# Preservation or Utilisation? Antique Tools



## Rhyolith (10 Jan 2016)

Like many people on here I own a lot of very old tools, many over 100 years in age. They are beautiful, often irreplaceable and regularly out perform their equivalents in todays world (or are no longer made at all). 

Something I keep dithering over is what my responsibility is with these glorious antiques: Do I preserve them for future generations or use them as their makers intended? Both of these courses of action have their merits. Preserving antique is a no brainer regardless, but tools are made to be used and using a tool it inevitably going to wear it down in some manner; and of course there is the ever present danger of a clumsy moment! So is it less selfish to not use them at all and thus ensure they are totally preserved for future generations to appreciate? 

What do people think? Use or Preserve? 

Note: I am only really talking about the old and really exceptional items. The Millers Falls No.87 here is an example:


Millers Falls No.87 by Rhyolith, on Flickr


----------



## Argus (10 Jan 2016)

Many of my tools that I've accumulated over the last 40 odd years are pre-War.... many pre First War, most pre-Boer War, some go back before the Crimea War.

They all work for their living and are looked after, cared for and sharpened as most of the previous owners did.
When I give up, I'll make sure that they go to workers who will carry on with them as they deserve and add their name stamps to mine.

If it works and I have a use for it then I will use it..... new or old.


----------



## AndyT (10 Jan 2016)

In general, I think it's ok to use antique tools for their original purpose. Of course, my usage as an occasional dabbler in woodworking is only ever going to be very light usage. I don't think I will wear out any of the tools in my care.

I'd draw the line at anything really historic - early 18th century planes for instance, where the 19th and 20th centuries provide plenty of alternatives. 

A consequence of this is that I will only do the minimum of restoration to put a tool back into the sort of condition it would be in if it was still in use by a competent tradesman. So gross dirt and rust come off but all signs of honest ageing are retained. In general, that is - there will be odd exceptions.


----------



## ED65 (10 Jan 2016)

This is an interesting subject, one I've seen discussions on before on knife forums and gun forums a few times over the years. You should expect some lively debate on the topic!

I think the arguments are nearly always going to be similar regardless of the tool, although with guns there is the unique chance that use could lead to an explosion which thankfully we don't have to worry about :mrgreen: 

Personally I think there are almost no good reasons not to use a tool you own assuming it's in good working order. This is even if the tool is rare, unless using it would seriously impact its condition or outright damage it. I think this reasonably unlikely with any tool most would care to use in the first place. I don't buy into the notion that you shouldn't use something simply due to its age. That's being precious about them, in a way that's not really warranted: these things were made to be user tools, not pretty shelf ornaments, and within reason this is what they should continue to be. 

Obviously if you go back far enough (18th century and older) _and _the tool is a rare or possibly sole survivor, then a reasonable argument could be made that it's best to preserve it for history, but those would be few and far between except for the very fortunate of deep-pocketed.


----------



## Water-Mark (10 Jan 2016)

In times like these i always look to toy story for guidance.


----------



## JimB (11 Jan 2016)

What would the tradesmen who used it before think? I suspect they'd go for using it. A tool not used isn't really a tool though...


----------



## bugbear (11 Jan 2016)

It depends entirely on rarity, not age.

Further - consider recent debates on cap-iron position or (of course) sharpening. If *all*
old tools are disassembled, cleaned, and tuned using modern techniques, materials and assumptions,
where would we look for evidence of old tuning techniques?

Use the common, preserve the rare.

BugBear


----------



## Cheshirechappie (11 Jan 2016)

One way to 'understand' tools is to use them for their intended purpose - indeed, some would say they can't be properly understood unless they're used. Most of the time that's perfectly acceptable with old tools, but as pointed out above, it may be inadvisable with particularly rare ones. The way round that problem is to make a replica and use that, which has the advantage that one uses the tool in it's 'as-new' condition, free of the inevitable damage, distortions and wear of age.


----------



## Corneel (11 Jan 2016)

My oldest tools (that I am aware of) are these 18th century tongue and groove planes from Ary den Hengst who worked in Rotterdam. Don't use them much, it's a very narrow size, but they have come in handy from time to time. So my vote: Use it.


----------



## mseries (11 Jan 2016)

Use it. The makers made them to be used, they have gone to the trouble of making it, you owe it to them. Tools are to be used.


----------



## Bedrock (11 Jan 2016)

I am very much in the "use it" camp. Look after it, and hope that when you pass it on, the next owner will appreciate it's quality. After that it is a question of whether you like owning something old or whether you feel like being an off-shoot to the museum service.
Surely, a tool is valued for it's quality in use. It is not a picture or a ceramic, valued for its aesthetic qualities.
By contrast, I own a Chinese wine bowl which cost me very little, and is reckoned to be 1000 years old. It is simple in design, but not of great beauty, nor, obviously do I use it, but I enjoy the fact that it is that old, and has survived more or less intact.


----------



## AJB Temple (11 Jan 2016)

Use.


----------



## MusicMan (11 Jan 2016)

I'm with Bugbear. Use, unless is it so rare that we need to preserve evidence of original settings. In which case it should be in a museum, where it can be conserved properly, but there are not many museums that would take tools.

Keith


----------



## DTR (11 Jan 2016)

Water-Mark":2900lrpx said:


> In times like these i always look to toy story for guidance.



=D>


----------



## Rhyolith (11 Jan 2016)

Cheshirechappie":285mphaj said:


> One way to 'understand' tools is to use them for their intended purpose - indeed, some would say they can't be properly understood unless they're used.


I think thats a critical point and not just true of tools. If an item is locked safety away in a glass cabinet is anyone really going to benefit from it? Even if it is in "perfect" condition. This is in many ways a massive flaw with the traditional concept of a "museum". 

I do think that to understand the "tool" element of a tool you defiantly have to use it... but what if the item's purpose not a tool anymore? For example my Black and Decker "gutt buster" drill: it works fine and is very much useable, however I intend to have it on the mantle piece or on show in some similar capacity as I believe the interest and pleasure people (and me) will get from this is greater than the negligible practical need for a drill that size. Hence although its still a functional tool, its use is now an ornament, thus a new understand of it as such is established. 


Black &amp; Decker 3/4&quot; Drill by Rhyolith, on Flickr



mseries":285mphaj said:


> Use it. The makers made them to be used, they have gone to the trouble of making it, you owe it to them. Tools are to be used.





Bedrock":285mphaj said:


> Surely, a tool is valued for it's quality in use. It is not a picture or a ceramic, valued for its aesthetic qualities..


As in the example above, this can change and there are not shortage of examples where it does. Indeed even if we ignore the modern trend of using antique tools as ornaments, old tool makers seem to have regularly gone out of their way to make the tools beautiful (preston is a good example of this), this brings no practical benefit functionally to the tool. I imagine it was done to help sell the tools (quality is perceived in beauty as well as its functional effectiveness), but also as a physical form of the makers pride in their work.



bugbear":285mphaj said:


> It depends entirely on rarity, not age. ......
> ......... Use the common, preserve the rare. ......


The only issue there is what is "rare"? For example, I would class a Lie Neilsen No.8 as pretty rare (I have never seen another), but when you start talking about 18th century braces and so it suddenly does not seem rare at all... so where is the line? When there is 1-2 left



ED65":285mphaj said:


> This is an interesting subject, one I've seen discussions on before on knife forums and gun forums a few times over the years. You should expect some lively debate on the topic!


I think its a interesting topic too, and one I am very interested in hearing opinions on


----------



## sunnybob (11 Jan 2016)

Ryolyth,
Buck Rogers said can he have his ray gun back please?


----------



## AndyT (11 Jan 2016)

We're all woodworkers, or we wouldn't be on this forum, so for ordinary woodworking tools, it's easy to say 'use it.'
But Rhyolith's big old drill makes me think a bit wider. 

I don't have a collection of cooper's tools, but I know people who have. It's just not feasible for them to have a go at making barrels - they would struggle to get suitable materials, and the work is much harder than other sorts of woodworking, in the physical sense and in the level of difficulty.* But I want the tools to be preserved, so that the historical knowledge of just how it was possible to make millions of beer-tight containers over thousands of years is also preserved.

The same argument applies to other trades, not just the woodworking ones.



*Indeed, Ken Kilby wrote on the first page of the standard book on The Cooper and His Trade

"Robinson Crusoe was able to make anything but he never made a barrel. There are no amateur barrel makers. Coopering is a skill acquired through years of sweating, muscle-aching, back breaking labour 'at the block' as coopers say."


----------



## Bedrock (11 Jan 2016)

There's a point, but probably a very subjective one, where you tip over into industrial archaeology. Having said that, Victorian pumping stations, steam locos, and the like are, in my view, much the better for being fully restored and used, even if the original purpose is no longer viable.
The question of aesthetics is another subjective, but any of the many marks of Spitfire, the Vulcan bomber, or the Concorde, are undeniably beautiful, even if efficiency, rather than beauty was the intention of the designers. Again, I would much rather see them up in the air, and hear their sounds, than see them as a static display. 
For woodworking tools, I agree with Rhyolith, in that I suspect that the larger part of the design purpose was efficiency and then pride in producing an attractive quality artefact. Cars are probably a blend of all these factors, in that the cars which have become "classics" are generally those which perform well, but also were designed to be beautiful in their own right. The original E Type Jaguar comes to mind. 
Something that is designed to be cheap, usually looks it. But where does that leave the original Fiat 500, the Beetle or the original Mini?


----------



## heimlaga (11 Jan 2016)

I use my old tools but I try to be careful and respecthul so that they can serve many generations after me. 
However there are a few inherited tools that I don't use. Grandfather's log scribe and log dogs and great-grandfather's moulding planes and great-great-grandfather's jointer plane and workbench and things like that. Of cause there is a big pile of spare tools and parts in the garage attic just laying there because I find them to be worth preserving insted of thrown away. However I have resold all collectibles I have come across to get money for tools to use so there is nothing valuable nor collectible in that pile. Just ordinary tools and a bit of spare parts.

Some of my machines would probably qualify as antique but to me continous use is the best guarantee for survival. I have upgraded them to modern standards as respectfully as I can. Old parts no longer in use for instance the old bandsaw guards are in storage in a barn.


----------



## Bm101 (11 Jan 2016)

Even if I'm just starting to learn a little bit about the vast amount I don't know, every time I pick one of my Grandads tools up I feel just a little pride that he'd be happy I was using them if he was around. I felt the same quiet pride when my Dad gave them to me to use. My Grandad was a whaler, not a woodworker, but I think probably he was skilled like many of his generation because there was no option to buy. The money didn't exist. You fixed it, you kept every screw in tobacco tins, you looked after your gear because that was the way. I'm not sure people did woodwork as a hobby. You either did it for a trade and grafted your a*se off, you did it to make do because there was no option to call in a tradesman or you called in a tradesman and had them coming round the backdoor to get in. Not sure what a lot of them fellas would make of the sharpening debates on here either to be honest. I think they'd be bemused to say the least. 
He was a dab hand at the old scrimshaw. All those nights on the ships I suppose. My old fella has a load of old b/w photos of his Dad up on the whalers, factory ships, etc. Thinking about it I should get them scanned and sent off to some photo archive.
Tools are for using. 
I wouldn't have a clue about antique tools that should be kept for posterity, I can see the strength of the argument for preservation but generally how often do they come along for the general woodworker? As always its choice. If you want to put your drill on display, good luck to you. Who's to judge?


----------



## mseries (11 Jan 2016)

Bedrock":14c5lfzo said:


> There's a point, but probably a very subjective one, where you tip over into industrial archaeology. Having said that, Victorian pumping stations, steam locos, and the like are, in my view, much the better for being fully restored and used, even if the original purpose is no longer viable.


Quite, I was so pleased to learn this week that Flying Scotsman moved under it's owb steam again last week, real shame Mallard isn't mainline worthy any more. Stil great to look at but it's a 126mph machine, it needs to move


----------



## Rhyolith (11 Jan 2016)

Bm101":2l77t5hp said:


> ......I think probably he was skilled like many of his generation because there was no option to buy. The money didn't exist. You fixed it, you kept every screw in tobacco tins, you looked after your gear because that was the way. I'm not sure people did woodwork as a hobby. You either did it for a trade and grafted your a*se off, you did it to make do because there was no option to call in a tradesman or you called in a tradesman and had them coming round the backdoor to get in.....


Indeed, I think something critical about old tools is that people relied on them for there livelihoods: If the tools failed you, that was game over. I think this is why older woodworking tools (and probably other trades too) are so much better than modern ones... because today most woodworkers are hobbyists (I assume) and for them it does not matter to the same degree if something does not do its job or breaks. Today the brilliance has moved almost entirely to large commercial and industrial machines rather than little hand tools, because in todays society its the failure of one of those that really matters. Just look as modern jet turbines (made in Britain still I think) if your not convinced. 


mseries":2l77t5hp said:


> Bedrock":2l77t5hp said:
> 
> 
> > There's a point, but probably a very subjective one, where you tip over into industrial archaeology. Having said that, Victorian pumping stations, steam locos, and the like are, in my view, much the better for being fully restored and used, even if the original purpose is no longer viable.
> ...


I love steam engines, would defiantly agree they should be puffing round the railways rather than in a museum  Was great to see one that is (even if only on TV).


----------



## Corneel (11 Jan 2016)

I was thinking a bit about this and then reminded that I do have one tool for show. It's not even in the workshop, it's sitting on a cupboard in the house. This plow plane came with the wrong cutter. I found another one, but would need to do quite some surgery to the tool to make it work again. So I opted to leave it alone. The poor thing is very beautifull, but can't do its job anymore.







You can click on the image to look at it in more detail.


----------



## Bm101 (11 Jan 2016)

Rhyolith":q2q58e6v said:


> Indeed, I think something critical about old tools is that people relied on them for there livelihoods: If the tools failed you, that was game over. I think this is why older woodworking tools (and probably other trades too) are so much better than modern ones... because today most woodworkers are hobbyists (I assume) and for them it does not matter to the same degree if something does not do its job or breaks. Today the brilliance has moved almost entirely to large commercial and industrial machines rather than little hand tools, because in todays society its the failure of one of those that really matters.


Not sure I agree with you there Fella. I think there's far more to it than that personally. Just my opinion. :wink:


----------



## RogerP (11 Jan 2016)

Bm101":2bjq4wkn said:


> Rhyolith":2bjq4wkn said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, I think something critical about old tools is that people relied on them for there livelihoods: If the tools failed you, that was game over. I think this is why older woodworking tools (and probably other trades too) are so much better than modern ones... because today most woodworkers are hobbyists (I assume) and for them it does not matter to the same degree if something does not do its job or breaks. Today the brilliance has moved almost entirely to large commercial and industrial machines rather than little hand tools, because in todays society its the failure of one of those that really matters.
> ...


Neither do I. Agreed there's a lot of rubbish on the lower end of market and so there has always been, nothing new about that. I've seen plenty of pre-war (and earlier) rubbish tools. Most of the great old tools we hanker after now were in fact very expensive in their day and if you buy the top line expensive tools now they will also be very good.


----------



## D_W (11 Jan 2016)

Use. 100%. The only exception would be an item that is so rare that it's too expensive to use (which means that I'm letting collectors determine whether or not I'd use something).


----------



## bugbear (12 Jan 2016)

RogerP":tbrun9wd said:


> Agreed there's a lot of rubbish on the lower end of market and so there has always been, nothing new about that.



Yes - not all old tools were "the best".

If you look in the old catalogues, many tools came in 5 (or more) degrees of refinement, simply according to your ability to pay.

Some people simply couldn't afford (or didn't need) the high end ones.

Plough planes and marking/cutting gauges are good examples of this.

BugBear


----------



## mseries (12 Jan 2016)

Rhyolith":1wi9pvjj said:


> I love steam engines, would defiantly agree they should be puffing round the railways rather than in a museum  Was great to see one that is (even if only on TV).


Yes, I have seen Flying Scotsman in steam many many times in the past, nevertheless I do hope to get to the NRM or somewhere local this year to see it again. I had two great days out with my Dad in the last few years at Yseeing the 6 remaining Gresley A4s to celebrate the 75 years since Mallards record breaking journey.


----------



## AndyT (12 Jan 2016)

D_W":3oi1zpn3 said:


> Use. 100%. The only exception would be an item that is so rare that it's too expensive to use (which means that I'm letting collectors determine whether or not I'd use something).



So if I gave you a lovely old template for cutting the ends of a particular size of sash moulding when making a sash window with internal glazing bars,











what would you do with it? Would you set about making a window using that particular profile?

Now I like old tools and I like using old tools. People who have followed my postings in the Projects section will know that I like to use my woodworking as a means of comparing different old tools so that I understand more about how they work and why they were made like they were. 

But I've had this old template for five years or so, and, unsurprisingly, I have still not needed to make such a window! It was not expensive - a few quid for a boxful of similar items on eBay - and not especially rare. But it is a bit of evidence about how joiners used to work, worthy of preservation. I expect most of us have tools which we appreciate for their history more than we can actually use them.

In a similar vein, I've not yet needed to drill a hole with a brace and bit reaching round a corner, but I am the happy custodian of a suitable tool, proudly marked with the memorable name of Quimby S Backus, should I ever need to do so! :wink:


----------



## D_W (12 Jan 2016)

I'd be in the same boat as you - I'd have no need for it and wouldn't know what to do with it other than hope that I could find someone who wanted to use it. I wouldn't have a more profound thought for it unless I thought it was the last of its kind and there was no literature on it.

It's possible to preserve wood for a while, but impossible for it to last forever - especially beech. 

It'll be interesting to see how long digital preservation lasts.


----------



## CStanford (12 Jan 2016)

It's my understanding that several professional golfers have been allowed to hit the last set of irons Ben Hogan used in serious competition. Word is that only Tiger Woods could really do anything with them -- they are extremely stiff and have very flat lies to help combat Hogan's tendency to hook the ball.

Don't be surprised if some tool set up has you perplexed, especially if they have provenance from a master's shop. Could be the set up only really worked for him or made sense for the way he wanted to work wood (or flight a golf ball as in Ben Hogan's case).

Perhaps food for thought before making any declarations, one way or the other, about an old tool you've run across.


----------



## D_W (12 Jan 2016)

CStanford":2ogpf1cb said:


> It's my understanding that several professional golfers have been allowed to hit the last set of irons Ben Hogan used in serious competition. Word is that only Tiger Woods could really do anything with them -- they are extremely stiff and have very flat lies to help combat Hogan's tendency to hook the ball.
> 
> Don't be surprised if some tool set up has you perplexed, especially if they have provenance from a master's shop. Could be the set up only really worked for him or made sense for the way he wanted to work wood (or flight a golf ball as in Ben Hogan's case).
> 
> Perhaps food for thought before making any declarations, one way or the other, about an old tool you've run across.



I was a little surprised that anyone was allowed to hit those. Charles, I'm sure you've hit clubs like that before if you've ever gotten long irons out of an old bag that are on the heavier side. They probably have a smooth shot feel of a couple of dimples. 

At any rate, I wouldn't have let anyone hit them - they have hogan's wear pattern on the center of the face, and it would seem of all of the things out there that could be hung up and left alone, hogans irons would be it. 

I worked at a driving range in the 1990s that had clubs that had been lost at the local country club over a 40 - 50 year period or so - the long irons of the oldest makes were difficult to hit if you were looking for shots that feel good.


----------



## CStanford (12 Jan 2016)

True story. 

I doubt if Hogan played any set until the grooves were gone in the sweet spot. They're *sort of* important. I'm sure there was some wear there though. One thing you can count on, the sweet spot is where the identifiable wear was. Hitting those clubs significantly off the sweet spot would have been a painful experience.


----------



## D_W (12 Jan 2016)

CStanford":2j7rfv0h said:


> True story.
> 
> I doubt if Hogan played any set until the grooves were gone in the sweet spot. They're *sort of* important. I'm sure there was some wear there though. One thing you can count on, the sweet spot is where the identifiable wear was. Hitting those clubs significantly off the sweet spot would have been a painful experience.



Wear pattern is probably a bad way to describe it. What I recall is a dark spot on the lost 2 iron or 1 iron that he had that was recently recovered. About the size of a dime. If he liked a club, I'm sure he could have the grooves refreshed on a regular basis.


----------



## CStanford (12 Jan 2016)

Yep.

Corollary here is to be careful with assumptions about why a woodworking tool was set up a particular way.

You could be looking at the woodworking equivalent of a duffer's golf club or of Ben Hogan's.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Jan 2016)

Unless it's very rare and valuable then I use it.


----------



## Vann (12 Jan 2016)

Bedrock":1fd0hxy1 said:


> I own a Chinese wine bowl... It is simple in design, but not of great beauty, nor, obviously do I use it, but I enjoy the fact that it is that old, and has survived more or less intact.


I think that logic could be applied to many of the tools we have, even if the age isn't in the same league.



Bedrock":1fd0hxy1 said:


> There's a point, but probably a very subjective one, where you tip over into industrial archaeology. Having said that, Victorian pumping stations, steam locos, and the like are, in my view, much the better for being fully restored and used, even if the original purpose is no longer viable.
> The question of aesthetics is another subjective, but any of the many marks of Spitfire, the Vulcan bomber, or the Concorde, are undeniably beautiful, even if efficiency, rather than beauty was the intention of the designers. Again, I would much rather see them up in the air, and hear their sounds, than see them as a static display.


Here I disagree. In my misspent youth I put in a lot of hours at a steam railway. There were a few discussions about steam locomotives behind glass, and whether they should be out running. In a similar vein, there's a spitfire fighter in the Auckland museum with very few hours on its airframe, and the argument was that it should be out flying.

My opinion is, if it's in good nick and preserved, it should be left preserved - for future generations. If it's in poor nick and you return it to good condition, you've earned the right to use it and risk losing it (to wear, damage or total loss).

The same argument can be applied to tools. I have far too many planes, drills, etc. of varying vintage (very few valuable ones unfortunately). If I have a nice original vintage tool, and newer ones that will do the same job, I put the older ones aside and use mid-aged ones (I try not to own anything too new - unless it's a quality tool like a Clifton plane).



AndyT":1fd0hxy1 said:


> In general, I think it's ok to use antique tools for their original purpose. Of course, my usage as an occasional dabbler in woodworking is only ever going to be very light usage. I don't think I will wear out any of the tools in my care.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> A consequence of this is that I will only do the minimum of restoration to put a tool back into the sort of condition it would be in if it was still in use by a competent tradesman. So gross dirt and rust come off but all signs of honest ageing are retained. In general, that is - there will be odd exceptions.



I like Andy's approach, and although I like to completely strip and repaint an old tool, I am now learning to appreciate them in an "honest aged" condition. I now only repaint common wrecks.




The Record No.05 has a brazed repair to the LH wing - it's very capable of the rough work a jack plane is intended for. I have nicer and older No.05s;
The Record No.04ss has a broken wing - it's a great plane and does all I ask of it;
I use the Clifton No.3 for fine work. I have a couple of very nice pre-WW2 Record No.03/03ss - put aside.

Tools are made to be used - but at some point they begin the cross over into industrial archaeology. Look after them and treat them accordingly.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## blackrodd (12 Jan 2016)

Tools were made to be used, Old tools ought to be preserved and treated with respect but every once in a while used and enjoyed, by the current "custodian"
I try and use my odd tool bits and pieces on small and unusual job's repairing a window , door or chair etc. 
Regards Rodders


----------



## bugbear (13 Jan 2016)

Here's an extreme (and hypothetical, of course) test case to think about.

Imagine that Larry Ellison (a multi-billionaire) had been reading
the Arts & Mysteries posts of Adam Cherubini, and been inspired,
having never done woodwork before, to "have a go" at 18th century
woodwork. Being rather wealthy he decides to buy, sharpen,
and use a handy, complete set - the Seaton Tool Chest.

How would people feel about that?

Is it "His money, his tools, his rules", or "those tools,
with their astonishing provenance, completeness as a set,
and preservation are a precious record".

BugBear


----------



## AndyT (13 Jan 2016)

It's clearly the latter.

Although thinking about the extremes is useful, I think that for most of us, the decisions are all in a big fuzzy area somewhere between ordinary and historic. The boundaries are not clear and they shift the more you learn.

For example, I bought a Greenslade ovolo plane on eBay for a fiver, meaning to use it. It's actually mint - never honed, never oiled - so is a rare survivor. It would be pre-WW2 as the factory was destroyed in the Bristol blitz.
Should I keep it as it is and spend another fiver for an ordinary user?


----------



## mseries (13 Jan 2016)

bugbear":3qxpeqjo said:


> Here's an extreme (and hypothetical, of course) test case to think about.
> 
> Imagine that Larry Ellison (a multi-billionaire) had been reading
> the Arts & Mysteries posts of Adam Cherubini, and been inspired,
> ...


I met Larry Ellison once, actually had dinner with him. I was at an Oracle conference in Dallas, at a Texan barbecue. We were sitting and eating and Ellison came over and asked if he may join us. We were all wearing our delegates name badges. We swapped pleasantries then on discovering I am English he started talking to me about football. Seemed like a very nice chap, I enjoyed his company. It would be a shame if he wore out the Seaton Tools but that's what they are for. If I was to advise him, I'd suggest he uses them but keeps them in working order. If he was to buy Mallard, I'd encourage him to get it mainline ready, employ and train a team of engineers to keep in mainline ready.


