Greetings,
In another thread on Knots, a question arose concerning the average time one might want to allow for surfacing and thicknessing each board/square foot of material using traditional techniques and hand planes. I thought about responding in that thread, but by the time I could get to it after a day of woodworking, the thread had already moved on. So, I’ve decided to address it in a new thread, in the hopes it might be of some interest to others. Possibly, including some who had stopped following the convolutions of the other thread.
While a couple of estimates were offered in the other thread, I think it more instructive to take a look at information in _The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers’ Union book of Prices_, “By a Committee of Employers and Journeymen,” published in 1828. Despite the word “Prices” in the title, this book is actually a rather lengthy list of piece-rate wages to be paid journeymen cabinet makers for complete pieces of furniture as well as for a number of specific tasks. I think it safe to say that the work being described was being done by tradesmen using hand tools.
Prior to the lists of piece-rate wages are some brief “General Explanations.” These delve into ways to add and subtract for changes made to any given piece of furniture, as well an explanation that a premium of 15% is to be added for any piece/work done in maple, etc. Of most interest for this topic, though is this:
“All men working by the day, to be paid not less than $1.33 1/3 cents per day, to work eleven hours … .”
These figures, I believe, give us a reasonably decent way to translate cents/dollars into working times. Since this figure was arrived at by a committee of employers and journeymen, I believe there would have been real pressure for it to be somewhat fair to both sides. Though I suspect the employers may have had a slight upper hand, and the day rate may have, therefore, been slightly less than what the average journeyman might have expected to earn on a piece-rate basis. In which case, the time-per-penny rate I’m going to arrive at may be very slightly higher than that expected for the average journeyman.
In any event, based on the $1.33 1/3 rate for an eleven hour day, that works out to just short of five minutes per penny paid. So, I’m going to use the figure of 5-minutes-per-penny as the basis for what follows.
Returning to the lists and tables of piece rates, one of these is Table No. 9, “Of Thickening Up Stuff.” What we would, today, call “thicknessing” (surfacing being implied) of material. The table consists of the wage, in pennies, to be paid for thicknessing boards of various sizes. One entry in this table is for a piece “1 foot long or under” and “from 8 inches to 1 ft. [wide], which would equal one board/square foot at its outside limits. The “price” for thicknessing a board of this size is given as 4 cents. A quick calculation comes up with a working time of 20 minutes for surfacing and thicknessing this square foot. In looking at the rest of Table 9, this seems about average for boards of other sizes, as well. The text doesn’t address this, but I suspect the time would also include sawing individual pieces of rough-sawn material to approximate final size before surfacing and thicknessing.
I’ve spent many an hour doing just this, using, mostly, a fore/jack plane and a try plane, and this figure strikes me as fairly reasonable and sustainable. At least when I was younger 🙂 I’d be interested in Ray Pine or Richard Jones’ input on this.
In addition, I thought it might be interesting to see how this works out as part of making an actual piece of furniture listed in this book of “prices.” For that, I’ve chosen “A Plain Breakfast Table,” with this description:
“The top to contain 12 superficial feet, or under,
framing five inches deep, swivels to support leaves,
square edges to the top, leaves hung with rule joints, $ 2.37 1/2
I believe this is a very simple version of what we might call a “Pembroke” table – which I’ve chosen because I believe most people will be able to picture most of the elements needed in its construction.
I’ve postulated a 36″ long table, with a 24″ wide main top and 11″ wide leaves, resulting in a top just short of the 12 superficial (square) feet in the foregoing description. Then, I’ve looked at Table No. 9 to locate the rate for each needed piece as if a journeyman were going to be paid for surfacing and thicknessing the materials separately. The total payment I came up with, for this specific task, was 87 cents, which gives us a total working time of 435 minutes, or approximately 7 1/4 hours.
Returning to the wage for the breakfast table, at $2.37 1/2, if we multiply that figure by five minutes per penny, the overall time for construction comes in at 1187.5 minutes, or approximately 19 3/4 hours. So, for this project, at least, it would seem that surfacing and thicknessing the material could be expected to take up almost 37% of the total construction time. Again, this seems fairly believable to me.
I’m tempted to delve into this further, but am trying to keep this fairly focused and fear this may be testing people’s patience already.
Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
Edited 9/30/2007 5:40 pm ET by chamfer
Replies
Don,
Thank you for the informative and very interesting post.
-Andy
Hi Don,
I'm going to clean up later today and if I find an offcut of about 144 sq. inches, I'll dress it on all six sides and let you know.
Cheers,
eddie
Don,
It's very refreshing to see some documented historical research allied to clear reasoning based on real and extensive experience. Why is it, one wonders, that your approach is not the model for folk interested in such things - especially those folk who would like the rest of us to consider them expert? (Or even gurus). :-)
You are in danger of creating a triumph of substance over image, not a familiar mode in this day and age of self-promoting wannabees and actors-of-the-part. I hope and pray you continue in this mode; and that others do the same, rather than merely foisting their banal and blaring opnions.
Thank you, not just for the research but for the good example you set in the method and presentation of it.
Lataxe.
Don,
Sounds basically on the money to me. Also if you look at the final number for the project (not including finishing I bet) ,almost 20 hours - 2 1/2 days work in todays time. I am willing to bet a modern shop would be able to do it to the same standard that much faster, even with all the machinery.
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com
Neat is there a source for this book
Thanks
Troy
"I'd be interested in Ray Pine or Richard Jones' input on this."
I'm not sure why you particularly seek my comments Don. Maybe it's because you're aware of my published twitterings on estimating?
In the manuscripts I've written on the subject I describe an allowance for basic machining of wood at 1 hour per foot³ which is the same as 15 bdft per hour or 4 minutes per bdft.
I arrive at just under 21.4 bdft of material in the job you detailed:
Therefore using modern machinery, saws, surface planers (jointers), thicknessers, etc., the job is charged at 86 minutes, or 1.5 hours to the nearest half hour.
Your figuring may come up with a different bdft, but I included my calculations here for you to compare.
I can't comment on the time it might take to do the job entirely with hand tools as I don't prepare stock that way--- well, certainly not for major projects anyway. Too much bloody hard work and sweat, ha, ha. Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Edited 9/30/2007 7:38 pm by SgianDubh
SgianDubh,
What is has not been pointed out is todays workers are no where near physically as fit as those of the past. 8 hours of hand planning at those rates, would likely seriously injure a lot of us if not outright kill us..
I once rode in the cab of a steam locomotive in my early 20's and between myself and the tender we shoveled tons of coal into that engine.. I couldn't stand up the next day and I was fit without any fat. I can imagine what a tender going over the rockies worked like.. (I digress because I can't imagine 11 hours of planning a board..)
frenchy,
Good point. As my dad used to like to say, (to me), "A good day's work'd kill you, boy."
No ibuprofin for sore shoulders then, either. Aww, got rotator cuff troubles? Chew some willow bark!
Ray
Ray
What is has not been pointed out is todays workers are no where near physically as fit as those of the past.I'm old and bet I can work as hard as ANY teenager. Of-course I have to take several smoke and beer breaks while they are talking!
Will,
I did think of saying summick similar to Frenchy. I know what he means, about olden folk having a kind of strength got through specialist work everyday; but we modern folk have an even better capacity to develop great strength - if we train for it.
Many olden folk (those that grew up before WWII at least) were a lot less healthy and were even stunted in their growth by a poor diet, were they unlucky enough to have fallen foul of an economic depression. Or one of the many diseases then rife in the population may have reduced their potential health and strength.
Just lately I've been making myself plane every rough chunk of wood just for practice (I don't really intend to give up the 3hp planer/thicknesser, in the long run). It is hard work to plane for hours on end but not so bad if you have basic cardio-vascular and muscular fitness from other activities. The "other activities" are likely to be a sport or physical hobby of some kind, for many in this day and age (cycling, fell-walking and gym for me).
