# The Cutting Edges of H.O. Studley



## Jacob (10 Nov 2012)

The Cutting Edges of H.O. Studley
Interesting article. Schwarzy concludes that Studley would say as follows:

_1. I like a convex bevel. Nearly all of the edges I observed had a slightly convex bevel. A couple tools had evidence of a hollow grind in the middle that was in the process of being removed by sharpening the bevel (making it convex).

2. I like cambered edges on my planes. Nearly every edge of the plane blades (blocks, smoothers, jacks and try) had a cambered cutting edge. Many of the edges were significantly relieved at the corners.

3. I sharpen the entire bevel. Only one tool had any evidence of a micro-bevel.

4. I lap the backs of my irons and chisels. All of the tools in the chest have lapped backs. The lapping is not to a mirror sheen, but there is evidence of significant and continuous work on the backs.



5. I lift my plane irons slightly when I polish the backs. Over and over I saw evidence that the very tip of the back was polished to a higher degree than the metal behind the tip. And (using a machinist straightedge) I could see that the tip of the back was ever-so-slightly dubbed from this polishing. The polishing on the backs was heavier on the bevel-up planes than on the bevel-down planes.

You can take the above information and twist it however you like. Studley was a hand-sharpener. He sharpened the entire bevel. He did something similar to the ruler trick – though he probably didn’t use a ruler. He knew that he needed two intersecting surfaces to create a sharp and durable edge._
.....................


----------



## pedder (10 Nov 2012)

As fare as I know, there are two famous tool chests. The Seaton Tool Chest and the Studley Tool Chest. 

There are lots of famous furniture. None of them was made by Mr. Studley nor Mr. Seaton. 

Mr. Studley and Mr. Seaton didn't use modern tooth brushes. 

I can understand the hype about the tool chest of Mr. Studley, it is an ingenious and funny work piece to show off. 

But I cannot imagine to work out off that chest. It would drive me crazy in about half an hour. 

So Mr. Studley grinded round bevels (maybe he couldn't do straight ones?). OK. 

My Grandma baked cakes with 7 tea spoon of sugar and 5 eggs. 

I don't bake cakes like my grandma did and I will not aim to grind round bevels. 

But if it happens and when it happens, I work with them until they get dull. Then I try again to get it straight. And I 'll brush my teeth. And I will not eat such a cake, even if it happens.

Cheers
Pedder


----------



## Jacob (10 Nov 2012)

pedder":c8n9b29e said:


> .....
> My Grandma baked cakes with 7 tea spoon of sugar and 5 eggs.
> 
> I don't bake cakes like my grandma did ....r


Why not? Sounds OK to me - as long as you don't eat the whole cake in one go!


----------



## Fromey (11 Nov 2012)

pedder":1wfj23kz said:


> As fare as I know, there are two famous tool chests. The Seaton Tool Chest and the Studley Tool Chest.
> 
> There are lots of famous furniture. None of them was made by Mr. Studley nor Mr. Seaton.



Good point. Hagiography is a funny thing.


----------



## jimi43 (11 Nov 2012)

Fromey":3a61ius6 said:


> pedder":3a61ius6 said:
> 
> 
> > As fare as I know, there are two famous tool chests. The Seaton Tool Chest and the Studley Tool Chest.
> ...



The two people mentioned are not highly regarded. It is the chests associated with them which are so valuable and for different reasons.

To associate these articles with their use by the owners is not the issue, rather the design and contents therein as a historical record.

Jim


----------



## GazPal (11 Nov 2012)

I'm gonna have to invest in a new dictionary  

As a habitual freehand honer through preference I'll not decry others using guides due to the fact both practices get the job done and that's all that matters.

Whilst study of the Studley, Seaton and various other chests definitely helps provide food for thought and historical insight into past toolkits and storage options, there's a definite risk of over emphasis concerning the "we should be doing this" approach. Neither craftsman was well known for his workmanship and IMHO it's a crying shame their only claim to fame amounts to the content of their tool kits.

I'd be far more interested in viewing Sheraton, Hepplewhite, or Chippendale's tool chests in the knowledge their contents were actually used to produce examples of quite astounding landmark work. In spite of their freehand whetting of edges :wink:


----------



## RogerP (11 Nov 2012)

GazPal":24h58pd0 said:


> I
> I'd be far more interested in viewing Sheraton, Hepplewhite, or Chippendale's tool chests in the knowledge their contents were actually used to produce examples of quite astounding landmark work. In spite of their freehand whetting of edges :wink:


 Apparently of the three only Chippendale actually made pieces of furniture himself. http://neo-classics.blogspot.co.uk/2010_05_01_archive.html


----------



## GazPal (11 Nov 2012)

RogerP":1ef9efpa said:


> GazPal":1ef9efpa said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...




Hepplewhite and Sheraton were apprenticed and worked as cabinetmakers. These facts are borne out in articles linked to by the blogspot link you provided.


----------



## matthewwh (11 Nov 2012)

Studley was a piano and organ maker, employed by the Poole Piano Company of Boston, you won't find much furniture with is name on it, but you don't get employed making pianos and church organs without being a seriously competent craftsman.

Nothing really surprising in his edges (if indeed he was the last person to hone the tools) and Jacob's discrete point that you can make some very nice stuff using freehand honed tools is perfectly valid. It isn't the only way though, and many people now prefer to sharpen their tools differently. 

Perhaps it would be more productive to discuss how the tools were used rather than how they were sharpened - that's the bit that's really interesting to learn more about.


----------



## Roughcut (11 Nov 2012)

Does anyone else on here lap the back of plane irons and chisels?
I was once told that by doing this you can achieve a sharper edge but the chisel/plane iron will need re-sharpening more often.


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2012)

jimi43":2vtqrk6w said:


> Fromey":2vtqrk6w said:
> 
> 
> > pedder":2vtqrk6w said:
> ...


Right. So they were doing it wrong then? :lol: :lol: 
Actually the only surprise is that someone hasn't taken these tools and sharpened them in strict obedience to the crazy sharpening dogma, destroying the evidence forever!

In fact the 5 points made by Schwarzy represent perfectly normal (and fast and effective) freehand sharpening as practiced by millions. It's the obvious way to do it, if you have just a few oil stones and nothing else.
He calls it back 'polishing' or 'lapping' but it was never quite this, more just the result of turning bladed face down to remove the burr, many times. IMHO the extensive lapping flattening and polishing prescribed by crazy sharpeners is verging on the insane.

Just to remind you:
_
1. I like a convex bevel. Nearly all of the edges I observed had a slightly convex bevel. A couple tools had evidence of a hollow grind in the middle that was in the process of being removed by sharpening the bevel (making it convex).

2. I like cambered edges on my planes. Nearly every edge of the plane blades (blocks, smoothers, jacks and try) had a cambered cutting edge. Many of the edges were significantly relieved at the corners.

3. I sharpen the entire bevel. Only one tool had any evidence of a micro-bevel.

4. I lap the backs of my irons and chisels. All of the tools in the chest have lapped backs. The lapping is not to a mirror sheen, but there is evidence of significant and continuous work on the backs.

5. I lift my plane irons slightly when I polish the backs. Over and over I saw evidence that the very tip of the back was polished to a higher degree than the metal behind the tip. And (using a machinist straightedge) I could see that the tip of the back was ever-so-slightly dubbed from this polishing. The polishing on the backs was heavier on the bevel-up planes than on the bevel-down planes._


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2012)

GazPal":34u73lqm said:


> RogerP":34u73lqm said:
> 
> 
> > GazPal":34u73lqm said:
> ...


They all started as cabinet makers but became designers/entrepreneurs/writers. Very conventional careers in that respect. Many producers of things of quality soon cease to be mere woodworkers or any other form of mechanic. Neither Rolls nor Royce spent much of their careers in blue overalls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Chippendale
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hepplewhite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sheraton
All from oop north! In London for the money.


----------



## jimi43 (11 Nov 2012)

Oh dear..and there was me thinking this might be an intellectual thread...but alas..it's just another thinly veiled attempt to preach the Bevel according to St Jacob. :roll: 

And there really must be some more useful information left behind by these two renowned gentlemen...anyone care to suggest anything? :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2012)

jimi43":qd6gbhq9 said:


> Oh dear..and there was me thinking this might be an intellectual thread...but alas..it's just another thinly veiled attempt to preach the Bevel according to St Jacob. :roll:
> 
> And there really must be some more useful information left behind by these two renowned gentlemen...anyone care to suggest anything? :mrgreen:
> 
> Jim


If you want it to be an intellectual thread you have to say something intelligent, instead of being sarcastic and trying to discredit a little bit of evidence (of convex bevels) which you don't happen to like!


----------



## Racers (11 Nov 2012)

There are only two ways, Jacobs way, and the wrong way.

I have told you this before......

Pete

As long as its sharp it doesn't matter how you sharpened it.


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2012)

Racers":mod934dy said:


> There are only two ways, Jacobs way, and the wrong way.
> 
> I have told you this before......
> 
> ...


We are talking about H O Studley's way. He didn't pick it up from me, I wasn't around in 1838-1925 believe it or not!
It's reasonable to think he was a highly competent woodworker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_O._Studley and it is quite likely that the sharpening in the chest was his own. It was a tooly enthusiast's chest, not really a practical working tool-box.
I'm surprised that the toolys on here aren't more interested in his sharpening! They have something to learn from an early tooly who was also (unusually) a woodworker.


----------



## Harbo (11 Nov 2012)

Yawn - here we go again - time to switch off?


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2012)

Harbo":ea0buazg said:


> Yawn - here we go again - time to switch off?


Yes go away.


----------



## Jelly (11 Nov 2012)

Regardless of Jacob's agenda, this does provide relatively clear evidence to help validate his thesis that convex bevel sharpening was the predominant sharpening technique in days gone by. It also proves pretty conclusively (given the workmanship of the case, even if you ignore his job) that such sharpening techniques do not negatively effect the work done with edges so honed.

With respect to Henry O. Studley himself, his line of work suggests a very high level of skill, it is also suggested on a website related to the masonic lodge he was part of (see the Mother of Pearl inlay on the lower right of the left hand side of the case...) that he was not just any old employee of the Poole Piano Company, but was responsible for building prototypes and one off organs; suggesting an even higher level of skill... The fact that he's not a cabinetmaker is a bit moot taking that into consideration, In light of how nice the chest is I can almost forgive the failing of not being british  (He does gain points for hailing from the northeast, even if its the northeast of the wrong country).


----------



## Racers (11 Nov 2012)

Nothing like a well reasoned argument :roll: 

Pete


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2012)

Obviously the man who made this knew nowt about woodworking and his sharpening must have been rubbish too:












A few more snaps here


----------



## Tom K (11 Nov 2012)

I bet he never made a big window like you though or lived under a bridge.


----------



## Jake (11 Nov 2012)

Bizarre - Jacob has copped so much rubbish over the years for advocating this, on the basis that only ignorant amateurs "dub an edge". Then you call him a troll for being a bit triumphant when he finds some good evidence he isn't the mentalist troll he has been portrayed as? Bunch of children the lot of you. [FWIW I am not a convex beveller at all, but that isn't the point]


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2012)

Tom K":35pgjdg8 said:


> I bet he never made a big window like you though or lived under a bridge.


Have you ever made anything yourself Tommy?


----------



## matthewwh (11 Nov 2012)

Apparently he tool chest was made by his brother, not him.

Wish I had a brother like that!


----------



## Tom K (11 Nov 2012)

Jacob":2b0m01el said:


> Tom K":2b0m01el said:
> 
> 
> > I bet he never made a big window like you though or lived under a bridge.
> ...


The odd mistake no highly engineered tool chests or large windows though. Don't listen to Jake we don't all think you're mental and there still are more ways to sharpen than one.

Occasional convex beveller but under treatment.


----------



## Jelly (12 Nov 2012)

Speak for yourself Tom... I happen to agree with Jacob.

There are many roughly equivalent methods of sharpening, but the convex bevel method has definite benefits, it is not ideal for all situations, but for most it has no major disadvantages.


With all due respect to Jacob, I suspect that his major problem is that he's right... More specifically that he believes that this, makes other people wrong. (It seems that way to me at leadt, do tell me if i'm mis-interpreting Jacob)

However irritating you find his evangalism for his prefered method, the rude reactions he gets as a matter of course can only serve to inflame his responses and stiffen his resolve!


----------



## Tom K (12 Nov 2012)

Far too analytical, there is no right and wrong when it comes to sharpening. Jacob loves what he does but missed his true vocation preaching the Gospel of Grim. I don't find it irritating Jacob is an institution.


----------



## Kalimna (12 Nov 2012)

A maxim (or is that axiom?) I find very useful in my own work is that if everybody is doing a task the same way, then it probably makes a difference to do it that way. If, on the other hand, there are many ways of achieving the same goal, used by many different people, then it probably doesnt matter which way it is accomplished. So it is with sharpening.

It is the sharpness of the edge, not the way in which it is sharpened that matters. The wood gives not a hoot what the geometry of the blade is beyond the actual cutting edge, but if it's blunt then it wont cut well, but if sharp then theres a good chance it will.

Adam


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2012)

Jelly":1p7wmkcv said:


> .....
> With all due respect to Jacob, I suspect that his major problem is that he's right... More specifically that he believes that this, makes other people wrong. (It seems that way to me at leadt, do tell me if i'm mis-interpreting Jacob)......


No I don't think the other methods are wrong; they obviously work, I just think the convex bevel thing is the most convenient and practical, but not necessarily the sharpest. But then we aren't surgeons or barbers.

I also think the convex bevel method was the norm until relatively recently, although it was never called 'the convex bevel method' of course. It's just that ordinary sharpening practice with oil stones can produce what C Schwarz noted:
_Nearly all of the edges I observed had a slightly convex bevel. A couple tools had evidence of a hollow grind in the middle that was in the process of being removed by sharpening the bevel (making it convex)._

But the main issue is the shock/horror reaction of the brethren! Schwarz seems to have done something like discovering a dead-sea scroll - dusting off the goat droppings, carefully unfolding it and sending the orthodox brethren into a tizzy. 
Don't panic chaps, it's only woodwork! No need to desanctify Studley or stone me. Anyway why aren't you giving Schwarzy a kicking?

What did St J Krenov have to say on the subject of sharpening? Did he leave any holy writ? Anybody got one of those funny little plane relics to look at? Do we really want to know? Probably not. :lol:


----------



## Racers (12 Nov 2012)

Jacob":23yjpg93 said:


> What did St J Krenov have to say on the subject of sharpening? Did he leave any holy writ? Anybody got one of those funny little plane relics to look at? Do we really want to know? Probably not. :lol:



Jin Krenov used a hand grinder and stones, he probbaly wouldn't have wanted to know your method.

I can't help thinking that if you calmed down more people would listen to you.

Pete

Who was sharpening a home made chisel with a convex bevel yesterday, but that is for one special purpose.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2012)

Racers":190x4fxl said:


> ...
> I can't help thinking that if you calmed down more people would listen to you......


If you look at my first post I was calmly quoting someone else, with no comment from me. 
It's the reaction which wasn't calm - starting with Pedder and Jimmy both denigrating poor old Studley, in spite of his being a better craftsman and cabinet-maker than anybody on this thread or probably this forum.


----------



## Racers (12 Nov 2012)

Thats because we are fed up with you banging on about a convex bevel, like its going to save the world.
For someone who mocks "tool polishers" you don't half go on about tools.

You won't convert me no matter how hard you try, and I wouldn't even bother trying to convert you, just sharpen your tools how you want to and I will do the same, and the world will keep spinning.

Pete

But some how I feel you will respond, go on, try and see someone else's point, and not make them change it, are you big enough?


