Replies

1. 
   AZMO | Mar 20, 2010 08:46am | #1

   Ol'Books

   Povery, that was an interesting read this morning. So a large wooden mallet is a Beetle, never knew. Interesting the emphasis on splitting wood in both books. You want a plank for some stock you start with a log and splitting was easier that sawing.

   Thanks for the post.

   Morgan

2. 
   Toolemera | Mar 21, 2010 12:38pm | #2

   Interesting books

   I've always liked Sickel as an introductory text. Maybe because he was an amateur woodworker (and an M.D.), his approach is basic but very clear. Plus I love the use of the Miller #41 plow. The first book has always made me raise an eyebrow. The sets of images, such as the use of the hammer, are so literal they're almost like an early bit of animation. I wonder if the artist drew them from imagination or if someone was the model?

   Gary

3. 
   Povery | Mar 22, 2010 10:48am | #3

   What I find amazing is how little things have changed in over 100 years.  Sure we have power tools that didn't exist then, but the concepts are pretty much all the same.  Also, the descriptions of how to use the tools are the same as you would find in a book today.

   I guess its easy to think of 120+ years ago as the stone ages, but obviously they knew what they were doing when it came to woodworking.

1. 
   RalphBarker | Mar 23, 2010 01:04pm | #4

   " . . . but obviously they

   " . . . but obviously they knew what they were doing when it came to woodworking."

   Ship building in particular. Imagine if the ships had all sunk a few miles off the coasts of Europe.  ;-)

1. 
   AZMO | Mar 23, 2010 02:01pm | #5

   Swedes had some issues....

   The Vasa comes to mind..... did not even get a mile off the coast!   Now what was truly incredible was a 17th century warship that had been pounded on and then did repairs mid ocean... Can you imagine scabbing together bits and pieces on a heaving deck?

   Morgan

1. 
   Povery | Mar 26, 2010 04:40pm | #6

   Looks like the Vasa capsized due to poor design rather than poor workmanship.

   Interesting read here:

   http://www.abc.se/~pa/publ/vasa.htm

   History can be so interesting... I keep trying to convince my kids of that.  :)

1. 
   RalphBarker | Mar 26, 2010 09:49pm | #7

   Yes, I was thinking that the Vasa sunk because of having gunports too close to the waterline, but wasn't sure if my recollection applied to the Vasa or some other ship.

2. 
   forestgirl | Mar 27, 2010 10:13pm | #8

   What I learned from my Swedish professor in college, and from a Swedish friend who's father worked in the recovery effort (Swedish Navy captain) was that the King demanded things that the design engineers knew weren't feasible, but he wasn't about t take no for an answer, so they built the ship per his requests.  Oooooops.