Perhaps what the olden folk had that many of us do not is that day-in, day-out work that literally forms their bodies into a biological machine perfectly suited to that work. I suppose there must still be a few such chaps about today; but most of us will give in to the throb of that planer/thicknesser or similar, even if we can run a 4 minute mile (not me)!
I do know a swill maker who's fingers are like steel hooks, mind. He has rived and hand-woven tens of thousands of oak strips in his work. The rest of him is a tall but skinny gangler, who often falls over his own feet and cannot keep up on the bicycle.
Lataxe
I'm En' a Old Folk.. To keep up my strength I try to chase Women! Just lately I've been making a fool of myself but I have fun tryin'!
WillGeorge,Funny!
But I'll bet your forefathers could work you under the table, er,.... if somehow they could climb out of their graves and appear as they did in their prime..
Thanks for the enthusiastic reception of my message based on the 1828 cabinet makers' piece-rate wage book from Philadelphia. Based on that, I may occasionally decide to "inflict" further tidbits from it when they seem relevant and I have the time and energy. :-)Speaking of sources for the book itself, I haven't done an extensive search, but think it fairly rare and difficult to obtain. I have a rather poor quality photocopy of it, but feel I would be violating a personal trust if I were to secondarily distribute copies of it. Though, that is something I may look into, as I think the book merits wider attention.Some small scale experiments in surfacing and thicknessing samples may have some merit, but I feel it would be good to do so with an eye toward the timbers likely being used by cabinet makers in 1828 Philadelphia, as well as with an eye toward a sustainable level of activity. Though, I think cabinet makers of yore may well have varied their activity level by "getting out" the 4/4 pieces for the frame of a table, for example, and surfacing and thicknessing them (and, maybe, doing the joinery between them and the legs) before repeating the process for the top pieces. I know I found variations like this useful while building furniture using only hand tools on a full-time basis.As to whether the total piece-rate wage for "A Plain Breakfast Table" included finishing, I'm not entirely sure. It may have, in a limited way, but let's look at a couple of sentences from the "General Explanations" first: "The cleaning up of all work, that is varnished, or patent polished, to be set against wax polishing." "All work that requires no cleaning up after varnishing, to start without wax polishing."I think the second sentence implies that the basic rate includes a wax polish finish, or a simple brushed-on varnish. The first sentence seems to suggest that the cabinet maker may have been responsible for the final "rubbing out" a varnish or shellac finish which was intended to be brought up to a higher shine/polish. But, I am far from sure about this, and would welcome any thoughts which others may have.Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1026/is_5_167/ai_n13778792
The book you linked to is hotly debated. So for everyone else, its existence was known and there may have been a fragment somewhere, but 2003, a PA couple donated a printed copy of the 1772 Philadelphia Furniture Price (fixing) Book to the Philadelphia Museum of Art. They asked for nothing in return and allowed the book to be reprinted with all proceeds going to the museum (a nice gift indeed). You can buy copies online at the Museum's website http://www.philamuseum.orgGuilds were never particularly strong in America, they wouldn't survive long after this book was published. But in its day, this book was a highly secretive price fixing book, and carried strict penalties for anyone revealing its contents.So just for a point of reference, we can take Don's table more or less:Dining Table, plain feet, crooked, or Marlborough, with bases 3 feet in the bedMahogany sale price 3-5-0
Walnut sale price 1-17-6
cost of labor 0-17-6According to the editors of the book, and this is where the debate comes in, a journeyman's wages were 15-25s/day. So this is a one day's work. Don suggested about a 1/3 of the time spent on surface work, so figure 4 for 12bdft? Was that the number? So it seems this corroborates Don's 20min/bdft.The debate:
When this book came out, Mack Headley had just finished studying the English Gillow accounts and published an article in Chipstone with his 1hr/bdft number. Here it is:"The amount of time required to flatten and smooth rough-sawn boards varies depending on the density and evenness of the grain. Based on the experience of the Hay shop craftsmen, one hour per square foot of plank, trued and planed to the desired thickness, would be a reasonable average for preparing stock. Since the chest contains approximately sixty square feet of flat wood surface, approximately sixty hours of work would have been needed to prepare these boards."Chipstone's American Furniture 1999I can't make a table in a day. And some of the most challenging of 18th c work, chair making, seems particularly fast. Chairs that take Williamsburg over a week, the book lists as a 2 day jobs.Also, I've never heard a 15-25s/day wage. Everything I've seen has been 5s/day for journeymen, sometimes 8s for masters, 10s for carvers.These books are interesting. But I don't know how much faith I'm willing to put in them. In my opinion, 20 minutes seems a bit high to plane 1 ft of lumber. Even if sawing is included, and we should probably figure that it would be. Adam
I agree. These analyses are anything but slam dunk. See my edited post above.
Edited 10/1/2007 7:55 am ET by BossCrunk
I would not expect the current Williamsburg shop time to correspond to a working shop of the 18th century. There's a big difference if you are paid on piecework, do this day in and day out, and start when you are 14 . As a group the 18th century craftsman were in better shape than we are. (poorer health but better muscular shape) I think extrapolating the modern numbers directly to the 18th century is suspect. Many price guides exist from the mid-18th to mid-19th century. They all show really high rates of productivity and I would be loath to dismiss them out of hand. As a aside. a few years ago an 18 century wreck was found and in it a skeleton of an 18th century seaman. Foresnsic analysis concluded that while he did have rickets as a kid, and his spine showed compression from jumping from the rigging to the deck all day, the mid-thirties ages seaman had a muscular body that a work class modern gymnast would be proud of. and switching topics yet again, the last time I had to mill lots of lumber by hand for a project I dropped a belt size and a half. Joel
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com
I'm not sure bad health was rampant. Sure, childbirth took a high toll, disease and injuries were a big factor, as was blood-letting (ask Geo. Washington) but there are plenty of people who lived into their 70s, 80s and 90s, back in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. "the last time I had to mill lots of lumber by hand for a project I dropped a belt size and a half."What species, how much wood did you have to process and how long did it take to lose that much? I have a belt that seems to be shrinking. Must have gotten wet. Yeah, that's it!
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
"I'm not sure bad health was rampant. "
I'm not saying it was - although bad nutrition, especially amongst city dwellers I think was. Because of the hard work, people ate stuff that today we wouldn't even consider. THe project was a 4 1/2 foot long workbench out of soft maple. no power tools ever touched any of the wood (which started out in the rough). The whole project took 2 months but I was only working the odd evening - and gosh knows I'm in pretty crappy shape. The 8/4 top was the most work and also sawing out the material for the legs. My wife who made fun of me for calling it exercise recanted when she walked into the shop and saw me making simultaneous 180 degree turns and lunges as I was milling the rough wood. It was real work but the best exercise I ever got. I don't think there is anyone in the US today, even professional sports figures who have the brute overall body strength that you would find in pre-industrial work world. You know the song "you load 16 tons of #9 coal" I think the 16 tons were divided into crews of 4 - anyone who thinks they are in proper 18th century (or for that matter 19 century coal mining shape try shoveling 4 tons - that's 8000 pounds of random shaped really heavy boulders into a cart in 10 hours. If you want to make it authentic do it in with a 4 foot ceiling, in almost pitch black. Joel
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com
Back then, they ate things I don't even think Andrew Zimmern would consider. If they killed an animal, they ate everything, really. People with money had the obvious luxury of not having to deal with what they didn't want to but balanced diet? Not much chance of that. Scurvy was a big one, rickets was common even into the 20th century when a family couldn't afford dairy products or other vitamin D rich foods. Some of my ancestors lived in New England and I'm sure their diet was high in seafood, dairy and vegetables, since some farmed and the first to come here lived on Block Island, RI, so a lot of what they ate was fresh from the ocean. I would imagine that it was either caught, grown or raised by them and the rest was bought or brought from land and since there is a long line of very long life in the family, I have to think they ate well.Brute strength through conditioning is one thing but task-specific strength adds stamina to the party and I think most pro athletes would fall over after trying to do what our predecessors did on a regular basis. Anyone who laughs about working wood with hand wools and doesn't consider it exercise, has obviously never done it.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Whilst I had rickets in childhood I never attempted working wood with hand wools, and I must say now feel an absolute failure, (and no comments regarding self abuse please!)
It perhaps should be recognized that much of the tedious work would be delegated to the apprentice, and that poor soul was very cheap labour indeed in the periods of reference.
Joel,
you load 16 tons, another day older and deeper in debt! St. Peter doncha call me cause I can't go, I owe my soul to the company store.
I'm in the process of redoing my driveway with 3" of 2" stone and gravel, about 45' long and 9' wide. Mother nature decided to take the old one Loading the pickup with the excavator is tough on the fingers/hands twiddling the levers you know.
Then at the other end unloading it by hand. Ever try shoveling 2" stone off the back of a pickup? Great fun. At 61 I can sure feel the stomach muscles tighten up a bit.
But it makes ya hungry as a bear! Ya lose 1½" and gain back 2"!
Regards,
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
BC, many thanks for the lead, my daughter (a member in Philly) sent me a copy. It is a great read. For those who have not seen it, it's two small books -about 3 3/4"x 6"- in a slip case, one is the repro and the other a scholarly explanation and a history of the document. ($19.95)
The detail on wages and the printer fell into place for me as I am reading "Gotham" . NYC from the beginning to 1889 ( this is a hernia edition that should have come with a hand truck or dolly) and brings to light the question that the journeyman may not have been paid that high. Most of them, perhaps not the shop master/owner, could not afford to own the pieces that they made. If they , the craftsmen, made 80 pounds a year they could have lived like high society-I think not.
Thanks again, Paddy
Don,
Thanks for the post. Great as usual. Is the sale price on the breakfast table $2.37? Or is that the cost of the labor?
Adam
Don,
Like Richard, I am somewhat at a loss on your query to me regarding building a pembroke table entirely by hand. I've made it clear, I hope, that normally I am satisfied to give a swipe or two with a smoother to machined stock. From my experience in hand thicknessing the odd piece of wide stock here and there, 20 mins/bd ft, on average, seems sustainable.
Last summer, I built a pembroke table similar in size to the one you described. To build that piece (with power tools) I allowed about 35 hrs for labor. My table had a cockbeaded drawer, however, and was inlaid with a pair of oval eagle paterae, and segmented, shaded bellflowers on the front legs, all shop made, as well as stringing down the legs and around the perimeter of the drawer front, the top, and the ovolo- cornered leaves. I don't have the breakdown on each operation, to give an estimate for a basic table, but 20 hrs of my (electric) shop time wouldn't scare me too bad to have to build it in.
I'd be interested in hearing Boss Stan or Adam chime in on this.
Ray
Stock prep: twenty minutes per board foot for roughsawn, KD, FAS stock sounds about right for me. It can be done faster, but this is a "man working for himself pace" not a teenager working in an 18th century shop trying to keep his head above water. I imagine I could move a lot more quickly in that kind of scenario.
These price book studies have been discussed on this board in the past. Patrick Edwards used to have a link up on his site to one of them, but I don't think it is there anymore.
I recall a quite vigorous thread, I believe it was on this board, whereby some of the price deflators used were called into question and these calculations were crucial to estimating the actual time spent on each piece of furniture listed (which seemed exceptionally low at least in one price book study).
These topics are as much interest to the economic historian as they are to the woodworker. It's more involved than it appears to be at first blush.
Edited 10/1/2007 7:57 am ET by BossCrunk
Ray, Richard, et alI asked for input from you gentlemen because I had hoped that one, or both, of you might have enough experience hand surfacing and thicknessing material to have a meaningful perspective on it. More importantly, however, I felt that both of you are secure enough in your skills and experience to give me/us an honest response. And you proved me right.In any event, I became intrigued by Ray's description of the Pembroke table he made last Summer, and decided that it could become the basis for estimating the overall labor cost of his table based on information in the 1828 Philadelphia cabinet makers' book. I hope Ray (and others) will find it of some interest. Or, at least, find it mildly entertaining. My intent is to illustrate how changes from the basic descriptions of these pieces of furniture are handled in the text.Total labor cost for "A Plain Breakfast Table" was listed as $2.37 1/2, which I estimated to be equivalent to about 19 3/4 hours.The extras for this breakfast table include "Making a drawer in the frame," for 37 1/2 cents. Another extra was for rounding the corners of the leaves, for 3 cents, which is as close as I could get to Ray's ovolo corners.The table for cockbeading, adds 16 cents for a drawer of this size. The table for stringing indicates a rate of 1 1/2 cents per foot, and I estimated about 43 feet of stringing in Ray's table (I think conservatively?), for a total of 64 1/2 cents.This brings us to a total labor cost of $3.58 1/2, which, at the rate of five minutes per penny, produces a working time just shy of thirty hours.However, if Ray used "fly" supports for the leaves, rather than the swivels mentioned in the basic description, this also adds to the labor costs. "If joint rails, with single fly [finger joints], extra 50 [cents]" which would bring us to a total of $4.08 1/2, or a working time of about 34 hours. But, if the fly supports had "rule joints" (knuckle joints) rather than finger joints, this would add 8 cents each, for a total of 16 cents. Bringing us to a total of $4.24 1/2, or about 35 1/3 hours.Regarding the paterae and bellflowers, I can only quote from the "General Explanations" at the front of the book: " ... and when any work is added, that cannot be made out by the book, the workmen [sic] to be paid for the same, according to his average wages." I hope this has been of some interest.Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
Hi Don,It is all quite interesting.However, how many of those same craftsmen stayed in those shops ,at those rates? How many said enough is enough and started shops of their own?Piece rates are all well and good but they only serve as a small base as to how much/long it took to build a piece.Part of the failure of guilds in America was due to the fact of poor wages and the expanding markets. Much better to work for ones self than someone else.Hence the "American Way"J.P.
Don,
They were "fly" supports for the leaves, with "knuckle" , or rule, joints.
And pursuant to work vs athletic training: the summer between high school and my freshman yr of college, I worked in an apple orchard, thinning apples. This involved carrying a 22' wooden ladder around all day (these were the days before dwarf tree stock), and climbing it to break up the doubles and triples, clusters of green apples, so that the remaining ones would achieve their full growth. A pair of us would set our ladders side by side on a tree, and move and reset until the whole tree had been gone over, then on to the next one. In p.e class that fall, the football "jocks" ran circles around me on the track, but nobody in the class did as many pull-ups as me.
Edit, Incidentally, I have seen a book of labor allowances, used to estimate charges for car repairs, that tells the shop foreman how much time a good mechanic, er, technician, should take to complete any given task. The foreman told me that it took a really accomplished worker to equal the suggested rates in the book.
Ray
Edited 10/2/2007 9:36 am ET by joinerswork
Ray,
When we (my dad and I) had a shop, for the most part beat the time books on any type of job. They exist as much as a guide to billing the customer as for scheduling shop time and allocating people resource within the shop.
Don, All
This discussion is interesting in an academic way. And I thank you, Don, for posting it.
I am uncertain of its (the book's) sole value in determining how long it took to build a certain type widget. I ordered a copy to peruse it because it does interest me--and I promise not to discuss this topic at the dinner table (joke for Chris S).
Are there reprinted day books from individual shops available either by themselves or as part of another book? It seems to me that these journals would be another, perhaps complimentary way to assess how long it took to actually take a type of widget through to completion.
Take care, Mike
and I promise not to discuss this topic at the dinner table (joke for Chris S).
Does Chris S. read this forum? Does he participate under a pseudonym?
I think he and Lang, and the crew are great.
Chris' latest blog entry gives a clue. I suspect Chris reads far more broadly than participation--it takes a lot of time.
If I wasn't sitting here organizing the schedule I wouldn't have seen the notification you replied until later tonight. I've been out in the shop since 5:30 am, spent a couple hours on the computer and then back out for the remainder of the day (which means early evening), eat and go back out. His schedule I suspect is even more difficult.
On every forum he does pop up on, he uses his own name.
Take care, Mike
Don:
I read your post with interest. I, and possibly others, might be curious to know how the $1.333 of 1828 compares to today's values.
Using the CPI it comes out at $29.18. Using the unskilled wages, the amount is $317.18.
The Unskilled Wage Rate is good way to determine the relative cost of something in terms of the amount of work it would take to produce, or the relative time it would take to earn its cost. It can also be useful in comparing different wages over time. The unskilled wage is a more consistent measure than the average wage for making comparisons over time.
The CPI is most often used to make comparisons partly because it is the series with which people are most familiar. This series tries to compare the cost of things the average household buys such as food, housing, transportation, medical services, etc. For earlier years, it is the most useful series for comparing the cost of consumer goods and services. It can be interpreted as how much money you would need today to buy an item in the year in question if its price had changed the same percentage as the average price change.
Regards,
Hastings
Don,
Thank you for your excellent post. You had good research, personal experience and a fair-minded approach. No bile. No personal shots. No pompous blathering. No attempting to "win points". Just good food for thought. What a wonderful approach to discussing woodworking topics.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Just for interest,Walter Rose in "The Village Carpenter" mentions that the making of a simple four-panel inside door was considered a good day's work, being the ripping of nine by one and a half inch planks down the centre for styles and planing and thicknessing of all wood.
Using the tools of those days I would take considerably longer!
I've often wondered how much wood a woodchuck would chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
Seriously, I'm missing exactly what this exercise is supposed to tell us? If we knew that 18th Century tradesman were faster or slower or more or less efficient what do we do with this information that helps us in our woodworking? Is the question merely one of academic historical interest, or is there some wider meaning and use to be drawn from this info?
I do understand how limited time might effect the qualities the finished piece possesses (more or less refined, for example). Is there an aspect of this in the quest for working times here?
I think the production figures of 2 centuries ago have a lot of relevance today. If you compare these numbers with a modern shop using the same type of construction - M+T, Solid wood, inlay, carving etc. we discover that all those power tools don't speed things up much. The modern productivity saving come from design changes (some visible some not) Some examples: A plywood back is faster to make than planing up and piecing together a solid back. A dominoed chair is faster to make than a solid M+T chair. Skipping the carvings and details like cabriol legs saves a lot of time. The important of this depends on the type of furniture you make. If you wish to make classic furniture you might save a lot of time and money by mostly sticking to hand tools (except for milling stock) and working on your hand skills. And if you don't chances are you will end up modifying your designs to accommodate what power tools are good at. Nothing wrong with that but like anything else it's a choice. If your taste runs to modern styles, or things like kitchen cabinets then spending your money on good power tools makes a lot of sense. Or if you are like me and only have hand tools because of space reasons then it makes a lot of sense to stick with traditional building materials and methods. Most important it means that someone who is willing to learn hand technique can efficiently build a huge range of traditional furniture with only a fairly simple set of hand tools and you don't need a giant shop full of machinery and there is no requirement for an amateur to try to duplicate the machinery in a modern professional shop doing modern style woodworking.Joel
http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com
Most important it means that someone who is willing to learn hand technique can efficiently build a huge range of traditional furniture with only a fairly simple set of hand tools and you don't need a giant shop full of machinery and there is no requirement for an amateur to try to duplicate the machinery in a modern professional shop doing modern style woodworking.
