# Regular Mortice Chisel or Bevel Edged for your Mortices



## John15

Up until recently I have chopped my mortices (mostly 6 - 10mm) using the conventional thick sectioned mortice chisel, but on my current project I have changed to a bevel edged chisel a la Paul Sellers method. I have to say that I find the bevel edged chisel works just as well as long as I take care not to let it twist. 
What do other members use?

John


----------



## marcros

i dont chop many, but my preferred tool is a pig sticker mortice chisel when i do.


----------



## bugbear

I use a great big, unbreakable, self aligning, mortise chisel.  

BugBear


----------



## Just4Fun

I don't have a mortice chisel so have always used a bevel-edged chisel. However I was just cutting a mortice this morning and happened to have 2 chisels of the appropriate (10mm) width and one of these had bevel edges and the other had straight sides. I used them both and I think I prefer the straight-sided one. I assume it would be even better if it were thicker so I may well keep my eyes out for some real mortice chisels. Even so, I don't think the style of chisel is particularly important. I just use whatever I have that is the correct size.


----------



## NickN

https://paulsellers.com/2012/07/choppin ... els-video/

An interesting comparison, some may say biased to his preference but interesting nevertheless.

Am using a large bevel edged chisel for my current project but that's partly because I don't have such a large mortise chisel anyway, I think 1/2 inch is the biggest I own.


----------



## Tasky

NickN":3ubu529h said:


> An interesting comparison, some may say biased to his preference but interesting nevertheless.


I always thought it was to show that you can use bevel-edged if you don't have mortise chisels, and get pretty good at them... but motise chisels have been around long enough that I assume they're easier in general terms.


----------



## MikeG.

I've chopped hundreds and hundreds of mortises in the last couple of years, all with bevel edged chisels. I've never known any difference, and couldn't see why I'd want to buy mortise chisels when the bevel edged ones did the job so easily.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Mortice chisels are the shape they are for a reason - they're easy to keep square in mortices and stronger when levering. You could probaby cut a mortice with a darning needle if your life depended on it, but that doesn't alter the reason mortice chisels are what they are.


----------



## D_W

Old english oval bolstered chisels if they fit. If the mortises are tiny, then a smaller and thinner chisel (a non-beveled firmer if I have one in the right size). 

My mortises are always neater with a proper mortise chisel, but I don't have anything as fat-ended as the tent stake paul used in that video.

I don't know if Paul is friends with Ray Iles, but this is what he had to say about the Iles mortise chisels:

>"The best chisel I have ever used." - Paul Sellers<


----------



## Tasky

D_W":14t2ninf said:


> I don't know if Paul is friends with Ray Iles, but this is what he had to say about the Iles mortise chisels:
> >"The best chisel I have ever used." - Paul Sellers<


Isn't that what he said about the blue-handled Marples ones? :lol:


----------



## AndyT

To be fair to Paul, he does make the distinction between large scale work on hard woods (gates, big doors) and delicate work on mild timber (furniture making). 

The 1970s Marples chisels he mentions, like their contemporary Stanley equivalent, are a lot thicker and made of more robust steel than pre-war bevel edge chisels which taper down to nearly zero along their sides, so it's no surprise to see it demonstrated that they are robust enough for the job.

So it's good information for someone starting out or just wanting the bare minimum of tools.

But for me, now that I have pretty well covered the range of light, medium and heavy chisels for all ordinary sizes bar timber framing and shipbuilding, I will continue to use a mortice chisel whenever I can.

If the mortice is too short to accommodate a deep mortice chisel, I would use a sash mortice chisel, a registered chisel, or possibly a firmer.

On a side note, I'm sure I remember at school that we were set the task of cutting narrow mortices in softwood without using a mallet. I think the chisel would have been an ordinary Sheffield made firmer chisel with a wooden handle, kept properly sharp by our teacher. I think it was a genuine exercise in understanding how the chisel penetrates and cuts the fibres into free space and wasn't just an excuse to keep the noise down!


----------



## MarkDennehy

Used firmer chisels for the cot, which had a lot of mortices including some on curved surfaces. Ordered a set of pigstickers (I say "ordered a set", but I really mean "I found a box of railway spikes being sold as mortice chisels on ebay") and I'm finally getting to use them on a project I'm diving into as soon as xmas is over (only took nine months to get to them), but honestly, you guys need to stop fibbing about those things, they're not woodworking tools, they're a cross between a bludgeon and a mining tool - I can't even hold the half-inch one, my hands won't go round it and I have somewhat large hands. The half-inch one I have weighs more than my heaviest mallet.

Never used bevel-edged chisels for one, they seem to be more likely to twist if you didn't sharpen them square at the tip. And I more think of them for paring than chopping if that makes any sense.


----------



## thetyreman

I have only ever used bevel edged chisels for mortising, it works fine, I like them and probably won't bother with mortise chisels, you only get the occasional time when it might twist, all it takes is an immediate correction.


----------



## Racers

If you think of how much fibres are cut on each blow its probably before the side bevel starts, unless you are going crazy with a BFO mallet (Big F&*k Off)

Pete


----------



## woodbrains

thetyreman":ystsjszh said:


> I have only ever used bevel edged chisels for mortising, it works fine, I like them and probably won't bother with mortise chisels, you only get the occasional time when it might twist, all it takes is an immediate correction.



Hello,

You might try a mortice chisel after Christmas. :wink: 

Mike.


----------



## undergroundhunter

In short I use both, it all depends on what chisel I have available to me at the time. I did all the mortices on my bench with a bevel edged chisel (no drilling) because I didn't have an appropriate sized mortice chisel at the time. I do prefer using mortice chisels though as I don't need to worry about levering and bending the chisel. I personally don't mile pig sticker chisels they just seem wrong in my hand, I much prefer sash mortice chisels.

matt


----------



## bugbear

Like so many things, I deem a proper mortice chisel nice, but not essential.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob

Racers":1hz6ed8p said:


> If you think of how much fibres are cut on each blow its probably before the side bevel starts, unless you are going crazy with a BFO mallet (Big F&*k Off)
> 
> Pete


"Going crazy with a BFO mallet" is how you do mortices by hand - or would have done in the old days when that's how you'd be earning a living with a lot to do in the shortest possible time.
If you had a race a proper mortice chisel properly used would be very much faster than a bevel edged chisel. Bevel edge chisels wouldn't survive the pressure; OK for chaps in sheds but not for real work!


----------



## Racers

Jacob":2egpof3w said:


> Racers":2egpof3w said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think of how much fibres are cut on each blow its probably before the side bevel starts, unless you are going crazy with a BFO mallet (Big F&*k Off)
> 
> Pete
> 
> 
> 
> "Going crazy with a BFO mallet" is how you do mortices by hand - or would have done in the old days when that's how you'd be earning a living with a lot to do in the shortest possible time.
> If you had a race a proper mortice chisel properly used would be very much faster than a bevel edged chisel. Bevel edge chisels wouldn't survive the pressure; OK for chaps in sheds but not for real work!
Click to expand...


Thank god those days have passed...


Pete


----------



## Jacob

Racers":1vnoq9hd said:


> Jacob":1vnoq9hd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racers":1vnoq9hd said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think of how much fibres are cut on each blow its probably before the side bevel starts, unless you are going crazy with a BFO mallet (Big F&*k Off)
> 
> Pete
> 
> 
> 
> "Going crazy with a BFO mallet" is how you do mortices by hand - or would have done in the old days when that's how you'd be earning a living with a lot to do in the shortest possible time.
> If you had a race a proper mortice chisel properly used would be very much faster than a bevel edged chisel. Bevel edge chisels wouldn't survive the pressure; OK for chaps in sheds but not for real work!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank god those days have passed...
> 
> 
> Pete
Click to expand...

Well yes. 
But if you want to cut mortices by hand it will still be much quicker and easier with a proper mortice chisel and a big mallet.


----------



## John15

Jacob":4imp8utb said:


> Racers":4imp8utb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think of how much fibres are cut on each blow its probably before the side bevel starts, unless you are going crazy with a BFO mallet (Big F&*k Off)
> 
> Pete
> 
> 
> 
> "Going crazy with a BFO mallet" is how you do mortices by hand - or would have done in the old days when that's how you'd be earning a living with a lot to do in the shortest possible time.
> If you had a race a proper mortice chisel properly used would be very much faster than a bevel edged chisel. Bevel edge chisels wouldn't survive the pressure; OK for chaps in sheds but not for real work!
Click to expand...


I'm one of those ''chaps in sheds'' with plenty of time so no need to use heavy tools for speed like Jacob. 

John


----------



## Racers

John15":3o8ubfq1 said:


> Jacob":3o8ubfq1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racers":3o8ubfq1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think of how much fibres are cut on each blow its probably before the side bevel starts, unless you are going crazy with a BFO mallet (Big F&*k Off)
> 
> Pete
> 
> 
> 
> "Going crazy with a BFO mallet" is how you do mortices by hand - or would have done in the old days when that's how you'd be earning a living with a lot to do in the shortest possible time.
> If you had a race a proper mortice chisel properly used would be very much faster than a bevel edged chisel. Bevel edge chisels wouldn't survive the pressure; OK for chaps in sheds but not for real work!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm one of those ''chaps in sheds'' with plenty of time so no need to use heavy tools for speed like Jacob.
> 
> John
Click to expand...



I thought he had retired...

Pete


----------



## John15

I'm one of those ''chaps in sheds'' with plenty of time so no need to use heavy tools for speed like Jacob. 

John[/quote]


I thought he had retired...

Pete[/quote]

Sorry, I should have said ''...as Jacob advocates''

John


----------



## thetyreman

you could just use a big mallet and bevel edge chisel though and it does exactly the same thing as the mortise chisel, this has been proven by paul sellers in one of his videos, he really goes out of his way to show you that the mortise chisels are no better or faster.


----------



## Jacob

John15":392bg16d said:


> I'm one of those ''chaps in sheds'' with plenty of time so no need to use heavy tools for speed like Jacob.
> 
> John




I thought he had retired...

Pete[/quote]

Sorry, I should have said ''...as Jacob advocates''

John[/quote] :lol: 
I've got a very nice mortice machine - no fiddling with hand tools unless absolutely essential! 
I did do a lot by hand at first though, including mortices.


----------



## Jacob

thetyreman":3sgkh8ov said:


> you could just use a big mallet and bevel edge chisel though and it does exactly the same thing as the mortise chisel, this has been proven by paul sellers in one of his videos, he really goes out of his way to show you that the mortise chisels are no better or faster.


He's right about most things but he's wrong about that.


----------



## woodbrains

thetyreman":1vqlgpcb said:


> you could just use a big mallet and bevel edge chisel though and it does exactly the same thing as the mortise chisel, this has been proven by paul sellers in one of his videos, he really goes out of his way to show you that the mortise chisels are no better or faster.



Hello,

Careful, Santa will be cross with you. :ho2 

Mike.


----------



## D_W

I'm sure that the guys cutting a lot of mortises by trade could've counted the strokes and done a typical mortise in a specific number of strokes. 

George Wilson said something to me about a guy hammer setting saws in an alley in sheffield (or whatever you'd call it there when someone is just outside their building). Either he or someone else gave the guy a dovetail saw and he set it like a sewing machine. bap bap bap bap bap...I can't remember the quote, but it was something like a minute of time to set it.

I doubt Paul Sellers' gimmick test (well, it's not really his test) is representative of what trade workers would've done, but most of us will never cut enough mortises to know the real score. 

One thing I've noted cutting plane mortises (which has become an exercise only in brute force, not in elegance), once the first pass is done, removing stock when there is an open side is not the same - it's about half or a third of the effort. Glass removes the holding power of the wood on the other side. Whether or not that would make a difference, I don't know, but the beginners swooning over how easy it is for Paul to make smooth cuts with a fair amount of waste - it'd be that easy for everyone. It'd be a lot less easy looking if the one side of the stock wasn't open to a piece of glass.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

AndyT":afm2446u said:


> To be fair to Paul, he does make the distinction between large scale work on hard woods (gates, big doors) and delicate work on mild timber (furniture making).
> 
> The 1970s Marples chisels he mentions, like their contemporary Stanley equivalent, are a lot thicker and made of more robust steel than pre-war bevel edge chisels which taper down to nearly zero along their sides, so it's no surprise to see it demonstrated that they are robust enough for the job.
> 
> So it's good information for someone starting out or just wanting the bare minimum of tools.
> 
> But for me, now that I have pretty well covered the range of light, medium and heavy chisels for all ordinary sizes bar timber framing and shipbuilding, I will continue to use a mortice chisel whenever I can.
> 
> If the mortice is too short to accommodate a deep mortice chisel, I would use a sash mortice chisel, a registered chisel, or possibly a firmer.
> 
> On a side note, I'm sure I remember at school that we were set the task of cutting narrow mortices in softwood without using a mallet. I think the chisel would have been an ordinary Sheffield made firmer chisel with a wooden handle, kept properly sharp by our teacher. I think it was a genuine exercise in understanding how the chisel penetrates and cuts the fibres into free space and wasn't just an excuse to keep the noise down!



I do very much agree with the point about the STYLE of bevel-edged chisel. The modern sort with the much stronger neck, bolster and tang, and deep lands, should hold up to a bit of malleting and levering quite easily, the old (say pre-1960) type with thin blade, very narrow lands, and smaller neck, bolster and tang are really better kept for what they were made for - paring and light tapping with a small mallet.

The size of mortice has something to do with it, too. For someone equipping themselves for furniture work in solid woods, most mortices will be in the 1/4" or 5/16" range, with maybe the occasional 3/16" or smaller. They may only ever need to make a 1/2" or larger mortice when building their bench, so buying an OBM chisel specially for that one job doesn't really make sense; the larger b/e chisels are by their very nature stronger, anyway. However, if really small mortices are required (does happen in cabinet work), using an 1/8" b/e chisel to sink them may not be the best plan - 1/8" b/e chisels are not made for heavy malleting. Good luck finding a 3/16" b/e or registered firmer chisel, too! So for small mortices, an OBM would be the pragmatic choice.

I know some people buy 'sets' of mortice chisels, so they'll have the choice of chisel type, but I'll lay good money they only use one or two sizes regularly, and some not at all!


----------



## D_W

Sets of chisels are like having a complete stanley 55. You'll never use most of it, but it's attractive for resale and makes resale easier. 

I had a set of RI chisels early on (the D2 chisels). I only used two of them regularly (1/4 and 5/16), and they were nice. It was easy to sell a set of them when I sold them (and thanks to buying them used, I lost nothing when I sold them) - because a set draws beginners who also want a set. 

When I built my bench, my bench legs are 5 1/2" square. I wasted the mortises with a spade bit and then cleaned the sides, and the tenons (except for small mortises and tenons between the legs at the floor) were all just cut out with a carpenter saw and the shoulder cleaned with a chisel. 

Never did get a chance to use a mortise chisel for anything other than cutting plane mortises, and even at that, any chisel is fine, as long as it can tolerate heavy strikes. 

But cutting the oft-made 1/4th mortise with an old oval bolster chisel is pleasant and easy. 

To lend to your comment about thin mortises, even at a quarter inch, you can get in trouble if the mortise sides have some grip. I had two sets of chisels at one point - the RI chisels and some japanese blue steel smaller cabinet mortise chisels. The 6mm chisel in that japanese set (it was not a cheap set) broke at the lamination line and snapped off without more than just typical work - no abuse. I never really looked at it, but the sides probably didn't have enough taper. It was always a lot of work to move it around in a mortise and it eventually gave up. With an oval bolster chisel, you run it down on the bevel side, rotate it and pull the stuff out. No real chance of anything breaking.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":3n3ey5li said:


> AndyT":3n3ey5li said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair to Paul, he does make the distinction between large scale work on hard woods (gates, big doors) and delicate work on mild timber (furniture making). .....
Click to expand...

Mortice chisels were made down to 1/8" width but with the same rounded bevel, deep blade, tapered sides, as the bigger ones. Cutting a 1/8" mortice (a.k.a. a "slot") with one of these is very easy. With a normal 1/8" firmer or bevel edge it'd be impossible. Sellers wrong again!


----------



## Tasky

Jacob":n7g0abec said:


> Cutting a 1/8" mortice (a.k.a. a "slot") with one of these is very easy. With a normal 1/8" firmer or bevel edge it'd be impossible. Sellers wrong again!


How deep, though? Ifit's not that deep, I imagine he'll sooner crack out the (easily found for a fiver on eBay) hand plane or plough plane...!
Sellers does have a fair few blogs and videos on the differences, stating that he was trained to use motice chisels but that none of those he apprenticed around ever did. I'm sure there's more context, but I CBA to sift through it all right now!


----------



## NickN

Just to set the record straight, here's a bit of what Paul Sellers wrote on the subject:

"I recently saw a Youtube video put together by Lie Nielsen where it shows a mortise being cut behind glass; the idea was to show the progression of the traditional method using a traditional ‘pig-sticker’ mortise chisel.

As a boy in school I was shown this method and indeed we were trained that way, but once I left school and started to chop mortises in the everyday of life I found that lightweight chisels chopped more effectively, especially on the lighter work of furniture making and joinery rather than the heavy bank doors once common that had 3/4″ wide 5″ x 5″ deep twin and double mortises in mahogany and oak (that’s two or four mortises per corner sometimes on the bottom and middle rails). In my apprenticeship, most of the men chopped mortises with a Marples bevel-edged chisel. They used the ones shortened by wear, admittedly, but I used my then brand new Marples bluechips and have done so now for almost five decades. In all of those years using these and other makers, I have never bent a chisel once. Furthermore, I have trained 3,500 woodworkers, many raw beginners to the bench, and I have never found one chisel bent either.

Growing in my craft, I found myself changing the pattern and developed the one I teach and advocate today. No matter the chisel, this method is fast and highly efficient and so effective I find myself able to consistently chop a 4″ long mortise 1 1/2″ deep and 3/8 wide in around 4 minutes. I own a mortise machine, but seldom use it because of this. Anything and everything you have seen me work on in the past three years has been cut by hand methods.

My reason for staying with the bevel-edged chisels is indeed as much the size of the bevel cutting edge itself as the thinness of the steel chisel used. Obviously, because it’s so small (narrow), the steel penetrates very effectively in any wood. The lighter weight of the chisel means I can easily drive it with minimum counter-opposition from the weight I inevitably get with the heavy framing chisels.

Working on massive doors in the pre-machine age and making such projects day in day out *I would indeed use a heavy weight traditional mortise chisel*. I worked on two large doors for the National Trust’s Penrhyn Castle two years ago and so I do not challenge the ancient craftsmen who used and developed them for such work. Neither do I challenge them for fine work either. An English five-bar field gate had ten mortises 3/4″ by 4-5″ through stile 4-6″ wide and a man made one in a ten-hour day complete with bracing in solid oak. That man used the kind of mortise chisel I am talking about. These chisels were wonderfully made to last the lifetimes of two craftsmen."


----------



## MarkDennehy

I wonder if anyone's compared the straight-or-hollow-ground bevel on the modern chisels to the rather convex grind on the older pigstickers? 
There's this theory that says that complex bevel acts as a lever during the impact of the mallet, effectively both chopping and extracting waste in one go, reducing effort for the guy with the mallet. 
If that's the case, pigstickers will always have room for a larger convex surface compared to a firmer or bevel-edged chisel so they'd have a theoretical advantage. 


Now, how much of a real-world advantage that'd be if you're morticing in inch-thick pine and pondering buying a domino, I'm not certain


----------



## Jacob

The rounded bevel firstly is easier to sharpen (on this and all edge tools) secondly is good for levering out the corners of blind mortices. Rounded like many levering tools - claw hammer, pinch bar, nail pullers etc - results in a moving fulcrum from close up to the edge for max leverage but shifting as it goes.
Nothing complex or malletty about it!

PS except for corners of blind mortices as above you don't actually do any levering with a mortice chisel, it's always vertical, the waste mostly gets blasted out and anything left is usually tapped out or lifted with a smaller chisel.
What makes it fast is that you can whack it in hard but thanks to bevel and tapered section it easily loosens, where a thinner chisel would jam tight like a nail. You cut down the face of the previous cut ( bit like digging a trench) so each cut goes deeper than the one before. Then turn it around and work it the other way. No levering required.


----------



## D_W

Jacob - which direction is the bevel facing when you're making a cut? toward the waste or away from it?


----------



## D_W

MarkDennehy":ulvfu7yd said:


> I wonder if anyone's compared the straight-or-hollow-ground bevel on the modern chisels to the rather convex grind on the older pigstickers?
> There's this theory that says that complex bevel acts as a lever during the impact of the mallet, effectively both chopping and extracting waste in one go, reducing effort for the guy with the mallet.
> If that's the case, pigstickers will always have room for a larger convex surface compared to a firmer or bevel-edged chisel so they'd have a theoretical advantage.
> 
> 
> Now, how much of a real-world advantage that'd be if you're morticing in inch-thick pine and pondering buying a domino, I'm not certain



If you chop the mortise with the bevel facing away from the waste side, you have the chisel wedged in the cut (though not tightly so due to its design) and a quick push forward breaks off the chip at the bottom of the cut. It's quite nice. the bevel is rounded at the top of the chisel body and then (Depending on the user), it might be at the cutting edge, too, mostly flat between the two points (a large rounded bevel over the whole length would be undesirable). 

I've seen more than one picture of older chisels where nothing was rounded and the mortise chisel was tapered along its width and thickness. A chisel like that cuts less neatly on the side, but is less effort (I have tried one of that type cutting plane mortises) because the chisel behind the edge is less wide than most of the cut area. I have no idea about mortise style vs. chisel (e.g, if that type of chisel was more popular in green wood where the mortise wasn't pristine and the joint pegged).


----------



## Jacob

D_W":1imoll7g said:


> Jacob - which direction is the bevel facing when you're making a cut? toward the waste or away from it?


Bevel at the back as you cut the face of the waste with the face of the chisel against it - like digging a trench you take away a vertical face as you progress away, then turn and come back going deeper. Always vertical, always a cut deeper down the face left from the previous cut, until you turn. I was shown how to do this - it might have taken a lot of time to work it out!
It's like cutting steps down, then turning and cutting them again.


----------



## Jacob

I just watched Paul Sellers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_NXq7_TILA
He would have lost marks and been told off by Mr Ford (Kirkby-in-Ashfield Skill Centre 1982) for doing it sloppily and wrong! (I know I did!)
Mr Ford's way was;
start anywhere except on the line
chisel vertical at all times - no levering
each cut is vertical down the face of the previous cut (opposite to Sellers) and progressively deeper (same as Sellers)
proceed until just short of the line and then reverse and work your way back - chopping through the chippings, no need to lever them out
clean off to the line as the last cut.
I wonder if he would see it differently if he had learned how to do it properly in the first place?


----------



## NickN

I guess Mr Ford wouldn't have liked this 'sloppy and wrong' Japanese chap either... :lol: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWlQi5tjeGo


----------



## Tasky

So where will I find Mr Ford's YouTube videos?


----------



## Jacob

NickN":jub6ffu6 said:


> I guess Mr Ford wouldn't have liked this 'sloppy and wrong' Japanese chap either... :lol:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWlQi5tjeGo


I guess not. Very slow and fussy!
I wonder how a trad Japanese carpenter would do it?


----------



## Jacob

Tasky":17mp9wzj said:


> So where will I find Mr Ford's YouTube videos?


They didn't do them in 1982.


----------



## woodbrains

Hello,

I bet Mr Ford did it very similar to this, what do you think, Jacob. Quick, no fuss and well, does the job.

http://www.finewoodworking.com/2006/08/ ... se-by-hand

Mike.


----------



## NickN

At the 10 minute mark in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kBbe89YgyU

And 17 minute mark in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgHynGqzd0

All of which goes to show that there's a lot of ways to do it that all get the job done.


----------



## Jacob

woodbrains":1pevk6pt said:


> Hello,
> 
> I bet Mr Ford did it very similar to this, what do you think, Jacob. Quick, no fuss and well, does the job.
> 
> http://www.finewoodworking.com/2006/08/ ... se-by-hand
> 
> Mike.


That's same as Sellers. Yes works fine but a bit limp wristed!
The trad way for a hard working joiner in production mode would be as per Mr Ford. There's be more or less non-stop malletting from start to finish, no levering, chisel vertical all the time. Head down, brain off, bash that mallet!
A bit like flooring - yer Mr average would be tapping away intermittently with his hammer - Mr expert would have scattered nails all over the place and be hammering fast and non-stop like a nailing machine.


----------



## woodbrains

Jacob":3qc8lfs3 said:


> woodbrains":3qc8lfs3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I bet Mr Ford did it very similar to this, what do you think, Jacob. Quick, no fuss and well, does the job.
> 
> http://www.finewoodworking.com/2006/08/ ... se-by-hand
> 
> Mike.
> 
> 
> 
> That's same as Sellers. Yes works fine but a bit limp wristed!
> The trad way for a hard working joiner in production mode would be as per Mr Ford. There's be more or less non-stop malletting from start to finish, no levering, chisel vertical all the time. Head down, brain off, bash that mallet!
> A bit like flooring - yer Mr average would be tapping away intermittently with his hammer - Mr expert would have scattered nails all over the place and be hammering fast and non-stop like a nailing machine.
Click to expand...


Hello,

To be fair, he is instructing the viewers. When he is chiselling, he doesn't stop. If he wasn't talking between times, he wouldn't stop at all. If you time him, and omit the bits where he has the ordasity to stop and explain what is going on, he actually takes less than
than 2 minutes to make a haunched mortice. And neatly. I shouldn't imagine it could be done quicker, and why would you try, 2 minutes for a mortice is fast enough for anyone. But the method is what you by have said, vertical chisel, bevel in the cut and flat face towards the emerging hole, like cutting turf. And everybody does some levering, even you said you make a rounded bevel to assist with it. And as far as him being limp wristed, he is pounding that mallet with an enormous amount of Welly. Tentative he is not! 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob

Interesting. The mistake he makes is to move the chisel too often. Sellers gets it right - each cut is deeper than the one before, a longer slice from the work-face without moving the chisel, not a series of shallow cuts moving the chisel for each one, but he has the chisel wrong way around (according to Mr Ford!) - slicing down the slope of the bevel instead of a vertical cut down the face. They both lever away unnecessarily.
It does make a difference - or it would if you had a lot to do in a hurry.


----------



## bugbear

I always wondered who the ultimate master was - the guru of gurus.

Step forward Mr Ford! He is right, all others are wrong.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob

Who needs gurus? It's an unhealthy preoccupation IMHO. Many have something to offer - but often not a lot.


----------



## D_W

Jacob":1o2mafx8 said:


> D_W":1o2mafx8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob - which direction is the bevel facing when you're making a cut? toward the waste or away from it?
> 
> 
> 
> Bevel at the back as you cut the face of the waste with the face of the chisel against it - like digging a trench you take away a vertical face as you progress away, then turn and come back going deeper. Always vertical, always a cut deeper down the face left from the previous cut, until you turn. I was shown how to do this - it might have taken a lot of time to work it out!
> It's like cutting steps down, then turning and cutting them again.
Click to expand...


I've found chisels to work better and faster if they're ridden on the bevel. The wood severs more easily at an angle and the starting wall can be worked straight up and down and the opposite side finished at the end. I think you're telling me that the bevel side of the chisel faces the waste when you do it. 

The levering of wood that occurs with the bevel side down is minimal pressure, it's just to pull the waste out of the mortise. One lever motion, that's it - not someone looking like they're operating a handle at an amusement park ride, jamming it back and forth. 

If that wasn't traditional use, the top edge of the oval bolstered chisels would never have been rounded over. The use of the chisel is still vertical, but the cut progresses laterally through the wood on par with the bevel angle.

(Perhaps i've just got your comment backwards).


----------



## nabs

am I alone in not understanding the difference between what Paul Sellers does and what Jacob is describing? Is there a video of someone doing it the other way?

PS my extensive* experience of creating mortices was all done the 'sellers' way, which as far as I could tell was the same way that Maquire does it, so now I am intrigued about the alternative.

*I have done 8 of them. 11 if you count practice goes!


----------



## D_W

Jacob":2hxg3kmh said:


> NickN":2hxg3kmh said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Mr Ford wouldn't have liked this 'sloppy and wrong' Japanese chap either... :lol:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWlQi5tjeGo
> 
> 
> 
> I guess not. Very slow and fussy!
> I wonder how a trad Japanese carpenter would do it?
Click to expand...


Not like that. For regular work, bevel down facing the material side and flat side of the chisel facing the waste. Hand on the handle, and at the end of each cut, flick the chisel to throw the waste out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQZsPs7 ... C17uH1fG1L

(Chinese, but similar effect. This guy has other videos where he's cutting mortises in work, less talk, more hammering. Notice the flick). Finding japanese videos isn't that easy because they're in Kanji. 

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... aro+tanaka

This guy posts from japan (and is a shade maker or something), and there may be some in his videos. There are several good video series in his postings, including this one. No mortises that I recall, but hand dado work, and mitered dovetails done very quickly. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85GrCHbdaJ4


----------



## D_W

nabs":ix94x18i said:


> am I alone in not understanding the difference between what Paul Sellers does and what Jacob is describing? Is there a video of someone doing it the other way?
> 
> PS my extensive* experience of creating mortices was all done the 'sellers' way, which as far as I could tell was the same way that Maquire does it, so now I am intrigued about the alternative.
> 
> *I have done 8 of them. 11 if you count practice goes!



In terms of the difference, are you just referring to the direction the bevel faces?

Wearing's book describes the way that jacob does them - cuts perpendicular to the grain rather than riding a bevel, but as is the case with a fair bit of wearings material, there are extra steps in it that you probably won't do after you've made 20 mortises.


----------



## nabs

I just don't understand the difference beteween the approaches discussed - Sellers starts at one end with the bevel facing in the direction he is going - holding the flat face of the chisel vertically. The he goes back in the other direction, again with the bevel forward but this time angled so the bevel is vertical. 

How is the other method different?


----------



## D_W

nabs":2vmuv85h said:


> I just don't understand the difference beteween the approaches discussed - Sellers starts at one end with the bevel facing in the direction he is going - holding the flat face of the chisel vertically. The he goes back in the other direction, again with the bevel forward but this time angled so the bevel is vertical.
> 
> How is the other method different?



Sellers is always working with the bevel facing the material to be removed. He has to tilt the chisel to cut vertically, or he'll just end up with a V. 

I'm waiting for Jacob to confirm, but it sounds like he's talking about cutting mortises with the bevel facing the waste side, and shearing the grain off at 90 degrees. Brute force allows that will work well, but I'm not sure that it's as standard as Jacob says. I do get the point that he makes, though, that you hammer and hammer rather than hammer, fiddle with waste, hammer, fiddle with waste. As long as there's still room for waste to go into. 

Wearing's display orients the bevel the same way as the latter here, but the work is not as fast.


----------



## woodbrains

D_W":mo9wujeq said:


> Jacob":mo9wujeq said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D_W":mo9wujeq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob - which direction is the bevel facing when you're making a cut? toward the waste or away from it?
> 
> 
> 
> Bevel at the back as you cut the face of the waste with the face of the chisel against it - like digging a trench you take away a vertical face as you progress away, then turn and come back going deeper. Always vertical, always a cut deeper down the face left from the previous cut, until you turn. I was shown how to do this - it might have taken a lot of time to work it out!
> It's like cutting steps down, then turning and cutting them again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've found chisels to work better and faster if they're ridden on the bevel. The wood severs more easily at an angle and the starting wall can be worked straight up and down and the opposite side finished at the end. I think you're telling me that the bevel side of the chisel faces the waste when you do it.
> 
> The levering of wood that occurs with the bevel side down is minimal pressure, it's just to pull the waste out of the mortise. One lever motion, that's it - not someone looking like they're operating a handle at an amusement park ride, jamming it back and forth.
> 
> If that wasn't traditional use, the top edge of the oval bolstered chisels would never have been rounded over. The use of the chisel is still vertical, but the cut progresses laterally through the wood on par with the bevel angle.
> 
> (Perhaps i've just got your comment backwards).
Click to expand...


Hello,

Unless I'm confused too, I think you are saying what I'm saying as per the Frank Klaus's video I just posted, which I think is what Jacob said, regarding which way the chisel faces. I think Ian Kirby does it the other way around, and with just as much success, he really whacks the chisel hard. I don't really think it matters which way round you do it, if you get it to work efficiently, a wedge being driven into a bit of wood is essentially the same, and not a great deal of finesse is involved with morticing.

Mike.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Hmmm.

Morticing, it would seem, is the new sharpening.....


----------



## AndyT

Cheshirechappie":2ljl049l said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Morticing, it would seem, is the new sharpening.....



Yep.
Every five years we have this discussion but it's been running a bit longer!

post681936.html#p681936


----------



## D_W

> some stuff



I don't think it matters, either. For speed, it just matters that you get to the point that you don't have a lot of white space between hammer blows. I'm not there yet on anything close to neat, but it's fun to try it, anyway. For plane mortises (which are far less restriction), it's pretty much as fast as I can go and still be able to use my arm the next day. Bevel facing the work for every part of them ("ride" it).

In terms of the oval bolstered chisels, I think they are bevel facing the work side if prepared traditionally, otherwise, the rounded bit where the bevel meets the top would have no purpose, and that rounded bit is on a lot of old chisels that were put away and not re-done by an amateur later. 

Without riding the bevel, the deep cross section benefit is nearly lost, and if you get used to using it, going to a bevel edge chisel is pretty obnoxious.


----------



## D_W

AndyT":3u3043em said:


> Cheshirechappie":3u3043em said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.
> 
> Morticing, it would seem, is the new sharpening.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> Every five years we have this discussion but it's been running a bit longer!
> 
> post681936.html#p681936
Click to expand...


It pops up in the US forums, too. It's always a challenge to find someone who is actually spending an appreciable part of their day cutting mortises by hand for pay.


----------



## woodbrains

Cheshirechappie":wg93igfd said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> Morticing, it would seem, is the new sharpening.....



Hello,

Sharpening mortice chisels, now this is where the universe collapses!

Mike.


----------



## Jacob

D_W":8kzqij1q said:


> ... It's always a challenge to find someone who is actually spending an appreciable part of their day cutting mortises by hand for pay.


I did for a few months when I first set up. I made several sets of doors/windows almost entirely by hand - just a band-saw (from a previous business). Slowly got kitted up with a combi and slot morticer etc.
Mr Ford's advice came in exceptionally useful and very timely for just a brief period in my life!!



> Hello,
> 
> Sharpening mortice chisels, now this is where the universe collapses!
> 
> Mike.


Only for modern sharpeners. For the rest of us it couldn't be easier - you can do it pineappled, half asleep whilst looking out of the window!


----------



## MikeG.

D_W":ggnkrv22 said:


> .......It's always a challenge to find someone who is actually spending an appreciable part of their day cutting mortises by hand for pay.



I've spent hours and hours a day chopping mortises by hand for my house. It adds value to my house, so notionally that is some sort of pay-back for me, but I take the point that I am not up against the clock. Nonetheless, when bashing a big chisel with a big mallet for many a long hour, one eliminates all unnecessary actions, and learns to avoid inaccuracies and mistakes. For every mortise there is a tenon, and it was these I looked forward to less. Cutting the shoulders with the saw is a doddle, once you get to understanding how to work without a reference face or edge for the setting out. Chopping away the 4 faces is a piece of cake with reasonable grain, but there's a reason that the piece of oak you are working with is "green". It's because the sawmill graded it as not good enough for its 3 grades of joinery oak, and therefore the grain is unlikely to be uniform and straight. This leads to much more work chopping away the waste around a tenon, and even, sometimes, sawing it away. Now that really is a pain!


----------



## bugbear

D_W":1r7almnw said:


> In terms of the oval bolstered chisels, I think they are bevel facing the work side


D_W unique words again. I know what the bevel of a chisel is. What is "the work side" you refer to? Please clarify.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob

The face of the chisel (not the back or bevel) faces the vertical face of the mortice slot being cut.
Same as Sellers vid except you cut the _vertical_ face, not down the slope left by the bevel.
Sellers is just a bit sloppy - no wonder he gave up on it.


----------



## worn thumbs

MikeG.":1817a8fl said:


> D_W":1817a8fl said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......It's always a challenge to find someone who is actually spending an appreciable part of their day cutting mortises by hand for pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've spent hours and hours a day chopping mortises by hand for my house. It adds value to my house, so notionally that is some sort of pay-back for me, but I take the point that I am not up against the clock. Nonetheless, when bashing a big chisel with a big mallet for many a long hour, one eliminates all unnecessary actions, and learns to avoid inaccuracies and mistakes. For every mortise there is a tenon, and it was these I looked forward to less. Cutting the shoulders with the saw is a doddle, once you get to understanding how to work without a reference face or edge for the setting out. Chopping away the 4 faces is a piece of cake with reasonable grain, but there's a reason that the piece of oak you are working with is "green". It's because the sawmill graded it as not good enough for its 3 grades of joinery oak, and therefore the grain is unlikely to be uniform and straight. This leads to much more work chopping away the waste around a tenon, and even, sometimes, sawing it away. Now that really is a pain!
Click to expand...


I don't understand why chopping mortises by hand adds value to a house.Maybe if I did I could add value to all sorts of things.


----------



## woodbrains

MikeG.":2zvm5u99 said:


> D_W":2zvm5u99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......It's always a challenge to find someone who is actually spending an appreciable part of their day cutting mortises by hand for pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've spent hours and hours a day chopping mortises by hand for my house. It adds value to my house, so notionally that is some sort of pay-back for me, but I take the point that I am not up against the clock. Nonetheless, when bashing a big chisel with a big mallet for many a long hour, one eliminates all unnecessary actions, and learns to avoid inaccuracies and mistakes. For every mortise there is a tenon, and it was these I looked forward to less. Cutting the shoulders with the saw is a doddle, once you get to understanding how to work without a reference face or edge for the setting out. Chopping away the 4 faces is a piece of cake with reasonable grain, but there's a reason that the piece of oak you are working with is "green". It's because the sawmill graded it as not good enough for its 3 grades of joinery oak, and therefore the grain is unlikely to be uniform and straight. This leads to much more work chopping away the waste around a tenon, and even, sometimes, sawing it away. Now that really is a pain!
Click to expand...


Hello,

This is the crux, cutting the the tenons is much more taxing. Morticing is just bashing a wedge into a bit of wood. It really doesn't matter if the bevel faces the centre or the boundaries, or whether you chop from the centre out or from the boundaries towards the centre, or from one boundary to the other. I've seen it done all ways with equal success. When you have lots to do, you get better and more efficient. If you don't have lots, and that would be most of us nowadays, why not take the time to get a precise result and enjoy doing so, no one is doing piece work! The result is all that matters, no on can tell how long it took or how the chisel was orientated by looking at a slot in the wood, or the finished product.

Mike.


----------



## woodbrains

worn thumbs":6ep9l24u said:


> MikeG.":6ep9l24u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D_W":6ep9l24u said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......It's always a challenge to find someone who is actually spending an appreciable part of their day cutting mortises by hand for pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've spent hours and hours a day chopping mortises by hand for my house. It adds value to my house, so notionally that is some sort of pay-back for me, but I take the point that I am not up against the clock. Nonetheless, when bashing a big chisel with a big mallet for many a long hour, one eliminates all unnecessary actions, and learns to avoid inaccuracies and mistakes. For every mortise there is a tenon, and it was these I looked forward to less. Cutting the shoulders with the saw is a doddle, once you get to understanding how to work without a reference face or edge for the setting out. Chopping away the 4 faces is a piece of cake with reasonable grain, but there's a reason that the piece of oak you are working with is "green". It's because the sawmill graded it as not good enough for its 3 grades of joinery oak, and therefore the grain is unlikely to be uniform and straight. This leads to much more work chopping away the waste around a tenon, and even, sometimes, sawing it away. Now that really is a pain!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand why chopping mortises by hand adds value to a house.Maybe if I did I could add value to all sorts of things.
Click to expand...


Hello,

I think it was the doors and such that added value, not the hand done mortices per se. But the mortices had to be done, so no point labouring the issue.

Mike.


----------



## nabs

D_W":225lw0eg said:


> ...it sounds like he's talking about cutting mortises with the bevel facing the waste side, and shearing the grain off at 90 degrees. Brute force allows that will work well, but I'm not sure that it's as standard as Jacob says. I do get the point that he makes, though, that you hammer and hammer rather than hammer, fiddle with waste, hammer, fiddle with waste. As long as there's still room for waste to go into.
> 
> Wearing's display orients the bevel the same way as the latter here, but the work is not as fast.



thanks DW - I get it now. I see that it would save time if you did not remove the waste on a mortise that goes right through since it will be pushed out when you work from the other side in any case. 

I suppose the argument for using the rounded bevel in the other direction is it is easy to use it as a pivot to flick out the waste and thus avoid the mortise getting blocked with chips (or to get the bits out of the bottom of a blind mortise)


----------



## MikeG.

worn thumbs":3jgu7gtr said:


> ....I don't understand why chopping mortises by hand adds value to a house.Maybe if I did I could add value to all sorts of things.



It's not how the mortises are made which adds value, but the fact that they exist. Here's an example, but this isn't 10% of the oak work in the house.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

I wonder whether there's a danger of talking at cross purposes, here. Cabinetmaking and timber framing are significantly different activities, with valid techniques and methods of work applicable to either, but (except very loosely) not both. It's rather like comparing clockmaking with heavy engineering.

The methods of sinking a mortice several inches long and deep and perhaps an inch or more in width in green oak may not be quite the same as those for furniture work in dry wood.

That is in no way a criticism of any comment or participant so far in the thread. It's just an observation, that's all.


----------



## AndyT

Quite so, CC. There are so many different types/scales of woodworking that many threads can have two people, each thinking of their own example, arguing at cross purposes, when each is right, within their own context.


----------



## nabs

good point, and to be more specific perhaps using the rounded bevel of a mortise chisel as a pivot to flick out the chips is a good option where the mortice is narrow and deep (because in this situation the bits are more likely to get jammed between the sides, preventing you getting the chisel deeper?)


----------



## D_W

bugbear":8b15wll4 said:


> D_W":8b15wll4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of the oval bolstered chisels, I think they are bevel facing the work side
> 
> 
> 
> D_W unique words again. I know what the bevel of a chisel is. What is "the work side" you refer to? Please clarify.
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...


Work side is where the stock is being cut, and waste side is the open area in the mortise where the waste ends up.


----------



## Jacob

D_W":o9kul1vj said:


> bugbear":o9kul1vj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D_W":o9kul1vj said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of the oval bolstered chisels, I think they are bevel facing the work side
> 
> 
> 
> D_W unique words again. I know what the bevel of a chisel is. What is "the work side" you refer to? Please clarify.
> 
> BugBear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work side is where the stock is being cut, and waste side is the open area in the mortise where the waste ends up.
Click to expand...

In which case "face" should face the work side and the back/bevel behind with the chippings.
NB to save confusion and to be more logically consistent: flat side = face, bevel side = back.


----------



## bugbear

D_W":1tjdhtow said:


> bugbear":1tjdhtow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D_W":1tjdhtow said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of the oval bolstered chisels, I think they are bevel facing the work side
> 
> 
> 
> D_W unique words again. I know what the bevel of a chisel is. What is "the work side" you refer to? Please clarify.
> 
> BugBear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Work side is where the stock is being cut, and waste side is the open area in the mortise where the waste ends up.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

BugBear


----------



## Tasky

AndyT":30kh76pm said:


> Quite so, CC. There are so many different types/scales of woodworking that many threads can have two people, each thinking of their own example, arguing at cross purposes, when each is right, within their own context.


None of them are right, though, unless they're using Mr Ford's methods!!
If only someone had uploaded some VHS of his 1982 methods to YouTube...


----------



## John15

Just to clarify, my original post relates to small mortices as used in bits of furniture, not for door making etc.

John


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":t1vkqyvv said:


> NB to save confusion and to be more logically consistent: flat side = face, bevel side = back.


Your proposed naming is logical, but not traditional. Things are what they are.

If you ever go sailing, are you going to get "sheets" and "painters" renamed too? :roll: 

BugBear


----------



## woodbrains

Tasky":3uvigui5 said:


> AndyT":3uvigui5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite so, CC. There are so many different types/scales of woodworking that many threads can have two people, each thinking of their own example, arguing at cross purposes, when each is right, within their own context.
> 
> 
> 
> None of them are right, though, unless they're using Mr Ford's methods!!
> If only someone had uploaded some VHS of his 1982 methods to YouTube...
Click to expand...


Hello,

Betamax! VHS is only used by amateurs. :lol: 

Mike.


----------



## Tasky

woodbrains":1ruf412o said:


> Hello,
> Betamax! VHS is only used by amateurs. :lol:
> Mike.


Hello. 

Actually any professional will almost certainly be on a (potentially stunning, but still limited) budget and as a whole product, VHS wins on all counts. This is why all our asset CCTV surveys from the 80s and 90s were on VHS. Any notion of Betamax being technically superior, either as a cor or whole product, is merely a combination of received wisdom and urban myth, possibly perpetuated by Sony themselves to cover up their hideously bad marketing decisions...  

Tasky.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I suspect VHS was no different then than Windows is now. It was ubiquitous because it hit the market at the right time, not because it was better than anything else.


----------



## woodbrains

Hello,

Actually, I would think Mr. Ford would use nothing else but Super 8.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob

Tasky":17qn9zxo said:


> AndyT":17qn9zxo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quite so, CC. There are so many different types/scales of woodworking that many threads can have two people, each thinking of their own example, arguing at cross purposes, when each is right, within their own context.
> 
> 
> 
> None of them are right, though, unless they're using Mr Ford's methods!!
> If only someone had uploaded some VHS of his 1982 methods to YouTube...
Click to expand...

Mr Ford was a retired joiner in 1982 which would have made him 60 ish. He almost certainly would have trained before and around 1940 when the great tradition of woodwork was still going strong.
Joni Mitchell was wrong about "you don't know what you've got til it's gone" as a vast amount of stuff is simply forgotten forever.
Jeer as much as you like - but in fact his method is very effective and was probably absolutely standard and was taught via C&G courses, which were derived from trade practices - not from would-be amateur woodwork gurus in sheds with video cameras!

PS I've just remembered: although he knew his woodwork we in fact thought he was a bit of an R sole. But nobody is perfect!


----------



## Jacob

bugbear":2bns8q7o said:


> Jacob":2bns8q7o said:
> 
> 
> 
> NB to save confusion and to be more logically consistent: flat side = face, bevel side = back.
> 
> 
> 
> Your proposed naming is logical, but not traditional. Things are what they are......r
Click to expand...

Actually is traditional as well as logical. But you get both usages. 
Calling the face the back seem to be important to modern sharpeners - a sort of masonic code word?


----------



## D_W

bugbear":22and5y0 said:


> Jacob":22and5y0 said:
> 
> 
> 
> NB to save confusion and to be more logically consistent: flat side = face, bevel side = back.
> 
> 
> 
> Your proposed naming is logical, but not traditional. Things are what they are.
> 
> If you ever go sailing, are you going to get "sheets" and "painters" renamed too? :roll:
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...


I thought it was backwards, too, but I make up words on the fly, so who am I to criticize?

Apologies for the comments about waste side and work side, etc, I just have never seen a great way to talk about "which way do you do it?" with mortises. Every discussion is confusion, almost as if you have to draw pictures, and then if you draw a picture of what someone literally wrote, often times, they mean the opposite. 

I like the term "ride the bevel"...do you "ride the bevel", but there's a large segment of folks who don't know what that means, either. 

Plus, whatever you prefer, it will be wrong. There's a weird al song for that. It could be used for sharpening threads, too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KThlYHfIVa8


----------



## MikeG.

Cheshirechappie":ql8nuxow said:


> I wonder whether there's a danger of talking at cross purposes, here. Cabinetmaking and timber framing are significantly different activities, with valid techniques and methods of work applicable to either, but (except very loosely) not both. It's rather like comparing clockmaking with heavy engineering.
> 
> The methods of sinking a mortice several inches long and deep and perhaps an inch or more in width in green oak may not be quite the same as those for furniture work in dry wood.
> 
> That is in no way a criticism of any comment or participant so far in the thread. It's just an observation, that's all.



Indeed, but all I did in turning my hand to oak framing was scale up from the furniture making work I had been doing with seasoned wood for 30 or 35 years. There is no fundamental difference*, only a difference of scale.

*Other than the previously noted lack of a reference face and edge.


----------



## custard

MikeG.":1q598p0q said:


> Indeed, but all I did in turning my hand to oak framing was scale up from the furniture making work I had been doing with seasoned wood for 30 or 35 years. There is no fundamental difference*, only a difference of scale.



That's not been my experience. I've always found that the difference between kilned timber and green timber is like chalk and cheese. I can force a chisel fairly deeply into wet Oak without using a mallet, I couldn't get anywhere close with kilned Oak.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Jacob":3frayhu0 said:


> Calling the face the back seem to be important to modern sharpeners - a sort of masonic code word?



Modern? the flat side was the back when I was at school 50 years ago - I never heard anyone call it the face til I read it here.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":10nstgvn said:


> Jacob":10nstgvn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling the face the back seem to be important to modern sharpeners - a sort of masonic code word?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Modern? the flat side was the back when I was at school 50 years ago - I never heard anyone call it the face til I read it here.
Click to expand...

There you go then! 
The flat side was the face when I was at school 62 years ago - I never heard anyone call it the back til I read it here.
What would you call the other side then - the back of the back, or the top or something?


----------



## MikeG.

Someone wasn't paying attention at school, or is mis-remembering.


----------



## MikeG.

custard":1us3uwhi said:


> MikeG.":1us3uwhi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, but all I did in turning my hand to oak framing was scale up from the furniture making work I had been doing with seasoned wood for 30 or 35 years. There is no fundamental difference*, only a difference of scale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not been my experience. I've always found that the difference between kilned timber and green timber is like chalk and cheese. I can force a chisel fairly deeply into wet Oak without using a mallet, I couldn't get anywhere close with kilned Oak.
Click to expand...


That's only a difference in scale, Jacob. It doesn't really change fundamentally how you approach joints. It just means you don't get so tired, and your chisel stays sharp much longer.


----------



## custard

MikeG.":2wilubqf said:


> custard":2wilubqf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeG.":2wilubqf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, but all I did in turning my hand to oak framing was scale up from the furniture making work I had been doing with seasoned wood for 30 or 35 years. There is no fundamental difference*, only a difference of scale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not been my experience. I've always found that the difference between kilned timber and green timber is like chalk and cheese. I can force a chisel fairly deeply into wet Oak without using a mallet, I couldn't get anywhere close with kilned Oak.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's only a difference in scale, Jacob. It doesn't really change fundamentally how you approach joints. It just means you don't get so tired, and your chisel stays sharp much longer.
Click to expand...



I'll put up with a lot, but being called Jacob is just going too far!


----------



## Phil Pascoe

MikeG.":35fl96ah said:


> Someone wasn't paying attention at school, or is mis-remembering.


 Unless you were at the same school, you wouldn't know, would you?


----------



## NickN

Of course, we could also have a back face... :lol:


----------



## Tasky

phil.p":2ltxjlmg said:


> I suspect VHS was no different then than Windows is now. It was ubiquitous because it hit the market at the right time, not because it was better than anything else.


It was ubiquitous because Sony decided to make Betamax tapes small and thus shorter, even though it held almost 100% of the market to begin with. VHS, however, could be left to record a full length film - Duration was more important to people, which is why they usually opted for Long Play mode and forewent the higher quality picture option in favour of recording more programmes on the one cassette. 
TechSpecs-wise, there wasn't much perceptible difference, if any. 



Jacob":2ltxjlmg said:


> Mr Ford was a retired joiner in 1982 which would have made him 60 ish. He almost certainly would have trained before and around 1940 when the great tradition of woodwork was still going strong.


So the old ways are the only ways and there's only ever one way to skin a cat, yes?



Jacob":2ltxjlmg said:


> Jeer as much as you like - but in fact his method is very effective and was probably absolutely standard and was taught via C&G courses, which were derived from trade practices - not from would-be amateur woodwork gurus in sheds with video cameras!


And woodworking gurus in sheds (as well as being paid instructors, and actual workers who make stuff for money) were many years in the trade themselves, starting as apprentices taught by those with many years in the trade as well... doesn't mean one is better than the other, does it? 

Or should I now be chopping every motice on my fine, delicate woodwork witha hoofing great mortise chisel a-la the Mister Ford method?
If he's still alive, I may go see what the Mr Crozier method was, just for giggles...!



phil.p":2ltxjlmg said:


> Modern? the flat side was the back when I was at school 50 years ago - I never heard anyone call it the face til I read it here.


Simple way around it - Flat side and bevel side. 
Have the flat side vertical and facing the 'knife wall as you work away from it, riding the bevel down as you chisel out.


----------



## ED65

Jacob":2vbdn8nt said:


> Actually is traditional as well as logical.


No Jacob, it's not traditional. I'm fairly confident I've read more period woodworking books than you — including many from before even you went to school — and I can assure you that the back of the blade was _nearly universally _the flat side, as typified by the sentence "flip the iron FLAT on its back and draw it lightly over the stone to remove the burr".

As for being logical, obviously a case can be made for it being sensible for plane irons to call the upper surface when in the plane the face. I don't think it makes any sense with chisels where that side would face downwards a lot of the time. But this is neither here nor there.


----------



## custard

ED65":1xq47hqn said:


> I'm fairly confident I've read more period woodworking books than you



This forum is getting madder, it's turning into a woodworking version of Royston Vasey.


----------



## MarkDennehy

After spending the bulk of today prepping stock by hand, I'll take the laughs  
BTW, in case you're interested, frame saw vs scrub plane isn't even a contest if you're thicknessing poplar down by a quarter inch. 

Why the hell hasn't any shed guru put _that_ in a woodworking video, that's what I want to know...


(I will say though that they're right about frame saws - compared to resawing with a ryoba or a western handsaw it's a lot easier).


----------



## bugbear

custard":2lp6hnym said:


> ED65":2lp6hnym said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly confident I've read more period woodworking books than you
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is getting madder, it's turning into a woodworking version of Royston Vasey.
Click to expand...


If people are making assertions about the practises of 100 years ago, it would be (ahem) optimistic looking for forumites with first hand experience!

BugBear


----------



## D_W

MarkDennehy":1cd2c970 said:


> After spending the bulk of today prepping stock by hand, I'll take the laughs
> BTW, in case you're interested, frame saw vs scrub plane isn't even a contest if you're thicknessing poplar down by a quarter inch.
> 
> Why the hell hasn't any shed guru put _that_ in a woodworking video, that's what I want to know...
> 
> 
> (I will say though that they're right about frame saws - compared to resawing with a ryoba or a western handsaw it's a lot easier).



How big of a piece of poplar are we talking about? A quarter is somewhere around the tipping point for where I'd get a saw out instead of doing all of the work by plane. 

I can tell you from experience, the videos with bits about stock reduction don't garner much other than peanut gallery viewing. And the gurus don't do much hand dimensioning. It's painfully obvious when paul sellers does a video about squaring a piece of stock that he uses machines to do it.


----------



## Sgian Dubh

custard":23ezakb4 said:


> This forum is getting madder, it's turning into a woodworking version of Royston Vasey.


custard, all the threads on things like sharpening, plane use, and now the correct terminology for the flat and bevelled sides of plane irons and chisels turn into surreal versions of The League of Gentlemen. Royston Vasey seems quite sane compared. There's a good reason why I seldom have much to say in threads such as this - I basically can't be bothered with all the pointless circular bickering and point scoring. It's much more fun to watch slow train wrecks of this type as they develop ever more fractiously to the point where the thread becomes locked, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## D_W

From this point on, when we refer to the back of anything, we can use the term "Jacob's face". Maybe that will allay any confusion. 

Perhaps a picture is helpful. 

https://nl.dreamstime.com/stock-foto-wi ... ge14820840

In terms of actually solving the communication problem regarding chisel orientation and technique for mortises, I think all hope is lost.


----------



## MarkDennehy

D_W":1dca8rbd said:


> How big of a piece of poplar are we talking about? A quarter is somewhere around the tipping point for where I'd get a saw out instead of doing all of the work by plane.


Small. two 6x17 boards and three 5x15 boards. It's just for a wall cabinet build. I'm just old and slow  



> I can tell you from experience, the videos with bits about stock reduction don't garner much other than peanut gallery viewing. And the gurus don't do much hand dimensioning. It's painfully obvious when paul sellers does a video about squaring a piece of stock that he uses machines to do it.


Honestly, if I could find a lunchbox thicknesser with an induction motor, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
Thicknessing is a job I just cannot stand doing. 
Hell, if I could get a bandsaw that would fit in the shed and resaw boards nine inches wide or so, I'd do that too (unfortunately I am utterly out of floor space now)
I mean, you know how they did this in the 17th century in the heyday of hand tool work, right? 
They didn't. 
They cheated like a mother-pineapple.
They bought in stock in the thicknesses they wanted from the mill and they didn't resaw by hand, according to _The jointer and cabinetmaker_. They just got on with making furniture they could sell. Can't blame them either, I mean I can see the value in flattening a board by hand because a #5 and a #8 are cheaper than a 14" jointer; but thicknessing? Thicknessing can go jump in the sea.


----------



## Jacob

Tasky":7gwqt9hf said:


> ......
> So the old ways are the only ways and there's only ever one way to skin a cat, yes?
> 
> ......
> Or should I now be chopping every motice on my fine, delicate woodwork witha hoofing great mortise chisel a-la the Mister Ford method?.......


Do what you like - I use a morticing machine myself.
But if you want to know how to use a trad mortice chisel then it could be useful to refer back to the days when the tradition was strong.



NickN":7gwqt9hf said:


> Of course, we could also have a back face... :lol:


Does he have a front face as well?
As I say - there is some confusion! I'll stick to flat = face, bevel = back.

What's he supposed to be showing anyway? I guess it'd make a tiny bit of sense if he was cutting a bridle joint - but you'd do that with a saw not a chisel. Another would-be guru trotting out some old cobblers? :lol:


----------



## MikeG.

custard":3p3v45bb said:


> ........I'll put up with a lot, but being called Jacob is just going too far!



:lol:  

Oops! I was in a rush. I wasn't thinking. I shall flagellate myself within an inch of my life, and swear never to do it again. I think the youth of today have an expression about a brain-fart, but of course, I'd never use that.


----------



## Jacob

MikeG.":3k3n34f3 said:


> custard":3k3n34f3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ........I'll put up with a lot, but being called Jacob is just going too far!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol:
> 
> Oops! I was in a rush. I wasn't thinking. I shall flagellate myself within an inch of my life, and swear never to do it again. I think the youth of today have an expression about a brain-fart, but of course, I'd never use that.
Click to expand...

Whatever else you do - just don't call me custard! :lol:


----------



## MarkDennehy

Jacob":13qz10kz said:


> would-be amateur woodwork gurus in sheds with video cameras





Jacob":13qz10kz said:


> Another would-be guru trotting out some old cobblers? :lol:



I know it's funny, but in all seriousness Jacob, do you not get that one day (hopefully far removed from today), you're going to die?

No, hear me out. Custard, a few others of you out there, this applies to you too. 

You're going to die. We all are, it's the lot of mortal man, etc, etc. 
Which means all that knowledge you won the hard way is going to be lost. 
And all we'll be left with may well be amateurs in sheds with video cameras. 

Thing is, this youtube lark ain't hard. Most phones these days can do it. Or tablets - big clive has all his electronics videos done on an ipad for years. _And the knowledge he won the hard way won't be lost_. 

So unless you're in the middle of writing a book ... maybe you should do a video or two. Show amateurs how a professional does this stuff. Sure, not a Frank Klauz level of production with all the fancy lighting and stuff, but honestly, for people who are looking to _actually learn_ as opposed to being entertained, that stuff doesn't matter quite so much. Watching a few decade-old videos of Peter Follansbee carving oak with cruddy lighting and grainy footage taught me a damn sight more than any of the more flash "youtube personalities" (and yes, there are many, even I can predict what a few of them will have in next week's video based on what Richard Maguire or Paul Sellers released this week in their pay-to-view video sections). 

So seriously, pick the thing you think you know better than anyone else and film it for three minutes and see how easy it is to do. And save some of that knowledge from being lost.


----------



## ED65

bugbear":2joj0bhd said:


> custard":2joj0bhd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ED65":2joj0bhd said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fairly confident I've read more period woodworking books than you
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is getting madder, it's turning into a woodworking version of Royston Vasey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people are making assertions about the practises of 100 years ago, it would be (ahem) optimistic looking for forumites with first hand experience!
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...

Thanks for quoting that, wouldn't have seen it otherwise. Don't get the reference, but it's not like I care at this point.


----------



## G S Haydon

NickN":6hrih3ip said:


> Of course, we could also have a back face... :lol:



Very illustrative. When letting in ironmongery I work with the bevel down with the chisel set at about 45 degrees and then lightly chop. I only work vertically when squaring up the ends. It is much harder to strike a chisel through when faced vertically. When working on a door lining or frame, striking a chisel at 90 degrees to a surface will often create bounce back where the frame or lining is not perfectly mounted. Lower it to roughly 45 and it's much easier going.

Similar point with the morticing. Some cuts need to be done with the chisel not riding the bevel, but ideally when there is relief and only when needed.

Books and "gurus" can be very useful ways of finding this stuff out, but with so much variation it is best to make some joints and find out the benefits of the different methods.

And on chisel types, "heavy duty" bevel edge chisels work fine, but that kind of clarity is unlikely to earn you magical guru status :lol:


----------



## Jacob

MarkDennehy":c254hfv9 said:


> .....
> I know it's funny, but in all seriousness Jacob, do you not get that one day (hopefully far removed from today), you're going to die?.......


Not me squire. My wife has cupboards full of remedies!!


----------



## bugbear

G S Haydon":1msg6s41 said:


> Very illustrative. When letting in ironmongery I work with the bevel down with the chisel set at about 45 degrees and then lightly chop. I only work vertically when squaring up the ends. It is much harder to strike a chisel through when faced vertically. When working on a door lining or frame, striking a chisel at 90 degrees to a surface will often create bounce back where the frame or lining is not perfectly mounted. Lower it to roughly 45 and it's much easier going.
> 
> Similar point with the morticing. Some cuts need to be done with the chisel not riding the bevel, but ideally when there is relief and only when needed.


I found a similar thing when chopping out a recess in the case for mounting a sharpening stone - 45 degree cuts were very much easier than vertical. In practise I very soon discovered the "right" spacing to the chips were (just...) self freeing.

BugBear


----------



## nabs

I'm surprised there has not been more comment on MarkDennehy's important post. First of all it turns out we are all going to die and then - to cap it all - our only consolation seems to be the prospect of Jacob doing a youtube of himself energetically cutting a mortice.

And he hasn't even promised to do the video yet. 

Happy Christmas one and all!


----------



## woodbrains

Jacob":2gtgm6bv said:


> MarkDennehy":2gtgm6bv said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> I know it's funny, but in all seriousness Jacob, do you not get that one day (hopefully far removed from today), you're going to die?.......
> 
> 
> 
> Not me squire. My wife has cupboards full of remedies!!
Click to expand...


Hello,

Are you sure they are 'remedies', Jacob? :? 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob

NB the vertical morticing cut is only for morticing on a solid bench, "over the leg" as they all say, to minimise bounce. Or on a saw horse with you sitting astride it. 
Another of its advantages of course is that it doesn't need clamping or working against stops - all the force is perpendicular to the bench. Vices or clamps leave marks if you use a lot of force. Having the workpiece sitting flat on the bench but without restraints, avoids this.
Don't worry about it if you don't get it - just have a go next time you use a trad mortice chisel. You may just see the point. :lol:
There is a purpose made morticing stool in Ellis - you do it between your thighs - if you tilted the chisel you'd risk a very nasty cut! :shock:


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":72x4zhgj said:


> There is a purpose made morticing stool in Ellis


Oh, well found! That's very interesting.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob

Morticing stool - scroll down. Note vertical chisel hold and BFO mallet!!

http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/blog/478


----------



## ED65

G S Haydon":2h89a5hm said:


> Books and "gurus" can be very useful ways of finding this stuff out, but with so much variation it is best to make some joints and find out the benefits of the different methods.


+1 And then pick the method you _like _the most. A few things are like hand-cut dovetails, with the entrenched pins-first or tails-first camps both clearly achieving good results in a timely manner. Since there isn't a clear winner in terms of results or efficiency the route that makes the most sense or 'feels right' to each person is the method you should go with.


----------



## Jacob

ED65":3pwbgms1 said:


> ....A few things are like hand-cut dovetails, with the entrenched pins-first or tails-first camps both clearly achieving good results in a timely manner. Since there isn't a clear winner in terms of results or efficiency the route that makes the most sense or 'feels right' to each person is the method you should go with.


There is a clear winner on the DT front if you look at old work; it was (almost) always pinholes (tails) first. 
This is because it's much quicker to clamp two drawer sides together and cut the pinholes in one (usually freehand) but then the pins would be marked and cut separately. If you pull and old drawer apart you can almost always match the two sides and their pin holes. Lots of variations of course, but it's about the only way to speeding the process up - cutting two sets of pin holes as one op.


----------



## ED65

Jacob":1ph6e1vk said:


> There is a clear winner on the DT front if you look at old work; it was always pinholes (tails) first.


I didn't intend to ignite the pins-first v. tails-first debate so all I'm going to say to that is Frank Klausz advocated pins first. Ditto Tage Frid.


----------



## D_W

Jacob":nvpwck7c said:


> Morticing stool - scroll down. Note vertical chisel hold and BFO mallet!!
> 
> http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/blog/478



Presumably you watched the video of the Chinese master chopping a mortise? He does build stuff, lots, but it appears that he has learned that opening a school and teaching is more lucrative. 

I posted a series of videos from the same fellow a year or two ago and several folks thought it was quaint that he was sitting on a stool and clamping his work by sitting on it. Of course, there's nothing quaint about it. I'm not surprised to see that there was such a thing in old plates. 

I don't think a contest in hand work productivity between him and any of the current teaching gurus would last very long.


----------



## MarkDennehy

nabs":17a6z5td said:


> I'm surprised there has not been more comment on MarkDennehy's important post. First of all it turns out we are all going to die and then - to cap it all - our only consolation seems to be the prospect of Jacob doing a youtube of himself energetically cutting a mortice.


_And_ Custard...


----------



## Jacob

ED65":rahnpoim said:


> Jacob":rahnpoim said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a clear winner on the DT front if you look at old work; it was always pinholes (tails) first.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't intend to ignite the pins-first v. tails-first debate so all I'm going to say to that is Frank Klausz advocated pins first. Ditto Tage Frid.
Click to expand...

So what? 
You shouldn't believe everything you read in books!
If you want to know more about woodwork the very best source of information is woodwork itself. How stuff was actually done by people hard at it, is often a very different world from that of the text book and other media


----------



## Jacob

D_W":2qa3l9qq said:


> Jacob":2qa3l9qq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morticing stool - scroll down. Note vertical chisel hold and BFO mallet!!
> 
> http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/blog/478
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably you watched the video of the Chinese master chopping a mortise? He does build stuff, lots, but it appears that he has learned that opening a school and teaching is more lucrative.
> 
> I posted a series of videos from the same fellow a year or two ago and several folks thought it was quaint that he was sitting on a stool and clamping his work by sitting on it. Of course, there's nothing quaint about it. I'm not surprised to see that there was such a thing in old plates.
> 
> I don't think a contest in hand work productivity between him and any of the current teaching gurus would last very long.
Click to expand...

No I hadn't seen it. 
But I had seen the stool in Ellis and had been shown (by MR FORD :lol: ) how to do it on a saw stool.


----------



## woodbrains

ED65":3e7ft579 said:


> Jacob":3e7ft579 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a clear winner on the DT front if you look at old work; it was always pinholes (tails) first.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't intend to ignite the pins-first v. tails-first debate so all I'm going to say to that is Frank Klausz advocated pins first. Ditto Tage Frid.
Click to expand...


Hello,

It seems to be common to do pins first by European makers. Krenov did pins first, too, taught to him by his teacher, Carl Malmsten. The Swedish cappelagarden continue to teach this way and I'm sure they are not alone. I believe Christian Becsvoort was also taught this way by his German father, but he writes that in a rebellious phase, he started doing them tails first and continued to do so. I suspect if you look at European furniture, then evidence for tails first would be hard to find. It is perfectly possible to do dovetails efficiently either way, as you can chop a mortice with the chisel facing either way. It makes not a jot of difference when you are practiced enough.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob

woodbrains":2x2kjapf said:


> ...... I suspect if you look at European furniture, then evidence for tails first would be hard to find. ....


Well you would suspect wrongly. As it happens I have repaired (and scrapped) quite a lot of old furniture and other joinery. I've always looked closely at everything - you never get the chance otherwise! 
DT drawer sides almost always done in pairs, freehand, pinholes first. If they were done second then there'd be no chance they would match so closely. I know this - it's not just a suspicion. Could be luck of the draw (er) I suppose and done everywhere else quite differently.
It's pretty obvious really - how else could you speed up the process so easily?


----------



## ED65

Jacob":e4v7ixff said:


> ED65":e4v7ixff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":e4v7ixff said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a clear winner on the DT front if you look at old work; it was always pinholes (tails) first.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't intend to ignite the pins-first v. tails-first debate so all I'm going to say to that is Frank Klausz advocated pins first. Ditto Tage Frid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?
> You shouldn't believe everything you read in books!
Click to expand...

And on the flip side, you shouldn't believe nothing you read in books!



Jacob":e4v7ixff said:


> If you want to know more about woodwork the very best source of information is woodwork itself.


This was precisely my point in the post that started this latest derailment of yours! Well missed.



Jacob":e4v7ixff said:


> How stuff was actually done by people hard at it, is often a very different world from that of the text book and other media


First, did you just sorta imply that Klausz and Frid weren't hard at it? Nah, you couldn't have.

Moving swiftly on, a much more important point. You're broadly _assuming_ here that books or other texts don't accurately describe what is being done by people hard at it. Regardless of who is doing the writing that's a patently false assumption. 

The simple fact is that many a book, article and web page IS written by somebody who is either in the middle of being hard at it professionally or is at the end of a lifetime of being hard at it. So you can't just sweep aside what they say just because it inconveniently disagrees with your views.

End of.


----------



## woodbrains

Jacob":n2dzw3os said:


> woodbrains":n2dzw3os said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... I suspect if you look at European furniture, then evidence for tails first would be hard to find. ....
> 
> 
> 
> Well you would suspect wrongly. As it happens I have repaired (and scrapped) quite a lot of old furniture and other joinery. I've always looked closely at everything - you never get the chance otherwise!
> DT drawer sides almost always done in pairs, freehand, pinholes first. If they were done second then there'd be no chance they would match so closely. I know this - it's not just a suspicion. Could be luck of the draw (er) I suppose and done everywhere else quite differently.
> It's pretty obvious really - how else could you speed up the process so easily?
Click to expand...


Hello,

Which bit of European are you misunderstanding, you know full well I'm excepting British stuff?

Tage Frid was an extremely hard worker, who made no concessions to faffing about. It is well noted by his students. 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob

woodbrains":1wusqin1 said:


> Jacob":1wusqin1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> woodbrains":1wusqin1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...... I suspect if you look at European furniture, then evidence for tails first would be hard to find. ....
> 
> 
> 
> Well you would suspect wrongly. As it happens I have repaired (and scrapped) quite a lot of old furniture and other joinery. I've always looked closely at everything - you never get the chance otherwise!
> DT drawer sides almost always done in pairs, freehand, pinholes first. If they were done second then there'd be no chance they would match so closely. I know this - it's not just a suspicion. Could be luck of the draw (er) I suppose and done everywhere else quite differently.
> It's pretty obvious really - how else could you speed up the process so easily?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Which bit of European are you misunderstanding, you know full well I'm excepting British stuff?
Click to expand...

Oh I thought we were Europeans too!


> Tage Frid was an extremely hard worker, who made no concessions to faffing about. It is well noted by his students.
> 
> Mike.


I'm more interested in Mr Anon who made the bulk of stuff around us. 
I don't have this fixation on gurus, least of all Krenov :roll: . I've got a Tage Frid book but can't say it made any particular impression - just more of the same old stuff.


----------



## John15

This thread has wandered too far from my original post so I suggest the Mods shut it down. Many thanks to those who gave helpful comments to my question.

John


----------



## G S Haydon

D_W":2zqqqt6i said:


> Jacob":2zqqqt6i said:
> 
> 
> 
> Morticing stool - scroll down. Note vertical chisel hold and BFO mallet!!
> 
> http://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/store/blog/478
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably you watched the video of the Chinese master chopping a mortise? He does build stuff, lots, but it appears that he has learned that opening a school and teaching is more lucrative.
> 
> I posted a series of videos from the same fellow a year or two ago and several folks thought it was quaint that he was sitting on a stool and clamping his work by sitting on it. Of course, there's nothing quaint about it. I'm not surprised to see that there was such a thing in old plates.
> 
> I don't think a contest in hand work productivity between him and any of the current teaching gurus would last very long.
Click to expand...


A sawing horse or stool is very helpful. Cutting any wood larger than 4" x 1" is easier, morticing larger items is a good example too. A great deal of woodworking projects have components that can be large and or wide and heavy and worked more easily on a sawhorse. If you have a pair of sawhorses and an old fire door or planks you can have a nice set up for lots of tasks.


----------



## MikeG.

I never use a handsaw at the bench. I always use a saw horse (and my knee as a hold-down). To see Paul Sellers ripping stuff in his vice just seems wrong to me.


----------



## bugbear

G S Haydon":2i4wfkbo said:


> A sawing horse or stool is very helpful. Cutting any wood larger than 4" x 1" is easier, morticing larger items is a good example too. A great deal of woodworking projects have components that can be large and or wide and heavy and worked more easily on a sawhorse. If you have a pair of sawhorses and an old fire door or planks you can have a nice set up for lots of tasks.


Interestingly, there's pretty much no such thing as a Japanese "workbench". It's all trestles (AKA sawhorses) and planing beams.

BugBear


----------



## Peter Sefton

MikeG.":7wp4nz8u said:


> I never use a handsaw at the bench. I always use a saw horse (and my knee as a hold-down). To see Paul Sellers ripping stuff in his vice just seems wrong to me.



Easier to cut on a saw horse, easier to film in a vice :wink: 

Just my thoughts, Peter


----------



## Phil Pascoe

John15":2jksb54e said:


> This thread has wandered too far from my original post so I suggest the Mods shut it down. Many thanks to those who gave helpful comments to my question.
> John



Don't fret. Sometimes more information and help comes from off tack threads than on tack ones.


----------



## MarkDennehy

Nothing wrong with fretting, it's a nice quiet fast way to get most of the waste out of the dovetails...

/legs it


----------



## Jacob

Is this turning into a fret-sawing thread? :roll:


----------



## bugbear

MarkDennehy":1f9gmx3b said:


> Nothing wrong with fretting, it's a nice quiet fast way to get most of the waste out of the dovetails...
> 
> /legs it


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI

BugBear


----------



## Jacob

MarkDennehy":2huwf2vq said:


> Nothing wrong with fretting, it's a nice quiet fast way to get most of the waste out of the dovetails...
> 
> /legs it


Cutting pin holes I find it quicker and easier to do three saw cuts instead of two. The first one is down the middle, the next two the angled sides. It's very quick and you don't have to change tools. Then the waste is easy to remove and the hole cleaned up with a small chisel. No need for a fret saw.
I guess this is how it would have been done in the good old days as it's easier and quicker, but I've never seen any evidence such as accidental over-cuts. 
The trouble with waste is that it's never left lying around as evidence!


----------



## woodbrains

Jacob":3g9879ni said:


> I guess this is how it would have been done in the good old days as it's easier and quicker, but I've never seen any evidence such as accidental over-cuts.
> The trouble with waste is that it's never left lying around as evidence!



Hello,

This is precisely why those experts who have been doing it for decades, write books so we all know what gets done. It saves guessing, speculation and just making stuff up, which seems to be your predilection. Of course not having all the clues doesn't seem to bother you ; it has the advantage of never revealing speculated nonsense along with any overcuts in the waste.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob

woodbrains":3488vh35 said:


> Jacob":3488vh35 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this is how it would have been done in the good old days as it's easier and quicker, but I've never seen any evidence such as accidental over-cuts.
> The trouble with waste is that it's never left lying around as evidence!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> This is precisely why those experts who have been doing it for decades, write books so we all know what gets done. It saves guessing, speculation and just making stuff up, which seems to be your predilection. Of course not having all the clues doesn't seem to bother you ; it has the advantage of never revealing speculated nonsense along with any overcuts in the waste.
> 
> Mike.
Click to expand...

In the old days they wouldn't have had the latest books by the latest trendy guru. In fact they mostly wouldn't have been able to read! 
But they would have got good at doing things efficiently and they wouldn't have fiddled about amateurishly with fret saws.
For wider (2 kerf) pinholes you can make the first cut of the 3 on the angle. This means one piece of the waste is a parallelogram and pops out easily. The other triangular piece pops out easily into the hole left.
I'm sure I'm not the only person to have found an easier way to do DTs than using a coping or fret saw! The trouble with the books is that once something gets written up, if it's half credible it becomes gospel e.g. the 1/6 or 1/8 gradients for DTs - unknown in the past but slavishly obeyed by the modern amateur.


----------



## MarkDennehy

> they wouldn't have fiddled about amateurishly with fret saws


See, if you'd just make a few videos, less amateurs would be doing that. The saw cut down the middle of the pinhole is faster, simpler and cheaper 'cos you just need to buy one saw, they'd do that instead. 
But since they've never heard of that method (and I don't see it in Hayward btw, I've just checked my copy of _The Hayward Years_ and there's not a single mention of it - it's always chisels or a bow saw or a coping saw)...


----------



## woodbrains

Hello,

There is nothing amateurish about removing the waste with a fretsaw, or similar. For one, Robert Ingham does it; if anyone contends that he is amateurish, probably the most prolific teacher of the finest furniture craftsmen in this country, then that person would be a fool.

Incidentally, Krenov used the 3 cut method of sawing dovetails, as do I. There are many ways to skin a cat. If none of it were written in books, his would we find out. This sort of detail is impossible to find out by examining existing work.

Mike.


----------



## AndyT

Jacob, you're not the only one to have thought about how to remove the waste from a skinny dovetail socket. 
Joel Moskowitz is a thoughtful woodworker, interested in the history of hand tool woodworking and keen to rediscover efficient ways of working. 

Here's a blog post, from July this year, in which he thinks about how things could have been done before coping saws and fretsaws were common, and comes up with the same sensible idea, which - he notes - he has not seen described in any book. 

https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/sto ... ng%20Waste


----------



## Jacob

woodbrains":2w7otvw4 said:


> Hello,
> 
> There is nothing amateurish about removing the waste with a fretsaw, or similar.


Fiddly slow and inconvenient


> For one, Robert Ingham does it; if anyone contends that he is amateurish, probably the most prolific teacher of the finest furniture craftsmen in this country, then that person would be a fool.


He does it because he knows no better. I don't have this cringing admiration for these gurus


> Incidentally, Krenov used the 3 cut method of sawing dovetails, as do I. There are many ways to skin a cat. If none of it were written in books, his would we find out. This sort of detail is impossible to find out by examining existing work.
> 
> Mike.


I see you have got the idea Mike! Well done! Where does Krenov say this - he's not noted for efficiency as a rule?


----------



## Jacob

AndyT":1voogsh9 said:


> Jacob, you're not the only one to have thought about how to remove the waste from a skinny dovetail socket.
> Joel Moskowitz is a thoughtful woodworker, interested in the history of hand tool woodworking and keen to rediscover efficient ways of working.
> 
> Here's a blog post, from July this year, in which he thinks about how things could have been done before coping saws and fretsaws were common, and comes up with the same sensible idea, which - he notes - he has not seen described in any book.
> 
> https://www.toolsforworkingwood.com/sto ... ng%20Waste


It's fairly obvious - millions must do it the same way. 
Woodbrains says Krenov describes it in a book but I doubt this very much! :lol:

PS Moskowitz misses that finest dovetail were single kerf - one vertical cut to start followed by the two angled cuts in the same kerf.


----------



## woodbrains

Hello,

Krenov told me about it in person. 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob

woodbrains":1spjz4af said:


> Hello,
> 
> Krenov told me about it in person.
> 
> Mike.


So it's me and Krenov telling you how to do things! :lol:


----------



## custard

Knocking out the waste on the tail board isn't that big a deal, if you use a fret saw or a chisel, so what, it's just seconds either way.

However, knocking out the waste on a half lap drawer front is minutes rather than seconds, that's what takes the majority of the time. When I've seen the job done in professional workshops the favourite technique is to hog the majority of the waste out with a trim router, and then finish with just a few paring cuts. The craftsmen concerned will always say they do it because it's faster, but I'm not entirely convinced. Even if you're doing six or eight drawer fronts at one go you've still got to find the correct bit and set up the router, you've probably lost at least fifteen minutes right there. I've always harboured a suspicion that there's actually another motive for using a trim router.

There's a line in a Hemingway novel where a character points to some tough looking Alpine chamois hunters in a bar and says they wear gold earrings to help their hearing during the hunt. His wife says no, they actually wear gold earrings to show everyone in bars that they're tough chamois hunters!

I half suspect using a trim router to clear out the pin board waste is a bit like that, you use a trim router to show your fellow craftsmen that you've got balls of steel, and are confident enough with a trim router that you'll put many hours of work at risk by using one. 

Consequently in a shared workshop I generally clear pin board waste with trim router, but in my own workshop I take the wussy path and chop them out with a chisel!


----------



## Peter Sefton

I usually chop the waste out of lapped dovetail sockets on drawer fronts but I have setup the students on a fast pillar drill with a router cutter. Best to set up a fence and end stops to stop any movement and use the drill to plunge the waste out.

Cheers Peter


----------



## woodbrains

Peter Sefton":21yiw6r0 said:


> I usually chop the waste out of lapped dovetail sockets on drawer fronts but I have setup the students on a fast pillar drill with a router cutter. Best to set up a fence and end stops to stop any movement and use the drill to plunge the waste out.
> 
> Cheers Peter



Hello,

What a great idea, I must try that. =D> 

Mike.


----------



## AndyT

Lurching back onto mortising for a moment... 

In the Starship Enterprise plane thread I posted a link to the wonderful Swedish archive films of clog, spoon and chair making. I'd forgotten that the chair sequence includes some lovely shots of a rural craftsman, sitting on the work on a low bench, legs safely out of the way, very quickly cutting a mortice with a robust chisel and mallet. Maybe a bit more chisel wiggling than some would like, but it gets the job done.

https://youtu.be/wGDkliy1DEU?t=10m32s


----------



## Jacob

AndyT":1yz59oif said:


> Lurching back onto mortising for a moment...
> 
> In the Starship Enterprise plane thread I posted a link to the wonderful Swedish archive films of clog, spoon and chair making. I'd forgotten that the chair sequence includes some lovely shots of a rural craftsman, sitting on the work on a low bench, legs safely out of the way, very quickly cutting a mortice with a robust chisel and mallet. Maybe a bit more chisel wiggling than some would like, but it gets the job done.
> 
> https://youtu.be/wGDkliy1DEU?t=10m32s


Thats a reasonable amount of wiggling if you are doing a blind mortice!
Benches/stools are really handy - sit astride one for peeling yer brussel sprouts, kneading bread in a bowl and 1000 other tasks.
(starting a brussel sprouts thread here - well it's nearly christmas!)


----------



## MarkDennehy

Jacob":mxbfdeq0 said:


> It's fairly obvious - millions must do it the same way.


The thing about "fairly obvious" is that it's usually only "fairly obvious" to people who know what to do and to everyone else who's trying to learn, well, what's obvious is rarely right...


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jacob":35anu4j9 said:


> AndyT":35anu4j9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lurching back onto mortising for a moment...
> 
> In the Starship Enterprise plane thread I posted a link to the wonderful Swedish archive films of clog, spoon and chair making. I'd forgotten that the chair sequence includes some lovely shots of a rural craftsman, sitting on the work on a low bench, legs safely out of the way, very quickly cutting a mortice with a robust chisel and mallet. Maybe a bit more chisel wiggling than some would like, but it gets the job done.
> 
> https://youtu.be/wGDkliy1DEU?t=10m32s
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a reasonable amount of wiggling if you are doing a blind mortice!
> Benches/stools are really handy - sit astride one for peeling yer brussel sprouts, kneading bread in a bowl and 1000 other tasks.
> (starting a brussel sprouts thread here - well it's nearly christmas!)
Click to expand...


Jacob - don't start that thread! NOBODY needs to cut mortices in brussels sprouts. Not even at Christmas.

Look chaps, this thread has wandered hither and yon since the original question, but so far, nobody has mentioned tenons! If you're going to chop a mortice, you'll need something to stuff in the hole, as it were. So - shoulders first or cheeks first?


----------



## MikeG.

Cheshirechappie":1dslyg87 said:


> ......Look chaps, this thread has wandered hither and yon since the original question, but so far, nobody has mentioned tenons!......



Erm......



MikeG.":1dslyg87 said:


> ....... For every mortise there is a tenon, and it was these I looked forward to less. Cutting the shoulders with the saw is a doddle, once you get to understanding how to work without a reference face or edge for the setting out. Chopping away the 4 faces is a piece of cake with reasonable grain, but there's a reason that the piece of oak you are working with is "green". It's because the sawmill graded it as not good enough for its 3 grades of joinery oak, and therefore the grain is unlikely to be uniform and straight. This leads to much more work chopping away the waste around a tenon, and even, sometimes, sawing it away. Now that really is a pain!



Shoulders first for me.


----------



## Jacob

Cheeks first whilst all still square, then haunches, then mouldings/rebates, then shoulders last.


----------



## John15

Cheeks


----------



## MarkDennehy

I usually put the cheeks into the mortice first. I've tried putting the shoulders into the mortice first but they never seem to fit. 



I'll just get my coat....


----------



## NickN

So is the face cheek the long side and the edge cheek the short side of the actual tenon, with the face and edge shoulders being the parts of the full size rail which end up surrounding the mortise when the joint is assembled? As per:







From comments above I'm guessing it's something different?

As I'm about to cut my first tenon I'd like to get the terminology correct #-o


----------



## MikeG.

Those advocating cheek-first are cutting rather than chiseling tenon cheeks. It is impossible to do it that way around _with a chisel_. This is one situation where framing will vary from joinery (ie where the process doesn't just scale up), because you can't take a lump of 6x6 to a bandsaw. Nonetheless, I do it shoulder's first when furniture making. Frankly, I doubt order is very important unless there is a moulding involved. If you have shoulders all round, then it doesn't really matter if you cut any (or all) of them too deep. However, it matters enormously if you cut the cheeks too deep, so I prefer having a cut to stop to when cutting the cheeks, which is why I personally cut the shoulders first.


----------



## Sgian Dubh

NickN":2n98nisk said:


>


The drawing is labelled incorrectly. The stock width (SW) and stock thickness (ST) have been switched for some unknown reason, and yet on the tenoned member the stock width is labelled correctly, i.e., RW. 

The shoulder at the top of the rail doesn't visually correspond with the distance between the top end of the mortice and the cut-off point indicated by the grey line where the horn is to be removed after joint assembly.

All in all, not the best drawing and guidance for setting out a mortice and tenon I've ever seen. Slainte.


----------



## AndyT

I don't think "stock" is right either. If the horizontal part is (correctly) labelled as a rail, its vertical counterpart would normally be referred to as a stile.


----------



## Jacob

Doesn't show face and edge marks either - even if the M&T are central they are still referenced from face and edge. 
And cheek "face" is a new one! Cheeky face!
This was probably a woodworker not sure what he was about, having his drawing drawn and annotated by someone who knew even less, printed by someone who knew absolutely nothing.
It does happen - my wife edited craft books, including contributions to some well known ones (Collins etc) and she knows FA about woodwork. She'd be reliant on getting information from reliable (?) sources and getting it checked - but she'd never know for sure. This was before she met me! :lol: 
Talking of misinformation - the fret/coping saw DT waste removal idea, should be scrubbed from the record, along with the 1/6, 1/8 gradient.


----------



## StraightOffTheArk

Came across this advert in the 1959 volume of The Woodworker which specifically mentions the face - although it also still feels it necessary to clarify what they meant, for those, presumably, who didn't have the benefit of Mr Ford's experience.


----------



## MarkDennehy

Jacob":242pakln said:


> Talking of misinformation - the fret/coping saw DT waste removal idea, should be scrubbed from the record, along with the 1/6, 1/8 gradient.


But but but _HAYWOOD_ man!


----------



## Jacob

MarkDennehy":1lmdrkie said:


> Jacob":1lmdrkie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking of misinformation - the fret/coping saw DT waste removal idea, should be scrubbed from the record, along with the 1/6, 1/8 gradient.
> 
> 
> 
> But but but _HAYWOOD_ man!
Click to expand...

Well yes it's OK for beginners but it's so much quicker with an extra saw cut or two and a chisel. You have to clean up with a chisel anyway, so it's one tool less. Speed IS important - it gives you more time to spend on things which matter more.
Similarly the familiar 25/30º grind/hone advice is excellent for beginners but with experience and confidence you'd move away from this - most likely to a freehand convex bevel - the edge still about 30º. And so on.
Happy Christmas!


----------



## NickN

Despite the controversy, threads like this contain a lot of useful info, plus they're good for a laugh occasionally...  

Merry Christmas all.


----------



## Billy Flitch

Just somthing to help people to remember the different parts of the joint and where they go.
"If you put your head down a rabbit hole your cheeks will touch the sides but your shoulders will stop you falling in"

When I set the gauge for mortice and tenons I always stick a piece of masking tape on the gauge and that says to me this gauge is set do not move it. Any gauge that is set like that stays set till the job is finished. I actually have about 10 gauges.

As for the use of a coping saw to cut out the waist on a dove tail as a very young apprentice I had to chop mine out but the men never did they would use a coping saw and then parr to the base line. Like most things in life there is not just one way of doing a thing but several and they are all correct. Its just whats best for you and the job, not allways the same thing.


----------



## D_W

Jacob":10dqmkn4 said:


> MarkDennehy":10dqmkn4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":10dqmkn4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talking of misinformation - the fret/coping saw DT waste removal idea, should be scrubbed from the record, along with the 1/6, 1/8 gradient.
> 
> 
> 
> But but but _HAYWOOD_ man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well yes it's OK for beginners but it's so much quicker with an extra saw cut or two and a chisel. You have to clean up with a chisel anyway, so it's one tool less. Speed IS important - it gives you more time to spend on things which matter more.
> Similarly the familiar 25/30º grind/hone advice is excellent for beginners but with experience and confidence you'd move away from this - most likely to a freehand convex bevel - the edge still about 30º. And so on.
> Happy Christmas!
Click to expand...


A fast coping saw is at least as fast as what you're talking about. 

Also, grinding at one bevel and finish honing secondary is faster than grinding an entire convex bevel, unless a user has no touch or sense. It's less work, there's no way around it and also generally results in a better edge on average.


----------



## bugbear

D_W":fi2pcuig said:


> Jacob":fi2pcuig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes it's OK for beginners but it's so much quicker with an extra saw cut or two and a chisel. You have to clean up with a chisel anyway, so it's one tool less. Speed IS important - it gives you more time to spend on things which matter more.
> Similarly the familiar 25/30º grind/hone advice is excellent for beginners but with experience and confidence you'd move away from this - most likely to a freehand convex bevel - the edge still about 30º. And so on.
> Happy Christmas!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fast coping saw is at least as fast as what you're talking about.
> 
> Also, grinding at one bevel and finish honing secondary is faster than grinding an entire convex bevel, unless a user has no touch or sense. It's less work, there's no way around it and also generally results in a better edge on average.
Click to expand...

Merry Christmas, everybody!    

BugBear


----------



## Chip shop

bugbear":6gou88m1 said:


> D_W":6gou88m1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":6gou88m1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes it's OK for beginners but it's so much quicker with an extra saw cut or two and a chisel. You have to clean up with a chisel anyway, so it's one tool less. Speed IS important - it gives you more time to spend on things which matter more.
> Similarly the familiar 25/30º grind/hone advice is excellent for beginners but with experience and confidence you'd move away from this - most likely to a freehand convex bevel - the edge still about 30º. And so on.
> Happy Christmas!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A fast coping saw is at least as fast as what you're talking about.
> 
> Also, grinding at one bevel and finish honing secondary is faster than grinding an entire convex bevel, unless a user has no touch or sense. It's less work, there's no way around it and also generally results in a better edge on average.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Merry Christmas, everybody!
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...


A very merry Christmas to all.

Edit: even if you don't use a sharpening method I don't approve of


----------



## MarkDennehy

Well. 
Had to give it a go, didn't I? 






Bit of a fiddly mortice (three-sixteenths instead of a quarter-inch, but Reasons), but I found it a lot more controllable than my footprint firmers and the aldi bevel-edged ones. Plus the sharpening is fast with that convex bevel, you just don't worry too much about keeping the angle constant and away you go..


----------



## Tasky

Jacob":33sxslj9 said:


> Do what you like - I use a morticing machine myself.


Presumably Mister Ford taught you to do this, then?



Jacob":33sxslj9 said:


> But if you want to know how to use a trad mortice chisel then it could be useful to refer back to the days when the tradition was strong.


I really don't care, to be honest. 
I'm after whatever works, preferably without having to drop thousands of pounds each time on each single technique through trying different tool variants and training courses with century-old teachers who probably took many shortcuts in order to meet deadlines in their trade. I don't have any deadlines to work to, here - I am making something and it will be finished whenever it's finished. If someone advocates one thing over another simply because it's what they used back in 1728 when life expectancy was half my own current age, or because it saves me a whole 2 minutes compared to what some shed guru does just as well, then it's not of much use... and those two minutes saved are probably negated by me taking a stretch break, having a smoke (well, vape nowadays), making some tea, etc etc... 



Cheshirechappie":33sxslj9 said:


> Jacob - don't start that thread! NOBODY needs to cut mortices in brussels sprouts. Not even at Christmas.


You're clearly not a chef, then... Mortise the base of each sprout and inlay with a bacon tenon. Cook, then plate up by standing each one upright on a large drop of sprout puree.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Tasky":v1bqv7t5 said:


> Cheshirechappie":v1bqv7t5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob - don't start that thread! NOBODY needs to cut mortices in brussels sprouts. Not even at Christmas.
> 
> 
> 
> You're clearly not a chef, then... Mortise the base of each sprout and inlay with a bacon tenon. Cook, then plate up by standing each one upright on a large drop of sprout puree.
Click to expand...


Too right - I'd make an awful chef. I do cook things, though, and I know that left-over sprouts (which will be most of them, probab;y) can easily be made into delicious and nutricious sprout soup, thus negating all the work put into morticing them in the first place. The bacon tenons would improve the flavour though, to be fair.

Anybody got a mortice chisel the same thickness as a bacon rasher?


----------



## Jacob

Tasky":2n1l78wj said:


> Jacob":2n1l78wj said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do what you like - I use a morticing machine myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably Mister Ford taught you to do this, then?
Click to expand...

No it was all hand tools. 
This thread is about morticing with hand tools in case you hadn't noticed. Nobody thinks it is quicker or more efficient than using a machine.


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":3dod56dj said:


> ..
> Anybody got a mortice chisel the same thickness as a bacon rasher?


Yes I've got one at 1/8". They are not uncommon. I've seen thicker rashers of bacon!
Not sure who would have wanted to use them but I guess it could have been for those bits of 18 to early 20C apparatus like cameras, musical instruments, guns, scientific instruments, clocks etc. etc. where there is fine woodwork and metalwork together.
Church organs?


----------



## Tasky

Cheshirechappie":4utlgxys said:


> The bacon tenons would improve the flavour though, to be fair.
> Anybody got a mortice chisel the same thickness as a bacon rasher?


Sprouts should never be served without bacon, in my house - Lack of bacon is probably the main reason so many people hate them!!

But forget rashers. These are bacon tenons, cut directly from the slab. If you go for average lardon dimensions, you're only looking at ¼" anyway and I'm sure you can find a ¼" chisel... 



Jacob":4utlgxys said:


> This thread is about morticing with hand tools in case you hadn't noticed. Nobody thinks it is quicker or more efficient than using a machine.


Then why bother even mentioning the machine?


----------



## Jacob

Tasky":2yudrijn said:


> .....
> Then why bother even mentioning the machine?


Because some plonker who hadn't read the thread seemed to think I was recommending hand tool morticing instead of machine.


----------



## Tasky

Jacob":1kgmldfq said:


> Because some plonker who hadn't read the thread seemed to think I was recommending hand tool morticing instead of machine.


I'm actually more focussed the plonker who derides the insinuation of people's blind idolatry toward 'Garden Shed Gurus', with similarly blind idolatrous affirmation of scolding by some other guru whose own 'in the Trade' training would have been pretty much the same as those other 'I was in the Trade' gurus. 
It's just another version of My God's Better Than Your God..... and we all know Crom is the mightiest of all gods anyway!

Just because one person is older and was taught earlier, it does not mean they are always right or that they were taught fully, effectively or correctly, especially under apprenticeships... and I'm not just talking about woodworking, either.


----------



## D_W

Who are the "gurus" who made an actual living doing work with the tools that they're using. I don't mean like traveled to the US and set up a woodworking school 35 years ago, I mean like fed themselves and their dependents for several decades making things for customers, unsubsidized. 

I didn't go back and check Mr. Ford (didn't he have something to do with assembly line manufacturing?), but if Mr. Ford actually did work in the field before retiring to teaching, and did it for an appreciable amount of time, he probably has more credibility for *actual work* than many of the current gurus, who are more focused on getting beginners up and running.

Guaranteed the average experienced apprentice in a cabinet shop 200 years ago would have a lot more to teach us about hand methods than the average current instructor. We may find it more cryptic, less interesting, etc, but at least it would be proven. 

A friend over here traveled to sheffield a few decades ago and saw someone sitting at the door of a shop setting saws for hire. With a hammer, in rhythm (as in something like a minute or two for an entire saw from start to finish). We have saw gurus now who make saws for amateurs - are we to believe that their methods (which need to sell to beginners) will be more credible for a skilled worker?


----------



## NickN

D_W":e3srdr5e said:


> Who are the "gurus" who made an actual living doing work with the tools that they're using. I don't mean like traveled to the US and set up a woodworking school 35 years ago, I mean like fed themselves and their dependents for several decades making things for customers, unsubsidized.
> 
> I didn't go back and check Mr. Ford (didn't he have something to do with assembly line manufacturing?), but if Mr. Ford actually did work in the field before retiring to teaching, and did it for an appreciable amount of time, he probably has more credibility for *actual work* than many of the current gurus, who are more focused on getting beginners up and running.



You know as well as I do that the craftsmen and tradesmen out there who are busy feeding themselves and their dependents, unsubidised, haven't generally got time to be messing around making and editing videos for keyboard warriors on Youtube, therefore we only get to see those who have moved from making to teaching, and yes, one or two who have never been 'professionals' at making things feature too. However, if the only people eligible to teach were those aged 65+ the world would be a much poorer place as an awful lot of people reach that age and just want to chill out, cruising round the world, etc., so I for one am jolly grateful we have the vast number of free videos out there that, while perhaps not teaching the quickest and most efficient ways of woodworking, certainly teach achievable ways of doing it for the uneducated among us.


----------



## Tasky

D_W":vl1ipibz said:


> I didn't go back and check Mr. Ford (didn't he have something to do with assembly line manufacturing?), but if Mr. Ford actually did work in the field before retiring to teaching, and did it for an appreciable amount of time, he probably has more credibility for *actual work* than many of the current gurus, who are more focused on getting beginners up and running.


I'm sure he's a very creditable mortise-holer..... still doesn't mean he's any good as either a teacher or even a general learning resource, any more than a top skateboarder is for learning about physics. 
I'd not look to someone like that who has spent 45 years in the mortising industry if I want to learn about woodworking as a whole.... any more than I'd look to Joey Kramer, who has spent 47 years making a *STUNNING* amount of money playing single-stroke drum pattern rock music, if I wanna learn to play double-stroke Jazz and New Orleans drums... or Country Music drums (which is actually quite hard for most classic rock oriented drummers to play). 

My own drum teacher had, unbeknownst to me until a good few years since I began with him, credits and credibility coming out the wazoo... plus change. Almost no-one would know his name, and yet almost everyone will have heard him playing at some point, and in most countries where English is at all used. A great many 'name' drummers (Phil Collins, Neil Peart, Ringo Starr, Keith Moon, Buddy Rich) worth their salt have their own books, their own DVDs, their own Signature™ range of Vic Firth™ drumsticks and an endorsement from Zildjian, Paiste, Meinl and Sabian... but very few can actually teach, often because they've gotten so good at doing the things they do every day in their little corner of The Trade that they have very little to teach someone who is of a much lower level. By contrast, someone who has a broader range of experience is at least better placed to give that and a good teacher will do so in an open fashion that lets you find your own best/preferred approach. 

So even if Mister Ford is the absolute GOD of all things mortise, he's potentially of no use to anyone who isn't themselves an Archangel of mortise. 




D_W":vl1ipibz said:


> Guaranteed the average experienced apprentice in a cabinet shop 200 years ago would have a lot more to teach us about hand methods than the average current instructor. We may find it more cryptic, less interesting, etc, but at least it would be proven.


What's to be proven, though?
Either it works, or it doesn't... and unlike most other arguments about techniques, in this arena it's fairly cheap and easy to prove. Doesn't really matter who teaches it, who invented it, whose name is on this technique or that variant of someone else's technique, unless you're the one making money off it. 



D_W":vl1ipibz said:


> We have saw gurus now who make saws for amateurs - are we to believe that their methods (which need to sell to beginners) will be more credible for a skilled worker?


Depends on their chops (pun intended)... Some who did move to the US and start teaching 35 years ago (or 29 in some cases) already had a good couple of decades experience in the trade and indeed continued to work wood for a living, with teaching being more of a supplement. If they also happen to make kit for certain markets within the trade, I'd suspect they're at least worth a look... although I'm personally more interested in those who insist nothing fundamental has really changed in a good hundred or so years, and who show various different ways of doing things.


----------



## MarkDennehy

> 'm sure he's a very creditable mortise-holer..... still doesn't mean he's any good as either a teacher or even a general learning resource


This. "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach" is the wrongest wrong thing in the history of pithy sayings. The skillset you need to do a thing and the skillset you need to teach other people to do that thing are _wildly_ different. And if you disagree, take a peek at the Olympics. I can walk down the firing line in (say) the 50m prone rifle match and the top 100 shooters will all have the same skill level to within a fraction of a percent at most. But ten years from now, _maybe_ one of them will be a successful high-level coach, because being good at the thing doesn't make you good as a teacher (which is another reason why you don't see a sprinter's coach beating them in every race  ).


----------



## D_W

OK, to be clear. I said that someone needed to have a few decades of actual "supporting-yourself-bona-fide-work" under their belts. That doesn't mean that they need to be 65, but I'm sure Tage Frid provided fine instruction at 65.

Also, as to what matters in terms of method? Well, if you don't care what you're doing, or you're just enjoying yourself regardless, I guess it doesn't really matter. 

If you're intending to do a lot of hand work, and you want to do it in a way that's satisfying and efficient, then the quality of the content is more important than the quality of the instructor's teaching ability. Learning is a two-node process, but a lot of hobbyists want it to be one node. The two nodes are:
* your source of information (be it an instructor, a demonstration, a video, etc)
* your personal effort in absorbing, observing, understanding, retaining, discerning, etc. 

We have long since passed the point where people care more about the delivery man's hair than the message, and that's too bad. 

I agree about the naming rights, though. most of the methods attached to a name on the internet are just hogwash - retreads of something others have done long before. I doubt sellers thinks his sharpening method should be named for him, and the old japanese chisels that I've gotten in the past that have had rounded bevels (some do)....I'd imagine those guys wouldn't know how to write sellers' name in kanji, or realize that they should be crediting him for something they did and he had not yet.

If you like to look at the messenger more, then I don't think we'll agree. And that's OK. At this point in my unstoried amateur career, I'd still much rather study old objects and silent videos of professionals than listen to most of the new instruction or watch any of Paul Sellers' videos on youtube.

Eventually you'll get past lessons with your drum instructor helping you, and you'll benefit more from watching and listening to mike mangini, et al. that's not really a good comparison, anyway. Much more of music is universal technique (though there are savants who succeed ignoring some of the supposed rules), and while a lot of woodworking is technique, iteration and thought is at least as important. Perhaps more. If you pick up a set of drum sticks and put your own set together with no instruction, you might get some habits that will be hard to fix. If you pick up woodworking tools, find an object to make and do it 50 times, you'll probably find out that you settle into correct technique out of laziness (or economy if that sounds nicer). 

I don't know anything about the Mr. Ford mentioned here, and don't even agree with stabbing a chisel perpendicularly across wood when you can ride the bevel, but I'd rather watch a pro work than hear a guru say that there's only one way (R) and all others are wrong.


----------



## Tasky

D_W":2vxg9dwt said:


> OK, to be clear. I said that someone needed to have a few decades of actual "supporting-yourself-bona-fide-work" under their belts. That doesn't mean that they need to be 65, but I'm sure Tage Frid provided fine instruction at 65.


It does mean they need to be at least over 45 though. Basic maths. 
In fact, these days, with working regulations and stuff, probably well past 50... 



D_W":2vxg9dwt said:


> Also, as to what matters in terms of method? Well, if you don't care what you're doing, or you're just enjoying yourself regardless, I guess it doesn't really matter.


If it works for you, then surely it's fine?
I know what eminent teachers would all say is the 'correct' way to do a great many things in life, but my physical dimensions and limitations mean I have to do some of them differently... and in some cases I'll beat most people at it, teachers included. 



D_W":2vxg9dwt said:


> If you're intending to do a lot of hand work, and you want to do it in a way that's satisfying and efficient, then the quality of the content is more important than the quality of the instructor's teaching ability.


Disagree 100%. 
I could introduce you to a man with many decades of proven martial arts ability and teaching. He really (and I do mean *really*) knows his stuff and is one of the most highly respected teachers and authors worldwide across three very different martial systems. What he teaches has a good 3,000 combined years of proven 'quality'... and to top it off, he's highly quotable... but his teaching is *not* the best method for everyone, as he is 'stuck in the old ways' and favours certain styles of teaching. 
Indeed, he taught me to understand in just eight minutes what 15 years of study with other teachers could not. But while he could spend four hours covering a technique and you'd probably understand the theory of it completely, you might still be unable to actually replicate it, despite it being proven right there in front of your eyes over and over and over. You'd certainly come away with one hell of a history lesson and be able to rival Stephen Hawking on understanding the physics behind the techniques... but you'd be damned if you could figure out how to make your own body turn all that theory into what you've been shown is a very real technique and that translation of mental theory into practical feel is the gap a good teacher will bridge. 

By contrast one of his most senior students and now a master in his own right, as well as having his own proven history from other systems, I found to be a far better practical teacher. He understands enough different methods of teaching that it may only take a slight rephrasing of something for it to all suddenly click in a student's head. 

The first guy is an absolute master in his chosen art(s). The second is a true teacher. 
The first one could tell you all about the content, including translating Old and Middle English historical texts into modern terms, which is as 'quality' as you get... but the second is still better at helping you develop the right feel for properly controlling a 3' blade. 

So too, I've known good and bad driving and riding instructors. You can tell a student all about how a car or motorcycle works, even down to the minutiae of countersteering or brake feathering, but unless you teach them what to feel for and how to feel it, they're gonna be rubbish motorists. 

And so too can you watch every video by every woodworker on YouTube. You could even go watch the eminently professional Mister Ford working away and planing every tree on the planet... but unless he teaches you how to feel for when that plane binds, or catches a knot or needs a slight change of angle, you won't be able to do what he does and the whole thing is useless. 



D_W":2vxg9dwt said:


> * your source of information (be it an instructor, a demonstration, a video, etc)
> * your personal effort in absorbing, observing, understanding, retaining, discerning, etc.


The latter aspects should be ongoing, but will be limited by things like budget and time. The former can only be as good as their ability to deliver effectively. 



D_W":2vxg9dwt said:


> We have long since passed the point where people care more about the delivery man's hair than the message, and that's too bad.


Not in the slightest. A number of things are conducive to being a good teacher... or messenger, salesman, supervisor, or whatever. One of those is presentation. The message you deliver must be done in a fashion which will be well received. 
You're not going to instil much confidence in your message, if it's delivered by someone who looks like a clueless hobo, or is peppered by adverts for their own brand of expensive tools. Same as if you just stand-there-mono-ton-ous-ly-reading-the-words-off-the-obvious-cue-card or leaving....... long..... gaps in....... your..... Captain...... Kirk..... speech..... 

Same for writing a manual or set of instructions - I think most people here would just switch off and disregard it if it looked like it was written by a teenager texting on their phone, yes?
I'm sure there's some Lefty Liberal Guardian readership wibble about not judging people, but the fact is the human mind is prejudiced. A teacher has to break past that prejudice and assert their authority on the matter and I'm sorry, but it just doesn't happen if you look like a bag of pineapples (or grapes) dragged backwards through a hedge, or you have a set of shining *$$ $$* where your eyes should be. 



D_W":2vxg9dwt said:


> I doubt sellers thinks his sharpening method should be named for him, and the old japanese chisels that I've gotten in the past that have had rounded bevels (some do)....I'd imagine those guys wouldn't know how to write sellers' name in kanji, or realize that they should be crediting him for something they did and he had not yet.


That's one thing I do like about Sellers - He presents most of 'his' methods as things he was taught by those before him, typically citing his teachers and apprenticing mentors, rather than taking ownership of them. Even the few things he does claim as methods or approaches he himself came up with, he delivers those more as "just the way I do it"... almost as both an invitation to try other methods and as a disclaimer that these are not long-used historical approaches like half of what he focusses on. 



D_W":2vxg9dwt said:


> If you like to look at the messenger more, then I don't think we'll agree.


I generally find one has to consider the source itself as much as the material, otherwise you fall into a great many traps. A quick wander through Victorian archaeology shows that. 



D_W":2vxg9dwt said:


> Eventually you'll get past lessons with your drum instructor helping you, and you'll benefit more from watching and listening to mike mangini, et al. that's not really a good comparison, anyway.


I already did, mainly because he taught me to teach myself, for the most part. It was this that led to me developing my own playing signature, land well-paying work with bands and residencies at various studios, and progress far further far faster as a "Mature Student" than most of the young and gifted ones he had. 
I'm taking the same approach to woodworking - Learn how others do it, then use that to find what works best for me. The first step is learning what does work, regardless of what people think is the correct way, which is what I assume the OP was getting at when they started this thread?



D_W":2vxg9dwt said:


> Much more of music is universal technique (though there are savants who succeed ignoring some of the supposed rules), and while a lot of woodworking is technique, iteration and thought is at least as important.


See, that^ is the exact opposite of how I was taught, actually... 
Yes, there are certain basic starting standards, rudiments, counts, fills and things which your teacher will take you through. There are also things like Guildhall and Rockschool gradings, examination set pieces and a myriad of different technical rules to playing.... But there then comes a time when you break all those rules, save the one Unbreakable Rule - It must sound good. 

I actually skipped most of the rules and regulated stuff. While I could have done that if I wanted (and we did mess around with a few set pieces as examples), I wanted to play drums - So I was told to bring in three of my favourite songs and I was taught how to play them. But rather than learning to just read the musical notation and apply the 'correct' technique, I was taught to listen... and then learn from hearing. 
Most American drummers are vastly superior, in technical terms. Their techniques are flawless, their accuracy is unparalleled and their timing is spot on...... but that's the limitation of almost every classically trained musician. There's no room for feel, for passion, for art. This is why so many utterly accomplished players can't manage something so simple as Country - Every note they hit is perfect, but music is the space between the notes and they leave no space. 
All my favourite drummers tend toward playing comparatively simple things, but in ways that create a feel and enhance the music - Ringo Starr is a master at this, because he played backwards, against the rules and in doing so played to the feel rather than to rule. Something so simple as playing a hi-hat 'wrong' turned a pretty average song into a great song. 
The aforementioned Joey Kramer of Aerosmith is another great example, with his single-stroke only patterns. Even (and in particular) the older greats like Baby Dodds, Tubby Hall and Zutty Singleton - Such simple, open playing and totally against any rules. Back in those days nobody ranted about what was correct technique because nobody played correct techniques... they played however worked best for the music. 



D_W":2vxg9dwt said:


> If you pick up a set of drum sticks and put your own set together with no instruction, you might get some habits that will be hard to fix. If you pick up woodworking tools, find an object to make and do it 50 times, you'll probably find out that you settle into correct technique out of laziness (or economy if that sounds nicer).


Both, and neither, generally. 
many drummers have a tendency to tense up during fills and fast sequences, while the opposite is required. Same for martial artists and motorcyclists. I assume tensing up is bad for sawing and planing too, no? 



D_W":2vxg9dwt said:


> I'd rather watch a pro work than hear a guru say that there's only one way (R) and all others are wrong.


Then I'd question which 'gurus' you're hearing and suggest you tell them to take a hike... 
I'd then suggest that watching pros work will have little meaning unless you already understand what they're thinking in their heads and feeling in their hands... in which case, why would you need to watch them instead of getting on with what you're here to do?


----------



## Jacob

D_W":1jvu39tq said:


> ....
> I don't know anything about the Mr. Ford mentioned here, and don't even agree with stabbing a chisel perpendicularly across wood when you can ride the bevel, but I'd rather watch a pro work than hear a guru say that there's only one way (R) and all others are wrong.


Fordy was my woodwork teacher in 1982.
His perpendicular method is counter-intuitive I would agree, but actually is very efficient. It avoids "riding the bevel" (a new one for me!) which means you can mortice without clamping or holding down. This alone speeds up the process quite a lot and avoids clamp/vice marks on the work piece, which you are very likely to get if you whack away with a BFO mallet!
The fact that Krenov, Krausz, Tage Frid, Haywood, Sellers, Elvis Presley, J Christ, Ghengis Khan, Donald Duck, Woodbrains, do not know this method, is not surprising, not interesting, and shouldn't worry anyone!


----------



## D_W

Tasky":3dnumdu7 said:


> It does mean they need to be at least over 45 though. Basic maths.
> In fact, these days, with working regulations and stuff, probably well past 50...



That's correct. Hopefully, we all have a lot of useful years after 45 or 50.



Tasky":3dnumdu7 said:


> Disagree 100%.
> ....



Put Mr. Ford aside for now. At some point, you will be cutting mortises or carving, etc, and doing it competently. Not karate, not drumming, etc, just woodworking where it's a lot easier to demand a result and figure out how to come up with it (as opposed to music where bad habits can be really limiting and difficult to experiment your way out of). 

When you get to the point that you're doing something competently, it's pretty hard not to learn from someone else who is doing something more quickly and more neatly. You don't need another teacher or guru at that point to tell you a fifth method to do something you can already do, you need to examine what someone competent is doing and analyze it. 



> The latter aspects should be ongoing, but will be limited by things like budget and time. The former can only be as good as their ability to deliver effectively.



If you don't have time to think about what you're doing and how to improve it, I can't see how you have enough time to do it at all. There is a very large difference between carrying around a bunch of trivial facts that you learned from someone and walking around with the knowledge that you gained from doing something a few dozen times. A solid way to get nowhere in woodworking is have limited time and go from one "teacher" to another. That leads to things like perfect looking dovetails and horrible overall designs. It's common. 



> A teacher has to break past that prejudice and assert their authority on the matter and I'm sorry, but it just doesn't happen if you look like a bag of pineapples (or grapes) dragged backwards through a hedge, or you have a set of shining *$$ $$* where your eyes should be.



If you're that dependent on the teacher motivating you, then you're not going to get anywhere. 



D_W":3dnumdu7 said:


> I doubt sellers thinks his sharpening method should be named for him, and the old japanese chisels that I've gotten in the past that have had rounded bevels (some do)....I'd imagine those guys wouldn't know how to write sellers' name in kanji, or realize that they should be crediting him for something they did and he had not yet.


That's one thing I do like about Sellers - He presents most of 'his' methods as things he was taught by those before him, typically citing his teachers and apprenticing mentors, rather than taking ownership of them. Even the few things he does claim as methods or approaches he himself came up with, he delivers those more as "just the way I do it"... almost as both an invitation to try other methods and as a disclaimer that these are not long-used historical approaches like half of what he focusses on. 



D_W":3dnumdu7 said:


> If you like to look at the messenger more, then I don't think we'll agree.


I generally find one has to consider the source itself as much as the material, otherwise you fall into a great many traps. A quick wander through Victorian archaeology shows that. 



> . The first step is learning what does work, regardless of what people think is the correct way


You're making my point. 



> many drummers have a tendency to tense up during fills and fast sequences, while the opposite is required. Same for martial artists and motorcyclists. I assume tensing up is bad for sawing and planing too, no?



It's not similar. You won't tense up like that woodworking due to laziness and fatigue. If you play music long enough, you're eventually going to get comfortable and do things without tension because it's easier. If you do only hand woodworking and get truly physically fatigued, that will come sooner than later. 



Tasky":3dnumdu7 said:


> I'd then suggest that watching pros work will have little meaning unless you already understand what they're thinking in their heads and feeling in their hands... in which case, why would you need to watch them instead of getting on with what you're here to do?



Way overthinking this. You watch a pro. If they get better results than you, or results as good with less time and effort, you copy elements of what they're doing and see if you get the same results. You don't have to know what they're thinking - they're probably not thinking anything, because they've gotten to the point that the work is trivial for them. 

I don't play drums, but I play guitar. Woodworking is different than guitaring. I can watch Shawn Lane play, but he plays so fast that I can't discern what he's doing. Even if I could, I couldn't play what he plays because his nervous system works much faster than mine. Woodworking is a lot easier to discern by watching.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I had to google Shawn Lane. I must admit I did agree with one of the comments under one of the YouTube clips - 

"it takes a lot of dedication and practice to get this pointless...." :lol:


----------



## D_W

phil.p":2egcrq2y said:


> I had to google Shawn Lane. I must admit I did agree with one of the comments under one of the YouTube clips -
> 
> "it takes a lot of dedication and practice to get this pointless...." :lol:



Is that in regard to Shawn's playing sounding like a bunch of random noodles attached together? It does sound like that, but it's because he plays about twice as fast as we can discern. 

If you cut his playing speed in half (as a guitarist, maybe not to the casual listener), you find his playing thoughtful. It's too fast to understand at full speed, though. Some people like that, but I find it fatiguing. 

I gather that other advanced guitarists (not bedroom guitarists, but people like Paul Gilbert) slow down what he's doing and learn from it (actually, Paul said that). It's too much and too fast for a casual listener, though, the same as an average person buying furniture at Ikea has no clue about carved elements in high end furniture or sculpture.

The point of that, though, is that I don't need a guru who has never done any real guitar work telling me a better way to play a given phrase. It's more useful to see someone like Shawn Lane doing it, even if you have to slow it down.


----------



## Tasky

D_W":y4xst1df said:


> just woodworking where it's a lot easier to demand a result and figure out how to come up with it (as opposed to music where bad habits can be really limiting and difficult to experiment your way out of).


They're only bad habits if someone else is right and you're wrong... 



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> When you get to the point that you're doing something competently, it's pretty hard not to learn from someone else who is doing something more quickly and more neatly. You don't need another teacher or guru at that point to tell you a fifth method to do something you can already do, you need to examine what someone competent is doing and analyze it.


Or just ask them what they're doing. 
But again, sometimes there will be other factors that limit your options and it might be you could never physically manage what they're doing anyway, or don't have the decades in which to practice nothing but what they do... This is why I will never be able to play XYZ as well as a drummer who has specialised in nothing but XYZ. Same applies to everything else in life. 



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> If you don't have time to think about what you're doing and how to improve it, I can't see how you have enough time to do it at all.


I said limited. 
The other extreme of that is sitting around thinking about it all the time and never doing anything but analysing it for more ways to be more efficient. I'd even argue that analysing everything for efficiency is also going nowhere fast, if anywhere at all. 



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> There is a very large difference between carrying around a bunch of trivial facts that you learned from someone and walking around with the knowledge that you gained from doing something a few dozen times.


And there's an even bigger difference between doing something a few dozen times and finding a way you yourself can do it very well, first time every time. Practice does not make perfect... perfect practice makes perfect. 
Another drumming lesson for life, there - I never spent hours and hours and hours and hours playing the same technique over and over until it was right. 30 minutes a day, of focussed, careful, precise practice is all it takes. 



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> A solid way to get nowhere in woodworking is have limited time and go from one "teacher" to another. That leads to things like perfect looking dovetails and horrible overall designs. It's common.


Even with time, I wouldn't especially advocate it, as you're again analysing everything too much instead of getting anything done. 



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> If you're that dependent on the teacher motivating you, then you're not going to get anywhere.


If the teacher cannot even grab your interest enough to hold your attention and deliver the material with clarity, then neither are they. 
If they don't even seem to know what they're talking about, why should I even bother listening?



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> You're making my point.


Which one, exactly?
Sorry, getting old and got a touch lost in the string of requotes...  



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> It's not similar. You won't tense up like that woodworking due to laziness and fatigue.


Oh, I bet people do. I bet you that holding too tight is on a list of reasons why people don't handsaw straight, or something. 



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> If you play music long enough, you're eventually going to get comfortable and do things without tension because it's easier.


Typically people introduce tensions without realising, which then results in the fatigue and discomfort. Not the other way around. 



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> If you do only hand woodworking and get truly physically fatigued, that will come sooner than later.


If you undertake physical activities like that with tensions inherrent, you will create fatigue and make mistakes... but your body will be too fatigued to properly correct things and you'll make more mistakes. 



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> you copy elements of what they're doing and see if you get the same results.


How can you _see_ what they are only feeling in their hands, in order to copy it in the first place?



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> You don't have to know what they're thinking - they're probably not thinking anything, because they've gotten to the point that the work is trivial for them.


Just like driving a car, they will still be subconsciously thinking about it and reacting to the tactile feedback. If you don't know what it is they're feeling for, you won't EVER be able to react in the same way.... well, at least not without trying it dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of times over and over..... See above regarding that. 

As for the rest, it depends - How much faster are they? How much better are their results? Is it much less effort, or do they just make it look easy? Also not just what are they doing differently, but why?



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> I don't play drums, but I play guitar. Woodworking is different than guitaring. I can watch Shawn Lane play, but he plays so fast that I can't discern what he's doing.


I've known a good few drummers like that. A great many, even. Most are either just wanking their instrument for the sake of showing off, or have gotten SOOOOOOOO good that you need to be an übermaster yourself just to hear what they're accomplishing - Curse of many a Jazz musician. 
There was one guy I watched playing at a clinic - Mark Mondesir, I think - where he was pulling out all these ridiculously complex multiple odd-count time signatures and triple-inverse syncopated flammed rudiments in a blistering solo, and one by one you could see all the other eminent 'name' drummers present switching off and looking around at each other as they got utterly lost in the brilliance of what this drummer was tattooing out, until finally he himself just stopped dead..... because he was playing such complex and fast things, that he'd got his own self lost!! 

Now that's quite a sin for a professional musician, getting so badly lost to the point where you cannot play through to pick it up again and have to stop dead like a Grade 1 student... and to do it in front of your equally talented peers, at your own clinic where you are there to impart your wisdom to others - He must have died inside, just a little bit! :lol: 

But what that guy was doing and what many highly skilled players often do is only good for one thing - A show-off solo. 
I will NEVER be able to play like that... but I will never need to and it honestly sounded like cacophonous dung, no matter how much skill it took to accomplish. Unbreakable rule - It must sound good. 
I may be a drummer, but I'm still a musician. I play music, not an instrument. 
I may be using a chisel, but the finished piece is my end goal and getting there is where all the fun is supposed to be. However I choose to do it and whichever chisel I like to use best is surely my own choice? Otherwise I might as well just go for the fastest and most effortless method and type the settings into a CNC machine. 



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> Woodworking is a lot easier to discern by watching.


*If* you know what to look, listen and feel for. 



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> It does sound like that, but it's because he plays about twice as fast as we can discern.


Interesting interview with him on Richard Hallebeek, about how he developed his particular talents and style... 



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> It's too fast to understand at full speed, though. Some people like that, but I find it fatiguing.


So again another who could not even be understood unless you were a master your own self... and has to be slowed down and interrogated in order to understand what's going on, because simply watching is not enough?



D_W":y4xst1df said:


> The point of that, though, is that I don't need a guru who has never done any real guitar work telling me a better way to play a given phrase. It's more useful to see someone like Shawn Lane doing it, even if you have to slow it down.


And yet someone who has done and still does real guitar work is allowed to tell you... particularly if they merely present what they do, for your consideration, and leave you to make your own mind up? 
Who's to say what is REAL guitar work anyway, though? Am I a lesser guitarist because I've made a small living playing 30 different styles in a small pub, compared to someone who has made millions while restricting themselves to just one single style?

And regarding actual woodworking, we all know who out there does "REAL woodworking", as he so often likes to remind us...!! 
Points for, points against.


----------



## StraightOffTheArk

Nothing to add, except that 'music is the space between the notes' is so true - even, of course, when the space is very small. A whistle player friend of mine said something to the effect of "We're all trying to get more in tune and more in time, but that's not where the music is." Very true indeed.

A nice cup of tea is called for, after reading all those posts!

Cheers,

Carl


----------



## D_W

Tasky":bo6u7lpl said:


> And regarding actual woodworking, we all know who out there does "REAL woodworking", as he so often likes to remind us...!!
> Points for, points against.



Praise Jacob and pass the whiskey! Except when it's time to ride the bevel - Mr. Ford can ride the lightning if he wants to...I'll ride the bevel. 

(re: the tension, if you're working only by hand, eventually, you'll get tired enough that the tension will go away. It's too much effort and too painful to maintain it. Professional musicians like to talk to amateurs all the time about fixing tension problems, but most people who get to that level probably also lose the tension out of natural laziness and repetition. An amateur who practices a half hour at a time and who has no deadline to learn a piece probably never will get to that point. They'll just take a break when it hurts)

One other side comment - I notice that a lot of people don't like to build something multiple times. I don't know how you actually get better at much without the repetition to do certain things trivially. I don't care what a carver is feeling when he carves or pares something, i can figure that out with iteration. I do like to see the order that a professional will do things, and watch stuff such as how much material they're taking, how long their strokes are on an element, where they take what I consider to be risks and where they don't. That kind of stuff is important. Some things that are risks early on generally aren't once you have some repetition. 

I build more planes than anything else, mostly because it feels good to and i can do it now without much thinking. That kind of thing is viewed negatively by a lot of folks - they want to change the mountain each time they climb, which is fine - I get it. But, goodness, do you get a lot better at something if you do it a few times - especially if it's something you like.


----------



## D_W

Tasky":161ij1yj said:


> Who's to say what is REAL guitar work anyway, though? Am I a lesser guitarist because I've made a small living playing 30 different styles in a small pub, compared to someone who has made millions while restricting themselves to just one single style?



re: shawn lane - he's doing something different than appealing to the masses. He's playing for himself. I kind of like that, even if I have had enough of his playing in fairly short order. It takes all kinds. 

Same goes for drummers - when guys go weird just to be weird - to show you that they can play 13/8 when you're playing nice sounding stuff in 4/4. That's for them. 

If there's a drummer version of Darrell Scott, them I'm kind of into that. In practice, I always liked a drummer who didn't try to increase the pace of everything 50% when we were playing live. 

I just don't think much in woodworking rises to that kind of level unless someone is talking about making original designs (that's a can of worms), but that rarely happens on these forums or in instruction. It's more about the length of a carving stroke or the direction a chisel is going into the wood when woodworking. You can figure out how tightly you want to grip the chisel handle yourself.


----------



## Jacob

D_W":3iqjsv3r said:


> Tasky":3iqjsv3r said:
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding actual woodworking, we all know who out there does "REAL woodworking", as he so often likes to remind us...!!
> Points for, points against.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Praise Jacob and pass the whiskey! Except when it's time to ride the bevel - Mr. Ford can ride the lightning if he wants to...I'll ride the bevel.
> 
> (......
Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever used the expression "REAL woodworking". 
But I do admire the work of those anonymous millions who have produce the bulk of the wooden stuff around us, for thousands of years. 
I am interested in how they did it, and how different their working methods are/were compared to our modern aspirational "artist/craftsmen" fiddling about inefficiently, doing fancy 'bespoke' one offs, with the aid of their magazines, youtube vids, and masses of gadgets. :lol:


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":14938tk7 said:


> I don't think I've ever used the expression "REAL woodworking".


Wrong again.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob

bugbear":34lulp3m said:


> Jacob":34lulp3m said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever used the expression "REAL woodworking".
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...

Go on then show us where.


----------



## arnoldmason8

Hi All With all this talk about drumming has any of you cut a mortice with a drum stick ? With all their fine technique I'm sure the Americans must be able to do it. I wonder how they sharpen them. No - lets not go there.

A Happy New Year to you all. Regards Arnold


----------



## D_W

Which Americans had fine technique? The gurus are mostly English or European.


----------



## D_W

Jacob":2y092bnd said:


> D_W":2y092bnd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tasky":2y092bnd said:
> 
> 
> 
> And regarding actual woodworking, we all know who out there does "REAL woodworking", as he so often likes to remind us...!!
> Points for, points against.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Praise Jacob and pass the whiskey! Except when it's time to ride the bevel - Mr. Ford can ride the lightning if he wants to...I'll ride the bevel.
> 
> (......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think I've ever used the expression "REAL woodworking".
> But I do admire the work of those anonymous millions who have produce the bulk of the wooden stuff around us, for thousands of years.
> I am interested in how they did it, and how different their working methods are/were compared to our modern aspirational "artist/craftsmen" fiddling about inefficiently, doing fancy 'bespoke' one offs, with the aid of their magazines, youtube vids, and masses of gadgets. :lol:
Click to expand...


Well, I can't disagree with any of that!


----------



## MikeG.

bugbear":nas1e6r8 said:


> Jacob":nas1e6r8 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever used the expression "REAL woodworking".
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...


The quote button is in the bottom right hand corner--------------------->


----------



## Cheshirechappie

May I present an alternative view?

Let us suppose that you're an ordinary regular chap or chapess living normal life. You've got a stressful job, a fractious family, the bills keep arriving and there always seems to be month left over at the end of the money. Or perhaps you've lived through all that, reached retirement, and want something less stressful to while away a contented day or two now and again. Or perhaps you're younger, struggling to find worthwhile decently-paid work. You want somewhere to just unwind and slough off the stresses of life for an hour or three. Or perhaps you've set up as an independent fine furnituremaker, serving clients with very specific needs, making individual pieces from rare and special boards of timber.

In those cases, batch production makes no sense. For the fine furnituremaker, you only have one or two special highly-figured boards of that particular timber, so you can't repeat that piece even if you want to. For the weekend warrior making a coffee table, well, how many coffee tables - especially identical ones - does the average household need?

Production techniques using hand work were VERY relevant back in the days when much furniture and joinery was done that way. Nowadays, we have IKEA, Oakfurnitureland and their ilk grabbing the mass market, and pricing the hand-made into a very small niche. Likewise with joinery - see any builder's merchants for any number of mass-produced doors, windows and trim. Not to mention the dreaded UPVC. Batch production by hand work in solid wood is, apart from renovation of existing works, pretty much consigned to history.

We're left with the happy amateur pottering about in the shed doing hand work (and a very few remaining fine cabinetmakers and heritage jioners, most of whom use machinery whenever they can to keep their costs down). For the happy amateur, efficiency takes second place to enjoyment. Old-time 'efficient' methods are interesting in passing, but rarely that relevant to what most of us actually want to do.


----------



## StraightOffTheArk

Cheshire Chappie - what you say makes a great deal of sense and is eminently reasonable, the only caveat is that, quite rightly, the majority of hobbyists also want to improve their technique/access to forgotten or hidden knowledge, this is all good of course, what I don't quite understand is why this can't be framed in the same measured and reasonable manner that you are using - something to do with the evil influence of the internet I guess. I blame the government - it's all a conspiracy to control us by breaking down societal norms of civil behaviour - starting with woodworking forums and sharpening threads!


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":2txr7i70 said:


> May I present an alternative view?......... Old-time 'efficient' methods are interesting in passing, but rarely that relevant to what most of us actually want to do.


Thats a very strange point of view.
Most people doing craft work are interested in doing things efficiently and effectively, whether it's all trad hand tools, all machine, or anything in between. Most of this forum is about how to get things done effectively, whatever the chosen tools or materials.
It'd be the same if we were talking about mending bikes, knitting, making cakes!

Obviously batch work is often not appropriate for chaps in sheds but the idea usually comes up with reference to how to make a living rather than just having a hobby. Then batch work suddenly becomes essential.


----------



## bugbear

MikeG.":3oyt4z1h said:


> bugbear":3oyt4z1h said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob":3oyt4z1h said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I've ever used the expression "REAL woodworking".
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again.
> 
> BugBear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The quote button is in the bottom right hand corner--------------------->
Click to expand...

Since Jacob rarely offers evidence in support of his assertions, I decided to follow suit.

But I'm right.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob

Very rare passing reference - usually as reply to someone else using the expression


search.php?keywords=%2Breal+%2Bwoodworking&terms=all&author=jacob&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":115s81n8 said:


> Very rare passing reference - usually as reply to someone else using the expression
> search.php?keywords=%2Breal+%2Bwoodworking&terms=all&author=jacob&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search


Ooh - Jacob made an inaccurate generalisation, and is now retrospectively qualifying it.

Where have I seen that before?

BugBear


----------



## nabs

<rolls eyes> 

back to speed and efficiency, as I get older I find that I frequently enjoy the destination more than the journey and as much as I like a bit of pottering around I am generally pleased to discover techniques to get me there quicker. Perhaps it is the prospect of eternal oblivion that concentrates the mind in this way!

With my amateur historian hat on I also I am interested to find out what people actually did in t'olden days - as opposed to what was written about what was done, which is not always the same thing - so I am more than happy to hear about and experiment with traditional techniques. Horses for courses!


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Easier and better for me, not necessarily quicker - in CC's terms - I'm a happy amateur.


----------



## AndyT

Aside from the who said what distraction, there's an interesting point in what CC and Jacob have said about hobby woodwork and efficiency.

Offering myself as but a single data point, I definitely am interested in historical practice. I'm interested in analyses of rate books to see just how fast pre-industrial woodworkers could complete a piece.
Sometimes I might try to use some of their methods in my own work and see if I like them.
But I don't do that every time - because I don't need to and I enjoy variety. So I will mix things up, try a different tool or technique - the opposite of what a maximally efficient worker would do.

The other big difference is that I can't bring myself to leave under surfaces unplaned, nor could I just nail on an assortment of sawn boards as a back. That alone will identify the things I make as amateur work.

It's also worth remembering that pre-industrial pieces were made to a wide range of prices to suit different classes of customer. The best London work was NOT the same as was sold to the poor, or the deceptive 'slop work' designed to look flashy but not built to last.

Edit: Nabs beat me to it, but that's at least two of us who don't fit the generalisation offered.


----------



## Jacob

AndyT":20h57xi6 said:


> ....
> The other big difference is that I can't bring myself to leave under surfaces unplaned, nor could I just nail on an assortment of sawn boards as a back. That alone will identify the things I make as amateur work......


Arguable! One of the most obvious clues to amateur work is over finishing - under surfaces planed - and polished even.
Serious professionals need to know when enough is enough, and to not have 'principled' objections to nails.


----------



## MikeG.

bugbear":1vr4vlvk said:


> ..........Since Jacob rarely offers evidence in support of his assertions, I decided to follow suit.
> 
> But I'm right..........



Your personal feud makes utterly tiresome reading for others. Maybe you might consider just knocking it off for the sake of the rest of the forum.


----------



## AndyT

Jacob":2vafy8mz said:


> AndyT":2vafy8mz said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> The other big difference is that I can't bring myself to leave under surfaces unplaned, nor could I just nail on an assortment of sawn boards as a back. That alone will identify the things I make as amateur work......
> 
> 
> 
> Arguable! One of the most obvious clues to amateur work is over finishing - under surfaces planed - and polished even.
> Serious professionals need to know when enough is enough, and to not have 'principled' objections to nails.
Click to expand...


My objection is to the rough boards, not to the nails, but my point is that I am not a professional nor have I ever said I that was.


----------



## Racers

AndyT":6v69f9qt said:


> Jacob":6v69f9qt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AndyT":6v69f9qt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> The other big difference is that I can't bring myself to leave under surfaces unplaned, nor could I just nail on an assortment of sawn boards as a back. That alone will identify the things I make as amateur work......
> 
> 
> 
> Arguable! One of the most obvious clues to amateur work is over finishing - under surfaces planed - and polished even.
> Serious professionals need to know when enough is enough, and to not have 'principled' objections to nails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My objection is to the rough boards, not to the nails, but my point is that I am not a professional nor have I ever said I that was.
Click to expand...


So amateurs make better finished things than professionals :wink: 

Pete


----------



## Phil Pascoe

That is certainly the case with marking gauges.


----------



## Tasky

D_W":1f3jxpcd said:


> re: shawn lane - he's doing something different than appealing to the masses. He's playing for himself. I kind of like that, even if I have had enough of his playing in fairly short order. It takes all kinds.


He's like the Mister Ford who can do huge great mortises fasterer and betterer than anyone else here, which is great for timber building joinery but perhaps not the be all and end all of the skillsets used to make small, delicate furniture... and if all you want to do is mortise huge great oak beams as fast as you can, for your own pleasure, that's great. But for those who want to get good at other things as well, or instead, not so much. 



D_W":1f3jxpcd said:


> Same goes for drummers - when guys go weird just to be weird - to show you that they can play 13/8 when you're playing nice sounding stuff in 4/4. That's for them.


Depends... mainly depends on that old Unbreakable Rule, again. 
One piece I was taught to play was a Dave Weckl one (that man has five hands, I swear) in which each instrument plays either a different count and/or time signature to the others. Drums were in 6/4. However, the whole piece just sounded stunning. 
This was a cunning ploy on the part of my teacher to get me both hearing and playing different signatures in ways that still worked for the music... as I found when we then went on to study the Mission Impossible theme, which is in 5/4 as far as drums go, but can also be played to slightly different times..... !!



D_W":1f3jxpcd said:


> If there's a drummer version of Darrell Scott, them I'm kind of into that. In practice, I always liked a drummer who didn't try to increase the pace of everything 50% when we were playing live.


Darrell Scott in what way? I think he's on an Emmylou Harris album I have, but can't tell you anything beyond that. 
I'd also caveat the second sentence by saying I always enjoyed guitarists who understood the difference between actual speeding up and just creating a dynamic feeling, as well as understanding why (and when) I do play slightly ahead of the beat on certain songs and can restrain themselves from the urge to catch up or try and overtake me!!



D_W":1f3jxpcd said:


> re: the tension, if you're working only by hand, eventually, you'll get tired enough that the tension will go away. It's too much effort and too painful to maintain it.


Not that kind of tension... or at least, not the kind that is obvious. These are the subtle tensions that don't even get noticed unless you already know what you're looking for, and even when they do produce fatigue, aches and pains, it's still not obvious that they're where it came from. By then it's too late to correct and you have to start again when you're fresh... or establish better technique to stop the tension in the first place. 
The same thing happens in boxing, archery, driving, just about all the physical activities I can think of. Nothing to do with any specific activity, it's the human aspect and how most people naturally handle things. 



D_W":1f3jxpcd said:


> Professional musicians like to talk to amateurs all the time about fixing tension problems, but most people who get to that level probably also lose the tension out of natural laziness and repetition.


Don't have to be professional, really, just good. Strangely, many do not lose that tension without changing something about how they play. 
For example, most people will naturally hold the sticks and play drums with their thumbs uppermost. You'll even see a good number of seriously BIG name players throught history doing this. However, it introduces tension along the forearms and the lower back, which then defines your position against the kit and affects the space you need to move around it, which puts further tension back in and to the shoulders and upper back. Trying to play through this tension and the limitations worsens things and by the end of a session you're aching and twingeing for no discernible reason. Some learn to play through it or just get used to being slightly cack-handed all their lives. 
Others learn that the wrist is a hinge, not a ball joint and simply turn their hands 90º so the backs are uppermost. 

TBH, it's sometimes the professionals that create the problems in the first place too, like guitarists and pianists doing those finger-stretching exercises... that's tantamount to ballet dancers ruining their feet just so they can pull off certain moves, IMO. 



D_W":1f3jxpcd said:


> An amateur who practices a half hour at a time and who has no deadline to learn a piece probably never will get to that point. They'll just take a break when it hurts.


I'm talking about learning techniques, not learning a piece or finishing a product... although the later can still be achieved while practicing the former.



D_W":1f3jxpcd said:


> One other side comment - I notice that a lot of people don't like to build something multiple times. I don't know how you actually get better at much without the repetition to do certain things trivially.


Pretty simple - You build lots of different and interesting things that make use of the same techniques. For example, build a table, a bench, a door, a toy truck, a DM screen, a mouse, a trolley, a bird box and whatever else that makes use of M&T joints, if you want to get better at M&T-ing. It doesn't have to be the exact same item, just the same technique. 



D_W":1f3jxpcd said:


> I don't care what a carver is feeling when he carves or pares something, i can figure that out with iteration.


How do you know what he's doing different, unless you already know what to look/feel for? And if you already know, why do you need to watch him? Why haven't you figured it out for yourself already?



D_W":1f3jxpcd said:


> I build more planes than anything else, mostly because it feels good to and i can do it now without much thinking. That kind of thing is viewed negatively by a lot of folks - they want to change the mountain each time they climb, which is fine - I get it. But, goodness, do you get a lot better at something if you do it a few times - especially if it's something you like.


In terms of constructing a complete product from start to finish, yes, but much of that will be things other than or in addition to good technique, or choice of most efficient technique. 
Unless you refer to repetitively practicing measuring and sharpening, as well?



Jacob":1f3jxpcd said:


> But I do admire the work of those anonymous millions who have produce the bulk of the wooden stuff around us, for thousands of years.
> I am interested in how they did it, and how different their working methods are/were compared to our modern aspirational "artist/craftsmen" fiddling about inefficiently, doing fancy 'bespoke' one offs, with the aid of their magazines, youtube vids, and masses of gadgets. :lol:







arnoldmason8":1f3jxpcd said:


> Hi All With all this talk about drumming has any of you cut a mortice with a drum stick ? With all their fine technique I'm sure the Americans must be able to do it. I wonder how they sharpen them. No - lets not go there.


Err.... actually yes, I have, technically speaking. 
I have indeed cut a rectangular recess..... in the head of my snare... using a drumstick. 
Sharpening is easy enough - Employ a heavy dose of cymbals, then combine with a Bossa Nova pattern alternating between rimshots and normal strokes played across snare and top two toms. Then fail to notice that your last tom rimshot snapped the head off the stick into a long, sharp bevel, before burying it in the snare head. 
Best done while performing live, if you want to get a quality finish to your piece!! 




D_W":1f3jxpcd said:


> Which Americans had fine technique? The gurus are mostly English or European.


If we're still talking drummers - Many Yanks these days are very good technical drummers. But as mentioned before, most play the drums with skill, rather than the music with feel. 



nabs":1f3jxpcd said:


> With my amateur historian hat on I also I am interested to find out what people actually did in t'olden days - as opposed to what was written about what was done, which is not always the same thing - so I am more than happy to hear about and experiment with traditional techniques. Horses for courses!


TBH, I think that was the crux of the OP - John has used mortise chisels, because 'mortise', right? But he has since experimented with others' approaches, in particular choosing a method that Mister Guru insists was what was done by his own Mister Fords working In The Trade who taught him rather than what was seemingly written about (in tool catalogues, perhaps?). 
John has found that both methods work "just as well".

Certainly ^this echoes back to what I said earlier about considering the messenger as much as the message itself. 
Contrary to the post that brought the matter up, I'd say people actually care less about the messenger's hair today and just read the message... which is why they're buying all these new-fangled toys like chopstick making jigs for £300!!



Jacob":1f3jxpcd said:


> Arguable! One of the most obvious clues to amateur work is over finishing - under surfaces planed - and polished even. Serious professionals need to know when enough is enough, and to not have 'principled' objections to nails.


OK, let's argue it, then!! 
Depends on the market, surely, if not also your definitions of professional and amateur?

Professional just means they do it for money. Some of those (many? most?) will indeed pull out tricks of The Trade, to get it done on time and within budget, so it's just up to standard for the lower/middle class demands to whom they sell. Others really would have to pull out all the stops and produce the absolute best even on parts never seen, because that's what they're being paid to do and since their reputation hinged on their work I suspect they may well have done so in many cases. 

Now an amateur doing it for their own enjoyment, or because it's cheaper to DIY, does not have the constraints of someone else's deadline and budget, so is perhaps more free to apply whatever standards they personally demand of themselves. 
But both are (or should be) fully capable of producing the most over-finished, over-planed piece of pedantic perfection, *if* they so choose.


----------



## thetyreman

I'm finding the more I do this, the more I realise the importance of efficiency, even though I'm not professional, I have worked out methods that improve time efficiency when using hand tools. I don't think taking as long as you possibly can is wise, whether you are paid or unpaid.


----------



## Jacob

Racers":17nopun8 said:


> ....
> So amateurs make better finished things than professionals :wink:
> 
> Pete


Not as a rule. But sometimes they tend to over do it - you get sharp edges rounded over, or backs/undersides unnecessarily sanded, polishes over applied too many layers etc.


----------



## Tasky

Jacob":l9ed7frm said:


> Not as a rule. But sometimes they tend to over do it - you get sharp edges rounded over, or backs/undersides unnecessarily sanded, polishes over applied too many layers etc.


So a pro only does the minimum required, while the amateur goes the extra mile or two to create fine art... Still not seeing why the pro is supposedly better, here.


----------



## bugbear

Tasky":1sve91r2 said:


> Jacob":1sve91r2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not as a rule. But sometimes they tend to over do it - you get sharp edges rounded over, or backs/undersides unnecessarily sanded, polishes over applied too many layers etc.
> 
> 
> 
> So a pro only does the minimum required, while the amateur goes the extra mile or two to create fine art... Still not seeing why the pro is supposedly better, here.
Click to expand...

Pro's do what they're paid for.

Some pro made guitars are truly horrible, production line stuff, with thick ply sound boards, and great gobs of varnish everywhere.

Some are lovingly made, with care and attention to detail to _everything_, so that both the sonic performance and the visual appeal are at the highest level.

The mysterious factor behind the difference? Retail cost! A pro working for a low rate will take short cuts, or starve.

BugBear


----------



## D_W

Tasky, you're making more of this than there is. 

If Henry knows how to cut mortises faster, the guy who builds furniture is going to want to know. there's a professional maker over here who works by hand, and someone had suggested the domino to him. They said that they could lay out and cut mortises in a one off piece with a budget time of four minutes. His response was that four minutes is what he budgets for a stub mortise and tenon. If all of us are being honest (aside from people like him who do that for a living), we do not do any mortise and tenon combinations in four minutes. 

Four minutes is about how long it takes me to cut a mortise. I wish I could say that's how long it takes to cut a tenon with shoulders, but inevitably have a try and correction to something, and half the time spent is fitting rather than just cutting. A practiced pro may do something different that I could *see*. I don't need to know what they're feeling. We're not playing drums or guitar, it doesn't matter how much tension they have - it's the order of the cutting they're doing and steps that I do that are missing from their work. That is massively instructive. 

It tells me as an amateur if they're skipping entire steps (for example, if they saw the shoulders of a stub tenon and saw to the line, but I saw close to the shoulders and then chop and pare, and still don't have a fit as good as theirs), it tells me that i have an area to improve on -with repetition and practice - not with finding out how hard they're squeezing or whether or not they're thinking about Buddha or Jesus Christ at the time they're working. 

Re: the thing about Americans being technical and not understanding the flow of the music - that's a platitude. We have plenty of people in the states in the following two categories:
1) technically capable but musically tasteful rather than showing you all of their cards every song
2) technically incapable, full of commentary, and who excuse their lack of technical savvy by saying they're "focusing on the music". 

#2 parallels woodworking gurus.


----------



## Jacob

An amateur would have dumped this raku Kizaemon Tea Bowl, noted in The Unknown Craftsman by Soetsu Yanagi as an ideal of the Japanese tea ceremony.







In favour of these bits of Staffordshire


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":2y2ae26w said:


> An amateur would have dumped this raku Kizaemon Tea Bowl, noted in The Unknown Craftsman by Soetsu Yanagi as an ideal of the Japanese tea ceremony.
> 
> In favour of these bits of Staffordshire


Is that an Amateur potter, art historian, guitarist, drummer or woodworker whose taste and knowledge you're castigating on the basis of something you yourself didn't know before you googled it?

BugBear


----------



## Tasky

D_W":193dgwco said:


> Tasky, you're making more of this than there is.


Just having a natter around the subject. 
As already established, it's pretty much purely personal choice for the most part anyway as to which chisel you choose, unless you're doing BIG mortises that can only be done by a proper mortise chisel. 



D_W":193dgwco said:


> If Henry knows how to cut mortises faster, the guy who builds furniture is going to want to know.


Maybe, if they're really THAT upset that they take 15 seconds longer than the other guy... 
Probably depends on the wood and the type of mortise, too?
No good teaching me to mortise a 3' deep mega-mortise for a ship mast inside 2 minutes if I'm building a spice rack for the kitchen... 
I assume mortise chisels and bench chisels became separately designated tools for a reason, with the implication that the mortises you're mortise-chiselling out using mortise-chiselling techniques are a bit too big for benchwork projects with bench chisels, no?

And even if Henry is cutting the finest mortises in history in the fastest times ever, does it really matter?
Do you work non-stop for every second of your woodworking-to-make-a-living life? Is every minute of your time counted and factored in? Will you and your family die of starvation if you take 15 seconds longer to cut a mortise?

If time is THAT much of a factor, why would anyone bother handworking if machines are faster anyway?
Or do you just do as much as is needed, within sufficient time to comfortably deliver?
A wise man once said that "Serious professionals know when enough is enough". 



D_W":193dgwco said:


> A practiced pro may do something different that I could *see*.


Like with all precision skills, there will be elements of fine motor control that you really cannot see... especially if it produces results measured in thousandths of an inch. Basic science. 



D_W":193dgwco said:


> I don't need to know what they're feeling. We're not playing drums or guitar, it doesn't matter how much tension they have


So you can tell just by looking what they are doing just by feel alone? 
You must have been a dream driving student, then - One watch of the instructor doing it and you pass with a clean sheet?
Us mere mortals, however, are not mindreaders and would usually need to know what others are feeling for. 



D_W":193dgwco said:


> it's the order of the cutting they're doing and steps that I do that are missing from their work. That is massively instructive.


Again, might be, might not be. 
Some people can mark things well enough without measuring precisely, so can skip the layout stage. Others need precise measures but can cut faster. 
Some people might scrub off more material faster because they're fat and have more weight with which to bear down on the plane. 
It might just be that they bought the Rob Cosman™ Dovetail Saw™ that you could never afford anyway... or that they're working in a different wood. 

I learned long ago not to worry myself so much about what other people are doing all the time, so long as I can be happy with what I'm doing. 



D_W":193dgwco said:


> Re: the thing about Americans being technical and not understanding the flow of the music - that's a platitude. We have plenty of people in the states in the following two categories


While a lot of my favourite players are American and Canadian, you also have a LOT of players (including some famous ones) with a stack of skills that are almost beyond comprehension, but still just try to play every card they have at the same time rather than just the one or two needed to make the Royal Flush. All flash, no feel. 
To paraphrase Jacob, these guys are more his definition of amateurs - overfinished, overdone, etc - despite playing as part of quite famous professional bands, sometimes. 

The beat has to breathe and you have to make it. To quote a favourite performer of mine, "You have to kick it, not step on it". 
This is why I was made to play Country music and learn how the smallest things so often make the biggest difference. 



D_W":193dgwco said:


> #2 parallels woodworking gurus.


Again, I'd say you're looking at the wrong gurus then, as all the ones I pay any attention to definitely show techniques that work, both for them and when I try them for myself. Commentary too is good, if it lends history, reason or context to what they're doing. Few (none?) of them even claim to be gurus either, so that's just people projecting their own issues... and if those people know ANY better, why aren't they out there putting the gurus back in their places?

Maybe you're just guruing below your own skill level, or need to look at one who shares things concerning the churning-out industry rather than the hobby audience?


----------



## D_W

You're going to have to elaborate to me and others what "feel" nuances you believe there may be in chopping mortises. 

I don't think we're talking about a difference of 15 seconds for the person who:
* cuts tenons with one cut and one trim, or
* cuts dovetails off of the saw and cleans them quickly vs. creating some sort of arcane guaranteed success paring routine

One of my favorite things to talk about is the double iron. Cheshirechappie, where are you? I just recently figured out that I could've finish planed all of the plywood surfaces on my kitchen cabinets faster than I sanded them (that wouldn't be true if I had a primo progressive monster stationary machine that went from 100 to 320 grit and spit the ply out of the other side ready to finish). 

Time and again, I hear the "your mileage may vary" thing from people about efficiency, and denial of basic rudimentary things. To say that "we don't compare ourselves to anyone", but that's hogwash. If you didn't compare yourself to someone, you wouldn't even know what to play on the drums. At some level, everything we do is comparing ourselves to someone else. If we use "i don't compare myself" as an excuse not to develop a skill (as opposed to give an honest effort in trying and then perhaps give up if we can't master it), that's just a cop out. 

Here's where it matters as a hobby. Figure in the last cabinet, I finish planed 20 square feet of ply. In another cabinet, it may have been 40, or it may have been 10. At some level, I recognize that after planing three panels with four to go, I have no problem with the process if it takes 20 minutes. If it takes two hours, I have a big problem. if the number of panels goes to 20, the gap of frustration becomes smaller until I turn around to someone and say "You can't plane faster than you can finish sand with a hand held sander". At that point, you're just incorrect and you've cost yourself time and satisfaction. 

To suggest that it's fine to do stupid things under the guise of being a hobbyist would be the same as saying "I play this incorrectly on drums and it sounds bad, but I don't compare myself to someone else....so I don't care. I'm not a pro, this is just a hobby". 

We inevitably try to be reasonably good at our hobbies. If we didn't, there wouldn't be so many people bitching about their golf games, lost bets, etc. If it's easy to be better, then we do it. In this case, it's easy. You're making it difficult to rationalize accepting something mediocre or worse. That inevitably leads to the end of a hobby due to lack of interest.


----------



## Woodmonkey

There must be some wet paint around here somewhere that needs watching.


----------



## D_W

This kind of thing tends to happen when nobody is making anything notable and posting pictures. 

....wait. No. It happens then, too. The posts of things being built just get ignored.


----------



## Tasky

Woodmonkey":sb6whhyr said:


> There must be some wet paint around here somewhere that needs watching.


There's some boiled linseed oil...? 
Not sure I know enough about watching it, though - Mister Ford never taught me it, Rob Cosman™ doesn't have a Watching Tool™ for it, and I don't know a professional Watcher to learn from...  :lol: 




D_W":sb6whhyr said:


> You're going to have to elaborate to me and others what "feel" nuances you believe there may be in chopping mortises.


Since so many here insist you need lots of practice in these things to develop the muscle memory to do it well - All of that relies on feel. The finer the work, the finer the control and the finer the feel needed. Even if you're chopping a mega-mortise, you'll be feeling for fractions of a degree in the alignments and things, no?
The only way someone could be doing this faster than you is with a better/sharper tool or with a better feel for it - Maybe they're faster at repositioning the chisel, or have a more focussed hit with the mallet. That's all from feel. 

But can you also not feel when you've moved out of square, or perhaps when you lean too far to one side as you raise the mallet? Even *I* can feel that much...!
There's a lot more to the subtleties in physical activity than you realise, which is why things like backache are such commonplace problems. 



D_W":sb6whhyr said:


> I just recently figured out that I could've finish planed all of the plywood surfaces on my kitchen cabinets faster than I sanded them


Well not being funny, but that's kinda what people here have been telling me ever since I joined... 



D_W":sb6whhyr said:


> Time and again, I hear the "your mileage may vary" thing from people about efficiency, and denial of basic rudimentary things.


Sometimes that is, sadly, the case though and you have no-one but Mother Nature to blame. 
Time and time again I find people who think they should be able to do what taller, faster, younger, stronger, older, smarter, shorter, bigger other people can do just by following the same methods. 
People are different and work in different ways. End of. Not everything is guaranteed, even in things where it's regarded as an actual science - Sometimes you have to adapt. I'm not especially tall, but I'm both tall enough and long-limbed enough that a number of boxing and sword techniques just will not work for me - I have to do it differently. 
Conversely, you bring me anyone shorter and they just will NOT ever, ever, ever, ever have the same reach advantage than me. It's physically impossible. 



D_W":sb6whhyr said:


> To say that "we don't compare ourselves to anyone", but that's hogwash.


Good thing I didn't say that then, isn't it!!
I did say I don't *worry* about it so much. A lot of what other people can do is because they've had more time to focus on that and especially these days I know I don't have that kind of time left anyway. Plus, the longer I spend worrying, the less time I have to spend improving myself, so there's that as well. 



D_W":sb6whhyr said:


> If we use "i don't compare myself" as an excuse not to develop a skill (as opposed to give an honest effort in trying and then perhaps give up if we can't master it), that's just a cop out.


Again, which is not what I said. 
I will say I'm not going to even learn something until I see how and why it's of any significant benefit over and above what I already do - That is just wasting time. 



D_W":sb6whhyr said:


> Here's where it matters as a hobby.


So again personal gauge of what is too long for you, rather than comparing yourself to what a professional does... 
To suggest that I must therefore go and spend thousands of hours practicing a couple of techniques to the point where I might start resembling a professional (or in the case of this thread, an amateur with the freedom to do far finer work than a professional), or be forever regarded as a stupid hobbyist by someone whose opinion doesn't even enter my world is just ridiculous, on many counts. 
If it weren't, we'd not have this forum full of amateurs sharing ideas and we'd all be off just learning from professionals, no? 



D_W":sb6whhyr said:


> We inevitably try to be reasonably good at our hobbies.


DO WE?
REALLY?
OK, "bring me a martial artist. I will rip apart their system and show them a much older way of doing things that is far simpler and far more effective. I bet you nine bob to the noble, most of them won't even want to know how the technique works and will instead go cower back in their safety zone of their own flawed system. 
The 'secret' will be freely offered and will be explained and demonstrated for them as much as they like, and they will be free to try it back at me as much as they like until they are satisfied..... 9/10 of them will not even want to know". 
That's a paraphrasing from my own instructor and he was right - Many people were bettered, but almost none of them (far less than his 1/10, in fact) wanted to know and learn how he did it. 

Fact is, some do. Indeed people here seem more interested in it than many other people in many other hobbies. 
However, some require context for how being better at a hobby (or more likely a particular aspect of it) is of much use to them and their specific involvement, but it still remains subjective. 
Others really do just use it as a pasttime to pass the time.... because it feels good... because all they want to do is build planes and they're good enough at that already - If they don't need mortises for that and only occasionally use M&T joints in anything else, why should they then go spend thousands of hours studying professional mortisers and repetitively practicing mortises? 



D_W":sb6whhyr said:


> If we didn't, there wouldn't be so many people bitching about their golf games, lost bets, etc.


And how often are they bitching about factors _other _than their own actions, though?
Grass was too wet, wind took the ball, squirrel distracted me, caddy farted, back hurts from too much sex with the au-pair last night, mind was on which yacht would make a good fourth... ?

You should have seen my father-in-law. He had so many different hobbies, from painting to bagpiping to making hats and all sorts in between, but never stuck at any long enough to make any progress... partly because newer interests came along. I think he just enjoyed the newness and got bored easily. Harmonica? Yes, going to become a Blues Legend.... learn one short tune, and then forgotten when he discovers Making Teddybears.... which comprised one half-bear that got binned to make room for Flight Simulators.... etc etc. 



D_W":sb6whhyr said:


> In this case, it's easy.


Apparently not, because no MOD EDIT - MIND THE LANGUAGE PLEASE around here knows anything about woodworking, except professionals who are too busy professionalling to teach anyone... unless you're a mindreader, of course!! 



D_W":sb6whhyr said:


> To suggest that it's fine to do stupid things under the guise of being a hobbyist would be the same as saying "I play this incorrectly on drums and it sounds bad, but I don't compare myself to someone else....so I don't care. I'm not a pro, this is just a hobby".


Which kinda negates the Shawn Lane example, as stupidity is subjective and he's playing for his own self not as a comparison for/to others...  

But is any of this up to you to decide?
It's my hobby and if I want to (or, Heaven forbid, have to) take my time planing just one piece of wood, then is that not for me to decide if I'm happy with it or not?
The Unbreakable Rule of hobbies and general life is this: So long as you're having fun and not hurting anyone, including yourself, it's all good. 

Now I agree that by my own standards, there's probably something that could be improved on in your example, but if people are happy with that, then let them be happy. If you want to do something different, then do so. 

I'm not EVER going to make a living off these skills and I doubt I will ever get to the Fine Furniture Art levels. I merely came here to have a bash at a few things I'd rather make than buy, not to be the next star of YouTube or to write the next book on what most people seem to already know more about anyway...


----------



## Jacob

bugbear":223xnhrt said:


> Jacob":223xnhrt said:
> 
> 
> 
> An amateur would have dumped this raku Kizaemon Tea Bowl, noted in The Unknown Craftsman by Soetsu Yanagi as an ideal of the Japanese tea ceremony.
> 
> In favour of these bits of Staffordshire
> 
> 
> 
> Is that an Amateur potter, art historian, guitarist, drummer or woodworker whose taste and knowledge you're castigating on the basis of something you yourself didn't know before you googled it?
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...

Sorry BB I couldn't quite untangle that. Is it a riddle?


----------



## Jacob

Tasky":22kq73mj said:


> ....
> Which kinda negates the Shawn Lane example, as stupidity is subjective and he's playing for his own self not as a comparison for/to others... ......


Is there a prize for long posts?
Didn't have time to read it but I spotted the guitar ref. Listened to it too! Never heard of Shawn wotsit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0ODb4yhKXY
Not that impressed - they start out together but either Shawn or the drummer completely lose the plot really quickly. His style is called 'noodling' and any fool can do something similar once they've got the minor pentatonic scale shape off. (nb it's the easiest scale and every aspiring rock n roller learns it on day 2.) Not much music involved. More like juggling.

Just listened to more Shawn of the dead. He's really boring isn't he!

My current favourite guitarist is Carlos Roldan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zaKIIcFHDc&t=1885s


----------



## NickN

Off-topic I know (hammer) , but I tried using a bevel edged and a regular mortise chisel in my current workbench build and...

... they both work.

:lol:


----------



## StraightOffTheArk

Q - How many drummers/woodworkers does it take to change a light bulb/chop a mortice?

A - None, we have machines that do it better now


----------



## D_W

Jacob":kh4exdxj said:


> Tasky":kh4exdxj said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Which kinda negates the Shawn Lane example, as stupidity is subjective and he's playing for his own self not as a comparison for/to others... ......
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a prize for long posts?
> Didn't have time to read it but I spotted the guitar ref. Listened to it too! Never heard of Shawn wotsit.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0ODb4yhKXY
> Not that impressed - they start out together but either Shawn or the drummer completely lose the plot really quickly. His style is called 'noodling' and any fool can do something similar once they've got the minor pentatonic scale shape off. (nb it's the easiest scale and every aspiring rock n roller learns it on day 2.) Not much music involved. More like juggling.
> 
> Just listened to more Shawn of the dead. He's really boring isn't he!
> 
> My current favourite guitarist is Carlos Roldan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zaKIIcFHDc&t=1885s
Click to expand...


Shawn's noodling isn't typical, but it might sound that way if you haven't progressed very far. Sort of like saying you're as good as Jeff Becker once you can sweep .

I doubt Shawn plays anything in pentatonic, or at least very little.


----------



## Jacob

D_W":1rr559u9 said:


> ......
> 
> Shawn's noodling isn't typical, but it might sound that way if you haven't progressed very far. Sort of like saying you're as good as Jeff Becker once you can sweep .....


It's clever but boring. More sleight of hand than musical performance. I realise it's a whole genre but I don't have to like it!


----------



## D_W

You definitely don't have to like it, but it's not remotely close to sleight of hand. It's straightforward, too difficult for just about everyone, and too much too fast for my brain. 

At any rate, as far as the original topic goes, I would never have imagined that we could've posed the following straw scenario:
* I cut mortises
* I see someone else cut mortises three times as fast (or even 50% faster, whatever)
* I choose to, perhaps, examine the order that the person demonstrating bullet point 2 above, I might look at the tool they're using, the mallet, where they start on a cut, where they end, how much material they remove at each step. 

And then, the suggestion (and I have to assume only one person is this far off base....) is that we can't learn much from it because we don't know what to feel....

I hope that nobody else new to the hobby doesn't think that they can't learn from someone by watching them without being told what to feel. 

This is a new dimension of craziness to me. I am awestruck, but not in a good way.


----------



## D_W

Tasky":8gj9qgqz said:


> But can you also not feel when you've moved out of square, or perhaps when you lean too far to one side as you raise the mallet? Even *I* can feel that much...!
> There's a lot more to the subtleties in physical activity than you realise, which is why things like backache are such commonplace problems.



Someone has to tell you what to feel when you're out of square? Again, I'm baffled. You're out of square, the joint isn't right because of it when you cut your first few. These things actually happen to people when they are beginning. Nobody has to tell them what to feel. If they have a fraction of a brain, they find out that they're out of square one way or another and practice to correct it. 

Perhaps there was a book called "the feel of woodworking. instant results after I tell you what I feel". 


If you don't want to get better at something, that's fine. It's pretty easy to stay stagnant, but people don't usually go searching for information and inspiration when they're trying to stagnate. 

Your Karate example is dopey, and it also has nothing to do with woodworking. It's dopey because you're suggesting that someone who "got better" would not be better. If that doesn't sink in, I'll let you figure it out. 

As far as it having nothing to do with woodworking, better is pretty easy here. The same or better results with less effort, better frequency, less stopping. It's pretty easy. 

I'm still baffled how something relatively simple can be turned into such a bunch of obfuscation. 

There is a discussion on another forum about flattening stones right now. I rarely duck out of pointless discussions, but it literally went to two people (who have practiced for decades) suggesting improving the flatness of stones by rubbing two together. It's not hard to see how that would help (with plenty of small subtleties implied, and if they aren't obvious to the person rubbing the stones in the first place, the hobby should change), but the discussion literally went as far as "you need three stones" to " the three lap method only works on uniform systems like glass". 

What does that lead the average person coming into the discussion to decide, that the people improving the flatness of two stones (as would be historically accurate) by rubbing them together have imagined what they're doing?

This stuff is just *way* too far out for me. I'm just looking to watch someone who does something better than I can do it and see what I can pick up from it. I don't to ask them about their feelings, talk about drum sets or discuss lapping telescope lenses. 

As is the case with this forum, three people complained that nobody is talking about making things, disappeared without actually offering any discussion about making things, and then the entire group proceeded to ignore three posts where people shared something they made, only to post several hundred posts about things like "you know, it's not possible to actually have perfectly flat stones".


----------



## bugbear

D_W":vtj69hpg said:


> I'm still baffled how something relatively simple can be turned into such a bunch of obfuscation.


Says the man who described a cutting edge as "quiet" and says that wire edges need "managing" (as opposed to simply removing) :roll: 

Obfuscation is indeed a problem. 

BugBear


----------



## Jacob

:lol: Who came up with "riding the bevel"?


----------



## D_W

That's it, Jacob!

From now on, I'm going to use the word pipeline for all stock (wood, metal, plastic). "carving the pipeline today". "the pipeline is very spelchy, i'm wiping out the back side of it". 

Aside from that, I think we probably need a list of approved words, context, statements, etc. for Bugbear.


----------



## bugbear

D_W":2n9g7kgo said:


> Aside from that, I think we probably need a list of approved words, context, statements, etc. for Bugbear.


Plain English words, used in their conventional common meanings will serve very well.

For me, and others.

BugBear


----------



## Tasky

D_W":1t8zi6m9 said:


> And then, the suggestion (and I have to assume only one person is this far off base....) is that we can't learn much from it because we don't know what to feel....


Uh-huh.... not what I said, but carry on. 



D_W":1t8zi6m9 said:


> I hope that nobody else new to the hobby doesn't think that they can't learn from someone by watching them without being told what to feel.


You'll probably find many DIY disasters happen because people have done exactly that - Watched a competent professional and thought they'd learned everything they needed to know just from watching. 
That's how it often goes in every other walk of life... Woodworking is no different. 



D_W":1t8zi6m9 said:


> Someone has to tell you what to feel when you're out of square? Again, I'm baffled.


Again, not what I said. 



D_W":1t8zi6m9 said:


> Nobody has to tell them what to feel. If they have a fraction of a brain, they find out that they're out of square one way or another and practice to correct it.


And practice and practice and practice but getting nowhere, forever mucking it up because they don't understand the few fundamental things the professional is doing which cannot be seen by eye. DIY amateur. 



D_W":1t8zi6m9 said:


> If you don't want to get better at something, that's fine. It's pretty easy to stay stagnant, but people don't usually go searching for information and inspiration when they're trying to stagnate.


Again not what I said. 



D_W":1t8zi6m9 said:


> Your Karate example is dopey, and it also has nothing to do with woodworking. It's dopey because you're suggesting that someone who "got better" would not be better. If that doesn't sink in, I'll let you figure it out.


And again, not what I said. 



D_W":1t8zi6m9 said:


> I'm still baffled how something relatively simple can be turned into such a bunch of obfuscation.


Easy - You think you're right and everyone else is wrong, so you don't actually bother reading what they're saying and instead make up your own argument to battle against and confuse yourself over. 
It's a coping mechanism to avoid facing your own flaws... and like in all my examples given above, it happens in EVERY walk of human life... including Woodworking. 

No need to feel embarrassed. It's just how the human mind works. 



D_W":1t8zi6m9 said:


> This stuff is just *way* too far out for me. I'm just looking to watch someone who does something better than I can do it and see what I can pick up from it.


Good luck with that... 
I'd rather talk to them and *know* what they're doing. 



D_W":1t8zi6m9 said:


> I don't to ask them about their feelings, talk about drum sets or discuss lapping telescope lenses.


Who mentioned feelings?
I've been talking about the physical sensations in their fingers, not their bloody emotions... !!


----------



## bugbear

Tasky":37z5jht6 said:


> Good luck with that...
> I'd rather talk to them and *know* what they're doing.
> ...
> I've been talking about the physical sensations in their fingers, not their bloody emotions... !!


There's an example which always interested me; I you carefully watch and/or measure the work of a professional self bow maker, and reproduce his work exactly to the 1/10 thou of an inch...

Your bow will fail. Every time.

It's not just the _what_ (which can be observed), it's the _why_.

BugBear


----------



## D_W

bugbear":2iufvm7o said:


> Tasky":2iufvm7o said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that...
> I'd rather talk to them and *know* what they're doing.
> ...
> I've been talking about the physical sensations in their fingers, not their bloody emotions... !!
> 
> 
> 
> There's an example which always interested me; I you carefully watch and/or measure the work of a professional self bow maker, and reproduce his work exactly to the 1/10 thou of an inch...
> 
> Your bow will fail. Every time.
> 
> It's not just the _what_ (which can be observed), it's the _why_.
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...


Perhaps you can tell us just how much why you need for mortise and microtensions...er tenons.


----------



## Jacob

bugbear":jds5d4zo said:


> Tasky":jds5d4zo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck with that...
> I'd rather talk to them and *know* what they're doing.
> ...
> I've been talking about the physical sensations in their fingers, not their bloody emotions... !!
> 
> 
> 
> There's an example which always interested me; I you carefully watch and/or measure the work of a professional self bow maker, and reproduce his work exactly to the 1/10 thou of an inch...
> 
> Your bow will fail. Every time.
> 
> It's not just the _what_ (which can be observed), it's the _why_.
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...

You'd get better at it after a few failures.

Had to look up 'self bow'. How do they fail - do they snap in two or something?


----------



## bugbear

Jacob":213x8fzo said:


> You'd get better at it after a few failures.
> 
> Had to look up 'self bow'. How do they fail - do they snap in two or something?


Yes.

BugBear


----------



## Dangermouse 2nd

Bloody hell another thread filled with useless infighting, can we please stick to something related to woodwork, not personal vendetta please!!!


----------



## D_W

bugbear":1td4ozq6 said:


> Jacob":1td4ozq6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd get better at it after a few failures.
> 
> Had to look up 'self bow'. How do they fail - do they snap in two or something?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...


Jeez...and here, I thought this thing had something to do with instruments. Presumably, it has some mortises on it?


----------



## Jacob

bugbear":318yxmvv said:


> Jacob":318yxmvv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'd get better at it after a few failures.
> 
> Had to look up 'self bow'. How do they fail - do they snap in two or something?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> BugBear
Click to expand...

Just guessing - it must be about shaping _and_ following the grain?


----------



## Tasky

Jacob":1hkq9e6w said:


> Just guessing - it must be about shaping _and_ following the grain?


Also guessing, but I believe it's to do with how the grain behaves when the bow is bent - The back will stretch while the belly compresses. Usually you'd laminate different woods better at one or the other accordingly - My last bow was a hickory back and maple belly, as I recall. 
With a self bow, it's made from one piece, so you need a single bit of wood with grain that does both...


----------



## CStanford

Compression set, anyone?


----------



## D_W

Compression....there's another music tie-in here.


----------



## Tasky

CStanford":1nyfcsfp said:


> Compression set, anyone?


Sounds like something my mechanic uses to balance my carbs... !! :lol: 


Nah, I did Google it and it sounds like you're right.


----------



## G S Haydon

Two mortices in less than four minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjFlsH2AAI8


----------



## D_W

G S Haydon":7oj4fvom said:


> Two mortices in less than four minutes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjFlsH2AAI8



This fellow is exactly who I was talking about when I referred to someone who clearly did this for a living for a while. You can learn a lot more from him than you can from paul sellers, but you'll have to observe and think. 

he's shown some stools and other through mortised items that put to rest whether or not he can cut them neatly enough for show.

He also uses a mortise chisel (surprise) and not a blue marples, and he doesn't preach about lifestyle (like sellers does) or push absurdly expensive measuring tools, etc. 

Hey, jacob - did you notice that he's gotten so quick that he doesn't even turn the chisel. He rides the bevel on one side, but not the other.


----------



## Jacob

D_W":1qpzo7j0 said:


> .....
> Hey, jacob - did you notice that he's gotten so quick that he doesn't even turn the chisel. He rides the bevel on one side, but not the other.


I'll have a look when I can spare 39 minutes to watch the vid!
Sounds interesting though.


----------



## D_W

Jacob":37hon4vh said:


> D_W":37hon4vh said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> Hey, jacob - did you notice that he's gotten so quick that he doesn't even turn the chisel. He rides the bevel on one side, but not the other.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have a look when I can spare 39 minutes to watch the vid!
> Sounds interesting though.
Click to expand...


The mortising part is only a couple of minutes in the beginning. I'm sure there are more, but points from it:
* he sits on the work so that he's in good position to look at it without screwing around with a vise
* he cuts both sides of the mortise without turning the chisel

In the end, the picture frame that he's making is quite nice, and it's strong enough for war without looking bulky or dumb. 

I admire the guy, he builds things in his videos with no BS. He puts the small pieces up in a metalworking vise instead of stooping down at a woodworking bench, and he's got a lot of shop made planes (always love that) and saws. 

Plus, he works at a pace that I could only dream of - without rushing or geting sloppy.


----------



## Tasky

D_W":ip23410m said:


> You can learn a lot more from him than you can from paul sellers, but you'll have to observe and think.


You can get a _different _perspective, sure... not certain it's more, as such, unless they come from the same particular corners of the industry. 
See, what I find of greatest interest was that, in showing bevelled chisel mortising, Sellers claims that this is what was done by all those around him during his apprenticeship. Assuming that to be truth, surely there's a reason why they'd do that? 
Along the same line of thinking, Sellers does actually advocate the use of mortising chisels, and is merely showing that he can do it with bevel-edged ones "just as fast". 



D_W":ip23410m said:


> He also uses a mortise chisel (surprise) and not a blue marples, and he doesn't preach about lifestyle (like sellers does) or push absurdly expensive measuring tools, etc.


What does Sellers push that's absurdly expensive? If anything, he seems like an advocate for cheap bodges, half the time!
But like the guy in your video says, there's various ways of mortising and that's just the one his master taught him. Sellers shows what he was taught and is pretty fast at it. Both look like thay can knock one out (fnar fnar) before their cuppa has finished brewing, so surely it's all good?

Maybe that's the problem - Maybe Sellers is actually SOOOOOO fast at mortising that he has THAT much time to waste on the lifestyle philosophy stuff? Maybe he's done his bit and is just killing time while waiting for his own apprentices to catch up on their tasks? :lol: 



D_W":ip23410m said:


> * he sits on the work so that he's in good position to look at it without screwing around with a vise


I could never sit and work in that position, though - My back would be screaming agony about 30 seconds in. 
Does that mean I am doomed to never cut a mortise properly?



D_W":ip23410m said:


> I admire the guy, he builds things in his videos with no BS.


He's not really doing an instructional video though, is he?



D_W":ip23410m said:


> Plus, he works at a pace that I could only dream of - without rushing or geting sloppy.


But I thought you only liked to watch?


----------



## D_W

The or in the statement about sellers is intended to differentiate him (selling lifestyle gibberish) and someone else (pushing expensive marking and measuring tools, or other nonsense that you can certainly buy, but that's not necessary to have).

As far as the Chinese fellow in the videos, yes, he's doing instruction, but he's not really catering to the group who wants pretty books, DVDs or theme courses. 

I have read a little bit about him on other sites, but can't remember his name. I believe he's crossing over to making money instructing (or has been for a little while) and his hair is whiter now. No clue when these videos were made, but they are infinitely more useful to anyone other than a rank beginner vs. the oversold mortise against glass video.

(and you get to see the entire frame being built).


----------



## D_W

Tasky":cf7sveeb said:


> But I thought you only liked to watch?



This is going to be a tough hobby if you have a bad back. Not that you can't do it, you can replace a lot of these things with machine work and just stop if it hurts. I wouldn't undertake much hand work with bad shoulders, elbows, knees or back, though. Just my opinion.

Of course I like to watch legitimate woodworkers, but it wouldn't be much fun to watch them if you weren't intending to actually do them. We already have a show on PBS here in the states that is mostly watched by people who don't woodwork. 

I'll bet quite a bit of sellers' revenue is generated on the gym membership model, too. (It looks good, sounds nice, you pay your dues and then change your mind and write off the cost as a bad spend).


----------



## nabs

I don't really go in for guru-bashing as, by and large, I think they are doing an invaluable job helping out us nonplussed learners. I did chuckle at "selling lifestyle gibberish" though. Incidentally, my favourite guru is the one who only travels around by rolling (the Rolling Saint - look him up!).


----------



## Jacob

D_W":1g8eiw8e said:


> Jacob":1g8eiw8e said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D_W":1g8eiw8e said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....
> Hey, jacob - did you notice that he's gotten so quick that he doesn't even turn the chisel. He rides the bevel on one side, but not the other.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have a look when I can spare 39 minutes to watch the vid!
> Sounds interesting though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The mortising part is only a couple of minutes in the beginning. I'm sure there are more, but points from it:
> * he sits on the work so that he's in good position to look at it without screwing around with a vise
> * he cuts both sides of the mortise without turning the chisel
> 
> In the end, the picture frame that he's making is quite nice, and it's strong enough for war without looking bulky or dumb.
> 
> I admire the guy, he builds things in his videos with no BS. He puts the small pieces up in a metalworking vise instead of stooping down at a woodworking bench, and he's got a lot of shop made planes (always love that) and saws.
> 
> Plus, he works at a pace that I could only dream of - without rushing or geting sloppy.
Click to expand...

Watched it. 
Very effective. 
Not turning the chisel was just a detail as they were small and at the opposite end he has turn anyway. Also he doesn't really need to lever out chippings and he chops through them at one point. You can lever them out of course but were taught not to. Most of them fly out anyway or drop out when you've finished and tap the end against the bench. We also were taught to have tenon sized hardwood drift available, to knock through just to make sure it fits and to take out any remaining chips.
You'd have to lever them out of a blind mortice of course - but only when it's all been cut.
Blind mortice is where the curved bevel comes into its own - for leverage when cleaning out the corners.
Sitting sideways on looks OK but I think sitting astride would be more convenient. And I'd prefer a BFO mallet - less likely to miss or damage the chisel, or to harm yourself


----------



## Tasky

Well, since I've no intention to become a lighting-fast professional woodworker churning out fifty tables a week, I'm happy to just find something that works for me, really. I'm also capable of glossing over any tree-hugging lifestyle aspects that such learning may or may not come with, so not really a problem!

I still don't agree with sitting side-on like that, though. 
I'm sure years and years of it would harden you to the damage, but it's still bad for you whichever way you look at it!


----------



## D_W

Tasky":34za139l said:


> I still don't agree with sitting side-on like that, though.
> I'm sure years and years of it would harden you to the damage, but it's still bad for you whichever way you look at it!



If you do anything in woodworking for years, you're going to wear some part of you out. I'm sure you could get up and stretch once in a while, and it wouldn't amount to anything. The literal pain in the a- of sharp cornered sticking would seem to be a bigger issue to me, but your brain will turn that pain off if you do it a few times.

FTR, I'm sure I'll never be a lightning fast professional, either, but doing things well is usually less effort. If not in the actual step, in the stages following for a multitude of reasons. 

There are probably better hobbies for ODD, given how good woodworking is at punishing the defiant.


----------



## MikeG.

Jacob":2282gjkw said:


> .......I'd prefer a BFO mallet......



Other than "it was the nearest thing to hand", I can't think of a single good reason to hit a chisel with an axe.


----------



## custard

Puzzling why mortices get all the love. 

Cutting an accurate mortice by hand really isn't that difficult, cutting an accurate tenon is quite a bit harder. Even tenoning by machine often takes a fair few trial set-ups before you get it right.

A mortice is pretty much self jigging, the chisel width dictates the key dimension and your layout lines remain visible throughout. However, there's nothing self jigging about a tenon, and because the layout lines get removed it's often tricky to know how to correct any inaccuracies. 

So why whenever M&T joints crop up is it generally the mortices that are the centre of attention?


----------



## D_W

They must be easier to discuss, and more enjoyable to do.


----------



## dzj

If thou gaze long into a mortice (18 pages), the mortice will also gaze into thee.
(I ll get me coat)


----------



## custard

Let's say the objective is to make an "H" shaped structure out of scrap 2" x 1" timber. The horizontal bar of the "H" has a tenon at each end, and there are corresponding mortices in the two uprights. The challenge is threefold,

1. The joints should be snug and close fitting
2. All the components should be flush, so if you run your finger across the joints you won't feel a lip or a ledge.
3. If you lay the finished "H" shape down on a flat surface it shouldn't rock, in other words the two uprights should be co-planar with no wind or twist.

At a guess relatively few people on this forum could consistently hit all three objectives. But I'd further guess that the majority of people on this forum could execute the mortice part adequately well, or at least give them a few tries at it and they would. And that would likely be true if they used a mortice chisel or a bevel edged chisel. In other words it's almost certainly the tenons that would be letting them down.

There's plenty to discuss about ways of improving that tenon performance. From simple hand sawing jigs to different ways of utilising an inexpensive bandsaw. 

But those discussions rarely see the light of day, where as a debate about, "is a metal hammer or a carver's mallet the best tool for morticing?", would roll on across multiple pages.

Weird.


----------



## nabs

custard":10ks33h2 said:


> would roll on across multiple pages.
> 
> Weird.


... glad to see my favourite rolling Guru, Lotan Baba is not being ignored  . 

I wonder if some of the interest in morticing is because there is something about all the banging and wiggling needed that is inherently dissatisfying and people are just keen to hear about techniques that will mean they get it over with quicker, even if their skills don't improve much as a result..


----------



## D_W

All true. Remember when you planed the surface of a bubinga tabletop with a double iron and (of course, that's my gimmick - not really my gimmick, but I'm borrowing it from the folks smart enough to invent it) the discussion that followed generally was "oh, neat, but...., I'd use":
* a router
* single iron planes
* sanders
* wide belt sander

It all seemed a bit hypothetical, didn't it? Charlie hit you up with his normal thing, but because it was double iron and he likes to shoot at me with it: "there's a whole bunch of other ways to do that". 

And your response was "yes, this one is just better" (paraphrased). 

It was clear from those discussions that there just weren't many people doing what you're doing. I just finished another plane last night (from time to time, if someone offers me money above the cost of the plane I'm using at a given time, I'll sell it and donate the difference and build another). I was reminded, taking deep saw marks off of a board that must've been cut with an inaccurate circular sawmill for decorative purposes) just how well the double iron works, and how nice it would be to actually have a discussion about dimensioning. 

But, it's clear that few do it. And I'm sure few actually get mid project and have a setup like you're talking about (the H) and do it with hand-done mortise and tenons, because these arguments just don't come down to actually doing it well and the nuances, or the reality of the fact that guys like me (maybe not you) are going to cut and fit something like you're discussing, and then need to make minor repairs to get something both physically and aesthetically acceptable. 

I just finished my kitchen cabinets - literally 4 1/2 years of procrastination (and now the wife added a couple more of them after I sold my router table and other door making bits and pieces) - I hand cut and hand dimensioned almost all of the lumber and sticking (I did turn the machines on from time to time if I was getting the sharts of it), but aside from trying to be a one-man glue-up operation on cabinets made with dado construction on the carcase, the hardest thing to do was hand M&T all of the face frames and end up with excellent aesthetics. It just provided an ideal situation to practice M&T, but perfection is difficult - especially if you're dimensioning the wood by hand. 

If I were to have posted that (and ruined the idea that I don't do any woodwork - that'd have been a shame), how much discussion would it have garnered? I made a panel-raising plane during the process, and now that the mrs. has requested some more cabinets where we don't currently have them, I guess I'll make a couple of moulding planes (including on askew) to cut the decorative door parts that freud boringly made on the router bit set that I had (I still resent now that I didn't do the doors entirely by hand). 

Who else is going to have these conversations, though?

Personally, I share the double iron gimmickry and such on here because nobody around here (locally, geographically) is capable of talking about it. My local friend brought me a table top to smooth for him yesterday (he wanted it to be planed instead of sanded, and he knew I could plane it mark free). His comment to me "the double iron thing doesn't work for me", but each time he sees it, I know he'd like to figure it out. I can't get him to take up the whole idea of "just do it until you get the feel for it". I sense some of that in these threads. Who cares if there are mistakes? I'm sure i"ll find more in my kitchen cabinets when I go to hang them, but if there are some, I will fix them and fit them. 

I have one more face frame to make now on a very large side cabinet - maybe I will record and post some of the M&T. There is nearly nobody in the world who can teach me much about planes at this point (sorry, it's the truth), but I sure could stand to learn a lot about what I could do more efficiently cutting tenons.


----------



## custard

D_W":3iagla46 said:


> I sure could stand to learn a lot about what I could do more efficiently cutting tenons.



You and me both. I know plenty of very experienced cabinet makers with no more than "barely adequate" hand saw skills. 

A few weeks ago a couple of people on this forum told how they made a side table to a Richard Maguire design, it was mainly held together with bridle joints. When I sat the practical test for admission to a prestigious workshop we spent a day cutting various joints by hand and doing little woodworking tasks like inlay work and dovetailing. But the real killer, the test that separated the sheep from the goats, was cutting bridle joints by hand against the clock. There's absolutely no-where to hide with a bridle joint.

Anyhow, these people gave an account of how they, as relatively inexperienced woodworkers, used a simple little home made jig that Richard Maguire designed to cut their bridle joints. They seemed to do a very accurate and creditable job. It occurred to me that if you can cut a bridle joint accurately with this simple jig then you could certainly cut a tenon. 

It would be of huge practical help if, for example, one of them detailed exactly what they did and how it could be utilised for tenons.


----------



## G S Haydon

There are quite a few ways of working tenons by hand. In my experience the most reliable method is cutting to gauge lines and pencil/knife lines. I always aim for off the saw, not always perfect but it seems to work. If they need some adjustment a 25mm chisel is great, perhaps a shoulder plane on a long shoulder such a string to newel post. I might also split a tenon cheek if the grain is favorable.
Using a fillister on really wide tenons can also be used, but not something I do very often.

I have seen people using metal hand routers to keep removing a little at a time. I see that as a very tedious way of working and would only be really effective of machine prepared stuff. My tip would be grab a tenon saw and practice!

The mortising video is great and sitting is really effective for many tasks. Having worked from sawhorses when required the reduced height can be real aid.


----------



## Tasky

D_W":2vab78gk said:


> If you do anything in woodworking for years, you're going to wear some part of you out.


No need to hurry it up, then...



D_W":2vab78gk said:


> I'm sure you could get up and stretch once in a while, and it wouldn't amount to anything.


Depends. 
Against injuries from repetitively doing this, then maybe.... But sometimes it can be the very first whack with a chisel that jars something and does you in. And even if not, your body isn't designed to work well while all twisted up like that and ignoring this always cost you in the end. I don't even need to mention microtensions, as there's some pretty major ones right there!!

Is there a reason he's not at least straddling the things?



D_W":2vab78gk said:


> FTR, I'm sure I'll never be a lightning fast professional, either, but doing things well is usually less effort.


Why not?
I thought you only needed to watch a professional to improve?  

Doing things well might not be so much about less effort, as finer control of the same effort. For example, a big strong lad of 17 might swing a pick axe with more strength, but an old experienced miner with less strength has teh precision and feel to put that strength right through the rock in one swing.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

There seems to have been a fashion recently for buying big tenon saws - 16" or 18". Just the job for big tenons on entrance door work and the like, but I suspect far to cumbersome for most furniture-sized tenons. Even a dovetail saw would do for the smaller ones.

At school, we were taught and expected to cut them by the classical 'three triangles' method, and to have them fit from the saw. Nobody told us it was difficult, so we just did it - and most people managed it after a couple of goes. Not perfectly every time, but not too shoddy either. I still aim for that, and find that things tend to get worse if I end up with a fat tenon and have to pare it. Fitting straight from the saw sounds hard, but with careful marking out and careful starting of the sawcut, it's actually not as hard as it sounds once you've done a few. If you can do it with a dovetail, you can do it with a tenon.

There's a thing going about 'a dovetail a day for a month'. Maybe we should be plugging 'a mortice and tenon a day for a month', too.


----------



## AndyT

Custard, Paul Sellers has done a couple of videos showing a simple home made jig for accurately sawing tenons. It does seem to work well for him.

https://youtu.be/r-08PY3stgo


----------



## AndyT

Tasky":3gojy9tl said:


> Is there a reason he's not at least straddling the things?



Pretty sure this was mentioned in other discussion on the mortising stool.
If he did slip and injure himself, sitting the way he does, he'll only hurt his thigh.


----------



## D_W

Tasky":2olip7gn said:


> D_W":2olip7gn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you do anything in woodworking for years, you're going to wear some part of you out.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to hurry it up, then...
> 
> 
> 
> D_W":2olip7gn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you could get up and stretch once in a while, and it wouldn't amount to anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends.
> Against injuries from repetitively doing this, then maybe.... But sometimes it can be the very first whack with a chisel that jars something and does you in. And even if not, your body isn't designed to work well while all twisted up like that and ignoring this always cost you in the end. I don't even need to mention microtensions, as there's some pretty major ones right there!!
> 
> Is there a reason he's not at least straddling the things?
> 
> 
> 
> D_W":2olip7gn said:
> 
> 
> 
> FTR, I'm sure I'll never be a lightning fast professional, either, but doing things well is usually less effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
> I thought you only needed to watch a professional to improve?
> 
> Doing things well might not be so much about less effort, as finer control of the same effort. For example, a big strong lad of 17 might swing a pick axe with more strength, but an old experienced miner with less strength has teh precision and feel to put that strength right through the rock in one swing.
Click to expand...


You're forgetting the part of repetition after observation.

Keep following the instructors who talk a lot and make little.


----------



## nabs

custard":114ybtee said:


> ... a little home made jig that Richard Maguire designed to cut their bridle joints.
> It would be of huge practical help if, for example, one of them detailed exactly what they did and how it could be utilised for tenons.



[youtube]2SQ8s3mqd74[/youtube]

You can see them in this intro video, and he goes into detail on how to make them on the paid 'side table' series , but the basic idea is to make one well fitted joint by hand and to use the finished tenon as a reference from which to make two guides (there are two guides so that both the tenon cuts can be referenced from the same face). 

His argument for using them was the same as yours, namely that bridle joints are tricky and generally not used often enough for people to become efficient, so the jig pays for itself quite quickly.

You could certainly use then for normal tenons, but the disadvantage is you need one pair for each thickness of timber you are using.

Funnily enough, he does have a little jig for mortices though - similar to the bridle joint jig and used as a sort of combined rod and a fence to hold your chisel against ( meaning you avoid a lot of marking up).


----------



## custard

nabs":a090a693 said:


> the basic idea is to make one well fitted joint by hand and to _use the finished tenon as a reference from which to make two guides_ (there are two guides so that both the tenon cuts can be referenced from the same face).



That's interesting in itself. 

One of the basic rules of cabinet making is "first make the hole, then make the thing that goes in the hole", so the default advice from generations of furniture making experience would be to cut the mortice then make the tenon fit the mortice. It would never even occur to me to work any other way, hats off to Richard Maguire, that's more radical than might be first assumed.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

One of the basic rules of cabinet making is "first make the hole, then make the thing that goes in the hole"
.............. which really makes little sense, when the hole is the easier part. :?


----------



## nabs

I have not explained it clearly - sorry! 

There are 4 guides in total (2 for the tenon, 2 for the mortice). Both pairs are marked out and cut based on the original test joint. 

Because the guides ensure that the cuts are always the correct distance from your reference face it does not matter if the tenon or mortice is done first. 

it might be a bit clearer in his other intro videos:

https://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/th ... le-guides/


----------



## Jacob

Cheshirechappie":1iquke37 said:


> ....
> At school, we were taught and expected to cut them by the classical 'three triangles' method, and to have them fit from the saw. Nobody told us it was difficult, so we just did it - and most people managed it after a couple of goes. Not perfectly every time, but not too shoddy either. ....


Yep. Good marking with the mortice gauge, sharp saw and 3 triangles. Saw needs a good set on it so you can steer it if necessary. 
In fact if the saw is in the right condition it's all very easy - makes you wonder if all the alternative strategies (guides etc) come down to not having a very good saw + technique, in the first place.


----------



## nabs

just for clarity, the guides discussed above were specifically intended for bridle joints - the question asked was 'could they be used for an ordinary mortice and tenon?'. to which I suspect the answer is 'yes' (but it may not save you any time).

PS re. jacob's other point on the state of the saw and technique - this is pretty much the only thing that could go wrong when making a bridle joint with these guides, which are basically silly person proof.


----------



## Jacob

phil.p":21zg58x2 said:


> One of the basic rules of cabinet making is "first make the hole, then make the thing that goes in the hole"
> .............. which really makes little sense, when the hole is the easier part. :?


The hole _and_ the tenon cheeks are easiest done before any mouldings, rebates have been applied. The tenon shoulders easiest as the last thing after everything else.


----------



## Tasky

D_W":7sc4p7uj said:


> Keep following the instructors who talk a lot and make little.


What makes you think I follow them in the first place?
None of them are making what I want to make, so there's little point there. 

I'm more interested in finding what works for me and then practicing that, rather than repeating the same mistakes and expecting a different result. :wink:


----------



## D_W

The circle gets more confusing the longer we go. At the beginning of this, it was necessary to have a charismatic teacher because it was too difficult to figure out anything by watching a professional. Now we're to figuring things out by ourselves. 

I'm sort of ashamed that I've stuck in this discussion this long. 

I hope the other folks on here who are looking to make things, do it at a reasonable pace and improve find value in such things as the Chinese fellow mortising. I'm surprised Jacob had as many differences with it as he did (I'd like to see a video comparison), but I can just flat out say - that man mortises faster than I do. I've seen him do it before, but every time I watch him do it, I learn something that makes my shop experience nicer and more satisfying.


----------



## CStanford

A regular bevel edged chisel works fine if that's what you have and presumably everybody has a few of these. If you spend weeks turning into months turning into years evaluating different kinds of mortise chisels - style, brand, vintage, new, etc. then you're missing the entire point of simply making a relatively neat hole in a piece of wood. During a period of time in which I had ear trouble, and loud noises were like torture, I became fond of and relatively adept at drilling and paring mortises. If you do all the drilling first, then come back and pare, it's about as fast as chopping with a mortise chisel. If it's your goal to become a pieceworker, the lowest common denominator, chopping mortises all day to the exclusion of all the other processes in a woodworking project, then feel free to jump in a time machine and have all the fun you can stand to have.

In the context of a complete project - design sketching, drafting, cut list, stock selection, setting out, four squaring, cutting joints, assembly, finishing, etc., etc. the difference in any one mortising method or style of mortise chisel is meaningless. Some will be horrified at the notion, others will find comfort in it.


----------



## D_W

G S Haydon":y2nsp8rk said:


> There are quite a few ways of working tenons by hand. In my experience the most reliable method is cutting to gauge lines and pencil/knife lines. I always aim for off the saw, not always perfect but it seems to work. If they need some adjustment a 25mm chisel is great, perhaps a shoulder plane on a long shoulder such a string to newel post. I might also split a tenon cheek if the grain is favorable.
> Using a fillister on really wide tenons can also be used, but not something I do very often.
> 
> I have seen people using metal hand routers to keep removing a little at a time. I see that as a very tedious way of working and would only be really effective of machine prepared stuff. My tip would be grab a tenon saw and practice!
> 
> The mortising video is great and sitting is really effective for many tasks. Having worked from sawhorses when required the reduced height can be real aid.



That's pretty much the way I go about it. Aim for the lines, hope for a fit on the first try. On the shoulders, I mark deeply, cut just shy of the lines and remove the material with a single cut right at the gauge line with a respectably wide chisel, leaving just a bit at the sides and then I pare that (I think some wouldn't be comfortable doing that, but it takes little time to learn to pare across that line accurately. 

No faffing (no shoulder planes, no router planes, etc). 

I think exposure (practice) is more my problem for speed, and developing more routines that are habitual (in getting everything in order and moving it around in the vise). It's certainly not the fault of my tools if something doesn't work out. More practice would probably lead to more direct fits off of the saw, too.


----------



## D_W

CStanford":9tf5ht21 said:


> A regular bevel edged chisel works fine if that's what you have and presumably everybody has a few of these. If you spend weeks turning into months turning into years evaluating different kinds of mortise chisels - style, brand, vintage, new, etc. then you're missing the entire point of simply making a relatively neat hole in a piece of wood. During a period of time in which I had ear trouble, and loud noises were like torture, I became fond of and relatively adept at drilling and paring mortises. If you do all the drilling first, then come back and pare, it's about as fast as chopping with a mortise chisel. If it's your goal to become a pieceworker, the lowest common denominator, chopping mortises all day to the exclusion of all the other processes in a woodworking project, then feel free to jump in a time machine and have all the fun you can stand to have.
> 
> In the context of a complete project - design sketching, drafting, cut list, stock selection, setting out, four squaring, cutting joints, assembly, finishing, etc., etc. the difference in any one mortising method or style of mortise chisel is meaningless. Some will be horrified at the notion, others will find comfort in it.



Charlie, each individual thing contributes little in time. Doing a lot of them inefficiently, then that's not so. Certainly, the design, layout and glue up planning for certain things is much more of a challenge, and much less pleasant to discuss. I'd go so far to say that *marking* is more difficult than the joint cutting (I don't think that's a stretch). 

If you're doing one piece, and then never the same again, everything other than the actual cutting becomes a time sink, and i don't think people will pay for it (i don't find it that interesting to build one of something and then move on - it feels like walking on a treadmill).

I've got ..well, I've not got more tools than everyone on here, but I do have more than most, I'd bet. When I'm working on something, though, I generally go back to the same ones. At some point, I'll grow up and sell off the rest, but not yet. And I'll always keep an extra stanley 4.

Still don't get much of a charge cutting mortises with a bevel edge chisel, and neither do most professionals that I've seen - just a personal thing, I guess.


----------



## CStanford

At those points in time that I've accumulated more tools than I used on a regular basis, all they did was rust. Getting rid of them was liberating and the right thing to do. And I could still stand to get rid of a few more.


----------



## Tasky

D_W":33al6i6v said:


> The circle gets more confusing the longer we go. At the beginning of this, it was necessary to have a charismatic teacher because it was too difficult to figure out anything by watching a professional. Now we're to figuring things out by ourselves.


Not at all. 
The teacher/guru/professional/forum-poster tells you what they're doing and/or how they're doing it. 
You then decide, based partially on how well they've conveyed it, if that's of use to you and how you prefer to work, or not. 
Pretty straightforward.


----------



## CStanford

Bevel-edged, pig sticker, sash, then drill and pare, cutting by the layered method, cutting by the central-v method. All of these are well within orthodoxy. Pick the combination you like. Anybody demonstrating one of these methods or tools isn't guilty of practicing black magic or anything like that.


----------



## D_W

CStanford":38ix08ie said:


> At those points in time that I've accumulated more tools than I used on a regular basis, all they did was rust. Getting rid of them was liberating and the right thing to do. And I could still stand to get rid of a few more.



I have a rust rule. If it rusts, I sell it within a week, but the area through the door of my garage is heated and dry, so the myriad of unnecessary tool gear in there is safe (mostly planes). My saws are all in my garage, and I have far fewer than I used to due to the rust rule. Waxing them in use tends to skew their survivability in the garage (where the humidity is extremely high in the summer due to the temperature trailing outside by 10-15 degrees, but sharing the same air. RH is usually above the 63% rust point). 

I don't tend to keep a lot of planes of types that I'm not building, but if I am building something, I may have 10 to 20 of that type until I know how I'd like to build the type - and a pile of planes that I've built (they're essentially unsaleable if they're not perfect).

Chisels are another story, though - all are in my garage, and rust rule applies, but they're mostly enclosed and don't rust. 

I can't recall selling anything and wishing i had it back.


----------



## CStanford

Rust was meant metaphorically as well as literally. Certainly I could protect the tools from rust if I tried hard enough, but then that sort of magnifies the absurdity of the exercise of maintaining and storing surplus, unused tools.


----------



## D_W

CStanford":xgjj1v5w said:


> Rust was meant metaphorically as well as literally. Certainly I could protect the tools from rust if I tried hard enough, but then that sort of magnifies the absurdity of the exercise of maintaining and storing surplus, unused tools.



Not rust in my case other than the literal sense. I have the dry space, it doesn't get "people traffic". If I had to periodically check unused tools, I'd sell them. I did that when I was a beginner - brand new boutique tools, kept them in the garage. If I was out of the garage for a week or two, I had to take half an hour and make sure nothing accumulated any rust. Not much fun.

I sense that most don't have a dry basement that stays dry, but thanks to the overspending old lady who lived in my house before me, the part of my downstairs inside the garage is totally dry. Not so for the neighbors. I guess I have her to thank for my ability to hoard to an extent, and the air conditioner condenser for removing moisture in the summer. Who knows? It works, and it allows me to delay selling the things I could potentially refer to in the near future. I wouldn't have 20 infills to look at if they had to stay in my garage. They'd rust in days.


----------



## CStanford

Or one could just coat them in Cosmoline and seal the matter and status of the tools both literally and figuratively. The dry space you describe sounds like a good place to store lumber or veneer. Why waste it on tools? You could probably fit a lot of beech plane billets in there I'd imagine.


----------



## D_W

CStanford":2ns4259a said:


> Or one could just coat them in Cosmoline and seal the matter and status of the tools both literally and figuratively. The dry space you describe sounds like a good place to store lumber or veneer. Why waste it on tools? You could probably fit a lot of beech plane billets in there I'd imagine.



Beech billets survive fine in the garage. Storing lumber in a carpeted basement would be a non-starter with the mrs (I have probably stashed 100 board feet of QS beech and tropical billets in there already, though - but stickering lumber out in the open would never go over due to the potential of "hiding spiders"). 

I've got room in the garage to store lumber (a space of about 12x20) and the practice of putting cars in the garage has been ceased. 

Priorities would be different if I was storing materials for paying pieces, but at this point, I may have something in the range of 800 bd feet of wood, and that's plenty enough. 100 of that is beech, and even at that, I don't know if planemaking will outlast it, because I have made a grand total of:

$0

So far making planes.


----------



## G S Haydon

D_W":3cpmvhm6 said:


> G S Haydon":3cpmvhm6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are quite a few ways of working tenons by hand. In my experience the most reliable method is cutting to gauge lines and pencil/knife lines. I always aim for off the saw, not always perfect but it seems to work. If they need some adjustment a 25mm chisel is great, perhaps a shoulder plane on a long shoulder such a string to newel post. I might also split a tenon cheek if the grain is favorable.
> Using a fillister on really wide tenons can also be used, but not something I do very often.
> 
> I have seen people using metal hand routers to keep removing a little at a time. I see that as a very tedious way of working and would only be really effective of machine prepared stuff. My tip would be grab a tenon saw and practice!
> 
> The mortising video is great and sitting is really effective for many tasks. Having worked from sawhorses when required the reduced height can be real aid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty much the way I go about it. Aim for the lines, hope for a fit on the first try. On the shoulders, I mark deeply, cut just shy of the lines and remove the material with a single cut right at the gauge line with a respectably wide chisel, leaving just a bit at the sides and then I pare that (I think some wouldn't be comfortable doing that, but it takes little time to learn to pare across that line accurately.
> 
> No faffing (no shoulder planes, no router planes, etc).
> 
> I think exposure (practice) is more my problem for speed, and developing more routines that are habitual (in getting everything in order and moving it around in the vise). It's certainly not the fault of my tools if something doesn't work out. More practice would probably lead to more direct fits off of the saw, too.
Click to expand...


I think Charles has a point with "overthink", however the point you've tried to make during this discussion is very valid. I'm very happy for anyone to have fun in the shop how they want, making practice joints, just tinkering, just taking a few shavings. I'm just not sure the video Andy linked to is that helpful, whereas the Chinese guy is very inspiring. In Andy's video it takes close to 45mins to make one joint with a router plane and a lot of faffing. If time is no issue and you're having fun, go ahead, take 3 hours to cut 4 joints to make one small door or such like. At some point though you'll want to get closer to the chinese guy if you want to have even a modest amount progress and enjoyment of completed projects.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

custard":3hddkqwe said:


> D_W":3hddkqwe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure could stand to learn a lot about what I could do more efficiently cutting tenons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..............
> 
> Anyhow, these people gave an account of how they, as relatively inexperienced woodworkers, used a simple little home made jig that Richard Maguire designed to cut their bridle joints. They seemed to do a very accurate and creditable job. It occurred to me that if you can cut a bridle joint accurately with this simple jig then you could certainly cut a tenon.
> 
> It would be of huge practical help if, for example, one of them detailed exactly what they did and how it could be utilised for tenons.
Click to expand...


Custard, I designed a tenon guide for Lee Valley several years ago. They sat of a prototype they built, and could not make up their mind for a few more years. Eventually, they decided not to go with it. I subsequently put the design on my website ...

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTo ... Guide.html

It is (says I modestly  ) quite brilliant. Basically, it mimics hand sawing to guide the saw cut. One can use a spacer for widths, or saw to a line.






















It guides the saw on cheeks and shoulders.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## custard

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> I designed a tenon guide for Lee Valley several years ago



They absolutely should make that, I'd be first in the queue with my cheque book open!

Cabinet making's dirty secret is that a high percentage of extremely accomplished furniture makers don't actually have very good hand saw skills. Sure, plenty good enough for dovetailing drawers, but dovetailing is only a small part of the hand sawing lexicon. 

I once trained at a workshop alongside a number of people moving into furniture making from other woodworking skills. No one there could remotely be described as a beginner or inexperienced, yet it was crystal clear that the guys who had been site carpenters or boat builders were light years ahead of the luthiers, restorers and cabinet makers when it came to using a hand saw. 

I guess practise makes perfect and the fact is, apart from dovetails, even furniture makers with twenty years or more experience under their belts rarely use a hand saw so they just don't get all that good at it.


----------



## El Barto

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> custard":3uqbr15a said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D_W":3uqbr15a said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure could stand to learn a lot about what I could do more efficiently cutting tenons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..............
> 
> Anyhow, these people gave an account of how they, as relatively inexperienced woodworkers, used a simple little home made jig that Richard Maguire designed to cut their bridle joints. They seemed to do a very accurate and creditable job. It occurred to me that if you can cut a bridle joint accurately with this simple jig then you could certainly cut a tenon.
> 
> It would be of huge practical help if, for example, one of them detailed exactly what they did and how it could be utilised for tenons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Custard, I designed a tenon guide for Lee Valley several years ago. They sat of a prototype they built, and could not make up their mind for a few more years. Eventually, they decided not to go with it. I subsequently put the design on my website ...
> 
> http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTo ... Guide.html
> 
> It is (says I modestly  ) quite brilliant. Basically, it mimics hand sawing to guide the saw cut. One can use a spacer for widths, or saw to a line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It guides the saw on cheeks and shoulders.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek
Click to expand...


That's excellent! That would benefit so many people. I find sawing tenons much more difficult than sawing dovetails. Lee Valley missed a trick there I reckon...


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)

> Cabinet making's dirty secret is that a high percentage of extremely accomplished furniture makers don't actually have very good hand saw skills. Sure, plenty good enough for dovetailing drawers, but dovetailing is only a small part of the hand sawing lexicon.



Custard, I agree, sawing dovetails is much easier than sawing tenons. The level of accuracy needed is many times that of a dovetail - sawing the cheeks requires two long vertical cuts. If there are not coplanar with the walls of the mortice (another difficult joint to chop with a chisel accurately), then the combination will be a disaster. It is interesting to see that many struggle with this. And then there are the shoulder cuts, which I consider more difficult to align front and back ... which is why I advise that one saws off the shoulder line, and then chisel back. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## custard

You're right, but it's more than just jointing. When I was training for the first six months we could only use hand tools. You'd frequently find yourself in a position where a board was say 1/2", or even 1/4" too thick or too wide. The site carpenters and boat builders wouldn't think twice, they'd take a rip saw and remove all the waste apart from a minute strip that could be planed away in three or four strokes. The furniture makers, antique restorers and luthiers would plane _all_ the waste off, so we'd lose ten minutes straight away.

I'm reminded of that whenever I see a Paul Sellers Youtube video, I don't think he's a particularly _great_ furniture maker, but there's no doubt that he's got that same absolute confidence and turn of speed with a hand saw.


----------



## Jacob

custard":2a8fo55o said:


> .... a board was say 1/2", or even 1/4" too thick or too wide. The site carpenters and boat builders wouldn't think twice, they'd take a rip saw and remove all the waste apart from a minute strip that could be planed away in three or four strokes. The furniture makers, antique restorers and luthiers would plane _all_ the waste off, so we'd lose ten minutes straight away.......


We were taught to use a joiner's axe as well as rip sawing.
Mine was a Spear & Jackson a bit smaller than Sellers' https://paulsellers.com/2015/05/the-joiners-axe/
Very quick to take the edge off a board, if necessary following scribe lines for a shape you couldn't saw anyway. Finishing with a plane. A block plane at 45º ish for scribed edges - cambered blade essential.
A bit of practice and you'd get very close to the mark, very quickly.

PS and wall plugs too! https://paulsellers.com/2015/05/the-joi ... e-part-ii/ though Sellers misses a trick there; you'd just cut one end of a the plug (on a longer bit of scrap) then hammer it into the wall and only then cut it exactly to length, with the piece left for some more plugs.


----------



## D_W

Jacob":36vuhotb said:


> custard":36vuhotb said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... a board was say 1/2", or even 1/4" too thick or too wide. The site carpenters and boat builders wouldn't think twice, they'd take a rip saw and remove all the waste apart from a minute strip that could be planed away in three or four strokes. The furniture makers, antique restorers and luthiers would plane _all_ the waste off, so we'd lose ten minutes straight away.......
> 
> 
> 
> We were taught to use a joiner's axe as well as rip sawing.
> Mine was a Spear & Jackson a bit smaller than Sellers' https://paulsellers.com/2015/05/the-joiners-axe/
> Very quick to take the edge off a board, if necessary following scribe lines for a shape you couldn't saw anyway. Finishing with a plane. A block plane at 45º ish for scribed edges - cambered blade essential.
> A bit of practice and you'd get very close to the mark, very quickly.
> 
> PS and wall plugs too! https://paulsellers.com/2015/05/the-joi ... e-part-ii/ though Sellers misses a trick there; you'd just cut one end of a the plug (on a longer bit of scrap) then hammer it into the wall and only then cut it exactly to length, with the piece left for some more plugs.
Click to expand...


Jeez, paul is really over the top in his lifestyle comments in that - I hope he's cooled down a little bit about that. It's just as bad as the religious wood talk from Japanese woodworking (which some people really get into).


----------



## Jacob

D_W":3o02igjm said:


> ......
> 
> Jeez, paul is really over the top in his lifestyle comments in that - I hope he's cooled down a little bit about that. It's just as bad as the religious wood talk from Japanese woodworking (which some people really get into).


What, the orange boxes? 
He's probably saying it how it was; 1958 - in the UK oranges were very seasonal, almost exotic fruit back then - only a few years earlier we'd get a Jaffa in our christmas stocking they were so special. Tangerines were around for a week or so. Grapefruit were common though - don't know why.
From 1947 we were given NHS concentrated orange juice for Vitamin C. Maybe that's where they all went.


----------



## D_W

Jacob":2tmytaqe said:


> D_W":2tmytaqe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> Jeez, paul is really over the top in his lifestyle comments in that - I hope he's cooled down a little bit about that. It's just as bad as the religious wood talk from Japanese woodworking (which some people really get into).
> 
> 
> 
> What, the orange boxes?
> He's probably saying it how it was; 1958 - in the UK oranges were very seasonal, almost exotic fruit back then - only a few years earlier we'd get a Jaffa in our christmas stocking they were so special. Tangerines were around for a week or so. Grapefruit were common though - don't know why.
> From 1947 we were given NHS concentrated orange juice for Vitamin C. Maybe that's where they all went.
Click to expand...


No, the talk about it being really important to leave tool marks on wedges so that people can see them later. Nobody is going to care about the marks on a wedge. That's claptrap to make more out of something than there is - but I'm sure it draws in the retirees and white collar folks who think they've lived an unsatisfying life.

>"Woodworking is as much about texture and life recorded in the wood as it is about speed and efficiency. It’s lifestyle."<

Pretty deep for a hacked out wedge. Not deep as in thoughtful, but deep in terms of the height of boots you'd need to walk through it without coming out stinky.


----------



## Tasky

D_W":1jy6pvdz said:


> >"Woodworking is as much about texture and life recorded in the wood as it is about speed and efficiency. It’s lifestyle."<
> Pretty deep for a hacked out wedge. Not deep as in thoughtful, but deep in terms of the height of boots you'd need to walk through it without coming out stinky.


Most of the people I make things for feel the same way about wood, whereas I really don't give a monkey's fig personally... I get them to do the design and make the decisions on which bits they want on show. I just care about how it goes together and how well it stays that way.


----------



## Jacob

D_W":s5o7d6ij said:


> "Woodworking is as much about texture and life recorded in the wood as it is about speed and efficiency. It’s lifestyle."..


I couldn't find the quote. He does wax poetical, but better out than in!
On the whole I empathise with Sellers a lot. I've spent a lot of time working in old buildings the same, and you do get drawn in to how things were done, so cleverly and quickly, with such simple kit.
It gets exciting to find little traces of the long dead chaps who did the work - clay pipe bowls sometimes with a trace of tobacco, pencil marks and instructions on the backs of frames etc etc.
I was mystified by a mysterious pattern which recurred at the same height in the mortar in an old wall - as though someone had pressed in a large cockle shell at regular intervals. Best interpretation suggested the imprint of the corduroy trousered knees of a labourer on the scaffold as he plastered away, or lifted stone into place.
Like a time capsule still fresh and untouched, tucked away behind the visible surfaces. Outside everything has been worked over many times, obliterating all traces of the chaps who did the work


----------



## D_W

If a guy came to me and told me how wood was lifestyle, I'd ask him what his rate was and compare it to the other peoples' rates. If he couldn't match them, I'd choose the guy with the lower rate.

Also, I get what you're saying about what you saw. I doubt the guy who left the marks was doing it to be cute, though. They were authentic, and not the kind of markings of slop left so that later something could be seen as "hand hewn".


----------



## Bodgers

D_W":2r89mkdj said:


> Jacob":2r89mkdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> D_W":2r89mkdj said:
> 
> 
> 
> ......
> 
> Jeez, paul is really over the top in his lifestyle comments in that - I hope he's cooled down a little bit about that. It's just as bad as the religious wood talk from Japanese woodworking (which some people really get into).
> 
> 
> 
> What, the orange boxes?
> He's probably saying it how it was; 1958 - in the UK oranges were very seasonal, almost exotic fruit back then - only a few years earlier we'd get a Jaffa in our christmas stocking they were so special. Tangerines were around for a week or so. Grapefruit were common though - don't know why.
> From 1947 we were given NHS concentrated orange juice for Vitamin C. Maybe that's where they all went.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the talk about it being really important to leave tool marks on wedges so that people can see them later. Nobody is going to care about the marks on a wedge. That's claptrap to make more out of something than there is - but I'm sure it draws in the retirees and white collar folks who think they've lived an unsatisfying life.
> 
> >"Woodworking is as much about texture and life recorded in the wood as it is about speed and efficiency. It’s lifestyle."<
> 
> Pretty deep for a hacked out wedge. Not deep as in thoughtful, but deep in terms of the height of boots you'd need to walk through it without coming out stinky.
Click to expand...

Reminds me off an old copy of The Woodworker I recently got my hands on. It is from 1949. In an article about dovetailing Hayward scolds the reader for any thought of leaving the knife lines from the marking out. "Most unsightly". Back in '49 it was a new trend apparently. I sort of enjoy the way he tells you off for even considering a certain choice 

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk


----------



## nabs

re the poetry of woodworking etc. being a reasonably laid back sort of chap I am rarely roused to anger but one thing that sets me off is poetry, particularly when it is recited (although just knowing it has been written down is bad enough). 

As a result I ought to be furious with Mr Sellers about his contributions on this front, but he has a rather admirable attitude to the whole thing: He has written on one of his blogs that, although he gets quite a lot of stick for his prose and poetry, he really enjoys writing it and since it is not hurting anyone he has no plans to stop. Fair enough (I still won't be reading any of his poems, mind you!).


----------



## CStanford

Ersatz is ersatz. 

If you make a drawer the way it's supposed to be made the sides get flushed to the front so there wouldn't be any gauge lines left or only very faint ones if they were originally run in pretty deeply. That said, if somebody who matters loves them, then build in a way that preserves them. If everybody's happy, why not?


----------



## D_W

nabs":2w7g1vds said:


> re the poetry of woodworking etc. being a reasonably laid back sort of chap I am rarely roused to anger but one thing that sets me off is poetry, particularly when it is recited (although just knowing it has been written down is bad enough).



I can tolerate a filthy limerick at my expense or someone else's, but there is something about any other (attempted serious) recited poetry that is distancing from clear communication and impersonal. Very peacocky.


----------



## Tasky

D_W":3dlidf57 said:


> I can tolerate a filthy limerick at my expense or someone else's, but there is something about any other (attempted serious) recited poetry that is distancing from clear communication and impersonal. Very peacocky.


If the poetry itself reads well enough, and sometimes even when it doesn't, having someone speak it aloud with all the caesurae, emphasis and all other inflection makes a massive difference. 
I could cite all manner of things, from book narrative, to poetry, plays, film scripts, even song lyrics from the most unlikely of sources - When merely read they're flat and lifeless, but when performed they are totally different. 

The problem with Sellers's philosophical considerations is that he writes it as he thinks/speaks it, which doesn't really work unless he actually is speaking it. 
Happily though, one can simply gloss over that and skip directly to whichever information is of use.


----------