----------



## bugbear (12 Nov 2012)

Jacob":scb4wqaq said:


> Racers":scb4wqaq said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Quoting is fun! From the same blog:

"The point of this blog entry is that you can sharpen a tool in a dozen different ways – your way, my way or the way of a dead guy."

"You can take the above information and twist it however you like."

BugBear


----------



## GazPal (12 Nov 2012)

Reverting to the discussion regarding the supposed historical traditions of concave, flat and convex bevels. The most prominent bevel type in daily use by the vast majority of craftsmen (Including stonemasons) was convex and this was by virtue that all blade whetting was done on whet stone sizes we're still familiar with today. 

Prior to the Industrial Revolution the only source one would have had for grinding wheels and mechanised re-grinds would have been via a smith (Also used when edges needed re-steeling) *if* he had a grinding wheel, the local flour mill, or by paying a known toolmaker a visit, or waiting for the local tinker (Knife and tool sharpener) when doing his rounds. Even then, concave edges were comparatively flat by virtue of the grinding wheel diameters used and these generally ranged between 18"-72" in diameter.

The likelihood of a larger carpentry workshop having a grinding wheel was slim, as many pre-industrial revolution workshops employed journeymen (Travelling craftsmen) who'd typically move from job site to job site, unless employed by an estate workshop and carrying out work in the local manor and it's related tied cottages. Otherwise a village and outlying area would use the services of a local stonemason (Fully capable of carpentry work), multi-skilled blacksmith who carried out carpentry and coach work, or a specialist carpenter.

All of the above lends itself to the fact that convex bevels were the means by which craftsmen maintained (Whetted and re-ground) cutting edges and this was generally the case until smaller hand cranked (Later motorised) grinding wheels came to be employed more widely in recent times and the more pronounced hollow/concave grind accompanied them. The use of honing guides is just as recent a development and whilst more predominantly used within the field of engineering the cross-over into carpentry was made as DIY became increasingly popular and keen amateurs needed guidelines from which to work.

Cutting edges were assessed by eye, touch and the manner by which a craftsman knows which angle cuts best in certain materials. Such angles would be just as regional as the varieties of hard and softwoods grown and felled and the styles of furniture and house construction used.

How one obtains a suitable cutting edge is up to the individual and it's up to the self same individual to find the best possible route to any given goal. I simply advocate the method that works best and - in all honesty - this is just as variable as the length of a piece of string and there is no best method.


----------



## jimi43 (12 Nov 2012)

Jacob":30iyq45k said:


> Racers":30iyq45k said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



If you're going to quote me Mr Grimsdale perhaps you might like to spell my name correctly and also quote the statement I made in context, i.e. that it was the chests named after these gentlemen for which they are best known.

I have the highest regard for Gabriel (Kenyon, Green, Cam, Peace etc.) simply because Seaton, for reasons we can only speculate, did not destroy the tools either by hard work or neglect. Afterwards by some ancient serendipity, the same chest was preserved for us all to see what was used at the time of the dawn of commercial toolmaking, planes in particular. 

This alone is the value of that name for me.

Studley I admire for the beauty, again of the chest. I have yet to study him in any detail (unlike Seaton)...but I like what I see....functional or not these days.

What I don't leap about in awe over is the shape of the darn bevels as I think this is a minor part of these treasures.

I have never ever said in any post that I think convex bevels are wrong and I don't spend my life trying to prove otherwise. I don't use a jig any more simply because I have decided on my preferred method of grinding/honing which works for me. I don't however spend my time denigrating anyone should they wish to. 

As I have yet to study Mr Studley's masterpiece (whomever made it)....in detail, perhaps you could move further into the history of this fine piece for us so that we may learn a bit more about it other than the sharp bits?

Jim


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2012)

jimi43":x94ryvi9 said:


> ....
> What I don't leap about in awe over is the shape of the darn bevels as I think this is a minor part of these treasures.....


Well yes of course, but the post was about this detail. Interesting I thought. 

And still think, in spite of the fear, hysteria and hostility it arouses!

To paraphrase Schwarz from the original article; "don’t be such dullards".


----------



## Racers (12 Nov 2012)

Jacobs replys

IMHO the extensive lapping flattening and polishing prescribed by crazy sharpeners is verging on the insane.

If you want it to be an intellectual thread you have to say something intelligent, instead of being sarcastic and trying to discredit a little bit of evidence (of convex bevels) which you don't happen to like!

I'm surprised that the toolys on here aren't more interested in his sharpening! They have something to learn from an early tooly who was also (unusually) a woodworker.

Yes go away.

Have you ever made anything yourself Tommy?

To paraphrase Schwarz from the original article; "don’t be such dullards".


Doesn't help us to see your point when all you do is insult us so much.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2012)

Pots n kettles.


----------



## Doug B (12 Nov 2012)

Jacob":1cpmlo12 said:


> Pop on kettle.



Good idea, no sugar for me.


----------



## Modernist (12 Nov 2012)

Would you like it stirred?

If anyone is interested I can confirm that Jacob's chisels are indeed sharp, I've tried one. There again so are mine and I'm deffo not a round beveller.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2012)

This is for Jimbo (wanting more info on the Studley chest). C Schwarz is doing a blog here. Several articles already, with more to come.


----------



## jimi43 (12 Nov 2012)

Thanks Jacob...much appreciated


----------



## katellwood (12 Nov 2012)

jimi43":2gk7vrvk said:


> Jacob":2gk7vrvk said:
> 
> 
> > Racers":2gk7vrvk said:
> ...



Jim 

Do you know if Seatons chest is back in Rochester? I saw it there years ago then apparently it went on tour to the States


----------



## jimi43 (12 Nov 2012)

katellwood":3mpv04ei said:


> ...........Do you know if Seatons chest is back in Rochester? I saw it there years ago then apparently it went on tour to the States



As far as I know it is...it was in Williamsburg VA up until 1995 for them to make a copy and catalogue the tools in detail.

I must get over there to see it...believe it or not I haven't done so yet!!  Mind you...when I lived by the sea I hardly ever went to the beach either! :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## katellwood (12 Nov 2012)

jimi43":hwn0tewi said:


> katellwood":hwn0tewi said:
> 
> 
> > ...........Do you know if Seatons chest is back in Rochester? I saw it there years ago then apparently it went on tour to the States
> ...



Thats my next day out planned, the wife in the shops me in the museum. By the way theres a good second hand book shop in Rochester High St that usually has a good supply of wood orientated books


----------



## woodbrains (12 Nov 2012)

Hello,

There are a few things that can and cannot be inferred from Mr. Schwartz's investigations, and IMO some have been taken out of context for whatever motives certain people have here. It is obvious from the concave bevel that Studley had access to a large wheel waterstone for grinding. However, the method of honing cannot, with any certainty, be assessed. Can we say Studley intended to produce a concave bevel, and preferred to do it that way? No and in all likelyhood, he did not. ( though I too am guessing, I think logically I might by correct) A very slight convexety is more likely due to the fact that humans are not machines and cannot too easily make their arms move in one plane, but will rock a little and produce a rounding without intention. This is not the same as purposely rounding over (under?) the bevel as per Mr. Sellers and his desciples. Using this sort of artifact to give creedence to a methodology is spurious, as is witnessing one example of a phenomena and concluding that most everyone did the same at the time. The concave grind was likely used as a reference on the stone, and the whole bevel sharpened as flat as humanly possible, freehand; just as many woodworkes do these days. In fact, just the same as Krenov did with concave grinds on his tools. 

The 'ruler trick' is nothing new, nor was it ever purported to be by David Charlesworth, who currently champions this method of treating the tool's back. It is likely that many craftsmen used a similar short cut to preclude lengthy blade fettling. However, the 'dubbing over' found in the tool chest was just as likely to be caused by stropping both sides of the plane iron, rather than purposly 'sharpening' a back bevel.

I do not see how we can say woodshops had no way of grinding their tools and had to wait for peddlars and the like to visit with grinding wheels. If these relatively poor traveling folk could afford a sandstone water wheel, I am sure that cabinet makers, piano makers etc. would also have such a necessary device, considering their stock in trade was sharp edge tools. In fact, if memory serves, Alan Peters refers to all cabinet shops having large sandstone waterwheels by the door of their shop. Evidently, Studley ground his tools with a similar device.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2012)

woodbrains":eudgb0bl said:


> Hello,
> 
> There are a few things that can and cannot be inferred from Mr. Schwartz's investigations, and IMO some have been taken out of context for whatever motives certain people have here.


I guess you mean me. What motive do you imagine I might have? Weird.


> . It is obvious from the concave bevel that Studley had access to a large wheel waterstone for grinding. However, the method of honing cannot, with any certainty, be assessed.


I think it can be surmised. Clearly he used a wheel on occasions, but predominantly freehand on stones.


> Can we say Studley intended to produce a concave bevel, and preferred to do it that way? No and in all likelyhood, he did not.


If not why did he do it? The answer most likely is that he wasn't too bothered either way but a convex bevel comes out easiest


> ( though I too am guessing, I think logically I might by correct) A very slight convexety is more likely due to the fact that humans are not machines and cannot too easily make their arms move in one plane, but will rock a little and produce a rounding without intention. This is not the same as purposely rounding over (under?) the bevel as per Mr. Sellers and his desciples.


 Yes it is. There is no 'purpose' or direct intention to 'round under' It doesn't serve any useful purpose - it just happens to be easier than trying for a flat one


> Using this sort of artifact to give creedence to a methodology is spurious,


 :shock: :lol: :lol:


> The 'ruler trick' is nothing new, nor was it ever purported to be by David Charlesworth,


He says it was. But it is nothing new in that the same thing is easily achieved without a ruler and has been done since the stone age (I guess)


> who currently champions this method of treating the tool's back. It is likely that many craftsmen used a similar short cut to preclude lengthy blade fettling. However, the 'dubbing over' found in the tool chest was just as likely to be caused by stropping both sides of the plane iron, rather than purposly 'sharpening' a back bevel.


Guesswork. Why not do it purposefully?


> I do not see how we can say woodshops had no way of grinding their tools and had to wait for peddlars and the like to visit with grinding wheels. If these relatively poor traveling folk could afford a sandstone water wheel, I am sure that cabinet makers, piano makers etc. would also have such a necessary device, considering their stock in trade was sharp edge tools. In fact, if memory serves, Alan Peters refers to all cabinet shops having large sandstone waterwheels by the door of their shop. Evidently, Studley ground his tools with a similar device.
> 
> Mike.


Wheels are not always available. They are/were not cheap or portable and anyway sharpening can be managed perfectly well without them.
I must say I am fascinated by this topic, not least because of posts like this one and the intense and convoluted efforts to deny things for which Studley provides simple clear evidence and which appear to me (and many others) as plain as a pikestaff.
What's it all about? Does anybody know? Why are they so anxious to deny the obvious and make sharpening more difficult in the process?


PS the evidence that flat oil stones were the preferred method for 100s of years is archaeological; the continued existence and availability of vast numbers of these items, of all ages. Several 100 per grindwheel at a guess. The one essential item in everybody's kit.


----------



## GazPal (13 Nov 2012)

woodbrains":3oi7ir2d said:


> I do not see how we can say woodshops had no way of grinding their tools and had to wait for peddlars and the like to visit with grinding wheels. If these relatively poor traveling folk could afford a sandstone water wheel, I am sure that cabinet makers, piano makers etc. would also have such a necessary device, considering their stock in trade was sharp edge tools. In fact, if memory serves, Alan Peters refers to all cabinet shops having large sandstone waterwheels by the door of their shop. Evidently, Studley ground his tools with a similar device.
> 
> Mike.



Much of the sharpening exercises carried out in house simply revolved around re-whetting edges and not re-grinding them. Tool sharpening was carried out by travellers and smiths who specialised in shaping and reshaping metal. The majority of cabinetry was produced on a cottage industry basis - re the many craftsmen working as single entities - and not in the same sense as larger post-industrial revolution workshops. 

These are historical facts and Alan Peters (Although cabinetmaker from a different generation to myself) was not around during the period to which I referred. You've a very blinkered perspective if you choose to believe the supposition that every workshop possessed a large grinding wheel. It simply wasn't the case.

My family's workshop eventually invested in a large grinding wheel circa 1870, but in partnership with other shops in the local vicinity. The cost of the treadle wheel was not a trifling sum of money and was the primary reason they and many other workshops utilised the services of others for grinding tasks. They also took a great deal of care of their tools - during the days when laying your square upon the ground could result in a fine - and seldom created damage warranting the purchase of a large grindstone.

I know all too well who - in the workshop - tended to be given the job of regrinding chisel and plane irons using coarse oil stones and it didn't tend to be the craftsmen. First and second year apprentices had their uses.


----------



## bugbear (13 Nov 2012)

GazPal":2viyo30v said:


> I know all too well who - in the workshop - tended to be given the job of regrinding chisel and plane irons using coarse oil stones and it didn't tend to be the craftsmen. First and second year apprentices had their uses.



Sturt [ The Wheelwright's Shop ] writes of often (as a lad) turning the grindstone (simple handle, not a treadle) for the craftsmen.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2012)

I think you'd expect to find grindstones in a wheelwright's shop as the work is fairly large scale agricultural. Similarly they were common in the yards of bigger farms, presumably for all those big hand tools and machines with cutting edges.


----------



## Racers (13 Nov 2012)

Hi, Jacob

Have you read the book?

Pete


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2012)

Racers":28xtwlga said:


> Hi, Jacob
> 
> Have you read the book?
> 
> Pete


Certainly have. A classic. _The_ classic really, as it tells more than any other book I've read, about 'traditional' working practices, unwritten knowledge and how it works.


----------



## bugbear (13 Nov 2012)

Jacob":r140yiy0 said:


> Racers":r140yiy0 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, Jacob
> ...



I prefer "the Village Carpenter" by Walter Rose. He's less pretentious and more cheerful than Sturt, who is a miserable old scrote.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2012)

_I myself have spent hours turning the grindstone. It stood under a walnut tree; and in sunny weather there might have been worse jobs. Only, sometimes the grinding lasted too long - especially for a new tool, or for an ax. Cook was a terror in this respect. Time seemed no object with him; he must get his edge. And he had a word I used to wonder at. For when a new plane or chisel proved over-brittle, so that a nick chinked out of it and needed grinding wholly away,........._
There you go - grinding new tools, axes, nicked edges. Just what you'd expect. 
Ordinary routine sharpening would almost certainly be done freehand on flat oil stones. Will have to read the book again to see if there is any reference.

_Sturt... is a miserable old scrote._ Well yes perhaps so. He fancied himself as a 'creative' writer and thought TWWS was not really 'literature'. But it was a miserable age for many - WW1 being only just over.
Also he was a reluctant wheelwright, not having expected to find himself in the family business .


----------



## bugbear (14 Nov 2012)

Jacob":21jab6s7 said:


> There you go - grinding new tools, axes, nicked edges. Just what you'd expect.



Actually, those were just the tools that took_ too long_ to grind; once can infer that other tools were being ground, but didn't take _too long_.



sturt":21jab6s7 said:


> Only, sometimes the grinding lasted too long - especially for a new tool, or for an ax.



BugBear


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2012)

bugbear":3pi5t7fa said:


> ......... once can infer that other tools were being ground, but didn't take _too long_......


Occasionally yes, but as a rule you can be certain that small tools were very rarely ground on a wheel, if ever.

Here's a few old grind wheels
They are nearly all agricultural/industrial in scale. Many of them are for corn and other materials. 
Old grind wheels for woodwork tools are relatively rare, mainly because not many people used them. 
Old oil stones are extremely common. 
Old honing jigs are unheard of! I bet there isn't on in the Studley chest. Could be wrong - all will no doubt be revealed by C Schwarz.


----------



## GazPal (14 Nov 2012)

Jacob":t69lpaah said:


> Racers":t69lpaah said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, Jacob
> ...



"Unwritten knowledge and how it works" is perhaps a key phrase to reaching an understanding of how a great many traditionally taught apprentices learnt their craft. Much was learned by example, watching and listening to how the apprentice master manipulated tools and materials and this progressed throughout the period of an apprenticeship. The apprentice could also learn a great deal of the history surrounding his chosen vocation and this - in turn - would then be passed on to his pupil/pupils.

------------

So much has been made of the topic surrounding the need to grind tools within a woodworking shop, but grinding seldom tends to happen unless edges become damaged and/or blades are in need of rescue. Much of the time spent dealing with edges relates directly with the use of whetting stones and not grinding stones/wheels. Unless working as a stonemason.


----------



## bugbear (14 Nov 2012)

GazPal":2pkf4ilx said:


> Much of the time spent dealing with edges relates directly with the use of whetting stones and not grinding stones/wheels.



Absolutely - old texts say the same thing. Honing is frequent, (re)grinding infrequent, when the shape of the edge is beyond what a whet stone can do.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2012)

It's all gone quiet on this thread. Too quiet. :shock: 
Wossappen to our trolls?

I googled 'old oil stones' (in the interests of balance; compare and contrast 'old grindstones' hardly anything for woodworkers).

Lo and behold several thousand old woodworkers' oil stones (strangely interspersed with scantily clad women - is that a woodwork thing? :roll: )


----------



## twothumbs (14 Nov 2012)

I always thought that joiners would go to the blacksmiths for grinding, just like stonemasons had to do. Blacksmiths would have their tools heated before being hammered and then grouind to an edge I am not part of this discussion, only reading it! Best wishes to everyone.


----------



## jimi43 (14 Nov 2012)

twothumbs":svzlbc3t said:


> ................I am not part of this discussion, only reading it! Best wishes to everyone.



You are now...it's fatal! :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## bugbear (15 Nov 2012)

Jacob":1anzrw0y said:


> bugbear":1anzrw0y said:
> 
> 
> > ......... once can infer that other tools were being ground, but didn't take _too long_......
> ...



Applying a little thought to

"*sometimes* the grinding lasted *too long* on *new tools and axes*"

we can conclude by simple logic that

"*most of the time* the grinding took a *reasonable time* on *things that weren't new tools and axes*"

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2012)

bugbear":1z8luk8g said:


> Jacob":1z8luk8g said:
> 
> 
> > bugbear":1z8luk8g said:
> ...


Applying a little more thought to "*sometimes* the grinding lasted *too long* on *new tools and axes*"

we could conclude by simple logic that 
"*at other times* the grinding lasted *not that long* on *new tools and axes*" with no mention of old tools at all!


----------



## bugbear (16 Nov 2012)

Cooincidence is a funny thing;

Last night I was reading my newly delivered (thank you eBay), Woodworker Annual, Volume 64.

As you do.

There was an article on "Some Customs in the Chairmaking Trade", in High Wycombe.

The short version is that most of the workers were sort of freelance, and the employers provided buildings, equipment and capital.

But the long version was long enough to be in two parts.

Interesting stuff (expanded in to a book "History of Chair making in High Wycombe").

But I digress.

Relevant to the current thread, we find:



Woodworker":2vobr954 said:


> Much greater resentment was expressed at the common charge of 2d. a week for the use
> of the factory grindstone, probably because here the workmen knew the exact cost
> of such an item and could see that at 2d. a week per man it was
> being paid for over and over again.



For context, the average wage in the trade was 22s a week.

Sounds like they were had a need for routine grinding,
even if they didn't like paying for it.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2012)

bugbear":28g7fdyk said:
 

> .....
> Sounds like they were had a need for routine grinding,
> even if they didn't like paying for it.
> 
> BugBear


Well yes, if a stone was available, as it would be in some bigger workshops. 
At 2d a go you could be certain that all their routine sharpening would be done on their own flat oil stones!


----------



## bugbear (16 Nov 2012)

Jacob":p6j0kh8s said:


> bugbear":p6j0kh8s said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



2d. a go would be expensive. The author said 2d. a week.

BugBear


----------



## Tom K (16 Nov 2012)

If I were paying tuppence a week I'd certainly want my moneys worth. Would they all be doing whole chairs though? Or would there be specialists
making different parts and so using differing tools travishers and such (is that the tool for shaping seats?) while others were turners etc


----------



## bugbear (16 Nov 2012)

Tom K":3ti2jfzv said:


> If I were paying tuppence a week I'd certainly want my moneys worth. Would they all be doing whole chairs though? Or would there be specialists
> making different parts and so using differing tools travishers and such (is that the tool for shaping seats?) while others were turners etc



Oh indeed - the article was interesting on the wider industry enough that I'm on the lookout for the book.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (16 Nov 2012)

Interesting article. Schwarzy concludes that Studley would say as follows:

_1. I like a convex bevel. Nearly all of the edges I observed had a slightly convex bevel. A couple tools had evidence of a hollow grind in the middle that was in the process of being removed by sharpening the bevel (making it convex).

2. I like cambered edges on my planes. Nearly every edge of the plane blades (blocks, smoothers, jacks and try) had a cambered cutting edge. Many of the edges were significantly relieved at the corners.

3. I sharpen the entire bevel. Only one tool had any evidence of a micro-bevel.

4. I lap the backs of my irons and chisels. All of the tools in the chest have lapped backs. The lapping is not to a mirror sheen, but there is evidence of significant and continuous work on the backs.



5. I lift my plane irons slightly when I polish the backs. Over and over I saw evidence that the very tip of the back was polished to a higher degree than the metal behind the tip. And (using a machinist straightedge) I could see that the tip of the back was ever-so-slightly dubbed from this polishing. The polishing on the backs was heavier on the bevel-up planes than on the bevel-down planes.

You can take the above information and twist it however you like. Studley was a hand-sharpener. He sharpened the entire bevel. He did something similar to the ruler trick – though he probably didn’t use a ruler. He knew that he needed two intersecting surfaces to create a sharp and durable edge._
.....................[/quote]

Pedder basically beat me to it. Messrs. Studley and Seaton are known for their chests of tools. Where's the furniture? A whole lot of guys are going to kick the bucket and leave a beautiful collection of tools. Few will leave furniture remembered by later generations. 

Fellows are laboring over projects (me included) that take dozens of hours to build, you know - the ubiquitous and at the end of the day basic bit of woodworking/rectilinear monument to the one-trick-pony (three months later: look Ma, no gaps!) that dovetailing has become - projects that would have been completed in less than a week by our forbears with a big yawn. Cutting a single joint well has become the well-trodded path to internet fame if not a way to earn a living for some. I think the antidote to all of this might be making a pair snowshoes, yeah, that's it - I'm going to make snowshoes! :lol: Or maybe just a little mindless turning of a chair-leg at the lathe, just sketching really, sketching in 3-D, looking for a shape, a new combination that pleases the eye. A lowering of the blood pressure rather than the raising of production of yet, another, rectangular, box, project, of, some, sort, small, or, big, take, your, pick, (hands moving down the keyboard playing loud, minor, chords). Blech. And more blech.

Back on track - a slight bit of a back bevel is not a deal killer nor is it the woodworking equivalent of the Rosetta Stone. It is certainly not worth all of the virtual ink that has been spilled discussing it. And of course a wisp of a cambered edge certainly beats pesky plane tracks. All of this should be kept well between the ditches of course. Truth, like woodworking best practices, is rarely found at the extremes. All of these little bits of curvature here and there should take on the subtlety of a mistake - when they look purposeful, or are achieved by the tenacity of purposefulness, they are almost always overdone. An artfully executed slight error is what's needed. 

File it under "How did Alan Peters hone?" That's probably the way to do it. 'cept dear Alan didn't leave behind a nifty tool chest full of cleverly packed ebonied gear (or at least one that is famous at this point), apparently just a few Record planes (who wouldn't kill to own his trusty No. 7?). But, oh, the furniture!


----------



## Jacob (16 Nov 2012)

CStanford":234ak61g said:


> .....Messrs. Studley and Seaton are known for their chests of tools. Where's the furniture? A whole lot of guys are going to kick the bucket and leave a beautiful collection of tools.


Not sure of the point of the question. Studley was a piano maker by all accounts. So that's the answer isn't it? Pianos. A lot of them I imagine. Some of them probably still in existence. He also made a chest which is very much in existence!.


> Few will leave furniture remembered by later generations.


Er, so what? Most furniture is anonymous anyway, without that having any bearing on the quality.


----------



## CStanford (16 Nov 2012)

OK


----------



## Sawyer (16 Nov 2012)

bugbear":3gspmifj said:


> Jacob":3gspmifj said:
> 
> 
> > Racers":3gspmifj said:
> ...


Both books are all-time classics, but in very different ways. I don't think Sturt was pretentious though - very candid in recognising his own lack of skill by comparison to some of his employees. We should remember that he only came to run the business through circumstance and that felt a real responsibility towards his men and the need to be a good and fair employer. He was also deeply interested in politics, literature and philosophy and his diaries reveal the angst he felt over the conflicting demands of being (as he described himself) 'A Socialist employer of labour'. 
I agree that Rose is more cheerful though. Both books are fascinating, but The Village Carpenter a delight to read in its own right.


----------



## richarnold (16 Nov 2012)

CStanford":jd8u5xlz said:


> Interesting article. Schwarzy concludes that Studley would say as follows:
> 
> _1. I like a convex bevel. Nearly all of the edges I observed had a slightly convex bevel. A couple tools had evidence of a hollow grind in the middle that was in the process of being removed by sharpening the bevel (making it convex).
> 
> ...



Pedder basically beat me to it. Messrs. Studley and Seaton are known for their chests of tools. Where's the furniture? A whole lot of guys are going to kick the bucket and leave a beautiful collection of tools. Few will leave furniture remembered by later generations. 

Fellows are laboring over projects (me included) that take dozens of hours to build, you know - the ubiquitous and at the end of the day basic bit of woodworking/rectilinear monument to the one-trick-pony (three months later: look Ma, no gaps!) that dovetailing has become - projects that would have been completed in less than a week by our forbears with a big yawn. Cutting a single joint well has become the well-trodded path to internet fame if not a way to earn a living for some. I think the antidote to all of this might be making a pair snowshoes, yeah, that's it - I'm going to make snowshoes! :lol: Or maybe just a little mindless turning of a chair-leg at the lathe, just sketching really, sketching in 3-D, looking for a shape, a new combination that pleases the eye. A lowering of the blood pressure rather than the raising of production of yet, another, rectangular, box, project, of, some, sort, small, or, big, take, your, pick, (hands moving down the keyboard playing loud, minor, chords). Blech. And more blech.

Back on track - a slight bit of a back bevel is not a deal killer nor is it the woodworking equivalent of the Rosetta Stone. It is certainly not worth all of the virtual ink that has been spilled discussing it. And of course a wisp of a cambered edge certainly beats pesky plane tracks. All of this should be kept well between the ditches of course. Truth, like woodworking best practices, is rarely found at the extremes. All of these little bits of curvature here and there should take on the subtlety of a mistake - when they look purposeful, or are achieved by the tenacity of purposefulness, they are almost always overdone. An artfully executed slight error is what's needed. 

File it under "How did Alan Peters hone?" That's probably the way to do it. 'cept dear Alan didn't leave behind a nifty tool chest full of cleverly packed ebonied gear (or at least one that is famous at this point), apparently just a few Record planes (who wouldn't kill to own his trusty No. 7?). But, oh, the furniture![/quote]
I promised myself Iwouldn't get dragged into this one, but what the heck. I was very lucky in being asked to help with the dispersal of the late, and very great Alan peters tools. Some people would be very surprised at the diversity of Alan's hand tools. Most of it was very basic, and there was no high end shinney stuff. I don't know what Alans preferred method of sharpening was, but I do know this much. he was a full time proffesional woodworker, and his kit was sharp!, but if you had tried to analyze how he actual sharpened his tools, you would be struggling. There were concave bevels, flat bevels, and yes on occasion the odd convex bevel!!. A lot of the chisel handles had masking tape wrapped around them, presumably to give them a more comfortable grip. As to his trusty number 7, i'm afraid it met a sticky end a long time ago. he dropped it, and smashed the casting. He replaced it with another one that was made up of a mixture of Record, and Stanley bits. I seem to remember that the front knob was beech, and the rear handle was rosewood. Of all the kit that I sold off for Alans wife, I only bought one piece for myself. It was the tattiest beech marking gauge you would ever see, but it works like a dream, and to me it's priceless.


----------



## CStanford (17 Nov 2012)

"Surprised at the diversity... though basic"

It sounds contradictory but I understand what you're saying. Otherwise, I'm honestly surprised there wasn't a museum involved for at least a couple of items. Or was there? Seems a shame for the entire kit to become scattered. 

I think his kit of tools would be worthy of more study than that of an employee of piano case manufacturing firms whose most outstanding solo work might have been (likely was) his toolchest.

That certainly was not the case with Alan Peters.

As far as pure woodworking goes, Jim Kingshott made a much more impressive tool chest IMO than did Mr. Studley and did so at the end of an apprenticeship, which I think was customary.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2012)

CStanford":n0mvzbda said:


> "Surprised at the diversity... though basic"
> 
> It sounds contradictory but I understand what you're saying. Otherwise, I'm honestly surprised there wasn't a museum involved for at least a couple of items. Or was there? Seems a shame for the entire kit to become scattered.
> 
> ...


I have to disagree. 
I think it is likely that as productive craftsman the skill and breadth of work of the Studleys of this world are likely to be much higher than the Peters. 
What distinguishes modern 'fine' furniture (or whatever you call that narrow slot in which Peters worked) is not 'craftsmanship', it is design. 
Studley would have had no problem copying the work of Peters, probably more efficiently and to a higher standard of finish. He would probably have been able to teach Peters a good deal about the craft (and about sharpening!) but the converse would be unlikely. 
This is a basic and very common misunderstanding in the world of woodwork.


----------



## Paul Chapman (17 Nov 2012)

Jacob":fi55wqhb said:


> I think it is likely that as productive craftsman the skill and breadth of work of the Studleys of this world are likely to be much higher than the Peters.
> What distinguishes modern 'fine' furniture (or whatever you call that narrow slot in which Peters worked) is not 'craftsmanship', it is design.
> Studley would have had no problem copying the work of Peters, probably more efficiently and to a higher standard of finish. He would probably have been able to teach Peters a good deal about the craft (and about sharpening!) but the converse would be unlikely.



Still talking rubbish, Jacob.......

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2012)

Then there's old St Jim Krenov - whose craft skills were laughable. :lol: 


CStanford":3ine969c said:


> ......Cutting a single joint well has become the well-trodded path to internet fame if not a way to earn a living for some. I think the antidote to all of this might be making a pair snowshoes, yeah, that's it - I'm going to make snowshoes! Or maybe just a little mindless turning of a chair-leg at the lathe....,


CStanford - I think you need the antidote as a matter of urgency! You will find that even the traditional makers of snowshoes (N American indians?) will have developed production to a high level of refinement. 
This is true of a great many 'ordinary' craft products. There's a lot more to woodwork than that claustrophobic narrow world of the one-off 'bespoke' 'fine' furniture makers and it's potentially a lot more interesting.

Not seeing this and casually dismissing the Studleys of the world, is a form of blindness, and you are the loser.

I'd prescribe one of those green woodwork courses - axe, draw-knife, adze, gouge etc. That could be the start of a cure. 
Get well soon!

PS Or start here? http://www.birchbarkcanoe.net/

Here's the book you need http://www.birchbarkcanoe.net/books.htm . Beautiful stuff!


----------



## CStanford (17 Nov 2012)

Jacob, to my knowledge Mr. Studley has one extant piece of *presumably* solo work - an admittedly fine tool chest. Bravo.

To put him in the same league as Alan Peters is a huge, huge stretch.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2012)

CStanford":2vy7ddhi said:


> Jacob, to my knowledge Mr. Studley has one extant piece of *presumably* solo work - an admittedly fine tool chest. Bravo.
> 
> To put him in the same league as Alan Peters is a huge, huge stretch.


Presumably he also contributed to the making of several hundred pianos, some of which will be extant no doubt.. As a craftsman, a maker, a tool user, this would probably put him in a much higher league than Peters &co. 
You need to separate the craft from the design to understand my point.
Pity they couldn't have met. Amongst other things Studley would no doubt have talked Peters out of that silly idea of doing everything with a no 7!


----------



## Paul Chapman (17 Nov 2012)

Jacob":39ic38tx said:


> Presumably he also contributed to the making of several hundred pianos, some of which will be extant no doubt.. As a craftsman, a maker, a tool user, this would probably put him in a much higher league than Peters &co.
> You need to separate the craft from the design to understand my point.
> Pity they couldn't have met. Amongst other things Studley would no doubt have talked Peters out of that silly idea of doing everything with a no 7!



Yes, still talking rubbish.......

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2012)

You need to get out more Paul.


----------



## Jelly (17 Nov 2012)

Paul Chapman":23xlfhfc said:


> Jacob":23xlfhfc said:
> 
> 
> > Presumably he also contributed to the making of several hundred pianos, some of which will be extant no doubt.. As a craftsman, a maker, a tool user, this would probably put him in a much higher league than Peters &co.
> ...



I'm struggling to see whether this is overzealous self-derrogation or totally ignoring the salient parts of jacobs post simply because some of it is clearly opinion.

It's undeniable that making a high class piano or organ requires a great deal of skill and dare I say it artisanship, unless you reckon steinway and sons just bang them out down a production line with a CNC router and a power screwdriver.

Trying to compare Designer-Makers and Skilled Men is an apples and eggs comparison; they may share many of the qualities of an artisan, but they're rather different things.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2012)

Jelly":sgdr6w1t said:


> ........
> Trying to compare Designer-Makers and Skilled Men is an apples and eggs comparison; they may share many of the qualities of an artisan, but they're rather different things.


I think _they_ are not that different but their products are. They are both woodworkers using the same tools and materials but working in a different part of the market.
I'd guess that a higher volume of demanding work passed through Studley's hands and this could have made him a much more experienced/competent woodworker than Peters.
'Designer-Maker' is a somewhat precious term which has been adopted by the bespoke 'fine furniture' mob, but it sounds as if Studley was also a designer/maker (of pianos - and a chest!) though he wouldn't have used that term.

In any case many (most?) designer/makers who are at all successful are sooner or later going to drop the 'maker ' bit and get others to do the hard work.

NB Blasphemy though it is, I'm not an enthusiast for the saints, icons, dogma , relics, of the so-called 'top end'. They are just another set of workers with a different market from IKEA, and they don't have magical powers.


----------



## neilyweely (17 Nov 2012)

I think Peters and Studley will be upstairs laughing their bo110x off at all of this. Do you think they care about 'my mates better than your mate'?
Perhaps they were both very good at their chosen profession. Does that offend anyone? Maybe even JK was quite good?

Neil


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Nov 2012)

............so you wouldn't buy anything from the Linley workshop then, Jacob?


----------



## Jelly (17 Nov 2012)

Jacob":dwyxdc75 said:


> Jelly":dwyxdc75 said:
> 
> 
> > ........
> ...


It's where the value is added that's different to my mind, someone doing one-offs is charging a premium for the uniqueness and has to focus on making *exactly* what the customer wants, someone doing volume work has to work to an acceptable quality but they need to work at a profitable rate too; which requires a different take on the same basic skill.

In that vein, machine made stuff is often seen as being devoid of skill, but having seen the concentration, deftness and experience required to sort for grade and align for jointing on the infeed of a moulder running at between 600 and 1000 linear meters a minute; it's definitely skilled, just not very traditional!

As to the Designer-Maker thing it's hard to say if Studley was designing the instruments he built or not (at least not until the book on him is published?) but one would think he had input into what was feasible/practicable to produce even if someone else was doing the overall design (and given the complexity of the mechanics of an organ in particular I suspect that it would have drawn on people of several disciplines to produce the finished product). That said, as someone from a physical science background, I see the acoustical problems of making an instrument as being significant, but if you know what works by a series of rules of thumb or similar, it may well be unnecessary to consider all of the complicated factors around how the instrument will make sounds.


----------



## GazPal (17 Nov 2012)

phil.p":20n9cwxn said:


> ............so you wouldn't buy anything from the Linley workshop then, Jacob?



A higher possibility of me perhaps buying from Ikea, but never Linley  

------------

The degree of focus necessary for one to succeed as a furniture designer involves far more than skill in tool & materials manipulation if producing work from your own designs. It often necessitates the move from artisan to designer and the employment of others to fulfill your designs.

Piano maker isn't quite the same as cabinetmaker, although piano companies employ craftsmen with cabinetry skills they're not necessarily as skilled in performing the more varied tasks, but tend to focus within a more particular area. If considering the design and layout of Studley's tool chest, it very probably mirrors the nature of the work he was involved in, as much of his work would have revolved around crafting the finishing touches on pre-assembled/part completed piano carcass. He most probably fitted lids, made fluted/beaded legs, carved decorative feet, etc., whilst other specialist areas were covered by other artisans. I think there's a Youtube video showing the work involved in the making of Steinway piano, It's very much a production line operation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAInt7hIZlU

Many old tool chest interiors - sometimes also their exteriors - were laid out to illustrate their owner's skill sets. This helped prospective employers and customers visualise the artisan's skill. If he possessed design skills they'd doubtless be evident in the structure and manner in which he laid out the tools within his tool chest.

Many craftsmen possess skills which lay dormant once they move into speciality work and I'll never say one is more skilled than another, although some present their skills in a less attractive manner.


----------



## Jacob (17 Nov 2012)

I was defending Studley from the suggestion (in various posts above) that as a humble piano maker he wouldn't be as skilled as a 'cabinet' maker. I'd put my money on Studley personally, but we'll never know, unless signed pianos turn up!


phil.p":1du49hwd said:


> ............so you wouldn't buy anything from the Linley workshop then, Jacob?


Not unless it was hand made entirely by Lord Snooty under my close supervision and personally delivered on a hand cart by himself .


----------



## GazPal (17 Nov 2012)

Jacob":3lakb5us said:


> I was defending Studley from the suggestion (in various posts above) that as a humble piano maker he wouldn't be as skilled as a 'cabinet' maker. I'd put my money on Studley personally, but we'll never know, unless signed pianos turn up!



I know you were.  The funny thing about this situation is we don't know where he worked prior to his last known job and this other work could very easily involve serving his time and working as a cabinetmaker before moving onto piano work. 

We all start and finish our careers somewhere.


----------



## Jacob (18 Nov 2012)

Jelly":316jqd9d said:


> .........
> It's where the value is added that's different to my mind, someone doing one-offs is charging a premium for the uniqueness and has to focus on making *exactly* what the customer wants, someone doing volume work has to work to an acceptable quality but they need to work at a profitable rate too; which requires a different take on the same basic skill.............


The thing about multiples, whether it's a Studley making pianos, or an American indian making birch bark canoes, is that design and techniques evolve. IMHO they evolve to a much higher level of perfection than is going to be possible with one offs.
And to get back to my original post which was about sharpening - I think Studley's sharpening techniques, under pressure and from necessity, are likely to be extremely economical and effective, notwithstanding the (probable) fact that he didn't make expensive one-offs for wealthy clients.


----------



## pedder (18 Nov 2012)

Hi Jacob,

my point was not to debase Mr. Studley or anyone else. Certainly he and many others could work with wood very well. 

But that doesn't tell me that Mr. Studley was a good sharpener.

It doesn't tell me that I should use his methods. Since he died, many new products have been invented to the western world. If Mr. Studley would live today, he would use modern saws (probably japanese saws like the piano make I happened to share a kitchen and bath for the last year) and modern sharpening mediums. 

So how Mr. Studley sharpened his chisels may be fascinating to some historical research magazins and authors, but it doesn't mean that we have to follow him, once we found better methods. Nor does it tell us to sharpen like Tage Frid did (Beltsander and jewelers green coupound on a wheel.) Or one of the modern teacher. 

The goal is a sharpe edge. And there are many roads and all lead to the goal. Walk one road and don't go back because it is a loop way. It is better to get used to one method than to change methods and mediums with every new or old teacher.

Because it is not about sharpening, but woodworking. And in that I can learn a lot, from You, Mr. Studley David Charlesworth and Chrisopher Schwarz.

Cheers
Pedder


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2012)

pedder":2v4thmim said:


> Hi Jacob, my point was not to debase Mr. Studley or anyone else. Certainly he and many others could work with wood very well.
> But that doesn't tell me that Mr. Studley was a good sharpener.


Really? It tells me that he probably was a good sharpener. He'd have to be to survive (and make his chest!)


> It doesn't tell me that I should use his methods.


It _should_ tell you that he was doing something right. But yes you are free to do what you like.


> Since he died, many new products have been invented to the western world.


Mainly diamond dust. But in use (freehand) a diamond plate will produce exactly the same results as an oil stone - as per Schwarzs 5 points above


> .....So how Mr. Studley sharpened his chisels may be fascinating to some historical research magazins and authors, but it doesn't mean that we have to follow him, once we found better methods.


Slight exaggeration here - modern methods aren't _that_ different, except that freehand has gone out of fashion to some extent and there is that great irrational fear of convex bevels!
Still plenty of people at it, freehand, convex bevels and all, maybe using diamond plates instead of oil stones.
Things haven't changed that much.


----------



## Sawyer (19 Nov 2012)

A working life spent making pianos, which at the time were also a very expensive status symbol, but which also needed to function well as a musical instrument: an item which had to be very, very well-made; and to do all of this at a pace which was commercially viable. To have done this will have required Mr. Studley to have been an extremely competent workman. One of the countless unsung heros of woodworking history who earned a living and left an often anonymous legacy of excellent craftsmanship. Such men were surely the equals (at least) of many who are known simply because they were better self-publicists.


----------



## Racers (19 Nov 2012)

Well not much hand tool work these days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRBzl9FbJP0

That chisel dosen't seem to have a convex bevel ;-)


----------



## jimi43 (19 Nov 2012)

Racers":2xuv5s0z said:


> Well not much hand tool work these days.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRBzl9FbJP0
> 
> That chisel dosen't seem to have a convex bevel ;-)



Yup...definitely hollow ground...honed using the back and front of the grind as a guide...

One or too far more famous people than Studley do it this way...and I agree with them.

BTW...that bears about as much resemblance to old methods as I do to the Queen of England! :mrgreen: 

Jimi


----------



## bobbybirds (19 Nov 2012)

Wow! This has to be the most redundant thread topic in history. Talk about going around in circles...


----------



## DTR (20 Nov 2012)

jimi43":3hb9xbag said:


> Yup...definitely hollow ground...honed using the back and front of the grind as a guide...
> 
> One or too far more famous people than Studley do it this way...and I agree with them.



Interesting approach, what angle go you grind at?


----------



## jimi43 (20 Nov 2012)

DTR":2oq42d9q said:


> jimi43":2oq42d9q said:
> 
> 
> > Yup...definitely hollow ground...honed using the back and front of the grind as a guide...
> ...



Hi DRO...

As you are effectively creating a single bevel and on most of my planes the irons are bevel down so it's the pitch of the bed that is the important bit....so I grind to about 25 degrees...though I'm not particularly bothered whether is a few degrees out either way.

The point I am trying to make is the front and the back of the hollow grind is your guide...I don't use a honing guide anymore.

Jim


----------



## jimi43 (20 Nov 2012)

DTR":9vpprtuy said:


> jimi43":9vpprtuy said:
> 
> 
> > Yup...definitely hollow ground...honed using the back and front of the grind as a guide...
> ...



Hi DTR...

As you are effectively creating a single bevel and on most of my planes the irons are bevel down so it's the pitch of the bed that is the important bit....so I grind to about 25 degrees...though I'm not particularly bothered whether is a few degrees out either way.

The point I am trying to make is the front and the back of the hollow grind is your guide...I don't use a honing guide anymore.

I think Jim K used to do it this way...and Philly's skew mitre was like that...though whether it was like that when it left him...only he would have to say. :wink: 

I'm not saying this is the utopia of sharpening, nor am I saying it's any better...it's just the way that I do it and it works for me.

Jim


UPDATE....I googled this issue and found THIS ARTICLE

Seems like Jim Krenov used 30 degrees. I'm happy with greater than or equal to and about 25-30 degrees...and I don't get that bothered about it. :lol: And I sure ain't going to be looking at bevels when I eventually get my backside over to Rochester either!

Not that I wish to encourage the perpetuation of the "bevel issue"..... :twisted:


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2012)

jimi43":2n1sb9tx said:


> .....
> One or too far more famous people than Studley do it this way...and I agree with them.......


You should think for yourself - I can think of one or too far more famous people than Studley who are complete morons!
Yes to single bevel at 30º for most things. 
You don't need a guide or "hollow grind as your guide" with freehand honing. But you do have to put the time in to get the hang of it, say 20 minutes or so.


----------



## Racers (20 Nov 2012)

There are only two ways, Jacobs way, and the wrong way.

I have told you this before......

Pete

As long as its sharp it doesn't matter how you sharpened it.


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2012)

Racers":3cxktm17 said:


> There are only two ways, Jacobs way, and the wrong way.
> 
> I have told you this before......
> 
> ...


Does mean we can't talk about the alternatives, even though you know what (convex bevels) scares people shitless for some reason. Don't worry about it Pete just carry on as normal!


----------



## Racers (20 Nov 2012)

You don't talk about the alternatives!

Pete


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2012)

Racers":3ajyva9s said:


> You don't talk about the alternatives!
> 
> Pete


I talk about and experiment with all the alternatives. Except haven't tried waterstones yet.
These threads go on and on because there is there is this weird semi-hysterical reaction against any suggestion of you know what. Just look at the air of panic in the replies to my OP!


----------



## Racers (20 Nov 2012)

Jacob":5t67we5h said:


> Racers":5t67we5h said:
> 
> 
> > You don't talk about the alternatives!
> ...



So you base your advise on a flawed/incomplete set of results.

Pete


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2012)

Trolling again Pete? Getting to be very boring.


----------



## Racers (20 Nov 2012)

Pot/kettle

Pete


----------



## DTR (20 Nov 2012)

Jacob":23ux57qa said:


> there is there is this weird semi-hysterical reaction against any suggestion of you know what. Just look at the air of panic in the replies to my OP!



I just re-read this entire thread (yes I had some time on my hands). With the possible exception of one post (in a thread of over a hundred), I have not seen anyone question the merits of a convex bevel. Where are these "semi-hysterical" people who are "scared shitless"? Please point them out to me, because I am getting the distict impression that nobody cares. Most of this thread seems to be about the availability of grindstones and the skill of various famous woodworkers. The subject of bevels has hardly been touched.


----------



## Racers (20 Nov 2012)

Yet someone seems to try and steer the conversaton "round" to them.

:lol: 

Pete


----------