Joel, I'm a fan. I've bought several things from you. I'm also a fan of hand tools. So take this as a comment from someone who fully believes the stuff you've said above.
The key word in your quote I take it is "efficiency." Forgive me, but at least for hobbiests, I do not see how facts about relative handtool efficiency for tradesmen dedicating their life to the efficient accomplishment of a project tells us very much. Every tradesman of every sort (drywaller, building contracter, electrician, landscaper, etc.) now and in the past are remarkably fast and efficient compared to me or any DIY type trying to accomplish the same task. You do it all day, and eat or not depending upon how fast you move, you get fast.
Also, big stationary power tools are undeniably much faster and more efficient for certain tasks (i.e., ripping 8/4 10" wide plank into table legs with a handsaw vs. bandsaw or table saw). I'd wager I could have the job done on a TS before the best 18th Century tradesman could have two legs ripped.
I think the point is that it CAN be done with handtools relatively efficiently for a hobbiest - i.e., you don't need a TS. But it is not a toss up as far as speed or sweat equity. Let's not fool ourselves, John Henry.
I think Chris S over at WW mag is building two small tables for the next issue - one by handtools, and the other with power. That should be an interesting comparison.
I can imagine a project where you include all shop time needed (including for example, set up and test pieces for power tools) on a task by by task and over all basis (1) surface prep (2) rough dimensioning (3) laying out/setting up joints, etc.
I bet the machines would be faster in some things and the hand tools in others such that by the end, the project might only be slightly slower with handtools, but the product might look better, depending upon how much one likes handtool softer results as opposed to the sharper and more mechanistic machine precision.
Edited 10/2/2007 4:35 pm ET by Samson
I don't disagree with anything you say. What I see in professional shops these days is more and more large specialized machinery. It limits what they can do - but what they do make they make money on - and produce fine work. I have also seen amateurs buy large expensive machinery - fill up a basement and then use it once a year.
However my point on hand operations still applies to some professional work. Depending on the operation hand tools can be as productive, and a lot more flexible. There is room in the world for everyone and people should work in the way that works for them. However for a long time there was a concept that if you didn't use fancy machines you couldn't produce quality work unless you had tons of time and were also a master. I'm just glad to see increasingly that line of thinking is no longer universally shared.
Edited 10/2/2007 8:13 pm ET by joelm
Samson,
I am reading your messages to Joel, and humming the old standard,
"John Henry". Here is one verse.Then John Henry he did hammah,
He did make his hammah soun',
Says now one more lick fore quittin' time,
An' I'll beat this steam drill down,
An' I'll beat this steam drill down.Santyana said that those who are unfamiliar with history are doomed to repeat it. It's John Henry all over again. Maybe it's time to do a rewrite of John Henry as a woodworker, swingin' a Lie Nielsen #8, and beatin' the guys who are usin' a Powermatic 8" jointer. Ya gotta love this place. As Joel says, there's room for everybody.
MelPS personally, I am not sure how many swipes I can take with the BIG #8 LN. I'm leanin' toward the Powermatic. Or maybe I'll hire an apprentice so my work will be more authentic, even though I didn't do it. Naw, I'll go with the Powermatic, and a nice 13" thickness planer and get rid of the planer marks with a nice #4. You gotta like Rob Cosman. John Henry died. Rob is still making CDs.Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
DAMN! Best post I'v seen 'In along time'.. I for one loved it..
"All men working by the day, to be paid not less than $1.33 1/3 cents per day, to work eleven hours ... ."
About what I got here in Chicago AFTER TAXES in 2007!
Don, many thanks from all of us old timers who were apprentices(I was a coppersmith) under a shop master or 1st class mechanic who were pushed to preform in the modern era no different than in the past. Paddy
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled