Replies

1. 
   DCarr10760 | Dec 10, 2006 06:32pm | #1

   Joe,

   I have recently been down this road.  It's all dead ends, unfortunately.   The plans that were mentioned in the FWW article were never produced.  I contacted Lon Schleining who wrote the more recent article that is reprinted from his book Treasure Chests, he very kindly gave me the name of the Curator of the Smithsonian Institution.  I wrote to him and he wrote back a very nice note basically saying that the present owner of the chest was not interested in having plans drawn up.  He didn't mention a reason.

   I had offered to do it for free, being a Product Design Engineer and reasonably competant draftsman.

   The best thing you can do, unless there is someone lurking with more information is to purchase the current poster and based on the dimensions of the box as given in the FWW 100 article, scale it up.  But you'll have to work out the details of how to hold the various tools yourself.  Even plans would'nt help you too much here, unless you have an essentially identicle kit of tools.

   I was frustrated by all of this when Patrick Leach sold me a Patternmakers Tool Cabinet very similar to the one on his Supertool site.  I am currently rehabbing it and will add inlay and goo-gahs to Studlify it for my set of tools, and I am thinking it is a more worthy endeavor.  If you merely copy the chest and do a great job, you have a copy of a Masterpiece.  I am hoping to surpass it now!  ;-)

   Good Luck!

   David C

1. 
   jscontreras | Dec 10, 2006 08:59pm | #2

   Thanks a bunch.  After searching the Internet last night and not finding anything I was hoping to post here and someone pointing me to a design(plan) site.  It was my hail Mary.  Based on your advice, I'll create my own design based on H.O Studley tool box. 

   The reason for this methodology is I've been taught to design first and build second. 

   This is the time I wish I had the skill set of just looking at the picture and building the furniture.  I don't have that type of talent.

   Thanks,

   Joe

2. 
   BruceS | Dec 10, 2006 10:51pm | #3

   I believe if you look closely at that magnificent tool box you will notice that the "Box" is made for the tools not the other way around.  So I would start by spending $20,000 or more to replicate the tools first ;-)

   Anybody know if the H.O. Studley has been appraised ?

   Work Safe,  Count to 10 when your done for the day !!

   Bruce S. 

    

3. 
   mwenz | Dec 10, 2006 11:18pm | #4

   Hi Joe,

   Last year in one of Woodcentral's contests, an entrant made his own version. Perhaps this person would be willing to share what he did in more detail.

   Even if not, it shows how with an imagination, one can make such a chest to fit tools they have.

   http://207.35.224.157/EntryDetails.aspx?Contest=1&Entry=120&rp=5&ap=1

   Take care, Mike

1. 
   chuckh | Dec 13, 2006 03:33am | #5

   Mike,

   Thanks for the link.  Jeff did a great job on his Studley look-a-like. 

   I must admit that my PC at work is wallpapered with Mr. Studley's toll cabinet. Rarely does a day go by that I don't find myself peering into it, but as amazing as it is I have to ask, why? 

   Why would someone who made his living with the 300 tools in that cabinet want them packaged into one relatively small cabinet?  Regardless of how cleverly they may be assembled, doesn't it seem that it would become a hassle to work out of that cabinet day after day.  He obviously didn't haul it around because it takes three men to move it.

   Move past the tool envy and the superb craftsmanship, why not build two cabinets each with approximately 150 tools more easily accessible? 

   What ever his reason, I must admit that I'm happy he did it.

   -Chuck

    

      

1. 
   JKabak | Dec 13, 2006 07:11am | #6

   Chuck-

   Maybe the point you raise is exactly it.  Non of us have worked out of the Studley tool chest (which I also stare into often).  What if all the tools that he needed were readily accessible? 

   Could this be the real magnificence of the Studley tool chest?  The ultimate union of form and function?

   Jonathan

    

    

    

1. 
   chuckh | Dec 13, 2006 07:46pm | #8

   Jonathan,

   If I follow you, what you are suggesting is that if we could go back to Studley's time, and do the work he did, using the tools from this chest, that we just might discover that the tools have been organized in such a way that the tools most often used are the most easily accessible? 

   Hmmm, that certainly would be, The ultimate union of form and function.  That is quite profound.  There could be more to this than first meets the eye.

   Thanks,

   -Chuck 

   P.S.

   Welcome to Knots

2. 
   DCarr10760 | Dec 13, 2006 07:44pm | #7

   It's an interesting point.  I've spent the last two years studying tool chests, who made them and why and though I am hardly an expert I do have some ideas, which with the addition of $4.00 will buy you a nice cup of coffee at Starbucks.

   I think when we look back at the toolboxes of old we often wonder how practical they were.  It's a real pain to work out of a real joiners chest, like the Seaton or Duncan Phyfe chest.  I have one and you spend more time shuffling tills around than is acceptable today.  But that is the point, we are today used to working in a relatively secure shop environment often by ourselves, and we can organise our tools as we find convenient. 

   But back in the day, these tools represented an enormous capitol investment, a Man's livelyhood literally depended on them.  Being so valuable, they were subject to theft.  Studley worked in the Poole Piano and Organ CO. iirc, and they employed other craftsmen, so I believe one of the primary concerns therefore was security. 

   The chest I own is built like a fortress and heavy enough (when full) that two strong men are required to move it.  Stealing it or its contents quickly and furtively would be very difficult.  Studley's maze of trays, tills and clips would provide an additional deterrent.  Certainly it would keep honest co-workers honest.

   I think that since these tools were in exclusive daily use the owners became accustomed to how things were set up.  I bet old H.O. could quickly and efficiently put his hands on any tool in seconds and would know at a glance if one went missing.

   I suspect that the working practice of the day was to remove all the tools necessary for the performed operation at once, placing them close at hand and returning them to the chest when finished. 

   If you are used to this method of working, then two chests wouldn't have any real advantage.  Each would be lighter and more portable, which from a security point of view is not desireable.

   I think the level of density and decoration was vanity as much as anything.  An intellectual excercise, a puzzle to see how much could be fitted into the minimum space, with the most efficiency.  The decoration was, I believe, to impress himself as well as others.  The chest was mentioned in his obituary, so it was at least known by some during his lifetime and had acheived some measure of celebrity.

   Best Regards,

   David C.

    

    

1. 
   chuckh | Dec 13, 2006 08:45pm | #10

   David,

   Thanks for the insight.  I didn't appreciate Studley's working environment.  It could be likened to the auto mechanics at the Chevy dealership.  Each has his own stack of tool chests that he has been maintaining and upgrading since he got out of mechanics school.  They take much pride in their tools and of course he would carefully lock them up at night for the same reasons you stated.

   No doubt his tool cabinet was a source of immense pride for him and no doubt envy for some of his co-workers. 

   This has nothing to do with Studley or his tool chest, but the teamsters who drove the freight wagons in the early days of the National Highway would garnish their teams of horses or oxen with distinctively sounding bells.  These teamsters took great pride in their teams and rigs.  There was much comradery and competition among these men and they could tell which team was approaching by the sound of the bells.  If a team broke down or became stuck and required assistance from another teamster, the one requiring assistance had to surrender his bells to the other for a period of time.  Thus the saying, "I'll be there with bells on."  Meaning of course, I'll be there on time and without any trouble.

   Thanks,

   -Chuck

        

2. 
   GWB | Dec 13, 2006 08:15pm | #9

   Wow - if that only earned him 3rd place I would love to see what got first! Beautiful work.

4. 
   MikeHennessy | Dec 13, 2006 10:26pm | #11

   Something that hasn't been mentioned yet regarding this and similar toolchests is that master craftsmen often constructed their toolchests as an example of the quality and type of work that they were capable of doing. It would be tough for Mr. Studley's brethren (great name, BTW) to haul a piano to a customer's site to show what he could do. Witness the ivory inlays and use of mahogany. Granted, in Mr. Studley's case, it would be only marginally easier for him to haul that toolchest around, but I have seen many smaller examples of toolchests to which this was clearly a motive of the builder. I.e., they were more for show than for practical functionality. I suspect that most daily-use tools resided on the bench shelf more than in the box. (Just like in my own shop. <G>) As a related note of interest, crafstmen also often also constructed miniatures of their "standard" pieces -- sort of doll-house furniture -- as display samples. Those are pretty cool if you ever get a chance to see any.

   Mike Hennessy
   Pittsburgh, PA

1. 
   chuckh | Dec 14, 2006 12:42am | #12

   Mike,

   Good points.  A bit of self-promotion never hurt a thing.  In Studley's day a craftsman would dress up his tool chest; Nowadays they put up a website. 

   You can just imagine the owner of Poole Piano and Organ CO. bringing a prospective customer into the shop to meet one of his craftsmen.  As Mr. Studley rises to shake the gentleman's hand he is framed by this magnificent tool chest that tells the customer, I not only have the tools to do the job, I have the talent as well.  I can see that.  I know from my PC wallpaper that the chest impresses even non-woodworking people still today.

   One has to wonder how many similar tool chests might have adorned the walls of this and other such shops back then?

   -Chuck 

2. 
   JeffHeath | Dec 14, 2006 08:06pm | #13

   Mike

   I completely agree with you.  The Studley chest is at least as much a showcase of talent as it is a tool box.

   Most of my customers end up coming to my shop.  It's important that it look presentable, at least when I know someone is on the way!  My workbench and tool boxes are examples of the quality of work, at least in my eyes, and customers notice right away.  "Hey, wow, did you build that!?!" 

   Jeff

5. 
   SawdustSteve | Dec 14, 2006 10:21pm | #14

   Joe... Not to derail this project but... The case IS built around the tools. A Stanley #5 plane is JUST different enough from a L.N., Sargent or Millers Falls plane that they won't be interchangable in the same fitted spot. Yes, building this magnificent 'tool box' will be a test of your skills and endurance. It will then become a SEVERE test of your bank-book to stock it. My suggestion is to build a fitted toolbox for the tools you have now and are not planning to replace. As your skills and set of tools grow, the new case will be easier to build, as you have worked yourself up the 'learning curve'. I've built several tool boxes that have been adapted to specific areas that I work. Three months after building a box I acquire another half dozen tools and it's 'back to old drawing board.' So.... build something nice for now, perhaps in a modular form that can be incorporated in a larger box at a later date.
   SawdustSteve Long Island, NY (E of NYC)

1. 
   DCarr10760 | Dec 14, 2006 10:55pm | #15

   As I recall the article in FWW 100, there is evidence that the H.O. Studley chest was periodically reconfigured as new tools came to him.  Or he had a better idea about how to fit more in.  So there is some room for flexibility, even following his lead.

   I plan to generally follow Studley's layout and follow his decorative scheme with minor changes to suit my aesthetic.  But I will necessarily have to make changes to accommodate my tools, which although similar, are not identical to Studley's.

   There does seem to be some standardization in these chests.  My antique patternmaker's chest is nearly identical to the one on Patrick Leach's website.  Perhaps there was an magazine article that detailed chests of this type and Studley started from there and brought his to high art, where mine and Patrick's were left in a more utilitarian state.

   If anyone has an old magazine with directions on how to build a tool cabinet of this type, I'd love to see it.   Just for the pictures.

   Best Regards,

   David C

   Edit: Spelling

   Edited 12/14/2006 2:58 pm ET by DCarr10760