me to be briefer.
I am trying.
Have fun.
Mel
PS would you be up for continuing to exchange posts, but without you insulting me and without my trying to help you? I have learned much from you in the past and would not like to lose the opportunity for more. I am much more comfortable in a less aggressive format. Life really is too short for hard feelings. I apologize for my shortcomings, and not handling things better. I promise to watch reruns of the old Kung Fu series in order to try to become one with the Universe. I am also taking a course in writing concise prose, on the recommendation of our mutual friend, Nikkiwood. Lataxe says I am "icky". I accept that, and will take a course on how to become un-icky.
I am raising a peace pipe. Can you accept it without doing much damage to your curmudgeonry? Hearing back from you on this would do both of us a lot of good. I still need a good lesson from you in how to sharpen hand saws.
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Charles,
You said:
Verbosity only works when you write as well as Lataxe, for example. I'll give him his props on this...
You are right. While not all posts on a woodworking website need to be cerebral, those on deeper matters are appropriate for deep intellectual disection. One doesn't have to read many of Lataxe's messages to know that he is one of the brightest stars in the Knots sky. We are not at a loss for smart people. There are a number of people whose references to art, philosophy, non-woodworking history, music, etc show that they are widely read, and that they are bring ideas from one genre to another. Ray comes to mind here.
I have always (that word is an overstatment) enjoyed the writings and words of Art Buchwald, Andy Rooney, Dave Barry and Lataxe. While I aspire to be able to use humor as they did/do, I have a long way to go (but I practice a lot).
Mel
PS I am writing shorter posts. Not short enough. But working on it.
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Charles,
Nikki suggested that all/most of all the old curmudgeons have left knots in another post. Where'd they all go? Go get 'em back if you know!
As I have just recently passed the 60 plateau in life doyou think I should practice curmodgeoness! Why not, my wife has thought that about me for several years now!
After a quick review of Jon Winokur's definition (s), I don't think I can do it. I need many more years upgrading my level of temerity and this one blows my mind,"they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor"
Nope, can't do it,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob,
I am tempted to invent another Knots persona and to employ it to do curmudgeon stuff, just for you and Nikki. Of course, you would see through me as I cannot summon up enough nasty these days (left it behind in the schoolyard).
Perhaps I should see the bodybuilders in the gym, to ask them for some of them pills they use to get all shouty, spotty and obnoxious? They will probably crush me and make me perform an unnatural act for their amusement. I will have to be rescued by a slip of a girl wearing a badly-designed leotard.
But I digress. It was a bad idea, anyway.
Lataxe, too soft by half.
Stanford,
Thanks for the response. I never asked for sugar coated. Just no bile.
Also, thanks for helping to take this thread to over 200 posts.
Lets get back to woodworking. I just made a knife for doing chipcarving on the outdoor signs, as the Germans and Swiss did on the fronts of houses and churches in past centuries. I have made one plane. This is my first knife. I got some information on how to make it from a book called "Das Kerbschnitzen". Pzgren gave me some help on the translation. Unfortunately the book gave no hints on how to use it, although they had a few photos of such a knife in use. The handle is about 15" long and the blade is about an inch and a half. It is used with two hands on the handle for leverage. I have a few old books on older methods of chip carving which may provide some clues. I will be trying the knife out shortly, and making two more (one with a heftier blade to see if that helps, and one with a double bevel skew chisel edge. That will be the end of my knife making for a while.
My guess is that you are into more formal forms of decoration. I also, but I have a long interest in primitive folk decoration on wood. I'll post some photos in a while. Everything I am learning here is derivative, but the derivation has been lost to the world. I have searched the web in French, German and English with no luck. I have even tried in Norwegian, where the term for chip carving is Karveskurd, but I can't fathom much in that language.
Just wanted to let you know that I am still actively doing projects. I am not trying to talk you into doing this stuff. Just giving you an insight into my current interests. I also bought a load of curly maple last night for an upcoming project to build a hutch for my daughter. Maybe, as a result of your post, I'll look up Ray's article on glazed doors.
Mel
Sorry about the length but is was all woodwork, no philosophy.
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Charles, you are so selfish. So you don't need critics and you don't want compliments ... all you you you. What about us, Charles? We want content. We want entertainment. Whether it's eye candy or worthy of ridicule is of no matter as both are quite entertaining. So get with the program. You owe us as we have given you the greatest gift there is: attention.
Samson,
Charles believes that selfishnes is good (I do too) but he also holds that selfishness excludes altruism. One day he may understand that's it's possible to synthesise the two - when he accepts that dialectic is a reasonable process and not an Evil Thang invented by Collectivists intent on denying him his freedom to be an arteest.
Still, he has plenty to contribute; just not much on woodworking. I would dearly love to see some of his work so I could pick holes in it. This would please him as it would allow him to re-Toohey-vise me and his ego would get its daily bread. :-) (Of course, I would be secretly copying him the while as he surely does only Original Work).
I have always liked badgers, despite the growling and the dangerous teeth. It is splendid when they can also type.
Lataxe, a second, third and probably up to 28th-hander.
PS I feel an urgent need to post something about woodworking for a change......
I feel an urgent need to post something about woodworking for a change
I've been puttering with a tool cabinet recently. It was one of those things where I noticed a space on the shop wall that would fit a cabinet (roughly 16 x 44") and also some nice new Auriou rasps without a home. I know, I says to myself, I'll make a nice dovetailed poplar box with a frame and panel door and french cleat arrangement to fit that space and store some tools. Poplar is so nice and forgiving for my ham-hand-cut dovetails. I used a piano hinge for the door so that I could hand anything I wanted on the back without fear of binding, and a nice solid brass latch. I'm remarkably enamored with this simple little cabinet as the grain patterns are pleasing, the dovetails came out well, and the brass fittings are smooth and sturdy in use. I'm now in the process of crafting the little racks of various sorts that hold each of the tools. Some of these have become quite tool specific and fitted. Again, fun little projects within projects. Perhaps I'll post some pics in the workshop section soon.
It's funny how little "no pressure" projects can be so rewarding sometimes.
As for a slightly more formal project just underway, I'm desiging an open face cabinet that will accept the nightly deposits of briefcases, purses, and back-pack book-bags in a more elegant manner than the baseboard near the door.
How's that for a little woodworking chatter?
Cheers.
Samson,
"It's funny how little "no pressure" projects can be so rewarding sometimes"....
This is so true; and about the only kind of "project" where I find myself doing anything like design (as opposed to copying an extant style). The "designs" are hardly earth-shattering but are dictated by not just the intended function of the thing but by my "decorative urge" (not a prevalent aspect of my character, I'm afraid).
I once made a fine tea box with exotic handles and horns, fashioned out of some curvy bandsawn offcuts, from another project, that had interesting grain. I was rather pleased with myself.
*******
At the risk of being mundane......
I wonder if you could be persuaded to post about your experiences and conclusions concerning the Aurirou rasps? (In another thread maybe). I have a desire to do more shapely aspects, especially in relation to my current Greene & Greene obsession, but have been unable to come to any decision about rasps. (Which grain, shape and whether to indulge in Aurirou). Your musings might help illuminate my needs.
Lataxe, G&G thief.
I wonder if you could be persuaded to post about your experiences and conclusions concerning the Aurirou rasps? (In another thread maybe). I have a desire to do more shapely aspects, especially in relation to my current Greene & Greene obsession, but have been unable to come to any decision about rasps. (Which grain, shape and whether to indulge in Aurirou). Your musings might help illuminate my needs.
I'm happy, as always to relay my experinces and thoughts, but hasten to add that I am no expert.
Long ago, I bought a variety of Nicholson rasps and files and some others of similar quality (can't recall the brand right now but want want to say Sandvik). They work okay, but always seemed kind of crude.
When Tools for Woodworking first introduced their Gramercy hand cut rasps in surgical steel, I bought a couple as they were a bargain and I was not yet ready to spring for Aurirou. They work well, and are indeed much more pleasurable to use than the machine cut variety.
Being a tool junky, several months ago, I was finally able to rationalize trying a couple of Aurirou rasps - both are of the typical cabinet maker style, one around 8 inches long and 13 grain, and to the other 12 inches and 10 grain. These ARE the cadillacs (or perhaps you would say Bentleys) of rasps.
While most any decent well-sharpened chisel can pare a dovetail, I'm guessing (cause I don't own them but know you do) that there is some extra pleasure in doing the job with a Blue Spruce DT chisel.
While any rescusitated Stanley jack will plane a board, it's no doubt extra nice to do it with a fresh LN version.
I don't mean to suggest that the differences are merely cosmetic, however, as I truly beleive the Aurirous cut faster and smoother. I'm guessing that it owes to the quality/shape of those hand cut teeth and the steel.
Anyway, try one. You won't regret it.
It's funny how little "no pressure" projects can be so rewarding sometimes.. Great comment!My oldest Granddaughter is in College and taking ART.. She draws goofy stuff? but it seems to fit the way I think so I like it.Anyway, I looked around the Web for a artist easel. What I found were mostly BIG/WIDE frames that were not very portable.. So me being me, I went to the shop and 'winged it'.I had some poplar (such a nice wood to work with) and in a day knocked out my version of one that is very adjustable. Well, she loved it and everyone in her class wants one now! To bad I used up all my extra knobs I use for jigs and such.It is hardly 'fine woodworking' but useful!
Edited 9/6/2007 7:48 pm by WillGeorge
Oy Lataxe ,
I saw your sycophantic ranting about Philip's planes on another post. Positively icky, really.
Ray
Ray,
I have just et a chocolate covered brazil nut and it got on the keyboard. This is the source of the ick, not moi.
Anyway,you are only jealous. Sell that motosickle and spend the few hundred dollars you get on something worth polishin'! I am sure Philp will make you an offer you can't refuse. You could even do a swap - he likes doing up wrecked machines. :-)
Lataxe, a sucker for shiney thangs that work.
Lataxe,
Envious, maybe. Not jealous.
A friend just brought me a pound of chocolate fudge, with black walnuts mingled in. His mother in law makes it, and he doesn't care for it. I help him keep peace in the family by eating it for him. That's the kind of guy I am. If you ever feel you have more of those Marcou planes than you can stomach, I'll do you a favor, and take one off your hands.
We all have our weaknesses, about which we are prone to ickiness. Mine alas, is an old motorsicle; when I hear its lumpety-lump, my heart does the same. Its shine is a bit tarnished here and there; and like me, it has marks that tell the tale of long roads travelled, and unexpected spills along the way. A shiney new thang, well, that's perhaps best for someone else, innit?
Cheers,
Ray
Ray,
I meant it - you're jealous and would really like to fondle my Marcou in an intimate fashion, whilst casting warning glances at the rightful owner. Do you think I don't know?
Of course, I am jealous of your relationship to that Injun. I would really like it between my thighs not yourn. It would end in tears, one way or another.
Lataxe, lover of mechanical thangs
Old chap,
Do open your dictionary to "jealous", and peruse therein. It seems to me that the definition more fits your fear of what might happen if I were to meet with the object of your affection, than what feelings you ascribe to me, which I must re-insist, fall more along the lines of "envy", if they exist at all.
Of course, there's no envy here. That plane is only a small mechanical object; a mere hand tool; just a bit of warm, polished brass (Yes!), wedded with cold, blued steel, (O LORD) held in an exotic wooden embrace, made for union (NOW! NOW!!)with a wild, tempestuous flame grained crotch, bringing it into total submission with the lightest caress of its... ... ...you have reason, great good reason, to be jealous, old boy. Keep that plane from the hands of a craftsman who knows his business. She'll never look at you in the same way again.
Ray
Charles,
I have seen Pulp Fiction. It was interesting and different, but the violence was a bit too extreme for me. It was, however, not as bad as the Washington, DC evening news on most nights.
You said that too many compliments cheapen the value of the compliments. Same is true for criticisms. The knife cuts both ways.
I'd rather focus on good wood, great tools, and better techniques.
Mel
PS watch the movie "Big Fish". Very creative. Not derivative.
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
My next project "for me" will be a Sengebenk for my kitchen.
There's one in a previous issue of FWW.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob,
What are you trying to do?
Cause trouble?I saw that you posted your age not to long ago. Maybe hanging around with you kids will make me feel younger.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Charles,
I had to look up Sengebenk. Very nice.
Would be nice to have a photo sometime in the future. Not necessary but nice.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel (Old Man), Ooops I mean Senior Gentleman!,
Couldn't remember where I saw it but it's in the Traditional Woodworking Projects: The Best of Fine Woodworking. I've got the book and there's some great stuff in it.
You can see it here, http://woodtools.10gb.ru/books/tfp/tfp.htm It's about 2/3rds down from te top.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 9/5/2007 12:49 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Edited 9/5/2007 12:50 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Bob,
Thanks for the reference. I just found the svengebank and printed it out. The carving on the back is right up my alley. That looks like a fun project.
Thanks,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Charles,
Concerning your research on the history of the Sengebenk chair, and your design for one -- Both are very interesting to me.
Here is why - I have been doing research on German Schranks for a long time. I finally have a design for one. I faced the same issue: how do I take a few centuries of actual schranks, and come up with the one that I will make. Making the jump from the history to an actual design is quite interesting.
Unfortunately my research is not well documented. However, I have a come up with a good approximation of the final design (including the Bauernmalerei painting that goes on it). To come with that design, I met with the U.S.'s foremost Bauernmalerei painter, who lives not to far from here. I would be happy to send you my file on the design.
A schrank is very interesting because it has to be able to come apart and be put back together again. The "locks" are all simple wooden mechanisms. I had a good time with this.
I am very interested in the history of furniture, and, as I told you before, in folk decoration of furniture (I do both the carving and the painting).
SWMBO told me that she will not put up with having a fully decorated schrank in the house. I want to build one. The problem was solved by our second son and his wife, who would love to get one for nothing.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
Let me know if you want my schrank info.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Charles,
Your paragraph: "Do you realize that most amateur woodworkers are one or two significant projects away from being as capable as any professional furnituremaker? They are, in the strictest sense of the word "capable." .......... Your critique of your own work, a year or so down the road, should be much more valuable than the post-coital platitudinous musings of strangers".
To use one of your own fine phrases: well said!
Lataxe, not being sycophantic nor even cheeky. (But back to jibes and digs soon).
Edited 9/5/2007 3:41 pm ET by Lataxe
Charles, you're getting far too bloody loquacious-- and you're almost being nice.
That'll never do.
Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Charles,
I have a full time job and a part time job. I also do woodwork a few hours a day on weekdays and much more on weekends. When I retire at the end of the year, I will have much more time for woodwork.
I see that you enjoy Knots. I do too.
Have fun.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
She can spot something a hair out of proportion at a hundred paces.
I'm sort of like that with things out of level. I know it is annoying to folks but I HAVE to straighten their pictures on the wall!
Once you get to really know some of the people here you'll find out they really are quite despicable.. That is me BUT my Grandchildren seem to love me?
Weird thread. I think most would agree in that any(well mostly) project design isn't a new unique concept. We evolve, and plans do as well. However, I find it hard to believe that a large percentage of projects are composed of truly unique ideas. The other side would be how it is presented. While it might be a spin off a known idea, it should not be marketed as authentic. Only Krenov can say it is a "Krenov" plane. All others should state it is a "Krenov Style Plane" or something to the effect. Having posted a lot of knock offs on another site, the authors I used for guidance have seemed to take it as flattery. I know I would.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled