# Experience, efficiency and enjoyment.



## Cheshirechappie (7 Jan 2018)

During the somewhat extended -and sometimes surreal - thread on OBM or bevelled-edge chisels for morticing ( regular-mortice-chisel-or-bevel-edged-for-your-mortices-t109499.html ), several side discussions developed, one of which was about efficient methods. I thought it worth extracting the matters raised and starting a separate thread, in part because I think there are ideas that could be discussed more widely and perhaps developed for mutual benefit.

Jacob raised the point that some older pieces were made by 'efficient' hand methods - fast, and with no frills - and that he was interested in such methods because there could be things to apply to modern hand-work. I posed an alternative view that most people doing hand work today are not mass producing items to make a living, and thus can afford to take a bit more time to do things to a better standard. A number of people then pointed out that there was merit in learning to do things more quickly and efficiently - which is a fair point.

I'd like to expand a little, firstly by adding experience to the mix. It's been mentioned before that learning to do anything really well takes something in the order of 10,000 hours or so. Most craftsmen earning their living in the 18th or 19th centuries working wood would rack up their 10,000 hours well before finishing their apprenticeships, given a working week of about 70 hours and five to seven year apprenticeships. We can therefore infer that the standard of work they used was dictated not by lack of experience, but by the time available to complete the work. A journeyman cabinetmaker working for a supplier of cheap, basic furniture would therefore use whatever time-saving tricks they could find, whereas one of Thomas Chippendale's craftsmen would have more time to do a 'proper' job, because that's what the client was paying for.

For most of us, working part-time in sheds and garages, accumulating 10,000 hours might take years, or even decades. However, we can still try to do the best work we can. That might mean taking time and care, and forgetting about 'efficiency' for our early projects, but trying to become 'more efficient' as our skills develop. That's rather different from Victorian skilled journeymen deciding whether a job needed maximum efficiency (or 'corner cutting', as BB pointed out) in order to leave enough for a profit on the job, or whether he could take more time and still make a profit.

The 'cheap end' furniture of today (flat MDF joined with KD fittings, backs of cardboard stapled on and so on) has supplanted the Victorian basic furniture that used to be hand made down to a price; there's no point in our trying to emulate it. Thus, the 'efficiencies' practiced by the Victorian journeyman to cut as many corners as he could should not concern us in the work we do today, except as historical interest. For maximum enjoyment and pride in what we've produced, we should be trying to do better.


----------



## nabs (7 Jan 2018)

another perspective - given the depressing thought that most of us amateurs will have snuffed it before we can accumulate anything like the number of hours a traditionally trained tradesman would rack up in their apprenticeships then we have an equivalent incentive to avoid unnecessary work also. 

For instance, if I choose not to flatten and smooth the far side of my workbench or the underside of a coffee table (basic tasks I will have opportunities to revisit on every subsequent job) then I am freeing up some of my limited time to practice other new/harder tasks.

PS these are real examples - the underside of my coffee table and the far side of my bench are both as rough as old a*ses!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Jan 2018)

Good point.

I suppose that introduces the idea of deciding between 'unnecessary work' and 'shoddy work' - which may be subjective!


----------



## nabs (7 Jan 2018)

yes indeed - I wonder if there were any conventions on what steps it was acceptable to omit and whether it varied much according to top end vs utilitarian. We need the views of some furniture historians!


----------



## D_W (7 Jan 2018)

There is an errant assumption here, and that is that doing something efficiently means that you'll have to do it to a lower standard. 

That may be the case, but it's not my point. I'm not sure if it's Jacob's point, but I have faith that he'll tell us his point. 

Also, the 10,000 hour discussion often gets misused. While we may not, as amateurs, master a trade, we can certainly master elements. An amateur can easily master basic sawing, chiseling and mortising. While we might not be as fast as someone who has done those things for 25 years 50 hours a week (I'm sure nobody has done exactly those operations above for that, anyway, most of our bodies would not hold up to it - which you can still see in africa where there are power-free shops. The workers often don't last past their mid 30s), we can still learn from people doing something efficiently. 

Fast and cheap is not the point.


----------



## MusicMan (7 Jan 2018)

It depends on the market, the location and the expectations of the customer.

I wrote a big thread on the restoration of a Georgian bureau last year. This was a "country" piece, oak, made as a utilitarian object and it was clearly heavily used. The workmanship was competent but routine. All nicely done to a decent standard, good dovetails etc, but yet they clearly didn't do anything unnecessary. The underside of the base was nothing like flat (clearly never had been, just rough sawn), likewise the undersides of the drawers and the dust sheets. The back was panelled, flattened on the outside but only roughly fitted inside. 

On the other hand I've just bought a lovely 19th C French large bookcase, also oak, delightfully carved on front and sides, and the panel work is as well finished on the invisible parts as on the display parts. The only concession is that the shelves are pine, though fronted with oak.

So then as now, it looks as if it would depend entirely on the customer and the price.

I think there was a great deal of piece work in 18th and 19th C joinery, which would certainly encourage efficiency.

Keith


----------



## woodbrains (7 Jan 2018)

Hello,

Obviously there is a certain amount of efficiency required to get anything done in a period of time acceptable to the maker. Outside of this, 'efficiencies' are unnecessary and are often counter to the desires of the maker. This is whether the maker is amateur or professional, it is for them to land on the happy medium that satisfies them as craftsmen and achieves the satisfactory outcome. Looking to Victorian handwork methods is irrelevant. We do not want to be doing piece work, no one wants to work under this pressure, there is no satisfaction in it. If a professional in the first world is making things with purely hand tools, by piecework, to have to make a viable living (does this situation even exist) then they are doing something wrong. They either need to mechanise to a point or just plain do something else. Handwork is fun and can give a great sense of achievement, but piecework by handwork is miserable. I doubt anyone would train up in the skills of woodwork, perhaps taking Cities and Guilds qualifications and the like, to spend a life working piece work. 

The other point is, a lot of the expedients taken by dead craftsmen, that Jacob seems to hold in high esteem, are totally irrelevant in the modern workshop. Amateurs want to achieve neat results, whatever neat is to the individual concerned. They will try hard not to overcut dovetails and hope tondo better next time if they fall short of their expectations. They are unlikely to make deliberate overcuts, or allow overcuts to happen as an acceptable consequence of speed. They will slow down and eradicate them. They might get quicker on subsequent efforts, but from repetition and not sloppiness. Professionals who are doing this sort of work are selling to client who will be paying a lot for the products, as labour is expensive these days. Any sloppiness will not be acceptable by the purchaser. 

I think Cheshirechappie is more or less right in his introduction post, and with the odd exceptions, like perhaps leaving cabinet backs unfinished by certain makers, is pretty much the way things are these days. In my mind better for it.

Mike.


----------



## D_W (7 Jan 2018)

You guys are completely in the weeds. You're confusing efficiency for shortcuts or subpar results. They are two separate issues.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (7 Jan 2018)

Cheshirechappie":2wzo6qow said:


> It's been mentioned before that learning to do anything really well takes something in the order of 10,000 hours or so.



I've certainly heard it asserted many times, with never any substantiation. And I firmly believe it to be a load of old cobblers, probably perpetuated by people with a protectionist agenda.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Jan 2018)

Yes. I often wonder of what the "learning" consisted - a decorator acquaintance years ago told me the first year of his apprenticeship was spent sweeping up, knotting and priming skirting boards and cleaning brushes. I doubt he learned much there.


----------



## cowfoot (7 Jan 2018)

woodbrains":3dbedclt said:


> Hello,
> 
> If a professional in the first world is making things with purely hand tools, by piecework, to have to make a viable living (does this situation even exist) then they are doing something wrong. They either need to mechanise to a point or just plain do something else. Handwork is fun and can give a great sense of achievement, but piecework by handwork is miserable. I doubt anyone would train up in the skills of woodwork, perhaps taking Cities and Guilds qualifications and the like, to spend a life working piece work.



Slightly different sphere of work, but I spent over twenty years as a painter using the most basic of handtools (usually working to price) and whilst it wasn’t ever particularly profitable it was enjoyable...most days! Obviously it was slightly more entertaining laying on faux finishes in Highgate than toshing out council toilets in Hackney.
There are plenty of jobs that haven’t been mechanised and are fairly repetitive that still provide decent work - bricklaying, plastering, tiling, roofing etc. Once you’ve spent a few years doing one, you start noticing the little details that mark out someone who takes pride in their work - these are often utterly invisible to other people (even/especially site managers and architects!).


----------



## custard (7 Jan 2018)

Sheffield Tony":1qr812k4 said:


> Cheshirechappie":1qr812k4 said:
> 
> 
> > It's been mentioned before that learning to do anything really well takes something in the order of 10,000 hours or so.
> ...




As far as cabinet making is concerned I think there's three broad levels of attainment.

Level one comes after roughly 1,000 hours of training or structured practise. That gets you to the stage where you can make most of the rectilinear items that constitutes the majority of domestic furniture. You might not be particularly quick, your joinery might not be absolutely immaculate, but you'll have the skills to get the job done to a reasonable standard. You could for example tackle a project like this,







Level two comes after roughly 10,000 hours. You've then got a thorough grasp of a much wider range of techniques, such as lamination work or veneering, you can handle complex curved work and compound angles, and you can pretty much make the claim "if I can draw it then I can make it". You could for example tackle a project like this,






Level three is less time dependent and more about aptitude, although you'll certainly need 10,000 hours or longer under your belt. This is the preserve of Guild Mark winners and true "master craftsmen", people who can figure out how to make things that have never been made before, people who can conceptualise and create the ingenious jigs and fixtures necessary to make original or staggeringly complex work, people who have an innate grasp of the possibility of wood as a raw material. There are at least two people who contribute to this forum who operate at this level, sadly I'm not one of them.

Are these categories cast in stone? Of course not, some people will get there faster, and some won't ever make the cut; but they're broadly applicable guidelines that accord with my practical experiences of the furniture making world.

There are also "special cases", more focused areas of woodworking that require a narrower skill set. One example might be windsor chair making, you can go on a one or two week course, let's say 100 hours, and you'll likely come away with all the necessary skills to make a windsor chair. Again, not particularly fast, and certainly not the highest expression of the craft, but something that will do the job and pass muster. In a similar vein fifty hours might be enough to set you up as a maker of basic picture and mirror frames. Or two hundred hours might get you to a reasonable level of proficiency as a maker of basic jewellery boxes or strip wood canoes. But these are narrower areas of expertise and the constituent skills aren't necessarily very portable into other applications.


----------



## cowfoot (7 Jan 2018)

Sheffield Tony":2rcj7t0q said:


> Cheshirechappie":2rcj7t0q said:
> 
> 
> > It's been mentioned before that learning to do anything really well takes something in the order of 10,000 hours or so.
> ...



The 10,000 hours theory is from Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)

You’re not alone in taking issue with it! -
http://www.businessinsider.com/new-stud ... 014-7?IR=T


----------



## JohnPW (7 Jan 2018)

Sheffield Tony":1lbj984m said:


> Cheshirechappie":1lbj984m said:
> 
> 
> > It's been mentioned before that learning to do anything really well takes something in the order of 10,000 hours or so.
> ...



I'm glad I'm not the only one to think that!

We're talking about sawing and cutting bits of wood, not playing Beethoven's violin concerto!


----------



## custard (7 Jan 2018)

JohnPW":3hbx97uf said:


> We're talking about sawing and cutting bits of wood, not playing Beethoven's violin concerto!


----------



## AndyT (7 Jan 2018)

I started to write a long reply but here's a short one instead. 

To learn about how the reputable cabinet making trade was displaced by the disreputable trade, "slaughterhouses" "slop work" and "scamping" read *Henry Mayhew's* contemporary descriptions from the 1850s. The chapters on Woodworkers in the book "The Unknown Mayhew" are what you need. About half of it - mostly about the reputable end of the trade - is available online at http://www.victorianlondon.org The site uses frames, so providing urls for specific sections is tricky, but if you can't find what you want under Professions & Trades > Craft and Household > Furniture, use this link for all of Letter LXIII http://www.victorianlondon.org/mayhew/mayhew63.htm

Here's one sample quote from letter 68 showing that the good makers were very quick, but the scampers were even quicker, only outpaced by the machinery which took their place later in the century. 

_"A very quick hand, a little master, working as he called it 'at a slaughtering pace' for a warehouse, made 60 plain writing-desks in a week of 90 hours, while a first-rate workman, also a quick hand, made 18 in a week of 70 hours."_

Hands up anyone who can work that fast by hand or by power tools today!


----------



## D_W (7 Jan 2018)

cowfoot":3l3o6rsj said:


> Sheffield Tony":3l3o6rsj said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":3l3o6rsj said:
> ...



It's a limited statement - overly simplistic, but it does have value in some cases. Most notably, when someone transitions from one profession to another or to a hobby, to remember what they invested when they wanted to succeed, and to remember that after you have a few dozen or hundred hours under your belt, be realistic about what to expect and see every project as an opportunity to grow and improve skills or efficiency.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jan 2018)

Cheshirechappie":3tkm6oos said:


> ....... Thus, the 'efficiencies' practiced by the Victorian journeyman to cut as many corners as he could should not concern us in the work we do today, except as historical interest. For maximum enjoyment and pride in what we've produced, we should be trying to do better.


You've equated "efficiency" pejoratively with "cutting corners". It's called "confirmation bias". 
Makes your argument meaningless; efficiency isn't only about cutting corners and isn't only aimed at by "Victorian journeymen".

In fact; the more efficient you are the less you need to cut corners, the more time you have for enjoyment (or profit making) which is rather the whole point!


----------



## dzj (7 Jan 2018)

AndyT":1z27kidd said:


> _"A very quick hand, a little master, working as he called it 'at a slaughtering pace' for a warehouse, made 60 plain writing-desks in a week of 90 hours, while a first-rate workman, also a quick hand, made 18 in a week of 70 hours."_
> 
> Hands up anyone who can work that fast by hand or by power tools today!



One of the reasons life expectancy in 1850s England was around 40.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Jan 2018)

Some interesting comments - thanks, chaps.

One or two people feel that I'm trying to equate efficiency with deliberately sloppy work. Not so. I'm trying to say that efficiency is something that can only come when sufficient experience has been gained, and the only way to gain experience is by putting the time in. Once someone can work efficiently, they can choose whether to work fast to a good standard, or fast to a sloppy standard and churn out more finished work (as AndyT kindly illustrated), and to point out that examples of Victorian work made to the latter standards are not necessarily good examples for us to follow today, because we're not trying to compete on price with IKEA. Thanks to Musicman for developing the point about standards of work.

On the 10,000 hours; I rather regret using that number now, since it's diverted the discussion. Perhaps I should just have said 'a significant amount of time' or some such phrase. However, I do think Custard's development of the point was spot on.

That leaves enjoyment. That, of course, is very personal - but for me, enjoyment comes with the growing abilty to work efficiently and choose the standards I'm going to work to. Personally, I don't enjoy doing sloppy work (though I do take Nabs' point about unnecessary work - and that's a personal choice too, at least for the amateur - for the pro, it's more about what the client will pay for).


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Jan 2018)

dzj":18v7s218 said:


> AndyT":18v7s218 said:
> 
> 
> > _"A very quick hand, a little master, working as he called it 'at a slaughtering pace' for a warehouse, made 60 plain writing-desks in a week of 90 hours, while a first-rate workman, also a quick hand, made 18 in a week of 70 hours."_
> ...



To be fair, infant mortality was quite high in those days, which brought average life expectancy down a lot. If you survived infancy, you had a pretty good chance of making 60, and some achieved ripe old ages - 80s and 90s were not unknown.


----------



## Brandlin (7 Jan 2018)

An interesting debate with many useful and thought provoking links.

However one of the things that is hampering the discussion is the variable use of the word "efficiency". Efficiency is a ratio, how much you get of one thing for the input or consumption of another. the efficiency of an engine can be the amount of energy put in in fuel compared to the amount of mechanical energy out. Being efficient does not necessarily mean a ratio of output to time in fact thats a quite rare use of it... thats units per hour or perhaps speed. Efficiency could equally mean units per £1 of raw materials, or units per cup of tea (the true british metric). For example a bookcase would be said to be efficient in terms of the material used if it was veneered in expensive hardwoods rather than made of solid hardwood stock - yet this would undoubtedly have taken longer to produce and require more /different skills.

Efficiency in the modern hobby/professional world is also a very complex and subjective thing - and indeed drives a lot of the differing answers to stock questions on this site. For a professional or someone who's time is limited or expensive then comparing things to the time taken is often used as efficiency because that time is likely to have a higher worth/value than perhaps the outlay on bigger, better, more capable equipment. Whereas to an amateur on a small budget time may be the one free thing he has and therefore his solution is not to incur the extra expense but to work at a slower rate. Importantly he is not necessarily less "efficient".

The charateristic of customisation - standard product vs bespoke - complicates the idea of efficiency even further.... and you need to compare the same ratios throughout. 


Dont even get me started on the definition of quality. Quality is a measure of somethings fitness for use. An ornate louis XiV writing desk complete with gilding and carving is no more a quality piece of furniture than a victorian pine kitchen dresser. They are both quality items in that they fulfill their purpose. It would not be appropriate for the Louis XIV desk to be nailed together from pine planks any more than it would be for the dresser to have elaborately carved rose and boxwood marquetry.


----------



## dzj (7 Jan 2018)

Cheshirechappie":vyswtu0o said:


> To be fair, infant mortality was quite high in those days, which brought average life expectancy down a lot. If you survived infancy, you had a pretty good chance of making 60, and some achieved ripe old ages - 80s and 90s were not unknown.



Sure, statistics can be stretched one way or the other, but a 70 or 90h work week doesn't spell longevity.


----------



## woodbrains (7 Jan 2018)

AndyT":1li9he0i said:


> _"A very quick hand, a little master, working as he called it 'at a slaughtering pace' for a warehouse, made 60 plain writing-desks in a week of 90 hours, while a first-rate workman, also a quick hand, made 18 in a week of 70 hours."_



Hello,

Does anyone think this is as meaningless as the 10 000 hours quote? 

Make an entire desk, simple, granted, in 1 1/2 hours! And continue to do so to 90 hours. From what starting point, lots of team made piecework elements, perhaps? But from scratch, no. So then what can we compare this to. I'm sure mass produced furniture on the production line, Oak Furniture Land stuff is done at a similar pace. Not made by one man from a pile of rough sawn boards and a good kit of hand tools.

Mike.


----------



## Brandlin (8 Jan 2018)

woodbrains":1qtgxgb9 said:


> AndyT":1qtgxgb9 said:
> 
> 
> > _"A very quick hand, a little master, working as he called it 'at a slaughtering pace' for a warehouse, made 60 plain writing-desks in a week of 90 hours, while a first-rate workman, also a quick hand, made 18 in a week of 70 hours."_
> ...



a writing desk was often a simple wooden tray with a recess for an ink pot and pens.... 

but i agree, its a meaningless metric unless you know specifically what the item was and how it was constructed


----------



## AndyT (8 Jan 2018)

I picked out the writing desk example to show how much faster the cheap workers were, compared to the already fast reputable workers. There are more examples in Mayhew - I'll try and post some later today.

One way that the scampers managed was to add in the unpaid labour of their wives and children.

What I would like to add into the mix are some of the price books. These gave a standard design of say, a chest of drawers, then priced all possible"extras" - mouldings, trim, curved fronts, carving etc. Here's an example from 1803

https://play.google.com/store/books/det ... 8GAAAAQAAJ

These books were agreed between sellers and makers and were used in the respectable trade where they kept up standards and wages. I know that modern historians have worked back from known levels of wages and calculated how much time a craftsman would have to spend on making the pieces listed. In general, the answer is that they worked extremely fast, but I can't remember where I read this. Probably a blog. Anyone know?


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2018)

Cheshirechappie":m0mfgdmq said:


> Some interesting comments - thanks, chaps.
> 
> One or two people feel that I'm trying to equate efficiency with deliberately sloppy work. Not so. I'm trying to say that efficiency is something that can only come when sufficient experience has been gained, and the only way to gain experience is by putting the time in. Once someone can work efficiently, they can choose whether to work fast to a good standard, or fast to a sloppy standard and churn out more finished work (as AndyT kindly illustrated), and to point out that examples of Victorian work made to the latter standards are not necessarily good examples for us to follow today, because we're not trying to compete on price with IKEA. ......


Getting there! But nobody has suggested that following bad examples of Victorian work, or competing on price with IKEA, are good ideas, so you are still arguing around your own straw men and not really saying anything.

My personal view of the 10000 hours thing is that this amounts to 5 or 6 years of full time work - which roughly coincides with say; an apprenticeship, a first and second degree etc. and is a useful measure of how how long it takes to be a good at something - given the proper background of support, practice, training, education, work experience, whatever is necessary.


----------



## bugbear (8 Jan 2018)

Cheshirechappie":1t4di8v6 said:


> That leaves enjoyment. That, of course, is very personal - but for me, enjoyment comes with the growing abilty to work efficiently and choose the standards I'm going to work to. Personally, I don't enjoy doing sloppy work (though I do take Nabs' point about unnecessary work - and that's a personal choice too, at least for the amateur - for the pro, it's more about what the client will pay for).


I think the _whole point_ of the hobby of model engineering is "unnecessary work" done for the joy of doing.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (8 Jan 2018)

AndyT":11sj2r3o said:


> I know that modern historians have worked back from known levels of wages and calculated how much time a craftsman would have to spend on making the pieces listed. In general, the answer is that they worked extremely fast, but I can't remember where I read this. Probably a blog. Anyone know?


I have a similar memory - possibly someone connected with Williamsburg? I'm fairly sure it was in the USA.

BugBear


----------



## bugbear (8 Jan 2018)

cowfoot":b9mlul77 said:


> The 10,000 hours theory is from Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers”
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_(book)


Well. It's certainly mentioned in that (published November 18, 2008). But it also gets a lot of mentions in _The Craftsman_
by Richard Sennett (March 27 2008); Sennett (in turn) is quoting from _This Is Your Brain on Music_ by Daniel Levitin, published 25 April 2006.

All three books are controversial in their (ahem) bold and clear conclusions.

BugBear


----------



## Sheffield Tony (8 Jan 2018)

Regarding the 10000 hours (with apologies for any thread derailment I've caused), some of the reasons for my scepticism have been touched on by Custard and others: 10000 hours to what level of proficiency ? Over what breadth of skills ? With a good level of decent experience and tuition, or including hours of sweeping up, sharpening and other general lackey jobs as cheap labour - a common feature of apprenticeship. And no consideration of transferable skills. Or aptitude. Although it seems modern thinking to deny the existence of talent / aptitude and pretend anyone can achieve whatever they put their mind to. 

Coming back to efficiency. I mentioned that I'd been reading Joshua Klein's Mortise and Tenon article about making a reproduction chair using the pole lathe. In there he discusses the importance of cleaving; cleaving as close as possible to finished dimensions means more parts from a billet and less time spent wasting away material at the lathe. So much so that period chairs often have spindles with flat riven areas, which would be tolerated but positioned facing down or to the back of the piece. It was such standard practice that a chair without these features should be viewed with suspicion. 

I wouldn't have thought any of us would want to be knocking out writing desks by hand in an hour and a half these days. That's what machines are for. A slightly different, though related, issue engages me, which is getting just the right hand-made look. Treading the line between looking machine made, and looking roughly made. Some of these features like riven flats on spindles, over-sawn dovetails etc can be part of that.


----------



## bugbear (8 Jan 2018)

Sheffield Tony":36ejxnqx said:


> A slightly different, though related, issue engages me, which is getting just the right hand-made look. Treading the line between looking machine made, and looking roughly made. Some of these features like riven flats on spindles, over-sawn dovetails etc can be part of that.


I recall someone mentioning gauged base lines being added to machine cut dovetails - in the wrong place!!

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2018)

Sheffield Tony":3g7vvh7v said:


> Regarding the 10000 hours (with apologies for any thread derailment I've caused), some of the reasons for my scepticism have been touched on by Custard and others: 10000 hours to what level of proficiency ? Over what breadth of skills ? With a good level of decent experience and tuition, or including hours of sweeping up, sharpening and other general lackey jobs as cheap labour - a common feature of apprenticeship.


I see it as not a magic formula, it's just an observation that 5 or 6 years learning/training seems to be what it takes to get started in your trade whatever it is.


> And no consideration of transferable skills. Or aptitude. Although it seems modern thinking to deny the existence of talent / aptitude and pretend anyone can achieve whatever they put their mind to.


Yes I think people can achieve almost whatever they set their minds too, given the right opportunities. I don't believe in innate talent or aptitude, though innate brain power might be needed for some things


----------



## MusicMan (8 Jan 2018)

I think 10,000 hours is not a bad estimate for *mastery* of a *field* (not simply competence in one aspect). Yes, I have read the original source (Gladwell) and the arguments either way. In my own career, my scientific academic work did need a high level of mastery, which I think I achieved by the age of about 35, after about 5000 hours of undergraduate work, more like 10,000 hours of postgraduate and the first 10 years of a research career. In the case of musical instrument playing, which I'm also familiar with, that is also about right; 5,000 hours gets you decent competence, 10,000 mastery of one or two instruments and many more for top international status. Students at the Royal College of Music (where I am doing a geriatric PhD in my retirement, in musicology not performance) are expected to do six hours practice a day for the four years they are there (this is after they have got Grade 8 or higher to get in, probably 3000 - 5000 hours total), probably around 5000 hours, plus the theoretical instruction. That will get some of them a professional orchestral position and all of them into a musical career at some level. I've probably had about 5000 hours playing over 65 years, and am a decent amateur standard but could not compare with any RCM student as a player. 

Clearly individuals vary. But the key element of Gladwell and similar approaches in musical education is of "intelligent practice", of spending the practice time discovering and dealing with difficulties rather than plain repetition; too often one repeats and thus embeds one's mistakes. Sweeping the floor and making the tea contributes little (though not zero) to the 10,000 hours. Learning how to cut dovetails does contribute, as does learning to make them better each time. Keeping on making dovetails that do not improve does not. Attention to detail and how it can be improved is essential. For example, I am always impressed by Custard's thoughtful posts on the selection of wood, matching of grain, design and layout of joints, choice of finish, etc., etc.

Very often, when we speak of a "talented" woodworker, musician or whatever, we actually mean someone who has done the (intelligent) practice. When anyone says to me "I wish I could play a musical instrument", my response, whatever their age, is to say "Practice one for an hour a day, preferably with a teacher's guidance, and within a year you can say that you can play one." and of course play it better every year. You don't need 10,000 hours to get going. I am more and more feeling that "talent" means "the ability and motivation to put in the practice". 

And BB's point is valid for us hobbyists. It is how we choose to spend our free time and resources, and improving our skills by intelligent practice is an end in itself. 

Keith


----------



## CStanford (8 Jan 2018)

It's easier to start with the absurd case -- could you work at something for 10,000 hours and be less skillful than when you started? Not likely. And you'll inevitably get faster, though different people will do so to different degrees. Some may choose not to work faster, though they could if they felt like it.

And of course people have innate talent. How could one ever explain Da Vinci otherwise?


----------



## Tasky (8 Jan 2018)

D_W":18eunvrk said:


> There is an errant assumption here, and that is that doing something efficiently means that you'll have to do it to a lower standard.


Not entirely errant... or even at all, if you take teh technical definition of the word - Lowering standards and cutting corners is a typical way of increasing what many people consider to be efficiency. 
What constitutes efficiency is the assumption. 

Regarding how long efficiency and indeed proficiency both take, a lot of that time can be cut out with good* instruction and focussed, correct practice. Too often people practice the same thing over and over for hours and hours and hours, waiting for that time when they finally get good at it, which is why it's so often thought to take years to become a master at anything... That's a flawed tradition long upheld fallaciously by those misinformed by The Old Ways. 
Truth is, if you start and keep someone practicing something with absolute perfection, efficiency is built in and proficiency follows far far quicker. Practice does make perfect, but only if what you practice is also perfect. 



D_W":18eunvrk said:


> While we might not be as fast as someone who has done those things for 25 years 50 hours a week , we can still learn from people doing something efficiently.


Part of what enables people to produce high quality work very quickly for sustained periods of time is economy of effort. This could be the reduction of micro-tensions, as mentioned on the other thread, or it could be a heightened proficiency in aligning tools, or any number of other things. 
As also mentioned - What they do is only part of it. Why they do it is just as important. 



Jacob":18eunvrk said:


> Yes I think people can achieve almost whatever they set their minds too, given the right opportunities. I don't believe in innate talent or aptitude, though innate brain power might be needed for some things


Unfortunately (annoyingly?) there are people with innate leanings toward certain things, as evidence by those who can turn their hand very well to something they've never done before, yet so often also have no interest in it while others struggle on in abject jealousy to get even half as good.


----------



## John15 (8 Jan 2018)

As a hobbyist endeavering to improve my skills and knowledge with each item I make, I am finding this thread very interesting. I've no idea how many hours I've spent, but I've noticed that particular tasks that took me an age 5 or 6 years ago take me a fraction of the time now. Also the quality of my work is improving all the time. I know Paul Sellers gets some stick on here but he has helped me a lot. Also Peter Sefton's School where I did a beginners course. The third item in the title is Enjoyment. I can't over-emphasize the enjoyment that making bits of furniture brings me, just 2 or 3 hours on most days and it's quite a talking point in the pub! 

John


----------



## D_W (8 Jan 2018)

Tasky- the dictionary states efficiency as being efficient:

ef·fi·cient
əˈfiSHənt/Submit
adjective
(especially of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.
"fluorescent lamps are efficient at converting electricity into light"
(of a person) working in a well-organized and competent way.
"an efficient administrator"
synonyms:	organized, methodical, systematic, logical, orderly, businesslike, streamlined, productive, effective, cost-effective, labor-saving More
preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
suffix: -efficient
"an energy-efficient heating system"




There is nothing in there about cutting corners. What you're alluding to is a sometimes sleight of tongue used in business where a manager wants to cut corners or fire people without coming right out with what you're doing.

The tension argument doesn't hold water here like it does in music, especially with hand woodworkers. It is not a material problem for anyone except rank beginners.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2018)

MusicMan":yado05i3 said:


> I think 10,000 hours is not a bad estimate for *mastery* of a *field* (not simply competence in one aspect). Yes, I have read the original source (Gladwell) and the arguments either way. In my own career, my scientific academic work did need a high level of mastery, which I think I achieved by the age of about 35, after about 5000 hours of undergraduate work, more like 10,000 hours of postgraduate and the first 10 years of a research career. In the case of musical instrument playing, which I'm also familiar with, that is also about right; 5,000 hours gets you decent competence, 10,000 mastery of one or two instruments and many more for top international status. Students at the Royal College of Music (where I am doing a geriatric PhD in my retirement, in musicology not performance) are expected to do six hours practice a day for the four years they are there (this is after they have got Grade 8 or higher to get in, probably 3000 - 5000 hours total), probably around 5000 hours, plus the theoretical instruction. That will get some of them a professional orchestral position and all of them into a musical career at some level. I've probably had about 5000 hours playing over 65 years, and am a decent amateur standard but could not compare with any RCM student as a player.
> 
> Clearly individuals vary. But the key element of Gladwell and similar approaches in musical education is of "intelligent practice", of spending the practice time discovering and dealing with difficulties rather than plain repetition; too often one repeats and thus embeds one's mistakes. Sweeping the floor and making the tea contributes little (though not zero) to the 10,000 hours. Learning how to cut dovetails does contribute, as does learning to make them better each time. Keeping on making dovetails that do not improve does not. Attention to detail and how it can be improved is essential. For example, I am always impressed by Custard's thoughtful posts on the selection of wood, matching of grain, design and layout of joints, choice of finish, etc., etc.
> 
> ...


Interesting stuff.
I came back to music very recently. Having more or less given up 30 years ago I got dragged into a local group of geriatrics - most having owned unplayable instruments for just as long. 
What I suddenly realised was that in the meantime I had become a moderately competent woodworker and that learning to play an instrument is just another craft skill, not unlike woodwork. No magic talent, innate gifts involved - it's just a question of constructive learning and practicing as MusicMan says above. Wish I'd (re) started sooner - I could have been a contender!

ps banjo and several guitars. I'm into North and Latin American music. Abel Fleury et al. Another 5 years (if I live that long) I might be able to play like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQEXX1W9bZk


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2018)

Tasky":1irddfqz said:


> .......
> Unfortunately (annoyingly?) there are people with innate leanings toward certain things, as evidence by those who can turn their hand very well to something they've never done before, yet so often also have no interest in it while others struggle on in abject jealousy to get even half as good.


You can only guess that they have no useful prior experience and you are probably guessing wrongly. For instance - I learned to play a few nursery rhymes with my kids, on recorders. As a result I can pick up a clarinet, saxophone, probably any woodwind and after making the first few squeaks can fake the beginnings of a tune. To an absolute beginner this could look like uncanny skill, but it isn't and I can't actually play any of them (except the recorder).
The destructive and pernicious notion of "innate" skill and talent probably does more than anything else to deter people from having a go at something they would be perfectly capable of, eventually


----------



## thetyreman (8 Jan 2018)

thought this would be useful for people who still believe in the 10,000 hour rule https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY


----------



## Tasky (8 Jan 2018)

D_W":2pakxpe8 said:


> Tasky- the dictionary states efficiency as being efficient:


So numerous different definitions then, any of which can be the primary focus depending on who you talk to. 
In your arguments you tend to infer that speed is a focus, for example. Speed of executing a technique, speed of making a joint, sopeed of churning out work, etc... Others might argue that expense or effort is the focus. 
It's very subjective, especially in this context. 



D_W":2pakxpe8 said:


> achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.


Well, if you're able to chop mortises without having to switch to a different set of chisels, or even buy a set specifically for mortising, then that's effort-efficient and cost-efficient, as defined right there... 

The other definitions are equally subjective, too. 



D_W":2pakxpe8 said:


> There is nothing in there about cutting corners.


Did I say there was??!!
I said this is what many people *think* efficiency is which is why, by definition, it is not errant. 



D_W":2pakxpe8 said:


> What you're alluding to is a sometimes sleight of tongue used in business where a manager wants to cut corners or fire people without coming right out with what you're doing.


Uh-huh... so when I said the same thing, with the very specific words that this is "what many people *consider* to be efficiency"... you just decided to ignore the point and create a strawman argument?



D_W":2pakxpe8 said:


> The tension argument doesn't hold water here like it does in music, especially with hand woodworkers. It is not a material problem for anyone except rank beginners.


Are you using your body to do this?
Is it a physical skill?
Yes?
Then micro-tensions *will always* be a factor.... unless you are not actually human, or are using telekinesis to manipulate your tools. 
You name me any physical activity, microtensions will be present. Even sitting there reading this on your computer, you will have them. You have them when you sleep, you have them when you walk, you have them when you take a bath - You *WILL* have them in woodworking. 
It's not even a new concept, either - People have been writing about this since at least the 1500s!!

Ye cannae change tha laws o' physics, Jim!! 




Jacob":2pakxpe8 said:


> learning to play an instrument is just another craft skill, not unlike woodwork. No magic talent, innate gifts involved - it's just a question of constructive learning and practicing as MusicMan says above.


Case. Point. :wink: =D>


----------



## Chris152 (8 Jan 2018)

thetyreman":fng97x4e said:


> thought this would be useful for people who still believe in the 10,000 rule https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY


I really don't like Ted Talks usually, but enjoyed that one lots - I'm going to show it to my kids when they get home. Thanks.

edit - and from a woodworking perspective, I'm only really looking to learn to do a few things (chords) well - from there, I see it as a question of what I can do with them.


----------



## Andy Kev. (8 Jan 2018)

I think this is a very interesting discussion and I've been mulling over it while at the bench today. I've come to the following (proposed) conclusion: efficiency is achieved through the application of acquired skills and/or knowledge in the light of experience to achieve acceptable results in a timely manner.

A couple of examples: I'm inefficient at doing through tenons on pine (see other thread) because a. I never tried making them until a week ago. b. I've not yet acquired the skills to deal with pine well.

By contrast I've just taken a piece of poplar, planed it square on all six sides to a fairly high degree of precision, ripped it into three pieces of more or less equal width and sawn them to length. This was done efficiently because a. I have learned to work poplar fairly well and have acquired planing and sawing skills to the necessary degree b. I have enough experience to to know where "more or less" is fully acceptable (in this case two sides of each piece have to be bang on parallel to each other and the other two just have to look tidy).

So my work on the pine is inefficient because the results are not acceptable and timeliness has gone right out of the window whereas the work on the poplar is relatively efficient because the results are what I set out to achieve and were achieved in a time that was acceptable to me.

I suspect that where opinions might differ is what constitutes an acceptable standard of result and even more, what is an acceptable amount of time, although the hobbyist clearly has the luxury of being able to define the latter whereas the pro might find that his accountant gets to define it.


----------



## D_W (8 Jan 2018)

Tasky is too far into thinking things in music transfer to things in woodworking. It's not similar. Nobody asks for an audio tape of the mallet strikes and checks for tempo or dynamics. Tension isn't an issue, except for rank beginners, because it causes soreness, and every beginner will work through it. Most good amateur musicians still have a problem with it. It would be useful to stop talking about music and assuming that it's relevant for woodworking. Certain things are, but this feel discussion is getting really absurd (it was from the start). 

Last night, I mortised a plane handle. I mortise everything in a plane by hand. I don't know if I could keep the same standard and introduce anything else and go any faster (it takes 20 minutes to mortise a plane to the point that the mouth needs to be drilled - one overcut with a drill press and all is lost, I've never found it faster except in the case where someone is not good at mortising). 

So, the plane handle mortise is about an inch deep, probably about five inches long and I want a square front. I don't check roundness on my handle profiles, so the mortise is made to the handle profile rather than a gauge (this is an efficiency that does not affect results negatively). I use a chisel that is about a 16th less wide than the handle so that I have a little wiggle room to clean the sides of the mortise. It would be faster to try to make the handle the same width as a chisel and make a mortise without cleaning sides, but there would be little gaps all around the handle, and no ability to clean the walls of the mortise to get a good glue joint or adjust the sides mildly for vertical. That would be lowering standards, not efficiency. It would be faster, though. 

When I mortise, I mortise the full width of the cut in one pass, and I'd estimate about 3/16ths of wood at a time. I do not pick the plane up and turn it around, I turn the chisel. I say I do this because I'm lazy, but it's efficient. Turning the plane back and forth would just be dumb. 

I have noticed over three years of having videos on youtube that I often get comments about "that's a great idea, you don't ever move the plane when you're mortising or walk around it". 

This is a single example. I can almost guarantee, except for someone twice as strong as me, that anyone who builds five planes and will do this whole process slower than me. Anyone who builds 500 will do it much faster, and they may do things differently than I do. I will be able to *see it*, just like the people who remark about not unclamping and turning their planes all the time can see that I don't do it. This is not just a speed issue, it's also the case that it is much more pleasant to work like this. At the risk of flattering Jacob, this mortise is pretty much made on the vertical (but riding the bevel) and without regard to cleaning it or faffing around. Place the chisel and hammer, place it again, hammer. 

Establishing this routine also makes the results safer - getting too cute with something like this can lead to an overcut or surface grain at the mortise chasing out into an open area and splitting off. That would be disastrous. 

I have seen a video of a professional maker doing the same thing I'm doing, but quality standards had dropped to the point that it was acceptable to have a machine cut mortise and machine cut handle (rounded everywhere). However, the mortise sidewalls still needed to be fitted, and the professional did so with a heavier hand and wider chisel than I use. 

How important is it for someone else that they do a plane handle mortise like this if they have the same standards and want the same results? Probably not that important, but a whole gaggle of details would apply elsewhere, such as trimming the sides of a mortise without spending inordinate time doing it, and without risking torn grain at the edge of a mortise in a visible area. 

If one just "gets by" each time they do something and doesn't make these small incremental improvements, sooner or later, the work will just cease instead, or standards will drop to do something else. That'd be a shame. 

There is only one non-visual thing to learn by watching someone do work like I'm talking about above - in this case - and it's not feel. It's the sound that the chisel makes when it hits the bottom of the previous cut. You get one more strike, and the mortise gets progressively deeper with each cut until you've reached your target depth. One flip of the chisel to go back the other way and extend the mortise depth as desired in the part of the cut that didn't yet reach it, and you're done. 

There are a whole lot of other discussions around this that correlate with increased standards, but I'm sure that they'll be lost on the board. Just one as an example, finishing cuts in carving. It is efficient to make them in one stroke where possible. A beginner wouldn't grasp that yet, because they'll feel unsafe, but they need to work toward that or their carvings will all either end up with amateurish looking interrupted cuts, or they'll have to sand them and scrape them to death. Visually, either of those will stand out, and not in a positive way.


----------



## D_W (8 Jan 2018)

Tasky":p13msouw said:


> D_W":p13msouw said:
> 
> 
> > Tasky- the dictionary states efficiency as being efficient:
> ...



I get the sense that you've done a lot of instrument playing, and not a lot of woodworking - at least not a lot of hand tool woodworking. The kind of "microtensions" that you're talking about just don't amount to anything. Ergonomics on a larger scale does, perhaps (not putting boards on the far side of the bench to plane - nobody will have to tell you why that's no good) and not gripping chisel tips with a pencil grip, despite the popularity with beginners. However, those things are already well discussed. 

Also, you're pointing the discussion of efficiency toward lowering standards, as are others. It's bunk. A pure definition of efficiency is just achieving the same standard (or amount of work) with less effort or a better standard with the same amount of work. 

Relying on Jacob's quote is extrapolation. The same areas of focus don't apply to each. Tension may be an issue in music because you're doing something that requires relatively little physical effort and some level of concentration. We don't talk about tension with bricklayers or farmers throwing hay bales - tell me why that is. 

With all of the different immaterial diversions that you've proposed, I wonder how much you could improve if you just spent that effort watching someone who is better at woodworking than you are. Probably a lot. While the next person nails down details like those I suggested above in cutting a plane handle mortise, you'll still be arguing about how much tension they have at the end of your first mortise - they will have cut three. Probably to a higher standard. Or two, or five. You could have, too.

Physics has nothing to do with this, at least not in verbally discussing material areas for improvement in technique. You have so many immaterial diversions that I think you should choose another hobby and not attempt to distract anyone else with them.


----------



## MusicMan (8 Jan 2018)

thetyreman":1ml8p26v said:


> thought this would be useful for people who still believe in the 10,000 hour rule https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MgBikgcWnY



I do believe in the 10,000 hour 'rule' though I'd prefer total it a rough estimate, but I also agree with all that was said in the TED talk. This was addressing the basic 'get going' level, with which I agree fully. In fact I just had to learn a complex programming language, MatLab, for my research, after doing no programming for about 25 years, and after 20 hours I am reasonably competent and at the self-corrected and improving level. But this is a world short of the masters and innovators in this programming language, and that is the level the 10,000 hours tries to address. If anyone takes home the message that 20 hours is enough to learn anything they are greatly deluded. A particular skill (e.g. four chords, or a mortise-and-tenon joint), yes; a field of knowledge, ability to build any furniture, ability to play any music put in front of you, ability to speak a language fluently, nope. But yes you can get going.

On my own experience, 10,000 is a bit light for mastery, but I may be a slow learner . However, being a slow learner, means that in my late 70s I am still improving! As Casals said when he was in his 90s.

So Jacob, good to hear you are getting great enjoyment out of your music, and keep improving! 

Keith


----------



## nabs (8 Jan 2018)

who'd have thunk it - nearly twenty years ago following a tour around West Virginia with my missus I confidently told her I was going to learn the banjo, and tbh not a lot of progress has been made since then 

Thanks to this thread I am seriously thinking about giving it a go. I have zero experience with musical instruments (other than enjoying listening to them!) - is there such a thing as a 'beginners banjo'?


----------



## Ttrees (8 Jan 2018)

You can be really bad at skills regardless how much you practice ...
Some people ARE naturally skilfull, and as allready mentioned, they normally have a
lesser desire to be motivated .
Take Skateboarding for example ...there's so many reasons I was barely able to do it.
Likewise with playing music.

Anyone can do really fancy work with none of those born skills, if we employed techniques 
to aid us.
This suggests that there's a few ways it seems to do woodworking efficiently... 

To have talent, be skillful and efficient by putting the time in practising, and becoming fast...

Or to have no talent, but employing jigs and aids to make the same thing, but basically without hardly
any experience

Both in my opinion are not shortcuts, and can be weighed up by the amount of time doing either
practising or studying 
Not trying to include the old days, making 10 tables in 20 mins kinda thing
Just to make something in an efficient (ish) manner, as most folks these days do this for fun, or the 
blood sweat and tears of it.

Tom


----------



## Ttrees (8 Jan 2018)

Duplicate post 
Sorry folks


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2018)

nabs":phf8jxta said:


> who'd have thunk it - nearly twenty years ago following a tour around West Virginia with my missus I confidently told her I was going to learn the banjo, and tbh not a lot of progress has been made since then
> 
> Thanks to this thread I am seriously thinking about giving it a go. I have zero experience with musical instruments (other than enjoying listening to them!) - is there such a thing as a 'beginners banjo'?


There are loads of 5 string banjos out there from about £150 new but some of them are rubbish. The build quality tends to be OK but the sound can be really bad. Either try a reliable old school music shop or just take pot luck. Avoid Barnes and Mullins, Tanglewood cheapos, though their better ones probably are better. Countryman seem OK I've been lucky with several.
Mel Bay Banjo method by Neil Griffin is good. There's a lot more to 5 string banjo than bluegrass and there are masses of books


----------



## Tasky (8 Jan 2018)

D_W":3hrnoybw said:


> Tasky is too far into thinking things in music transfer to things in woodworking.


Pick ANY skill that makes use of the human body, it will work along the same principles. 
A N Y physical skill. 
Go ahead, pick one. Any one you like. 
Go ahead. I'll wait.... 

No, wait, pick two. Pick five. Heck, pick a hundred. 

Swordfighting, archery, wall climbing, brick laying, sewing, driving, motorcycling, handwriting, computer gaming, typing, modelling, dancing, boxing, plastering.... and yes, even the hallowed woodworking, supposedly unlike anything else on the planet. It's all the same, because it's using the same human body, whether you like it or not. 



D_W":3hrnoybw said:


> Tension isn't an issue, except for rank beginners, because it causes soreness, and every beginner will work through it.


Again, that's the point - You will not work through it, because it's part of what causes all the bad habits and forces you to compensate, which throws your work off. 
You can still improve, but you will forever be limiting youself by tying yourself up in microtension. 
It's basic, inescapable biology. 



D_W":3hrnoybw said:


> I get the sense that you've done a lot of instrument playing, and not a lot of woodworking - at least not a lot of hand tool woodworking.


One instrument. 
Done a lot more swordfighting, target sports, and generally a lot of the stuff listed above. 
Also spent some time in H&S courses, having to learn about things like fatigue and repetitive strain injuries, specifically the causes, symptoms and preventative measures. Biggest cause of incidents resulting in lost man hours begins with microtensions, and those can develop from even the smallest misalignments in your fingers. 
As a result, I'm usually quite aware of when I'm introducing tension in my posture or whatever position I'm working in, so when I come to the wood bench a lot is quite evident. 

But again, even if I'd never even seen a bench chisel, the mechanics of the human body do not change. 



D_W":3hrnoybw said:


> The kind of "microtensions" that you're talking about just don't amount to anything.


If you say so. Good luck with that.... I'm sure your chiropractor will be delighted with his third yacht. 
The HSE disagrees, certainly to the point of conducting a fair few studies on the matter. They even mention that carpenters working inside on benches do not regard their work as physically demanding and are often completely oblivious to the strains on their musuloskeletal system, concerning themselves more with general safety issues... which you're so far exemplifying *quite* well. 
I'm sorry you don't like the science behind it or, like so many now suffering from various injuries, don't even relise that you're doing it... but it remains an inescapable fact 

End of the day, it's your lower back and your tendons, so your call. 



D_W":3hrnoybw said:


> Also, you're pointing the discussion of efficiency toward lowering standards, as are others.


And yet again, not what I said, despite me even explaining it to you in the last post......!!!! 



D_W":3hrnoybw said:


> A pure definition of efficiency is just achieving the same standard (or amount of work) with less effort or a better standard with the same amount of work.


Underpinned by techniques that rely on the human body and how it works.... but that doesn't matter with Woodworking, I'm sure you'll tell me. 



D_W":3hrnoybw said:


> We don't talk about tension with bricklayers or farmers throwing hay bales - tell me why that is.


Because they're laid up with backache or RSI and can't get to the PC, I imagine. Certainly in the brickie's case. The farmer is likely toussling Tara Two-Tractors in the aforementioned hay. 
Incidentally, studies from 1994 and beyond show that bricklayers, plasterers and then carpenters were the trades with the highest annual prevalences of musculoskeletal injury. 



D_W":3hrnoybw said:


> With all of the different immaterial diversions that you've proposed, I wonder how much you could improve if you just spent that effort watching someone who is better at woodworking than you are. Probably a lot.


Since I'm doing this at work while waiting for file transfers to complete and don't have access to a profesisonal woodworker's workshop during such moments, not a lot... unless you wanna post up some videos of yourself, for all us mere mortals to learn from?
But then, instead of missing the points, misreading posts and arguing against strawmen, you could probably have made a dozen new planes by now. Maybe that's how you can increase your own efficiency?



D_W":3hrnoybw said:


> Physics has nothing to do with this, at least not in verbally discussing material areas for improvement in technique.


Physics has.... You WOT, mate???!!!!
Yeah, OK, if you say so............. 

Might as well tell me wood grain doesn't make any difference, next!



D_W":3hrnoybw said:


> You have so many immaterial diversions that I think you should choose another hobby and not attempt to distract anyone else with them.


You're right. I think I'll move into selling back supports and joint braces.... I'll certainly make a fortune off people like you.


----------



## bugbear (8 Jan 2018)

Jacob":da9t65fq said:


> There are loads of 5 string banjos out there from about £150 new but some of them are rubbish. The build quality tends to be OK but the sound can be really bad.


profchris will correct me if I''m wrong, but the easy way to build an instrument is to _overbuild_ it - make it STRONG, make the materials THICK. This makes for a reliable production process (and a robust product, ideal for kids) with little risk. But the instrument won't vibrate or resonate nicely.

BugBear


----------



## Ttrees (8 Jan 2018)

There's little to go wrong on a banjo it seems...
I presume the body is made to spec and so the neck, I have not studied them, but 
presume it would be like guitars in the way we've got a few standard shapes, or styles.
With little string tension compared to an acoustic guitar, there would be no reason to diverge from the standard spec.
I have a Tanglewood banjo and it seems ok...
I had to remove and floss some material off the heel to get the action where it needed to be, no prob.
I have to make a new bridge though or laminate a strip on top as it has deflected into a concave shape 
because of the skin deflection from the floating bridge.
This becomes more of a problem when the action is low as there is buzzing from this deflecting bridge.

As with plenty of fretted or strung instruments, the lower the action is, the more noticeable or 
often problematic things become


----------



## StraightOffTheArk (8 Jan 2018)

nabs":fyxuqi9d said:


> who'd have thunk it - nearly twenty years ago following a tour around West Virginia with my missus I confidently told her I was going to learn the banjo, and tbh not a lot of progress has been made since then
> 
> Thanks to this thread I am seriously thinking about giving it a go. I have zero experience with musical instruments (other than enjoying listening to them!) - is there such a thing as a 'beginners banjo'?



As in tools, buy the best you can afford - for the same reasons! However, it's important to remember that it's easy for an experienced player make a pile of rubbish sound quite dazzling to the unaware. So it's best to buy 2nd hand from someone knowledgeable you trust or take someone knowledgeable that you trust to the music shop to try out the instrument (someone who won't gain from the sale). The problem with learning on a sub-standard instrument is that you'll never sound good and possibly blame it on the instrument rather than technique - the only (slight) upside I found when I first got a decent instrument was that suddenly I sounded better and certain techniques that I had never been comfortable with became much easier. 

The other differences with woodwork tools is that what you _want_ is much harder to define, and of course, an instrument that is excellent for playing in one style, may be unsuitable for another, with no visible differences. 

HTH and don't let any potential difficulties put you off, instruments can be sold if you're not happy with them after all.

Cheers,
Carl


----------



## bugbear (8 Jan 2018)

StraightOffTheArk":auoah9ic said:


> As in tools, buy the best you can afford - for the same reasons! However, it's important to remember that it's easy for an experienced player make a pile of rubbish sound quite dazzling to the unaware.


So true - a friend is a rather good guitarist, and has (as usual for guitarists) a number of excellent guitars.

But he found a second hand guitar of the make and model he'd always longed for when he started out (which is, of course far inferior to any of his current collection).

He bought it, enjoys playing it, and makes it sound wonderful. As he points out, that fact that the action and intonation are HORRIBLE doesn't matter if you're capable of playing a good slow blues and bending every note... 

BugBear


----------



## MusicMan (8 Jan 2018)

A lecturer on the physics of music, who was a keen amateur violinist, once said: "There is one similarity between Yehudi Menuhin and me. He will make his sound on my instrument, and I will make my sound on his."

What BB says about student instruments is pretty accurate for acoustic string instruments. I don't know about electric guitars but i suspect the strings and components have the greatest influence. For woodwind instruments, the wall thickness and weight is pretty similar across all the makes (but it is the keys that are the main component of the weight). The differences are in the quality of the materials, the precision of the bores and the degree of custom/hand fitting and finish. 

Keith


----------



## Cheshirechappie (8 Jan 2018)

Sorry to be boringly on topic, chaps, but;



Andy Kev.":10ja50dk said:


> I think this is a very interesting discussion and I've been mulling over it while at the bench today. I've come to the following (proposed) conclusion: efficiency is achieved through the application of acquired skills and/or knowledge in the light of experience to achieve acceptable results in a timely manner.



I like that! Pithy.

That just leaves enjoyment. There's enjoyment to be had in learning, but there's also frustration at being slow and not achieving a decent standard. There's also enjoyment at developing skill, and in finally producing something to a standard you can regard as acceptable. There's enjoyment in pushing skills to a higher level doing something not previously attempted. Come to think of it, there can be enjoyment in just pottering about without any pressures for a while.

For the pro, there's enjoyment in getting the cheque, but I also think there's more to it than that. I'm not so sure that a skilled craft is just something people do for money only any more; I think there must be some other motivation as well as payment to keep someone going. There must also be some satisfaction in the work.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (8 Jan 2018)

Jacob":tz1j8f9i said:


> > And no consideration of transferable skills. Or aptitude. Although it seems modern thinking to deny the existence of talent / aptitude and pretend anyone can achieve whatever they put their mind to.
> 
> 
> Yes I think people can achieve almost whatever they set their minds too, given the right opportunities. I don't believe in innate talent or aptitude, though innate brain power might be needed for some things



Sorry Jacob, but I can't agree. Humans are all different, with a huge range of innate abilities and aptitudes. If we were all equally gifted, we'd all be Test standard cricketers, or physics Nobel laureates, or Grinling Gibbonses.


----------



## profchris (8 Jan 2018)

On the banjo question ....

Bugbear is right that I'd normally say build light, but this is apparently not so for banjos! Those in the know seem to like heavy. I think this is because the skin head is about as light as you can get, and so needs to be in a very stable support to work at its best.

What I'd look for in a "beginner" banjo is much what has been said above:

1. Don't worry too much about "tone". All banjos are pretty loud and make similar sounds. Most of the tone comes from playing technique. Once you're good enough to recognise that your banjo's tone is sub-optimum, you'll be good enough to justify trading it in for a better one.

2. The most important thing is that it should be properly set up. Cheap factory instruments tend to have the nut slots too shallow, which makes playing on the lower frets hard work and not properly in tune. They also have high "action" (the height of the strings above the frets at the 12th or higher frets). The neck needs to be straight (and a banjo neck is long and thin, so tempted to move around) and have exactly the right amount of curve pulled into it by the strings (this is known as "relief", if you hold down a string at, say, the 1st and 12th frets, there should a little space between it and the frets at the 6th fret; but only a very little). If these are all wrong, only a very competent player can make the instrument sound good, and they will be working hard to do so. A beginner needs these right, so that the playing can be concentrated on. The woodworking analogy might be cutting with a blunt saw.

3. The construction needs to be sound, so the neck is firmly attached and the rim doesn't flex excessively, and so that it can be adjusted as needed.

Most of the £150 banjos can be sorted out if enough time and effort are spent (though some are probably beyond hope), but how is the beginner to know which ones, and how to fix them?

Two options I think:

a. Find a good player and take her or him to the shop. Once you've bought with your eyes, get the good player to play every one of that model which is in the shop. One will be better to play than all the rest, buy that one. With luck the player will be able to say "This one only needs the nut slots taking down and a tweak to the truss rod, and I can do that for you". Beer will need to be supplied.

b. Buy a second hand banjo from a good player whom you trust, on the basis that they will have set it up properly. Bit of a leap of faith, but most of the good players I know are rather concerned that beginners shouldn't start on badly set up instruments.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 Jan 2018)

Cheshirechappie":14z6huzr said:


> Sorry Jacob, but I can't agree. Humans are all different, with a huge range of innate abilities and aptitudes. If we were all equally gifted, we'd all be Test standard cricketers, or physics Nobel laureates, or Grinling Gibbonses.



Yes - I think I'd need several more lives before I could draw ........... or even write longhand legibly.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2018)

Cheshirechappie":3q4xs246 said:


> Jacob":3q4xs246 said:
> 
> 
> > > And no consideration of transferable skills. Or aptitude. Although it seems modern thinking to deny the existence of talent / aptitude and pretend anyone can achieve whatever they put their mind to.
> ...


You tend to find that people who are very good at something have spent a lot of time doing it (10000 hours at the very least!) and have benefited from good education, training, support, encouragement, as appropriate. Nobody is born a nuclear physicist. Not everybody will reach the tops of course, but most people will reach a level of success in whatever area fate and motivation leads them if they stick at it!


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2018)

phil.p":3jci7a60 said:


> Cheshirechappie":3jci7a60 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Jacob, but I can't agree. Humans are all different, with a huge range of innate abilities and aptitudes. If we were all equally gifted, we'd all be Test standard cricketers, or physics Nobel laureates, or Grinling Gibbonses.
> ...


Entirely up to you. Neither of them are rocket science - you would do them if you really wanted to.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 Jan 2018)

I'm 64, I've been trying all my life. How does that fit your 10,000 hour theory?


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2018)

profchris":1plw17mn said:


> On the banjo question ....
> 
> Bugbear is right that I'd normally say build light, but this is apparently not so for banjos! Those in the know seem to like heavy. I think this is because the skin head is about as light as you can get, and so needs to be in a very stable support to work at its best.
> 
> ...


Yes to all that. My best one is a Korean copy of a Gibson Mastertone. Weighs a ton but has very sweet sound - and loud if you want it to be.
One big catch is that the mechanics can be f&cked - there is a load of things which can be adjusted - truss rod, coordinator rods, head tension nuts, tail piece etc. Threads stripped and wooden rims can be sprung apart. 
Oddly enough wear is rarely a problem - they only get a lot of use if they sound and play well - wear is a very good sign!


----------



## Jacob (8 Jan 2018)

phil.p":yuc3vrcq said:


> I'm 64, I've been trying all my life. How does that fit your 10,000 hour theory?


20000 hours piddling about is no good - you have to concentrate and try really hard - with good materials and good instruction. Go to a drawing class.
The main thing is to have no shame about being cr*p at it - discover the inner child - they aren't embarrassed or inhibited by the rubbish they come out with!


----------



## CStanford (8 Jan 2018)

Or one's testicle could explode:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5283738/g ... almonella/


----------



## MusicMan (8 Jan 2018)

There's a story about a witness who bragged to a judge that he had 20 years' experience. The judge asked if he had really had 20 years' experience, or one year's experience 20 times.

I can't draw freehand, either. But I haven't ever seriously tried.


----------



## Austinisgreat (8 Jan 2018)

custard":a4uq0q6j said:


> JohnPW":a4uq0q6j said:
> 
> 
> > We're talking about sawing and cutting bits of wood, not playing Beethoven's violin concerto!


  :x :lol:


----------



## D_W (8 Jan 2018)

Tasky":2fllqgxq said:


> You're right. I think I'll move into selling back supports and joint braces.... I'll certainly make a fortune off people like you.



I think you might need to, because it doesn't sound like your future is in woodworking - it sounds like you have too much tension. For that matter, my future isn't in it, either. 

I majored in mathematics in college, I took calculus-based physics, and i can't even begin to think of a time where I was such a pedant in conversations to myself that I thought I had to talk about physics when I was just trying to do something like rasp a few facets onto a plane handle so that I could make it into a curve.


----------



## Ttrees (8 Jan 2018)

G ooot t the shed lads and put the heaters on
This winter business it tough goin !

Easy for me to say...trying to get the cahoonas together myself  

Happy new year dudes

Tom


----------



## D_W (8 Jan 2018)

The coldest my shop has gotten this year is about one degree above freezing at the bench, which was 20c warmer than outside. You can still work at that. It's actually quite nice for planing, aside from the static.

I get a microchill once in a while, but that apparently doesn't cause microtensions. Not macrotensions, either.


----------



## Tasky (9 Jan 2018)

D_W":337x6b3q said:


> I think you might need to, because it doesn't sound like your future is in woodworking - it sounds like you have too much tension. For that matter, my future isn't in it, either.


Not if you really believe body mechanics have nothing to do with your work, it isn't!!



D_W":337x6b3q said:


> I was just trying to do something like rasp a few facets onto a plane handle so that I could make it into a curve.


And that's what people never realise - You can't *just* do anything. Sure you'll look at the wood grain to find the best way to work the rasp over it, but people never (no matter what they majored in) look at how they work their body and that's what leads to problems, especially later on in life. 

"Oh, but that's how we've always done it and it's never been a problem before..." - Our consultant in the Rheumatology department must have heard that at least twice a day! 
His usual reply to such people was that, as a result of the above attitude, the problem was already exacerbated beyond only our treatment and the patient was now being referred to the Osteo department for additional surgical consultation.


----------



## nabs (9 Jan 2018)

it is no doubt true that blind adherence to tradition can slow innovation. Mind you, I still preferred it when this thread was about banjos


----------



## Jacob (9 Jan 2018)

nabs":2u7wuvd0 said:


> it is no doubt true that blind adherence to tradition can slow innovation. ...


 :lol: :lol: 

Blind adherence to innovation is more the problem - especially with woodworkers it seems! Just look at the problems it causes, not only with sharpening! 

Tradition incorporates innovation - its the collective product/wisdom of generations of craftsmen, steadily developing, with lesser or greater innovations getting picked up as time goes by, tried and tested under pressure to be productive and efficient.


----------



## custard (9 Jan 2018)

Tasky":2onfg5h9 said:


> Not if you really believe body mechanics have nothing to do with your work, it isn't!!



There was a chap on this forum who only had the use of one hand, he was interested in cutting dovetails so I tried doing the job one handed to see what lessons might be learned.

one-handed-dovetails-t98996.html

It wasn't the tidiest set of dovetails I've ever done, but they were good enough; and if I kept at it I'm sure they'd only improve.

As far as I'm concerned successful furniture making is more about what's in your head than what's in your hands. 

The many craftsmen and indeed hobbyists that I've met, the ones that consistently complete projects to a high standard, overwhelmingly share certain characteristics. They tend to be very methodical and patient, they think a job through in advance and prepare carefully, they don't rush at things and they're not easily distracted. They automatically break a project into interim stages and then focus _exclusively_ on the immediate task at hand. When faced with a choice they carefully evaluate the options then make a clear decision, they don't keep returning to a decision like a dog to its puke, they just get on with stuff. They're realistic about what they undertake, they tackle jobs that are do-able if stretching, rather than chasing quixotic fantasies. When they start things they invariably finish them, they're not surrounded by half finished projects or discarded hobbies. 

People like that tend to be good cabinet makers, for everyone else there's video games.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (9 Jan 2018)

Tasky and DW, I have a challenge for you both. See if you can find any comments from the other one which might improve your own levels of knowledge. If you both stopped trying to "win" you might be surprised at what you can learn from each other. 

Cheshirechappy (and others), whilst I would agree that there are such things as aptitude and innate intelligence I would suggest that these things are often overstated in comparison to hard work, practice and dedication. I have played the fiddle since I was four years old and am a competent player. I used to play in a touring folk band and often heard people say things like " your so lucky to have such a gift". This was always annoying as nobody "gave" the skills to me, I was not born with some special "ability", they were hard won by spending my entire childhood practicing the violin 1/2 an hour to an hour every day. My mother did not force me to play, but the choice was either have lessons and practice every day, or don't have lessons. It is my contention that with appropriate guidance and hard work most people can achieve a level of competence at most things. We may not be able to be Newton or Einstein, but most of us could have been physics professors. 
As a child I used to play cricket with Nasser Hussein. He would regularly knock my best bowling across the boundary. It is worth considering the fact that his family was cricket obsessed and from a very early age he would play cricket for hours and hours every day. He trained with the best local coaches and became a test cricketer and England's captain. I on the other hand played for my school team and sometimes messed about in the nets, but was more focused on violin than cricket. I am not saying that all that training made it inevitable that he would captain England, indeed the best footballer at my school only achieved a short spell in the Vauxhall Conference league with Barnet FC. What I am saying is that without focus and dedication one can never achieve, and that most of us can achieve a proficient level in most fields if we work hard enough.
In regards to woodworking and the "10,000 hours" thing, I would contend whilst this is not a "law" it is a good rule of thumb. I often hear people say "oh I tried that but I couldn't do it". I read posts on here with people saying things like "hand planes just don't work for me" or "I can't saw square and true with a hand saw", when the simple fact is they are doing something wrong that could easily be corrected with the right technique and some practice. I think this line of thinking prevents people from achieving to their full potential. I teach my daughter the violin, and when we approach something hard I always say "of course you can't do it, that's why you're learning, so you will be able to do it".


----------



## Jacob (9 Jan 2018)

I agree with all the above


Paddy Roxburgh":3uv4xobj said:


> T.....I teach my daughter the violin, and when we approach something hard I always say "of course you can't do it, that's why you're learning, so you will be able to do it".


Similar prob with grandson - he gives up on maths tests and guesses the answers. 
I tell him no need to get the right answer straight off, getting the wrong answer is perfectly OK and the whole point of the exercise - it tells him what he needs to get up to speed on. He was quite relieved and doesn't have a prob catching up.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Jan 2018)

Paddy, as you mentioned cricket - how would you teach someone to catch who can't catch a ball thrown slowly from eight feet away?


----------



## Jacob (9 Jan 2018)

phil.p":3jxguvjn said:


> Paddy, as you mentioned cricket - how would you teach someone to catch who can't catch a ball thrown slowly from eight feet away?


It usually means sight problems, most likely having one eye dominant, which makes judging distance a problem.
I can't play cricket either but it was an optician who explained it to me years later in my 30s, why I'd been such a failure at small ball games. I wish I'd known sooner. Big balls OK I was good at basket ball, middlin at footer.


----------



## D_W (9 Jan 2018)

Paddy Roxburgh":1msswzwd said:


> Tasky and DW, I have a challenge for you both. See if you can find any comments from the other one which might improve your own levels of knowledge. If you both stopped trying to "win" you might be surprised at what you can learn from each other.



I'm not trying to win, though it may seem like it. The game is over for me - I've been down the road that tasky is on, without having to go as far as bugbear is and turn chopping a mortise into making a violin bow. 

Sometimes you have to think hard about correcting something, but there's no reason to go there before you've tried the easy stuff. This started with mortises - you can generally watch someone else cut one and duplicate the results. How it turned into the physics of pairadiddles, I don't know.

Bugbear mentioned needing to know the "why". Sure you do, that's what I'd refer to as owning knowledge - knowing why. The best way to own it is to understand why from your own experience, but sometimes that's practical. When we're talking about simple things like cutting mortises, we ought to know why already - and we don't need to talk about violin bows. If you're too the point that you're curious about watching professionals, you will know "why" they're doing things 90% of the time, or at least you'll be able to figure those out yourself. If something doesn't make sense, then you can try it and see if you can figure out why, and if you can't, you can actually contact the person who you're observing. 

There are enough things in life that will be difficult. There's really no reason to make the simple things difficult, too, or behave in a way that makes no sense and then claim that it does. No sense in this case would be taking advice from someone who does something materially less well just because they're willing to explain all of it, whereas you might only get x% of the information by observing someone who is more competent than the loquacious instructor (perhaps x is 75%, maybe it's 90%, who knows).


----------



## nabs (9 Jan 2018)

re tradition and innovation: a healthy respect for tradition is entirely sensible since tradition is the result of lots of trial and error and therefore generally represents good solutions. But it is equally sensible to remain open to new ideas - "we've all ways done it this way" can be an excuse to avoid the effort and risk of trying something different. 

One of my teachers used to recommend 'scepticism with your eyes open' - good advice!

PS Custard's summary above is a recipe for success in many different careers, not just woodwork.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (9 Jan 2018)

phil.p":1pf2hfsz said:


> Paddy, as you mentioned cricket - how would you teach someone to catch who can't catch a ball thrown slowly from eight feet away?



I don't know.
I think you may be missing my point however. I am not saying that everyone can do everything, for example someone with no arms is unlikely to be able to catch a ball and will not play test cricket. Someone with down syndrome will not become a physics professor. Most of us however are not at these extremes. All too often people use "I can't do that" as an excuse for not honestly trying. For example you say you cannot draw, perhaps this is true, I don't know, but have you followed a structured learning program designed for people who are learning to draw but have very little skill? Have you tried following the basics of such a course for a few hours every day? Or have you just internalised the negative feedback you received from teachers at your school? I do not know for sure, but I would be surprised if you followed a structured learning program dealing with the very basics and did not try to skip ahead or become demoralised, if you did not find your drawing improve.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (9 Jan 2018)

Paddy Roxburgh":3ocgip9e said:


> It is my contention that with appropriate guidance and hard work most people can achieve a level of competence at most things. We may not be able to be Newton or Einstein, but most of us could have been physics professors.



I never cease to be amazed at the human ability to believe things despite all evidence to the contrary. 

I set out on an academic career in robotics. Had my nose in electronics and computing since I was 12. Built two robots by the time I was 16. 8 years at Uni. Never made it to Prof. Gave up on academia, my brain just didn't seem to get on with the more abstract mathematics. Presumably I was wrong and just didn't try hard enough  

I did however do a bit of teaching. Computation and rowing. I've also more recently done "have a go" sessions with children on the pole lathe. That there is a difference in how easily people "get it" was to me very clear in all of those things.


----------



## nabs (9 Jan 2018)

I think you are both saying the same thing - a structured approach and hard work can get most people a basic level of accomplishment in most things, but having a natural aptitude or particular physical or mental impediment can speed you up or slow you down respectively.


----------



## Tasky (9 Jan 2018)

Sheffield Tony":1539cdag said:


> Presumably I was wrong and just didn't try hard enough


Nah, you just didn't spend time watching a professional professor profess his profession...!! :lol:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Jan 2018)

Sheffield Tony":1s3e1ptc said:


> I never cease to be amazed at the human ability to believe things despite all evidence to the contrary.
> I set out on an academic career in robotics. Had my nose in electronics and computing since I was 12. Built two robots by the time I was 16. 8 years at Uni. Never made it to Prof. Gave up on academia, my brain just didn't seem to get on with the more abstract mathematics. Presumably I was wrong and just didn't try hard enough
> 
> I did however do a bit of teaching. Computation and rowing. I've also more recently done "have a go" sessions with children on the pole lathe. That there is a difference in how easily people "get it" was to me very clear in all of those things.



My lad is good at physics (good enough that his teacher, who holds a physics doctorate said he hoped he made a profession of it) - I mentioned one day that he seemed good at and he said "dad, I see it, I understand it - just like that." I guarantee that even if I had his teachers I would still be in a scientific wilderness.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (9 Jan 2018)

Sheffield Tony":2vda7dvd said:


> I never cease to be amazed at the human ability to believe things despite all evidence to the contrary.
> Presumably I was wrong and just didn't try hard enough



Personally I never cease to be amazed at the human ability to strawman a nuanced argument. I did not claim that everyone can be excellent in everything, just that most people could be proficient in most things and that in many cases (again, not all, but many) "can't" is an excuse for "won't" or indeed "don't enjoy". There is nothing wrong with not enjoying certain pursuits and therefore not wanting to do them, and real achievement is usually combined with someone enjoying that thing.
I may have been speaking out of turn when disusing high level academia, it is something that I have little knowledge of, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that most people could be a junior lecturer in a polytechnique than a professor in a top flight university.


----------



## D_W (9 Jan 2018)

nabs":1ern5r81 said:


> One of my teachers used to recommend 'scepticism with your eyes open' - good advice!



That's a perfect way to put it.


----------



## D_W (9 Jan 2018)

Sheffield Tony":1rxjjgom said:


> That there is a difference in how easily people "get it"



A farmer friend of mine just gave me an example of that - something as simple as backing a trailer. He hires people in harvest season (for obvious reasons) to drive truck on the farm, which doesn't require a commercial license. It just requires people to move corn (beans, etc) from the machines to storage on the farm, which requires backing up a truck. 

He hired three people this year - two 18 year-old kids and a middle-aged professional who is between jobs. The two kids didn't know how to back a trailer (and if you've never done it before, I guess it's problematic, but if you get it, you sort of get it right away), but he showed them, and they just did it. The third guy questioned what he was teaching him and overanalyzed what he was doing and never got it, but he argued about how to do it while he was failing. Maybe a psychologist would be able to tell us what the guy was thinking. 

In the old days, we would've just said "that guy should probably get a different job". Some people, no matter how open-minded and compliant they are, just never get the whole backing thing down. Even professional truckers. 

Maybe the overanalyzing professional had microtensions when he was turning the steering wheel. I think he was just turning it the wrong direction or turning it at the wrong time.

Maybe he failed at making a violin bow at some point in his life and was sure that he didn't know the whys, and therefore couldn't succeed at moving a load of grain from a to b and dumping it at location c.


----------



## Tasky (9 Jan 2018)

D_W":18r9c0ch said:


> Maybe he had microtensions when he was turning the steering wheel. I think he was just turning it the wrong direction regardless of the amount of tension.


No, he just never watched a professional doing it... would'a learned all he needed just from watching.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (9 Jan 2018)

D_W":1u3luxnr said:


> Sheffield Tony":1u3luxnr said:
> 
> 
> > That there is a difference in how easily people "get it"
> ...



DW, I used to have problems reversing trailers. I understood the theory of it but would instinctively turn the wheel the wrong way. About 20 years ago I was scrapping a boat and only had a small trailer that was narrower than the van. As anyone who knows about reversing trailers will be aware not being able to see the trailer makes it even harder to do. Now I had to do 50 odd runs to the skip and I could have driven forwards and then u turned with the trailer, but I decided to reverse every time. Initially I messed it up, but after enough practice I could do it. For the last 20 years I have had no problem reversing trailers and can confidently reverse any trailer into any space that is possible. Now this is a task I showed little/no aptitude for, I could have just gone "backing trailers isn't for me", but I was determined that I would master it and I did. Once I had done this I was every bit as good as someone who just "got it" first time. 
Disclaimer; I am fully aware that backing a trailer is not the same as becoming a top flight academic.


----------



## Jacob (9 Jan 2018)

Paddy Roxburgh":3lphvloa said:


> D_W":3lphvloa said:
> 
> 
> > Sheffield Tony":3lphvloa said:
> ...


People may get things at different rates. It doesn't mean they don't get good at it. 
I had a problem paddling a kayak - I could do it on muscle strength alone but somehow was getting tired really quickly and dropping back from women and kids in the group. I just couldn't crack it, even with instruction and reading all the books. I had to be towed back in the Scilly Isles I was so knackered.
It must have taken 200 hours or so over a longish period and suddenly it clicked on the last day of an excursion in Croatia and I was cruising along as fast as the rest. I still don't know quite what I was doing differently but it certainly was different!
Last summer we did complete circuit of Menorca - no problemo! Lost nearly a stone in weight.


----------



## bugbear (9 Jan 2018)

Paddy Roxburgh":1cj0xj09 said:


> nitially I messed it up, but after enough practice I could do it. For the last 20 years I have had no problem backing trailers and can confidently back any trailer into any space that is possible.


Now try a trailer with a front axle!







I grew up on a farm, which provides a gentle learning curve to trailer backing; tractors have a very tight turning circle, excellent visibility, and agricultural trailers are long (backing a small box trailer with a car is very much harder). I could accurately back a trailer round a corner onto a tipping pit first time, every time.

But I never mastered the multi axle trailer. we had

BugBear


----------



## D_W (9 Jan 2018)

Paddy Roxburgh":l0xxaju4 said:


> oat and only had a small trailer that was narrower than the van. As anyone who knows about reversing trailers will be aware not being able to see the trailer makes it even harder to do. Now I had to do 50 odd runs to the skip and I could have driven forwards and then u turned with the trailer, but I decided to reverse every time. Initially I messed it up, but after enough practice I could do it. For the last 20 years I have had no problem reversing trailers and can confidently reverse any trailer into any space that is possible. Now this is a task I showed little/no aptitude for, I could have just gone "backing trailers isn't for me", but I was determined that I would master it and I did. Once I had done this I was every bit as good as someone who just "got it" first time.
> Disclaimer; I am fully aware that backing a trailer is not the same as becoming a top flight academic.



I think for everyone who learns to back, that's it. It's sort of like riding a bike, and it requires "subtlety" from practice rather than outright thought or overanalysis. 

There are a lot of things the same way in woodworking. They don't require microanalysis of everything, just experience and refinement. As tasky is talking about, understanding (perhaps its mortising or perhaps it's carving, whatever) the tension that someone has while they're working might be interesting, but it's a lot more instructive to desire a result (first in standards and then in time, or the reverse) and work to it than it is to stop in analysis paralysis and assume that lack of result is due to lack of information or ability to glean it from repetition. Nobody rides a bike and thinks.."listing 0.1% to the left, shift right leg 0.14 inches to the right to compensate", and we don't tell people how to ride a bike like that, either. Lots of the little details that we acquire aren't really that important to be able to verbalize, some don't verbalize well (thus, we have forums with 17 page posts arguing about whether or not we're going to be obligated to make victorian low-level piece rates if we want to learn to mortise faster). 

But even further back from that, if someone is visibly doing something entirely different than you are and achieving better or faster results (or both), you might as well look at what they're doing and try it. Even if you can't figure it out. 

Totally different than backing a trailer, where all you can tell someone is that with a trailer with a fixed axle will go the opposite direction of the one you're turning. Even then, it's more of a subconscious skill to learn - the bit of information that you can't expect the trailer to go in the direction that you're turning is pretty useful to start, but then you have to turn to practice, trying to duplicate what you see someone else do and reliance on something other than point by point analysis to learn to do something well. 

I have a bad habit of anticipating how something will turn out. For years, I didn't use the double iron because I anticipated that it would be similar to other setups, and confirmed it by trying it a few times, back to 2006 or so before anyone other than a single person talked about it. I have a personal two week rule now - when I think I'm making no progress at something after a session or two, I force myself to do it for two weeks, anyway - and then see how it turns out. In a pre-video environment (before that japanese video came out), I banned myself from using scrapers, sandpaper or high angle planes to learn to use the double iron - for a month (not two weeks), but it only took a week to get far better at it than I was using the very good single iron planes I had. I wanted a result and figured that repetition might teach me things that are more subtle and less perfect to verbalize into a paint by number list. 

I get emails and video comments from time to time about the double iron and about half of them are "i tried it and it didn't work for me". I always respond that people should try it for two weeks instead, have a result they'd like to see and suspend all judgement other than that in the interim. I never hear back from them, and assume that they either got out sandpapers, scrapers/scraping planes or their favorite high angle plane and gave up. 

A whole lot of woodworking is that way - tolerate the period where you don't know everything and aren't getting the results you want rather than settling for overly safe and slow. Suspend conclusion of failure for a while and don't allow yourself to think it and only allow it later if you go through a period of "subtlety by trial" and find your results the same at the end of it.


----------



## Tasky (9 Jan 2018)

D_W":1orpse4y said:


> As tasky is talking about, understanding (perhaps its mortising or perhaps it's carving, whatever) the tension that someone has while they're working might be interesting, but it's a lot more instructive to desire a result (first in standards and then in time, or the reverse) and work to it than it is to stop in analysis paralysis and assume that lack of result is due to lack of information or ability to glean it from repetition.


Having a goal is fine, but of little further use unless you _also _know how to get there, or more importantly what is *preventing* you from doing so. 



D_W":1orpse4y said:


> Nobody rides a bike and thinks.."listing 0.1% to the left, shift right leg 0.14 inches to the right to compensate", and we don't tell people how to ride a bike like that, either.


Actually, we do - The biggest mistake most motorcyclists make is gripping too tight. 
While they themselves may not need to know the exact effects and how that translates around the body to throw their riding completely off... and indeed, that's what your instructor is for... being able to recognise if and when they're doing it will massively improve both their riding results and their further potential. 

But even in that environment there are stubborn riders who refuse to believe Counter-Steering exists at all, even when you make them do it themselves on their own bike. This further proves that you may be able to do something without knowing how or why, but the how and why still exist and still govern you just as much. Being aware of them just means you can do _more_ with it. 



D_W":1orpse4y said:


> But even further back from that, if someone is visibly doing something entirely different than you are and achieving better or faster results (or both), you might as well look at what they're doing and try it. Even if you can't figure it out.


And yet it's more efficient to just find out exactly what they're doing, and save wasting time trying to figure it out (unless that's the fun part for you)...  



D_W":1orpse4y said:


> I never hear back from them, and assume that they either got out sandpapers, scrapers/scraping planes or their favorite high angle plane and gave up.


Interesting that you neither hear back, and that you assume they gave up... 

Also, that won't work for everyone - Not all of us can afford the time or the wood for weeks of trials and practices and need to get things right first time, or as close as we're able. We might strive to be better next time we undertake a similar project, but that's what makes it a hobby instead of a career.


----------



## D_W (9 Jan 2018)

Tasky":1o45cgi3 said:


> And yet it's more efficient to just find out exactly what they're doing, and save wasting time trying to figure it out (unless that's the fun part for you)...
> 
> Also, that won't work for everyone - Not all of us can afford the time or the wood for weeks of trials and practices and need to get things right first time, or as close as we're able. We might strive to be better next time we undertake a similar project, but that's what makes it a hobby instead of a career.



You, me and everyone else can afford to take two weeks and force ourselves to try something. You can deviate from your personal rule if it is preventing doing anything at all, but it rarely works that way. There isn't a static decision tree that locks you in those two weeks. 

As far as asking someone exactly what they're doing, you assume that they have some verbal composition to explain all of it. Plenty of folks don't, and the point is the person who accommodates you with volumes of material could give you advice that leaves you far behind watching the practitioner who you can only glean 75% from if watching. 

If the person with the best method for you also likes to talk about it, great. That's not usually the case. 

In terms of time, the forums are full of people who don't have time to learn anything that they're not spoon fed, but those folks have time to post on the forums and time to watch 2 or 3 hours of TV a day.


----------



## MusicMan (9 Jan 2018)

D_W":8n653qo9 said:


> I have a personal two week rule now - when I think I'm making no progress at something after a session or two, I force myself to do it for two weeks, anyway - and then see how it turns out. In a pre-video environment (before that japanese video came out), I banned myself from using scrapers, sandpaper or high angle planes to learn to use the double iron - for a month (not two weeks), but it only took a week to get far better at it than I was using the very good single iron planes I had. I wanted a result and figured that repetition might teach me things that are more subtle and less perfect to verbalize into a paint by number list.



The two week rule is very good and ties in with another interesting generalisation. This is, that in order to learn a motor skill (which inevitably needs use of the brain as well as the hands or whatever), one needs to repeat it about 20 -30 times. Martial arts instructors say this about various hand/wrist motions involved in the sport. Linguists say you have to repeat a new word on average 20 - 25 times before you learn it. Musical instrument teachers and players say this when a new transition between notes, or a new chord, has to be learned. 

It can get longer when complex groups of muscles are involved (such as wind players who have to learn mouthpiece pressure and oral cavity control as well as the fingering). It is convoluted with the forgetting curve as well, which says that the rate of forgetting decreases with each revision, so multiple small revisions over a period of days are better than one big learn. But it is not a bad rough guide.

The 10,000 hours would be composed of lots and lots of these. And the more one can decompose the task into bits like this, the more efficient is the learning process.

Keith


----------



## Tasky (9 Jan 2018)

D_W":3c93xmj2 said:


> You, me and everyone else can afford to take two weeks and force ourselves to try something.


Then you can buy me two weeks worth of wood and YOU can explain to my wife why she's not getting a holiday this year...!!!



D_W":3c93xmj2 said:


> As far as asking someone exactly what they're doing, you assume that they have some verbal composition to explain all of it.


They might, or they might not... and if not, then fine - It's up to you and what you can figure out yourself. 
But either way it's still quicker than just watching them for ages and agonising over possibly trying to maybe see if you can figure out what's going on in their head as well as with their hands... and if they *are *able to give you any kind of insight, then it will still help when you're then watching afterward!!



D_W":3c93xmj2 said:


> Plenty of folks don't, and the point is the person who accommodates you with volumes of material could give you advice that leaves you far behind watching the practitioner who you can only glean 75% from if watching.


And you wouldn't even ask first, juuuuuuust in case they might have the articulative capacity to convey that extra 25%??



D_W":3c93xmj2 said:


> If the person with the best method for you also likes to talk about it, great. That's not usually the case.


I agree, since the best method for 'one' is probably a mixture of several other people's, plus your own personal spin on it... but it all contributes. This is why I like people who present things as how they do it rather than as the 'right' way to do it. 



D_W":3c93xmj2 said:


> In terms of time, the forums are full of people who don't have time to learn anything that they're not spoon fed, but those folks have time to post on the forums and time to watch 2 or 3 hours of TV a day.


Lucky them, then... not only because they have that amount of free time, but can also find anything interesting to watch for 3 hours a day on TV!! :lol:


----------



## Jacob (9 Jan 2018)

MusicMan":1sb9ew0y said:


> ....... And the more one can decompose the task into bits like this, the more efficient is the learning process.
> 
> Keith


Emphasis on technique can put people right off and defeat the object. 
There is masses of detailed info on how you _should_ play the classical guitar, including theories about fingernail shape, books full only of finger exercises but no music. Not unlike the modern woodwork phenomenon - there are loads of people out there who want to tell it's difficult and things have to be done in certain ways. 
My experience says ignore (nearly) all this and just get on with it. By all means take note of what people say and look closely at what people do, but remain severely sceptical - they are control freaks out there to spoil it for you! Or sell you gadgets on the woodwork front.
A friend wanted to start playing clarinet - she's very nervous and has picked up on the supposed difficulty and talks about being "too old to develop her embouchure" and similar b44llox. She's owned one for three years now and is too nervous to take it out of the box. Another mate with a sax talks similarly. A group of classical guitarist beginners are working their way playing some very boring exercises in unison, all with their left legs uncomfortably perched on little rocky stools in the Segovia fashion.
Non of this is efficient - it's the opposite, its aversion therapy! It also reenforces the notion of innate talent - lack of which is their excuse for not being able to do it, but actually it's the joyless and over-technical teaching punishment they are subjecting themselves to.


----------



## D_W (9 Jan 2018)

Tasky":2o6gh3il said:


> Lucky them, then... not only because they have that amount of free time, but can also find anything interesting to watch for 3 hours a day on TV!! :lol:



You and me, both, brother. But I think it's better that we can't. I probably see five hours of TV per year, and it's usually enough (wife is against it because of the studies of brain inactivity for the kids - even if the programming isn't interesting to them and they're not directly paying attention).

(my first weird admission in case of asking the presumably non-teaching expert - I generally won't ask an expert something unless they are actually suggesting doing it, and I can't figure out what they're doing. The reason for that is just that I know that they get a lot of requests for free help, and i don't want to use their time unless I've got no other option. I also know that if I can figure it out, I'll remember it. )

re: the double iron, no special wood needed, I was building some case work at the time, and it presented an opportunity for planing. The material was already there. If it's not, I'd wait until it is.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (9 Jan 2018)

custard":31o1cefz said:


> As far as I'm concerned successful furniture making is more about what's in your head than what's in your hands.
> 
> The many craftsmen and indeed hobbyists that I've met, the ones that consistently complete projects to a high standard, overwhelmingly share certain characteristics. They tend to be very methodical and patient, they think a job through in advance and prepare carefully, they don't rush at things and they're not easily distracted. They automatically break a project into interim stages and then focus _exclusively_ on the immediate task at hand. When faced with a choice they carefully evaluate the options then make a clear decision, they don't keep returning to a decision like a dog to its puke, they just get on with stuff. They're realistic about what they undertake, they tackle jobs that are do-able if stretching, rather than chasing quixotic fantasies. When they start things they invariably finish them, they're not surrounded by half finished projects or discarded hobbies.
> 
> People like that tend to be good cabinet makers, for everyone else there's video games.



I think that's an excellent approach for anyone with a specific goal in mind (refurnish the house, for example, or earn a living from a craft). However, I think it's too goal-oriented for some woodworkers. There are those who take pleasure in acquiring and refurbishing old tools, for example, who may only want to do enough 'woodwork' to try out their tools. There's valid enjoyment in that, and arguably no real need for 'efficiency'.

Another point worth picking up is one made on page 3 by Chris152, who said he was just looking to master a few basic techniques, and then see what he could achieve with them. I think that chimes with your original point about 1000 hours (or so) being enough to make some pretty decent rectilinear furniture. It's also efficient, in a way, because it cuts the amount of time spent learning and gaining experience to just enough to make some solid achievements. For someone with limited time to devote to the craft, that makes sense. A different sort of 'efficiency', in this case.


----------



## MusicMan (9 Jan 2018)

Jacob":m0kf3jx4 said:


> MusicMan":m0kf3jx4 said:
> 
> 
> > ....... And the more one can decompose the task into bits like this, the more efficient is the learning process.
> ...



All too true. I play and teach clarinet and yes, you can develop the embouchure at any age. In fact you sometimes need to redevelop it; I have had a few weeks off playing due to surgery, and I know I will have to build it up again for a concert in ten days time. I'll manage about five minutes playing on the first day, and will double every day. The only difference between me and a beginner will be that I know where I am heading; nothing physical or age-related. But if she has never played before, she should have at least the first (and preferably a few) lessons with a teacher, so that she can cut out the discouragement of simply squeaking or making no noise at all at first. There are straightforward things to do, and not to do, that can not easily be learned from YouTube. A teacher will be able to tell by watching and listening to her efforts and set her on a good path. And also check that her instrument is working properly, which is much less evident than on strings.

The decomposing into bits stage comes when you have made enough progress to be able to listen to yourself and work out what needs correction or improvement in order to get to the next stage. But that self-analysis and self-training takes place much later. It's the sort of thing I am doing with a pupil who got grade 8 at school, but hasn't played for many years. I wasn't talking about the initial level, sorry not to be clear.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (9 Jan 2018)

Look chaps - I really don't want to have a go at anybody, but I started the thread to discuss experience, efficiency and enjoyment in woodworking using hand tools (that's why the thread's on this board). I really don't have anything against musical instruments, but they ain't woodworking. If people want to discuss musical matters (and why not?) could someone start a thread on the off-topic board, please?


----------



## nabs (9 Jan 2018)

to be fair CC, much of the views shared on music - and on skills in general - are relevant to woodworking too. 

Besides, thanks to this thread I am now only 10k hours away from being a world class banjoist and I also now know what embouchure means


----------



## AndyT (9 Jan 2018)

So, lurching back on topic, people might like to look at this blog post by Stephen Shepherd. It's not the calculations back from the price books I was looking for, but it's from a thoughtful woodworker interested in rediscovering the old ways.

http://www.fullchisel.com/blog/?p=191

I think his most interesting point is near the end and I don't think it's been made yet (though I admit to not reading every word of the last few pages).

He says that old makers were efficient because they made only a small range of very standard products, over and over again. So there was no need to spend any time agonising over details of construction or dimensions. All those questions had preset answers.

As simple and familiar to them as it is for me to stand in our kitchen and make a cup of coffee, like I do every day, with the same things from the same places.

I know that in the projects I write up on here, I can spend hours just thinking and reviewing options or choosing pieces of wood. To some extent it's enjoyable to exercise my mind solving problems but it certainly isn't efficient.

And just for fun, here are two of my favourite video examples of someone making a standard product for the umpteenth time, with no effort wasted, no tool put down just to be picked up again.

The first is the well known old Swedish archive film of the rural chairmakers. They have a fixed pattern to lay out the joints and judging by the closing shot of the loaded cart, made just one style of chair. (Go to 8:40 for the chair.)

https://youtu.be/wGDkliy1DEU

The second is from Frank Klaus, cutting dovetails with no superfluous marking out, tools or processes.

https://youtu.be/vKuy3NdLhlE


----------



## Tasky (9 Jan 2018)

D_W":1i0w46xf said:


> wife is against it because of the studies of brain inactivity for the kids - even if the programming isn't interesting to them and they're not directly paying attention.


See, to that I'd merely suggest quality over quantity - I watched cartoons and sci-fi as a kid, but also nature documentaries. I also read books just as much, if not more and if I wasn't riveted to the screen then the TV was switched off! 
All that did foster an imagination in me, though and I left the TV with a plethora of adventures to go out and play with down the garden or off in the woods (because we could do that alone, back then). It's what took me to various crafts and careers and part of what brought me here. I suppose that gave me my results to desire and this is where I start finding my how.



D_W":1i0w46xf said:


> The reason for that is just that I know that they get a lot of requests for free help, and i don't want to use their time unless I've got no other option.


I find most experts, and indeed people in general, quite happy to talk about themselves and their work. Many are delighted that someone would take an interest, especially those who aren't teachers or internet gurus. 
The idea is to talk with them, not request a lecture. 



D_W":1i0w46xf said:


> re: the double iron, no special wood needed


It still needs to be there and two weeks worth of even junk wood just to practice planing still costs a LOT of money, for some people... 



MusicMan":1i0w46xf said:


> you can develop the embouchure at any age.


But it's taken until now for me to realise that's how you spell it!!! 



Cheshirechappie":1i0w46xf said:


> Look chaps - I really don't want to have a go at anybody, but I started the thread to discuss experience, efficiency and enjoyment in woodworking using hand tools (that's why the thread's on this board). I really don't have anything against musical instruments, but they ain't woodworking.


They ain't martial arts or driving either, but the principles of learning them that were taught to me in all three have rung true in each other and in every other aspect of my life... and so far are just as true in woodworking.


----------



## bugbear (9 Jan 2018)

AndyT":3n5lhgx4 said:


> And just for fun, here are two of my favourite video examples of someone making a standard product for the umpteenth time, with no effort wasted, no tool put down just to be picked up again.


Do you know of any footage of original bodgers doing the parts work for Windsor chairs? That was a repetition task par excellence!

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (9 Jan 2018)

bugbear":3oumdlld said:


> AndyT":3oumdlld said:
> 
> 
> > And just for fun, here are two of my favourite video examples of someone making a standard product for the umpteenth time, with no effort wasted, no tool put down just to be picked up again.
> ...



None in the UK as far as I know, but there might well be something from Eastern Europe where all sorts of traditional hand work has survived into the age of cine film or video. Stuart King was a pioneer of bringing their work to our attention over here, but I expect there's still plenty for the ethnographically inclined tourist to record.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (9 Jan 2018)

Modern UK equivalents might be fruit and vegetable picking in the agricultural industry, or dressing chickens in a meat-packing plant. I've seen amazingly fast examples of such tasks, seemingly simple and repetitive, but needing guidance by eye and feel. There will be a robot along soon, though....

Not sure that's the sort of 'efficiency' woodworkers should be emulating, though - especially hobby ones. Knocking down stock to a cutting list, squaring-up timber, marking and cutting joints efficiently, yes - but production line repetition? No.


----------



## G S Haydon (9 Jan 2018)

Any help for bodgers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5_OJxNccY


----------



## bugbear (9 Jan 2018)

G S Haydon":11glwt3a said:


> Any help for bodgers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5_OJxNccY


That looks rather like a UK version of "Der Letzte seines Standes" (Last of their Kind) which was (and is, on YouTube) a program attempting to record craft skills before they finally die out. The participants tend to be rather old, and are more remembering what they used to do than still doing it. Fascinating stuff though.

I'd love to see the production rate of a fit and healthy 30-40 year old bodger from (say) 1880.

BugBear


----------



## D_W (9 Jan 2018)

Tasky":36zlo08d said:


> It still needs to be there and two weeks worth of even junk wood just to practice planing still costs a LOT of money, for some people...



I guess I wasn't clear enough. I'm not advocating using junk wood, and I don't like the idea of practice projects. I think you make your best effort on reasonable materials (in my case, the casework is in my daughter's room - a simple book case with hand cut mouldings and beaded trim on the face, and T&G on the back. No modern adjustable shelves, etc, it's all dadoed together and you could stand a car on it without it weighing 300 pounds). 

It turned out, I didn't have any problems at all with it. Setting the double iron was almost immediate. The project itself took less time than it would've if I had used my prior rotation of single ironed planes. 

No test wood, no test projects. 

I did that at the time (forced myself to learn to use the double iron) because I'd had a couple of hand tool only projects before where I used very good quality single iron planes (an early 1800s jointer that was unused before me, a panel smoother and a self-made high angle infill) and it just didn't seem to me like the amount of time that it took to remove tearout was reasonable, and it made planing undesirable. 

Let's say that you're trying an alternative M&T method instead, or order of operations. The kind of problems you'll have won't be dealbreakers - they'll be things that cause you to stop for a second and think, or perhaps you'll really wank something and have a mortise that's too high and need to shim a tenon. No big deal. 

If I thought I had to stop all work and purchase special materials to learn something, that _would_ be a big issue, but it's rare that such a thing occurs. 

My first couple planes weren't that great aesthetically, and eventually, I made two that I threw out for two different reasons. But I've made about fifty planes, so that's not much of an issue in the grand scheme. The speed and quality of most of the rest of those planes was improved significantly because I was willing to make mistakes on a project rather than making a test project. I made a test-something a single time on a plane, and that was a test infill on my first large infill plane. It took so much time to do and fit and trial that I vowed I'd never do it again. And I haven't. And I've never thrown out a single piece of wood since then that I can recall - on planes that is. In the last several years, I mismeasured two stiles on a cabinet face frame (working by hand) and they ended up a quarter too narrow and I had to set them aside. I probably threw them away, but I don't remember. I used about 200 board feet of cherry on those cabinets (and probably siphoned something off for a small project or two during that time) and that was the only outright waste due to error. Of course, I made mistakes when working, but few were unrecoverable. Working mostly by hand, you have a few chances to think about what you're doing, even if you're tired - I'd have had waste of at least 10% if I had used only power tools - just a personal thing. If I used power tools to make planes, the same thing would happen there.


----------



## AndyT (9 Jan 2018)

bugbear":3oebajo6 said:


> G S Haydon":3oebajo6 said:
> 
> 
> > Any help for bodgers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP5_OJxNccY
> ...



This is the best I can offer, from The English Country Chair by Ivan Sparkes, p33. I think his source is probably John Mayes but I don't have his book.

"The bodger, beside turning the actual chair legs, was expected to provide the three stretcher pieces which form the underframe of the chair. Before the Great War, he would receive five shillings for a gross, which would consist of a gross (144) chair legs and three quarters of a gross (108) stretcher parts, making a total of over two hundred and fifty turned pieces. A man working from seven in the morning to seven at night for five and a half days a week could reckon to make two and a half gross per week and from this effort take home about twelve shillings a week to live on! The price per gross increased rapidly after 1914 until by 1920 it had risen to fourteen shillings."


----------



## custard (9 Jan 2018)

AndyT":3llsga84 said:


> "The bodger, beside turning the actual chair legs, was expected to provide the three stretcher pieces which form the underframe of the chair. Before the Great War, he would receive five shillings for a gross, which would consist of a gross (144) chair legs and three quarters of a gross (108) stretcher parts, making a total of over two hundred and fifty turned pieces. A man working from seven in the morning to seven at night for five and a half days a week could reckon to make two and a half gross per week and from this effort take home about twelve shillings a week to live on! The price per gross increased rapidly after 1914 until by 1920 it had risen to fourteen shillings."



I guess that'd take much of the fun out of it.

:shock:


----------



## Sheffield Tony (9 Jan 2018)

Andy's figures agree closely with the ones in Jack Hill's book. About 150 pieces per day.

"Log to leg" races are an event at various greenwood events. The title almost says it all, except that the requirement is a matching pair of legs, based on a prototype "master leg", with a system of penalties for defects. Peter Wood usually wins, he can do it in 7 to 8 minutes. That certainly looks like hard work.


----------



## CStanford (10 Jan 2018)

Hat tip to Graham Haydon, who posted these links some time ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bhu7HjIGAk

A reminder of what very fine furniture making looked like in its heyday.


----------



## bugbear (10 Jan 2018)

AndyT":12m5zzp3 said:


> This is the best I can offer, from The English Country Chair by Ivan Sparkes, p33. I think his source is probably John Mayes but I don't have his book.
> 
> "The bodger, beside turning the actual chair legs, was expected to provide the three stretcher pieces which form the underframe of the chair. Before the Great War, he would receive five shillings for a gross, which would consist of a gross (144) chair legs and three quarters of a gross (108) stretcher parts, making a total of over two hundred and fifty turned pieces. A man working from seven in the morning to seven at night for five and a half days a week could reckon to make two and a half gross per week and from this effort take home about twelve shillings a week to live on! The price per gross increased rapidly after 1914 until by 1920 it had risen to fourteen shillings."


Crunching the numbers; 12 hour per day x 5 1/2 = 66 hours or 3960 minutes

2 1/2 gross is 2.5 x 250 pieces = 625 pieces

3960/625 = 6.3 minutes per piece. :shock: 

From the topic title, I think this example shows Experience and Efficiency. Not so much Enjoyment!

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (10 Jan 2018)

bugbear":f60b4ywt said:


> ......
> 
> From the topic title, I think this example shows Experience and Efficiency. Not so much Enjoyment!
> 
> BugBear


I wouldn't completely discount the possibility of enjoyment. In the right circumstances (the right employer, the right workmates?) there could be pleasure in a job well done, sense of achievement, sense of worthwhile contribution to the communal effort, and so on, in spite of the hard work. Sometimes.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (10 Jan 2018)

bugbear":3qavs63r said:


> 2 1/2 gross is 2.5 x 250 pieces = 625 pieces
> 
> 3960/625 = 6.3 minutes per piece. :shock:
> 
> ...



I wouldn't disagree, did enjoyment enter into the picture for any working class career ? But remember almost half of those pieces are stretchers, which are simpler than legs. They are just a cigar shape, no beads. As I mentioned earlier, flats from riving very (too) close to the finished dimensions were tolerated. And only the green turned parts were being made, they'd be seasoned in the wood before being transported to be finished off in a workshop. That probably included trimming to length and finishing the tenons to final dimension with a rounder or similar, so the turning need not be particularly accurate. 

12-13 minutes for _one_ pair of legs is quite doable today even by people who don't do it day in, day out. Of course if you are doing it all day there is break time, and fatigue to consider. But on the other hand, you'd probably get eight or more pieces from a single billet, so to rive two pieces means you've done some of the work on the next 6. You would probably have better timber to work with too, as it would be grown and selected for the job.


----------



## Jacob (10 Jan 2018)

Sheffield Tony":32o1vssa said:


> bugbear":32o1vssa said:
> 
> 
> > 2 1/2 gross is 2.5 x 250 pieces = 625 pieces
> ...


It can do - it depends on the company. I've done some cr&p working class jobs and when things are going well and everybody is getting on nicely it can be OK. 
I've never done them for long though - 6 months driving a wagon in a quarry about the longest - tea breaks in our little hut were hilarious and we all were mates.
A lot of work wouldn't be possible without these "fringe benefits".
On the woodwork front read "The Wheelwrights Shop" for a picture of working class life in the bad old days.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (10 Jan 2018)

Oops sorry, I did mean to refer to the period of the professional bodger - they died out about 1950 I think.


----------



## D_W (10 Jan 2018)

CStanford":1krcdsn2 said:


> Hat tip to Graham Haydon, who posted these links some time ago:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Bhu7HjIGAk
> 
> A reminder of what very fine furniture making looked like in its heyday.



If that doesn't inspire, I don't know what will. 240 years later, and the small pocket drawers still descend on a cushion of air...slowly. The carving is beyond delightful.


----------



## D_W (10 Jan 2018)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qSni6RkibEY

Charlie...you think this guy might be in the weeds a liitle?


----------



## AndyT (10 Jan 2018)

On the subject of enjoyment, the same book that the numbers were in has a quote from a bodger, named as George Dean, from a 1955 letter archived in the High Wycombe public library.

"Life in the woods was strangely enjoyable... carefree, and a bit lonesome if your mate was away. In the spring it was lovely, as the trees took on their fresh green leaf and in the winter the sighing of the wind and the sight of the birds gathering in the branches when the smoke ascended at meal times."

It should come as no surprise that there's a bit of a revival of woodland based work among some new-age types - who are consciously choosing a low-impact, low cash lifestyle where they can follow their own values.


----------



## Jacob (10 Jan 2018)

AndyT":3akmmsm1 said:


> On the subject of enjoyment, the same book that the numbers were in has a quote from a bodger, named as George Dean, from a 1955 letter archived in the High Wycombe public library.
> 
> "Life in the woods was strangely enjoyable... carefree, and a bit lonesome if your mate was away. In the spring it was lovely, as the trees took on their fresh green leaf and in the winter the sighing of the wind and the sight of the birds gathering in the branches when the smoke ascended at meal times."
> 
> It should come as no surprise that there's a bit of a revival of woodland based work among some new-age types - who are consciously choosing a low-impact, low cash lifestyle where they can follow their own values.


No revival - there's been a back-to-the-simple-life tendency going on for generations, nothing new-age about it. 
Hunting shooting fishing climbing camping sailing kayaking DIY craft-work gardening bee-keeping - endless list!
Walden was published in 1854. Morris and Arts n Crafts getting going around the same time


----------



## Tasky (10 Jan 2018)

D_W":3sgtc0ne said:


> I guess I wasn't clear enough. I'm not advocating using junk wood, and I don't like the idea of practice projects.


ANY wood will still cost me a month of 'disposable' income. Just the wood for my bench was nearly 1½ months' money. 
I have done a few projects where the recipients didn't mind if it was a little ricketty, but that also allowed me to try out techniques, joints and things. That's my general concept of practice projects, but I did also test a few things out first on scrap before using the better quality wood bought for the purpose. 

A mistake for me is usually another month of wating and a not-insignificant amount of money potentially wasted, if it can't go into a Set Aside pile. More so since everything I make is a gift for someone, rather than an income. I have a 'real' job for that. 



D_W":3sgtc0ne said:


> Of course, I made mistakes when working, but few were unrecoverable. Working mostly by hand, you have a few chances to think about what you're doing, even if you're tired.


Due to some physical limitation, I already have to think carefully before I even start and I can't really afford mistakes, so a slower and more deliberate consideration toward all aspects is essential... and being tired just means I miss something. 
Speed is secondary to me - Better to arrive late than not at all. 

To reference the OP title - My enjoyment is in achieving the desired result, my efficiency is in minimal outlay and minimal wastage, my experience here is still devleoping but mostly underpinned by experiences in other ventures.


----------



## AndyT (10 Jan 2018)

Here's a bit more about chair making productivity, from Ivan Sparkes writing in the journal of the Regional Furniture Society:

https://regionalfurnituresociety.files. ... parkes.pdf

- it includes a figure of adzing two dozen chair seats between start of work at 6.30 and breakfast (9.30) and the employment of children to cut wedges at the rate of a penny per gross, which was an hour's work.


----------



## D_W (10 Jan 2018)

AndyT":39gin9og said:


> So, lurching back on topic, people might like to look at this blog post by Stephen Shepherd. It's not the calculations back from the price books I was looking for, but it's from a thoughtful woodworker interested in rediscovering the old ways.
> 
> http://www.fullchisel.com/blog/?p=191
> 
> ...



This was my point earlier about making something a bunch of times potentially being more satisfying than going through the agonizing process you're talking about reviewing options, etc. 

I don't mind analyzing something like that if I am going to do it a few times. To do it once on each piece and then never make anything notable or well (which is what most amatuers do)...no thanks. Not saying that someone who is "hobbying" can't enjoy doing nothing, I just think they'd enjoy doing something that they're interested in relatively well a whole lot better. 

And a lot of those things (for folks fretting about material costs) can yield enough income to cover the cost of the hobby.


----------



## D_W (10 Jan 2018)

Tasky":218uybwl said:


> D_W":218uybwl said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I wasn't clear enough. I'm not advocating using junk wood, and I don't like the idea of practice projects.
> ...



You're still making things more difficult than they need to be. Eventually, you're going to do or make something. It will involve materials. Learning to do it better is not going to waste them. Even if you make an error on a mortise or plane a stroke of tearout. We're not talking about setting up a shop made of rube goldberg machines and testing all of them on pallets full of the finest densest timber from indonesia. We're talking about things like changing the direction you point the chisel when you strike it in a mortise. 

If money and materials are that important, I guarantee you that you possess the skills to make small things that will return more money than you're spending. For example, you could set up an etsy page and recover any of the thousands of old razor strops (at boot sales) that are a couple of bucks and in good enough shape to make a tool strop, but not good enough for razors. Pull the linens off of them and sell them as genuine linens for $20-$40 if they are clean (if they're not, just throw them away), split the leather in two length-wise and sand the surface off and glue it (well and tidy) to a piece of wood and sell each of those for $20. it's not going to yield you $50 an hour, but I guarantee it would make money. There are hundreds of little nits like that that could alleviate the fear that you just can't do much because of the chance of failure of financial ruin. 

None of them are large enough to make a living doing, but they certainly could allow for building of skill and alleviation of financial hobby strain. 

I have a large stack of shell strops that aren't in good enough shape to be returned to razoring. They cost me about $5-$10 each (I've already recovered the cost of them by selling the good strops for below market price for a good strop). I'll split one with a good linen and see how long it takes to sell it and see what the proceeds are. This is sort of a waste of my time, but I'll do it to prove a point, and I'll record the time involved.

There are just scads of other ideas that you could try, like putting an ad for clean unfinished shorts for free out on craigslist (or whatever the equivalent is there), etc. Eventually, you're going to run into someone whose economics make it so that they'd be glad to let you take their offcuts for nothing, because they're going to just throw them away, anyway. You may run into someone who is just looking to dump good stock at a very low rate. But I guarantee if you do nothing, you won't find them. 

My mother has made about $25k per year for the last 35 years as a side hustle using only salvage materials (her market is people who want something painted on them - horrific to me, but it keeps her busy and returns about 20 bucks an hour now that she's good at it. It would be her hobby, anyway). Her network is so large (of people who know that she wants stuff like offcuts, discarded tinware and old cookware, etc) that she now has a different problem - the materials come faster than she can turn them around.


----------



## Tasky (10 Jan 2018)

D_W":2v5fvay7 said:


> To do it once on each piece and then never make anything notable or well (which is what most amatuers do)...no thanks. Not saying that someone who is "hobbying" can't enjoy doing nothing, I just think they'd enjoy doing something that they're interested in relatively well a whole lot better.


So how many side tables do I need to make before I can make just the one that the Wife asked for?
That's why most amateurs and hobbyists do it only the once - Because once in a blue moon is all some things are needed. If the need to do it better becomes a factor, they'll end up doing it more often and getting better at it anyway. 



D_W":2v5fvay7 said:


> And a lot of those things (for folks fretting about material costs) can yield enough income to cover the cost of the hobby.


Depends on the individual goals - I'm in this to make specific things for specific people, not build a portfolio of stuff that might be of purchasable interest to other people. 



D_W":2v5fvay7 said:


> If money and materials are that important, I guarantee you that you possess the skills to make small things that will return more money than you're spending.


Between actual work, family and all the other things, let's assume I have the time and money to make ONE hour's worth of work per day. 
I can then make lots of little things and thus lots of little monies in a month... or I can make the one thing I want to make. I cannot do both, and if I could this would be my career not my hobby. 

Works for some people, I'm sure. Not for everyone, though. 
If I had as much time free at home as I spend waiting on other people at work, I could probably build you a wooden palace!!


----------



## D_W (10 Jan 2018)

Now you're back to having the materials and time to do one hour of work per day. You've got plenty of time and materials to try new things and take some calculated risks. 

Years ago, the spouse of the person who got me into woodworking asked if I wanted to finish some professional exams that I was taking. They took a while, and at the same time, I tried to take on additional responsibilities at work (because that's what work wanted me to do), and she asked if I wanted to finish the exams, which were dragging out. 

I said "yes". And she said "no, you don't. If you wanted to finish the exams, you'd do it." To which I responded that my additional work responsibilities and sometimes weekend work (and sometimes weeks in the office until midnight at inopportune times) were making it difficult, but I wanted to. She was right. I didn't really want to at the time. I left the job and finished the exams elsewhere. 

If you're actually able to come up with an hour a day in the shop (even if that is just an average over a week), you'll have more furniture than you can fit in your house. 

First, it was risk, then it was material cost, and now it's time. I think it's "don't want to", and that is fine, but you have to admit that's what it is. You're attempting to extrapolate "don't want to" into "can't" as a general argument with all of this stuff that originated with microtensions, etc. The person who has an hour and who wants to improve will just do it. 

You could probably take a few risks to learn to be more efficient by attempting things you've seen other people do and literally have enough time to make the things you want, make a few of the "little" things that sell, become known for them and accomplish all of the things at once.


----------



## D_W (10 Jan 2018)

By the way, I was grossly offended when my coworker kept telling me that I didn't want to finish the exams that I was taking, even though I was telling her that I did. I realized that she was right, though, after I cooled off.


----------



## Tasky (10 Jan 2018)

D_W":2vxqo88k said:


> Now you're back to having the materials and time to do one hour of work per day. You've got plenty of time and materials to try new things and take some calculated risks.


Well since you know more about me, my body, my time, my money, my work and my life in general than I do - You can come do my woodworking, then... Best of luck dealing with the wife!! 



D_W":2vxqo88k said:


> First, it was risk, then it was material cost, and now it's time. I think it's "don't want to", and that is fine, but you have to admit that's what it is.


No. I just want to do what I want the way I know I have to, rather than what people *assume* I should just because that's what they do... If you want to replace my own woodworking gurus, you'll need a better YouTube channel and at least two books on the subject. 



D_W":2vxqo88k said:


> You could probably take a few risks to learn to be more efficient by attempting things you've seen other people do and literally have enough time to make the things you want, make a few of the "little" things that sell, become known for them and accomplish all of the things at once.


Or I could just make what I want, the way that works best for me, get the results I want and be all the happier for it...


----------



## D_W (10 Jan 2018)

If you ever travel to the states for work, let me know. I often get along best with people willing to have a spat and still talk. You seem like a good fellow to me - be glad to put you up for a day or two and make a pair of planes or something to send you back with. 

As for improving my youtube channel, I think I'd have to turn ads on if I went to that effort and as you know - doing something you don't enjoy isn't that fun. Organizing and editing videos and worrying about things like cleaning up shop, etc, ....yuck.


----------



## Tasky (12 Jan 2018)

ccasion5:


----------



## bugbear (13 Jan 2018)

I guess the fact that I'm putting time and effort into casing up a CF stone in a traditional fashion, when I already have a cased arkansas and set of excellent japanese waterstones makes me a happy amateur.

I have said before - the only product I result from my workshop is happiness. Messing about in sheds is FUN!

BugeBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jan 2018)

bugbear":zshkepo6 said:


> 2 1/2 gross is 2.5 x 250 pieces = 625 pieces
> BugBear




2.5 x 144 last I knew. :?


----------



## AndyT (13 Jan 2018)

phil.p":2o2sdhoj said:


> bugbear":2o2sdhoj said:
> 
> 
> > 2 1/2 gross is 2.5 x 250 pieces = 625 pieces
> ...



Phil, back on page 8, before something like a digression, I quoted evidence that a bodger selling a gross of chair legs was expected to include the stretchers as well.
As there were three stretchers to every four legs, a gross of legs was actually 144+108=252 individual components.
252 was rounded to 250, but the calculation is sound.

The work of making all those parts would have included felling the trees, cutting logs of suitable length, splitting the logs into billets and preliminary shaping with the drawknife. It's not clear how that work was accounted for but it may have been included in the five shillings per "gross" paid to the bodger.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Jan 2018)

In some Sheffield trades, a dozen was fourteen items. One for losses and breakages, and one for the hardener to break for examination of the fracture. The other twelve were all available for sale.

I think there were quite a few other 'qualified dozens' about, too. Isn't a Baker's dozen thirteen?


----------



## Sheffield Tony (13 Jan 2018)

Remembering that this would be coppiced wood, fairly modest size (6-8" is enough). Easier to cut. If the trees are planted densly enough you will hopefully have quick regrowth, straight grained and more flexible. The initial riving of the billet can be done very quickly. If you see the chaps in that video using the drawknife, they are not paring away tentatively, but ripping most of the waste off in a single stroke before rotating the workpiece for the next stroke. Not only quick, but it tends to follow the grain better for easier turning and a stronger chair. 

The great thing sbout this way of work of course is that all the waste stays in the wood to compost back down as part or the ecosystem.


----------



## AndyT (13 Jan 2018)

Indeed, let's not lose sight of just how sustainable such a system was and could be still.
Coppiced wood is as near as you can get to a free, renewable material.
Doing most of the work in the woods meant no wasted energy hauling waste material off elsewhere to become a disposal problem - it all stayed on site. The impact of a few men living in a simple shelter would have been negligible too.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jan 2018)

AndyT":1ukpc28h said:


> Phil, back on page 8, before something like a digression, I quoted evidence that a bodger selling a gross of chair legs was expected to include the stretchers as well.
> As there were three stretchers to every four legs, a gross of legs was actually 144+108=252 individual components.
> 252 was rounded to 250, but the calculation is sound.



Thank you for the explanation. So "gross" actually had very little to do with the price.


----------



## nabs (13 Jan 2018)

Cheshirechappie":3cjaliu0 said:


> In some Sheffield trades, a dozen was fourteen items. One for losses and breakages, and one for the hardener to break for examination of the fracture. The other twelve were all available for sale.
> 
> I think there were quite a few other 'qualified dozens' about, too. Isn't a Baker's dozen thirteen?



a deeply unfair practice that was not abolished until the 20th century, having been introduced by an 18C scissor maker - Jonathan Watkinson - who insisted his workers create 13 items for every dozen he paid for. This was commemorated in a song called 'Watkinson and his thirteens':

http://printprotestpoetry.group.shef.ac.uk/?p=189


----------

