Chris Schwarz's Handplane Essentials Book

[D_W]

I've had three of them. Perhaps 4 (plane and chisel sharpening, a chisel method DVD and there was a summary video with five topics on it with a wonderful segment about sharpening scrapers). The sharpening video for planes was where I learned to sharpen planes, though I moved away from that method pretty quickly once I started working entirely by hand (it's a bit slow and limiting, but those aren't issues when you're starting and you just need sharp so that you can get moving). The scraper method was lovely, but I no longer use scrapers of that type (a slower method of achieving the same thing as a common plane with a cap iron).

At any rate, limiting meaning, how will you sharpen your pocket knives? Your gouges? moving fillister planes that are askew?

If you are never going to do any of those things, then sure, no problem. But watching George Wilson work in the colonial williamsburg videos....it doesn't look the same.

I have much more regard for David than Chris, though. It's just an opinion, a feel of who is credible and who is not. There are a lot of holes, though - what if you like to saw everything by hand? Why do most of the videos push beginners toward modern tools so much instead of having perhaps a separate video about the function of tools in general and preparation of them to a level of functionality less so than perfection.

Why is it that when I make a statement (as I did last year) on here that you can plane a flat surface and keep it flat without taking stop shavings that all of the gurus work into dogma and state that you cannot? I haven't read about this in Nicholson (I don't have the nicholson text), but one of the older texts states that you need to be able to plane a board along its length and finish it. What is implied with that? The plane guru in the united states (larry williams) has everyone believing that there is some set of strange moves that you do with a small plane and that smoothing is sort of like picking dandelions. What happens when you have about 30 square feet of surface to smooth and you adopt that instead of just achieving the finish as a matter of lumber preparation itself?

 

[El Barto]

I like Chris. I've learnt a lot from him in the same way that I've learnt a lot from David Charlesworth and Paul Sellers and numerous people on this forum. As a hobbyist woodworker, unlike a traditional apprentice or what have you, you take packets of information where and when you need them and commit them to memory. When those sources of information present something you don't agree with or don't need, you ignore it or skip it because there are ten other useful things on the next page or in the next video.

People like Chris Schwarz undoubtedly assist in the widening of ones knowledge (particularly beginners) and broadening ones scope (within woodworking that is). I can't call myself a disciple of his but I do appreciate what he does and I certainly appreciate his enthusiasm and passion and ultimately, at the end of the day, who really cares if he is or isn't good at whatever? Why does it matter? If you don't like it then move on.

Thanks for the original review Bodgers!

 

[D_W]

It probably sounds like I begrudge people the opportunity to go that route (the lite route), but I don't. At the end of the day, you have to do what you enjoy.

In terms of does it matter or not if the educator can do? It does to me, but it may not to someone else. It sort of reminds me of baseball (or golf, or anything of the like). If you're studying hitting, do you read Ted Williams, or do you listen to Bob Costas? Bob Costas is really excited about baseball, but I doubt he could hit one.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

What's "baseball" ?

 

[David C]

David,

I am so glad you found my sharpening DVDs useful.

Derek Cohen writes that "Chris is a good teacher and responsible writer".

Tony Zaffuto says Chris does an excellent job with "Lost Arts Press".

Eric the Viking and many others like his stuff.

I find comments like "Chris's mediocrity" very inappropriate.

For your information Garrett told me that he spends 1/3 of his year farming his own land, and getting timber with his heavy Belgian horse.
1/3 of his year teaching and writing, the last third making furniture.

I very much doubt that the definitive literature on furniture making techniques exists, as so much was passed down from Master to apprentice, without being written down.

Please try to persuade George to write a book.

David Charlesworth

 

[Cheshirechappie]

I posted a link to a blogpost from the LAP website, written by CS, earlier in the thread (page2). Here's what I consider the pertinent bit again:

"Your work will be better if you listen to a variety of voices. Don’t just listen to me. Learn what you can from all the other people out there. And pay special attention to the people who are also willing to listen to others.

Learning this craft from 100 teachers (instead of just one) is more challenging for you, the student. At some point you will need to say: “Wait, this particular bit of gospel is total BS to me.” But you will be a more resilient, informed and balanced woodworker as a result.

You will see the overall patterns in our craft, not just methods of a single teacher. And maybe, when it comes time for you to teach others, your mind will be open, and you will glady promote the work of others, even if it challenges the work you do every day at the bench.

— Christopher Schwarz"

 

[Eric The Viking]

That's a great quote, and it applies in so many other areas of life, too. Thanks for posting it.

 

[D_W]

I think I've probably said several times on here (and in other threads - perhaps a dozen) that Chris does great at what he's an expert at - publishing. When he compiles and presents someone else's information, it's quite lovely. And as Tony points out, the prices are better than most others who do it with lots of links in the chain. It's when he steps into the making and demonstrating that it goes downhill, but not everyone is wound as tight as I am about that (and some are wound tighter - I am not trying to get you to admit you are, but you are wound pretty tight when it comes to standards).

As far as George writing a book, I think if you could get someone to follow him around for a year and organize it, you could come up with a book title like "fundamentals of doing fine work across a variety of disciplines", but I don't think he has much drive to do it himself - it's probably too late at this point. I know he's been badgered by publishers to write books in the past and has had multiple requests to open a school, but I don't think he can separate himself from the making and designing. A shame, but there must be scads of other makers toiling away taking their secrets with them in the end - not for lack of desire to share it, but it never rises to the top of the list.

 

[D_W]

What's "baseball" ?

It's sort of like cricket, but not quite, and ...well, it's better!

I know you guys like golf over there, though - at least some of the population does.

Perhaps I should've said "like Colin Montgomerie writing an article for muscle and fitness".

 

[RichardL]

Unfortunately, the opinions of such authors can hold sway. I remember when I was searching for recommendations on new planes a few years ago, and having just come across the Clifton brand, the first review that Google provided me with was the initial Schwartz review. That review was potentially quite damaging to the brand although a subsequent review was quite the opposite. That first review remained the first thing that popped up for a long time. Equally, Paul Sellers endorsement of one brand over another can potentially unfairly damage a brand and promote another and his assessments are quite often just based on whether he thinks the tool is affordable to a student, not whether the ones he rubbishes or disregards are intrinsically good tools or not - they just aren't , in his view, such good value for money (cheap). That seems a narrow view and doesn't, for example, take into account that some more expensive tools may have a component of 'traditionally hand made' which is, you would think, something he might want to promote as it's his bread and butter.
Cheers
Richard

 

[Eric The Viking]

... That first review remained the first thing that popped up for a long time.

To be fair, that could well be the fault of the Clifton brand, not Schwartz.

Rule #1 of managing reviewers is: Don't ever, EVER send out poor quality kit for review. Get a batch of items, go over them well beforehand, etc.

And if the item was bought on the open market, be ready to (a) respond publicly, saying you've taken the criticisms on board, (b) actually do something to change the relevant process if that's necessary.

I was involved in a situation years ago when expensive items were being damaged on their way into the USA. "Why are you using such a rubbish shipping company?" We weren't. It turned out to be deliberate (sabotage), incited by a trade union that thought our stuff was "destroying American jobs." Ultimately people were sacked (they might also have been prosecuted, I can't remember).

The point being you manage your PR, AND you have a commitment to ongoing quality improvement in all areas you can be held responsible.

Reviewers are rarely unfair, but the better ones realise they have a split responsibility to the readership and the supplier. The good guys make this clear.

Do we want better products in a competitive market, or just one remaining supplier who doesn't need to care about quality as they have a monopoly? I think the first one is best, and honest reviews have a role in this.

It's also a matter of positioning: Festool can't afford to bother with the user who prefers Lidl because their tools are so inexpensive. Lidl don't care what a typical Festool user thinks (probably).

If someone doesn't put a Paul Sellers review into context (or Schwartz's either, for that matter), there's not much you can do about it.

 

[Trafalgar]

In order to maintain his objectivity and independence both in appearance and in fact, Schwarz asserts that he does not accept tools for review even if they are to be returned afterward. The tools are purchased on the open market and represent what you and I might get if we ordered one ourselves; i.e. they are not 'cherry picked.'

Whether or not he is qualified to review tools is up for others to debate, though he tends not to pen one hagiography after another by my admittedly loose reckoning. That's something at least.

 

[Bodgers]

In order to maintain his objectivity and independence both in appearance and in fact, Schwarz asserts that he does not accept tools for review even if they are to be returned afterward. The tools are purchased on the open market and represent what you and I might get if we ordered one ourselves; i.e. they are not 'cherry picked.'

Whether or not he is qualified to review tools is up for others to debate, though he tends not to pen one hagiography after another by my admittedly loose reckoning. That's something at least.

Hmmm...not sure if that is always the case as he refers to Stanley sending him the low angle jack for review. Twice.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

 

[richarddownunder]

... That first review remained the first thing that popped up for a long time.

To be fair, that could well be the fault of the Clifton brand, not Schwartz.