----------



## bugbear (13 Jan 2016)

mseries":1ily5e7d said:


> It would be a shame if he wore out the Seaton Tools but that's what they are for. If I was to advise him, I'd suggest he uses them but keeps them in working order.



An even better idea (for the real Ellison) would be for him to commission a complete copy-set from
the guys at Williamsburg, and probably hire Adam Cherubini as a helper, but that's not the point
of my carefully posed scenario.

In my scenario he's going to use them exactly as he pleases, and he has
no woodworking knowledge.

The point of the scenario is to be extreme, for the purposes of clarity.

BugBear


----------



## custard (13 Jan 2016)

bugbear":231c3q8h said:


> Here's an extreme (and hypothetical, of course) test case to think about.
> 
> Imagine that Larry Ellison (a multi-billionaire) had been reading
> the Arts & Mysteries posts of Adam Cherubini, and been inspired,
> ...



He can do exactly as he pleases, after all isn't that what _ownership_ means! We might feel outraged, but a thousand years of property law tells us that his rights of ownership trumps our grievances every single time. And rightly so, as the courts would quickly point out, Larry's right to do what he pleases with his property is actually a way more important issue than our fretting and hand wringing.

We get far too precious about tools and skills on this forum. If it was all lost so what, we could get it all back again in the blink of an eye, because what man has invented man can re-invent. It's worth considering the example of Philly Planes, he decided he wanted to re-create 18th century planes. There was no specialist tools, no convenient training courses, no decent manuals. But he's a clever chap so he sat down, figured it all out, and before you know it he's turning out items every bit as good as the originals.


----------



## shed9 (13 Jan 2016)

bugbear":rq8mabt3 said:


> mseries":rq8mabt3 said:
> 
> 
> > The point of the scenario is to be extreme, for the purposes of clarity.



In the extreme, Larry can and will do what he wants regardless of the conclusion of this thought experiment. I do get the point of this hypothetical but not sure it will achieve a conclusive objective.

NB: I've actually met Larry as well back in the 90's and concur he was (and assume still is) a decent guy.


----------



## bugbear (13 Jan 2016)

For people who think Larry Ellison is an OK kind of guy, substitute Petro Poroshenko, or other multi-billionaire of your choice.  

(I mean I could have just said "a billionaire" and "a rare old set of tools", but I was trying to make
a _concrete_ hypothetical example, if that's not a contradiction in terms).

BugBear


----------



## shed9 (13 Jan 2016)

bugbear":3enarnab said:


> For people who think Larry Ellison is an OK kind of guy, substitute Petro Poroshenko, or other multi-billionaire of your choice.



Now your talking :lol:


----------



## custard (13 Jan 2016)

Try another thought experiment. 

Larry Ellison and Petro Poroshenko are having a chat when Larry says, "Hey Petro, have you heard about these silly old fools in the UK, wasting their weekends and retirements rubbing rusty old saws with bits of wire wool. They should be getting out more, making stuff, building things, instead of wittering on about tat they've found at car boot sales."

"I know", says Petro, "but let's remember that it's _their_ time and _their_ lives, so it's absolutely _their_ decision what they do with them".


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Jan 2016)

A great deal of this comes down to discretionary activity - things some people can do if they want to. Many of the tools we're thinking about were made as necessary items - society needed houses, ships, carts, barrels and so on, and craftsmen needed the tools to make them. Whilst they probably cared for their tools in the sense that they were their means of earing a living, they would have been quick to discard and replace any tool that wouldn't do it's job, just as we'd throw out an old computer or a broken washing machine. It's only because we have the luxury of some spare cash and spare time that we can afford to bother about such things.

Some do say that learning the lessons of history can inform the future, which is a fair point. Some say that we need to consider making more things to last, and fewer things disposable or of short life if human existence and the planet are to be sustained long-term, which is perhaps a more debateable point - and besides, why do we have to make lasting things with old techniques? Can't we make them with modern ones, or even with techniques and materials not yet invented?

I can't help feeling that the main reason for preserving and using old tools and techniques is because it's fun, intellectually and physically rewarding, and ultimately as much an expression of the human condition as music, literature or drama. With that in mind, I'm not sure we should set 'rules', though by common consent we tend to preserve the very rare and special; all else is fair game for whatever one chooses.


----------



## shed9 (13 Jan 2016)

I'm not sure it's about the tools as such but more the financial aspect and other forms of value.

Old tools are still around because they have a perceived value and more importantly these days, a means to achieve that value. Imagine how many old tools would be in the bin if it wasn't for the likes of car boots, flea markets, Ebay (other online auctions are available), etc. People usually hang on to them because they think they are either worth something to someone else or worth something to themselves directly (sentimental, etc). 

I do subscribe to the notion that old tools does not equate to good tools. Most old tools around are quite frankly dire and probably should to be melted down for their respective base metals. The concept that pre-mass consumerism products were even slightly superior just doesn't wash in my opinion. With the obvious exceptions, most suppliers will manufacture the cheapest product they can conceivable market and convince people to buy regardless of time period, intended use or indeed generational usage. Again, with exception, people always have and always will continue to buy and (to a lesser extent) use inferior tools regardless of the significance, livelihood or dependency based around their use.

I bet if you calculated the actual number of old tools in question that only a very very small number are actually in use or will ever get used.

To sum up my response to the OP, when it comes to the scenario of whether or not old tools should be used, I'm not sure that question covers an awful lot of hardware in reality.


----------



## Bedrock (13 Jan 2016)

Vann - I think you and I have to disagree on this. Thankfully there are enough enthusiast's with enough money to rebuild Spitfires and Hurricanes, and old Ferraris and Aston Martins, and most are in better nick than they ever were, even in service. My view is that a large part of the essence of say a Spitfire or Daytona Cobra, is seeing and hearing them in use, and I hope that for generations to come they will be able to appreciate the sight and sound. Stick them in a motor museum, and I don't think the kids of tomorrow will even start to understand what they were about.
Some years ago, I was lucky enough to see a Sopwith Camel, flying over the Family estate in the Test Valley. It wasn't an air show, just a real enthusiast enjoying a Spring morning all on his own. The pilot was rolling, and looping the loop, without regard to his or the plane's safety. It was only then that I really appreciated how fragile were these early war planes, and what shear balls was needed to fly them.
This is somewhat straying into the exotic, but I remain in the use it camp, and if it needs some work to get it working properly, so be it.
Regards Mike


----------



## bugbear (13 Jan 2016)

Bedrock":fngjrqcs said:


> Vann - I think you and I have to disagree on this. Thankfully there are enough enthusiast's with enough money to rebuild Spitfires and Hurricanes, and old Ferraris and Aston Martins, and most are in better nick than they ever were, even in service. My view is that a large part of the essence of say a Spitfire or Daytona Cobra, is seeing and hearing them in use, and I hope that for generations to come they will be able to appreciate the sight and sound. Stick them in a motor museum, and I don't think the kids of tomorrow will even start to understand what they were about.
> Some years ago, I was lucky enough to see a Sopwith Camel, flying over the Family estate in the Test Valley. It wasn't an air show, just a real enthusiast enjoying a Spring morning all on his own. The pilot was rolling, and looping the loop, without regard to his or the plane's safety. It was only then that I really appreciated how fragile were these early war planes, and what shear balls was needed to fly them.
> This is somewhat straying into the exotic, but I remain in the use it camp, and if it needs some work to get it working properly, so be it.
> Regards Mike



It sounds as if all the goals you mention (very poetically) would be fulfilled by faithful replicas.

That's (probably) cheaper than restoring an original too.

BugBear


----------



## Bedrock (13 Jan 2016)

BB At face value, and very cold-bloodedly, you should be right, but I suppose I am strongly driven by the shear emotion. If you ever go to the Goodwood Revival Meeting, seeing and hearing a Maserati, worth £5m. plus, that has been driven by one of greats, being driven to the limit by some complete nutter, without regard to the possible repair bills, certainly engages my interest.

A replica, however good, just wouldn't do it for me.

Given that the cost of building a complete "new" Spitfire from scratch, may well require many millions, so may not be that much cheaper any way. I think someone is doing this at the moment.

Mike


----------



## Bm101 (13 Jan 2016)

Eric Olsen might be a better example for a concrete hypothetical example Bugbear. He's the CEO of Lafarge, the world's biggest cement company.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (13 Jan 2016)

Interesting question about where you draw the line in preserving or building replicas of things. It would be technically possible to preserve a nuclear power station or an aircraft carrier in working order, or indeed to build a perfect working replica of either. But we don't, probably because the costs involved (not least in satisfying the proper safety authorities) would be prohibitive. (I suppose it's conceivable that there may be other matters preventing the preservation in full working order of significant military assets, too!)

It's in no small part down to cost. The likes of us can afford to buy or make tools. If we band together, we can afford to restore or build such artifacts as steam locomotives (there are about twenty 'new' standard gauge locomotives under construction in the UK at present, and several narrow gauge ones as well). The Vulcan remained airworthy whilst the technical expertise and funds were available to keep it so, but when the costs of renewing major parts and retraining the technical support became excessive, the plane had to cease flying. It would be possible in an engineering sense to build fully working replica nuclear power stations, but would society (which is quite happy to see money spent on the first two items mentioned) be willing to see the sort of sums of money needed to be thus spent, or would it start to mutter about money being better spent on health, education and so forth?

Just because it's technically possible doesn't necessarily mean it can, or in some cases should, be done.

There's a lot to be said for using one's leisure hours and spare pennies on much simpler technologies. Apart from anything else, you'd need quite a large back garden to build a replica nuclear power station. Not to mention good relations with the neighbours...


----------



## bugbear (13 Jan 2016)

Bedrock":dimurs2t said:


> BB At face value, and very cold-bloodedly, you should be right, but I suppose I am strongly driven by the shear emotion. If you ever go to the Goodwood Revival Meeting, seeing and hearing a Maserati, worth £5m. plus, that has been driven by one of greats, being driven to the limit by some complete nutter, without regard to the possible repair bills, certainly engages my interest.
> 
> A replica, however good, just wouldn't do it for me.



Surely it's not just the money - formula 1 cars cost that much and more to develop and build. But they're replaceable, albeit at cost.

But they're just not making Maserati Tipo 61's anymore  , and if it is pranged, and repaired, it will become less and less original, and become Trigger's broom.

BugBear


----------



## G S Haydon (13 Jan 2016)

bugbear":3sp86yxe said:


> Is it "His money, his tools, his rules", or "those tools,
> with their astonishing provenance, completeness as a set,
> and preservation are a precious record".
> 
> BugBear



Interesting but not something to reflect on too much. It would be disappointing if something so unique would be tampered with. It's so unlikely to happen as naturally things like that end up in museums. Rational people rarely follow path 1. 

Same goes for furniture or anything we make or restore really. It's nice that we make something with the potential to last a long time but even the most robust and or beautiful items get neglected, destroyed or go out of fashion.


----------



## Rhyolith (14 Jan 2016)

My opinion is that If I pick up a random hand tool at a car boot that is over 50yrs old, then the chances are it will be better than its modern equivalents. This of course might be just because the better ones survive and the rubbish ones don't... but personally I don't think thats the only reason. 

I am interested that a number of people don't believe that old tools are better quality as a general rule of thumb, what makes you think this? I have seen virtually no exceptions where hand tools are better now than they were about 100 years ago (except tools for which the technology did not exist for). This is obviously just the tools I have come across, but all craftsman I have spoken with do seem to agree with the "older is better" principle, thats is until this thread. 

Hand drills are defiantly an example of being better the older they are (until you get the the incredibly rare 18th C. ones), with modern equivalents I have seen being being incomparable quality wise. This even goes for the ones within the same company (older Stanley drills are far better then newer ones).

I can entirely believe these tools were not cheap in their day, as it does not seem possible to produce good metal tools cheaply. However, I struggle to believe that the plague of cheap crud that lines hardware stores today was present in the past... Indeed I know the quality of tool offered has dropped significantly just within my lifetime. This is not to say that there are not tools produced today that are as good as any of their sort that has ever existed (Lie-Nielsen, Festool, etc...), however I believe today these are exceptions rather than a common trend. I am also pretty confidant that there are less skilled practical workers (professional users of hand tools, such as wooden boat builders, cabinet makers, etc...) then 50+ years ago in Britain, naturally meaning that there will be less available to justify the manufacture of good hand tools.

I am a long way off being convinced that hand tools were not at there peak in the past, particularly at the lower end of the market (not big expensive machines). 

What I said before was by no means "fact" just a theory, probably should have presented as such... the same goes for that lot. 



Cheshirechappie":4wljrb3e said:


> ... (there are about twenty 'new' standard gauge locomotives under construction in the UK at present, and several narrow gauge ones as well). T.


Where? I am very interested it this  Had no idea there were that many (or any at all!) being made new. 

There is a lot of "Tools where made to be used", I strongly disagree with this as a reason to use them. Lets say we have 17th century ship that is sea worthy, shall we head on over to Africa for some slaves then continue on to America to sell our ill gotten gains? Or what about a nice old Tiger Tank, shall we invade Russia with it? In both cases, thats what they were made for; but of course we are not going to do those things... cause it would be stupid and illegal to boot :wink: Further, I have heard about tools made for beauty primary, decorative planes etc... these tools are perfectly functional far as I am aware, but they were not made to be used, but looked at.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Jan 2016)

Here you go - http://newbuildsteam.com/

As far as I'm aware, the 5AT project is stalled, probably permanently, but the rest are active - some very much so, with construction quite advanced in some cases. Locations - all over the country, really. Best follow the links. I think that makes 21 active projects.


----------



## AndyT (14 Jan 2016)

Old tools were better? Yes, because up to about WW2 there was enforced quality control by the manufacturers and their trade associations, using a system established in the time of the medieval guilds, where nobody was allowed to sell sub-standard rubbish, at least not with a registered trade mark on, or marked as made in Sheffield. It's all been swept away since and condemned as restrictive practices or a makers' cartel, though we are not necessarily better off as a consequence.

There _were_ different grades of tools, and the idea of offering price points matched to a wide range of buyers' pockets is nothing new, but there was not the tolerance of stuff that would break on first use - the minimum grade was still ok to use.


----------



## Rhyolith (14 Jan 2016)

AndyT":19d232xp said:


> Old tools were better? Yes, because up to about WW2 there was enforced quality control by the manufacturers and their trade associations, using a system established in the time of the medieval guilds, where nobody was allowed to sell sub-standard rubbish, at least not with a registered trade mark on, or marked as made in Sheffield. It's all been swept away since and condemned as restrictive practices or a makers' cartel, though we are not necessarily better off as a consequence.
> 
> There _were_ different grades of tools, and the idea of offering price points matched to a wide range of buyers' pockets is nothing new, but there was not the tolerance of stuff that would break on first use - the minimum grade was still ok to use.


I didn't know any of this, thanks for that


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Jan 2016)

Another thing that changed the tool marketplace after WW2 was the rise of the DIY market, which hadn't really existed before. That created a demand for cheaper tools. Combined with the rise of the power tool and consequent decline in the demand for high quality handtools, manufacturers were pretty well forced to drop quality to satisfy the cheaper, growing market for DIY quality tools. Indeed, quality had dropped so much by the early 1980s that a niche opened up for small volume high-end toolmakers, who together with a few surviving quality makers such as Henry Taylor, Ashley Iles, Joseph Marples, Thomas Flinn, Crown Tools, and Footprint make up the current picture.


----------



## shed9 (14 Jan 2016)

AndyT":362i5ub1 said:


> where nobody was allowed to sell sub-standard rubbish, at least not with a registered trade mark on, or marked as made in Sheffield.



I personally very much doubt that although I'm happy to proven otherwise.

Whilst I agree most available pre WW2 tooling is generally considered better than post war in that general era, I also suspect that is generally a case of the better tooling of the era surviving down to perceived value.

With the usual boutique exceptions, manufacturers have and always will sell the most cost effective product they can get away with regardless of medieval guilds or trade associations. 

If anything has driven down quality it is the global market and the sheer quantity and disposable aspect that brings not guilds, however when comparing like for like, i.e. well made pre WW2 tools comparative to modern well made tools this argument is moot in my opinion.

Just my £0.02


----------



## Vann (14 Jan 2016)

shed9":2n5guxhb said:


> Just my £0.02


Hang on, that's more than your share. Tuppence is slightly less than £0.01 :mrgreen: 

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Jelly (14 Jan 2016)

shed9":378lttsp said:


> AndyT":378lttsp said:
> 
> 
> > where nobody was allowed to sell sub-standard rubbish, at least not with a registered trade mark on, or marked as made in Sheffield.
> ...



Very much true, if you read about the history of 'the Company of Cutlers in Hallamshire' who by act of parliament were made the legal regulators of the cutlery and toolmaking trades in Sheffield in 1624, gaining also the steelmaking trade in 1860.

The company had (has?) legal jurisdiction to prevent unlicensed persons trading, deny the issue of trademarks, and to prevent the use of the word "Sheffield" on products or in company names which it deems inappropriate (by way of geography, or poor quality).

It was of course, put in place to help collect taxes from the tradesmen, but rapidly became a trade body and used its regulatory powers to ensure the standing of the city (and thus its own name) with regards to quality.


----------



## Rhyolith (14 Jan 2016)

My own experience at car boots, plus speaking to a fair number of craftsman (mostly woodworkers), plus the information Andy and Cheshirechappie have shared makes me pretty confident that hand tools were better in the past then they are now in terms of quality. It will take some pretty strong evidence to convince me otherwise, at minimum some examples of poor quality old tools pre WW2. 



shed9":1gwnsbxu said:


> With the usual boutique exceptions, manufacturers have and always will sell the most cost effective product they can get away with regardless of medieval guilds or trade associations.


As Cheshirechappie said, there was not a market for tools that did not work prior to the arrival of recent mass consumerism in the DIY sector. If companies wanted to make a profit they would have had to make tools that worked, hence the most cost effective means for a tool company to make money would have been to make quality functional tools. The fact their were guilds as well solidifies this in a pretty air tight manner as far as I can see. 


shed9":1gwnsbxu said:


> If anything has driven down quality it is the global market and the sheer quantity and disposable aspect that brings not guilds, however when comparing like for like, i.e. well made pre WW2 tools comparative to modern well made tools this argument is moot in my opinion.


There has been a notably increase in the number of tools so rubbish that they are essentially disposable within the last decade, let alone all the way back to WW2. As said before the market now is dominated by hobbyists and wanna be DIY-ers who wouldn't be willing to pay the amount that is needed for decent quality. Today companies just pump out stuff that looks good and advertises well, the quality barely matters.

There are examples of modern tools that easily match their Pre-WW2 counterparts, but these are defiantly exceptions oppose to a common tendency.


----------



## Bedrock (15 Jan 2016)

Perhaps not entirely related to the original OP, but from time to time, I go to the Edward Barnsley open days (twice a year and much to be recommended), near Petersfield, Hampshire.
I have never counted, but amongst the apprentices, there always seem to be a fair cross-section of older Record/Stanley planes, usually with a replacement, thicker blade, LVs, LNs, and Cliftons, ditto chisels, LVs, LNs, Henry Taylor, Sorby and the better older makes.
Maybe these days, apprentices with fine woodworking companies are drawn from wider backgrounds, and thus are not limited to the cheaper end of the market, new or second hand? After all, if you are willing to spend what to me seems an eye-watering amount on a tablet, mobile phone (and monthly bill) or other piece of electronic kit, the price of the current higher end offerings, don't seem so expensive.


----------



## Corneel (15 Jan 2016)

At the other hand, when you count the number of broken chisels and plane blades in the Seaton chest, you get the idea that quality control was not at its best at the end of the 18th century. From memory (I don't have the book here) 5 out of some 35 bench chisels were broken, split or cracked in a manner that points me in the direction of poor manufacturing instead of rough use. Stanley would be embarrased with a failure rate like that, even today. The same goes for the plane blades, quite a few of them have cracks. The moulding planes are made of very poor beech with knots and cracks. But the saws are very good.

This is of course just one example, but it sure shows that not EVERY old tool was made to exacting standards.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (15 Jan 2016)

Corneel":3217x7i0 said:


> At the other hand, when you count the number of broken chisels and plane blades in the Seaton chest, you get the idea that quality control was not at its best at the end of the 18th century. From memory (I don't have the book here) 5 out of some 35 bench chisels were broken, split or cracked in a manner that points me in the direction of poor manufacturing instead of rough use. Stanley would be embarrased with a failure rate like that, even today. The same goes for the plane blades, quite a few of them have cracks. The moulding planes are made of very poor beech with knots and cracks. But the saws are very good.
> 
> This is of course just one example, but it sure shows that not EVERY old tool was made to exacting standards.



Agreed.

I recall reading a blog post by (I think) Adam Cherubini, who had gone to great lengths to acquire as many late 18th and early 19th century tools as he could find. He noted that there was considerable variation in the ease of sharpening and edge-holding of the chisels, some sharpening very quickly but not holding their edge for long, and some t'other way about. All took a very sharp edge, though. Given the methods of manufacture of the steel, and the methods of heat treatment, using the skill and judgement of the workmen concerned, I suppose it's not in the least surprising. In general, some inconsistency was always present whilst such methods persisted. In the case of heat treatment, it lasted until after WW2, though steel quality became gradually more consistent through the 19th century, and by WW1 was quite scientifically well understood and controlled. That shows in the tools.

One thing you generally can't criticise modern tools for is inconsistency of tool steel quality or heat treatment quality. The best tend to be uniformly good, and indifferent tools tend to be uniformly less good. Other aspects of design and manufacture are another matter entirely!


----------



## Rhyolith (15 Jan 2016)

Cheshirechappie":33qlhewg said:


> One thing you generally can't criticise modern tools for is inconsistency of tool steel quality or heat treatment quality. The best tend to be uniformly good, and indifferent tools tend to be uniformly less good. Other aspects of design and manufacture are another matter entirely!


Yes. 

There are 99 terrible modern hand tools to every 1 good one, thats my opinion summed up really. It does not discount the existence of decent modern tools, just that there are relatively few of them. 

-----

Another thing bringing the thread slightly back on topic: Logos on old tools, they are relatively rare to see intact and its a threat when you find something with the original log intact. This is probably the most common dilemma I have on this topic due to one particular drill, my Millers Falls No.200. 


Miller Falls No.200 by Rhyolith, on Flickr
Its the best functional Breast Drill I own, but it also has a almost completely intact Millers Falls Logo on it. I want to use it because it works so well, but I also don't want to risk losing the beautiful old (and original) finish. This is kinda the collector in me vs the craftsman, indeed I think that sums up the debate on this whole topic fairly well. Ask a tool collector, they will say "preserve it", ask a craftsman and they will say "Use it". 

So is the original finish worth preserving? Logos especially.


----------



## Jelly (16 Jan 2016)

With something like that I'd be tempted to use a clear resin to protect the original finish, as a pragmatic middle ground.


----------



## ED65 (16 Jan 2016)

Jelly beat me to it, that could be a good candidate for protecting with a clear finish if you want to ensure it's more resistant to bumps or scrapes. However then you run into the problem of what to use, because the clear finish has to be easily reversible. And thinking about it, to not damage the decal in the first place!

My first thought was shellac, but I have no idea if alcohol poses a risk to the decal itself. My guess is it might. The best candidate I can think of is not something used in woodworking circles: a LMW varnish that will stay soluble in mild solvents. But as far as I know those are only sold for picture varnishing.

But to be honest I think a careful owner could just use this tool with care given the siting of the decal. I don't visualise any normal use of the drill that would tend to rub that area (probably the reason it's still in good shape to start with) so I don't think it would take any particular effort to baby it in use.


----------



## RogerP (16 Jan 2016)

What about this? It says " The perfect sealer to protect your furniture decals."

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CLEAR-MAT...RE-/301652441563?_trksid=p2141725.m3641.l6368


----------



## Rhyolith (16 Jan 2016)

I had wondered about vanish or the like for these sitautions, thanks for the suggestions on that front  My finishing skills are not great though, only a hand full of my full restoration projects involving painting or vanishing have gone well :shock: so I am generally put off this cause of action until master it. 

What ED says eases my mind somewhat, use is not the main threat to the finish due to where it is makes sense. Its probably the case that most of the tools with missing finishes are as they are due to being in big piles of other tools (in boxes at car boots etc) and clashing about like that, oppose to being used. 

I suppose I always have the photos if the worst comes to the worst


----------



## ED65 (16 Jan 2016)

RogerP":39hbj68x said:


> What about this? It says " The perfect sealer to protect your furniture decals."


What the heck is a furniture decal?

Anyway old decals won't be the same as many or all modern ones, virtually guaranteed. This becomes more and more likely the older the tool is. 

As to that varnish, my bet would be it's either an acrylic solution or uralkyd, in either case strong solvents are needed to remove after a full cure. And with oil-based varnishes especially this gets worse as they age and deteriorate so it's a big concern if you have your eye on the long term.


----------