Rule #1 of managing reviewers is: Don't ever, EVER send out poor quality kit for review. Get a batch of items, go over them well beforehand, etc.

And if the item was bought on the open market, be ready to (a) respond publicly, saying you've taken the criticisms on board, (b) actually do something to change the relevant process if that's necessary.

I was involved in a situation years ago when expensive items were being damaged on their way into the USA. "Why are you using such a rubbish shipping company?" We weren't. It turned out to be deliberate (sabotage), incited by a trade union that thought our stuff was "destroying American jobs." Ultimately people were sacked (they might also have been prosecuted, I can't remember).

The point being you manage your PR, AND you have a commitment to ongoing quality improvement in all areas you can be held responsible.

Reviewers are rarely unfair, but the better ones realise they have a split responsibility to the readership and the supplier. The good guys make this clear.

Do we want better products in a competitive market, or just one remaining supplier who doesn't need to care about quality as they have a monopoly? I think the first one is best, and honest reviews have a role in this.

It's also a matter of positioning: Festool can't afford to bother with the user who prefers Lidl because their tools are so inexpensive. Lidl don't care what a typical Festool user thinks (probably).

If someone doesn't put a Paul Sellers review into context (or Schwartz's either, for that matter), there's not much you can do about it.

Yes, I guess that is all true. The point was even though any perceived problems had long been cleared up (in the Clifton case - so taking onboard point b...a might not be so easy unless you can get the item re-evaluated which Clifton did eventually) that was the first review that appeared and had been quoted many times and who's to say what biases came into play originally. The power of the internet I guess.

 

[Trafalgar]

In order to maintain his objectivity and independence both in appearance and in fact, Schwarz asserts that he does not accept tools for review even if they are to be returned afterward. The tools are purchased on the open market and represent what you and I might get if we ordered one ourselves; i.e. they are not 'cherry picked.'

Whether or not he is qualified to review tools is up for others to debate, though he tends not to pen one hagiography after another by my admittedly loose reckoning. That's something at least.

Hmmm...not sure if that is always the case as he refers to Stanley sending him the low angle jack for review. Twice.

Sent from my MI 3W using Tapatalk

If true, then I guess he's a liar. He would have to reconcile what you've said with what I recall being unequivocal statements he made some time ago about how he goes about reviewing tools. I'll leave that to him. Maybe somebody can put the question to him via his blog.

 

[D_W]

Why do we care if he keeps tools from a review? I don't. He worked (at the time he did most of his reviews) as editor (managing editor, grand poobah?) at a magazine that relied on advertising from tool companies whose tools he was reviewing, and was personal friends (still is, I'm sure) with a lot of the makers. The chance to see a negative review for a tool from a large advertiser is pretty minimal, and he mentioned (don't know if this is still true) that if he gets a tool that he doesn't like, he just doesn't post a review.

Your second point (the competence) is more important, who is competent to review. He calls the tools that you use "false economy". He'd say the same thing for George's single set of Marples chisels that he's used to make everything he's made since the 1960s.

I don't get the sense at all that the guy is dishonest, though. Even if he says things that conflict over time, it's awfully difficult to wake up every day for a couple of decades and say exactly the same thing over the entire period.

 

[D_W]

... That first review remained the first thing that popped up for a long time.

To be fair, that could well be the fault of the Clifton brand, not Schwartz.

Clifton had a problem other than that in the states, several, as follows:
* they were priced the same as LN more or less (I think they're more now)
* they didn't go to A2 when everyone else did (and all kinds of reviews came out glowing about A2, but the makers were using it mostly because it was easier to work with)
* there was a limited number of retailers
* their tolerances weren't as tight as LNs and LV's, at least not in tools reviewed. I believe our own David Charlesworth may have found a plane at one point that was 7 thousandths hollow, which is almost impossible to work with if it's not a jack plane. David, correct me if that wasn't the make.
* there were at least two very public instances on the US forums where people bought Clifton planes that had problems from manufacture. I remember the details of one well, it was posted by a guy with the handle "rfeeser" on woodnet. He had an unusable plane from new and he'd been in contact with Highland Hardware and Clifton, both, several times, and nobody ever rectified the issue, though both claimed they would. At a time when LN and LV would take a plane back even if it was just because the buyer was an ***** and saw ghosts, that was a killer. And it dragged on.

For the non-forum readers, Chris's first review would've been a killer, but it's unlikely clifton would've sold much against LN here, anyway. LN appeared after them, surpassed their quality standards and kept going. Clifton flopped on the shore for a while (At least in terms of how they handled problems over here) without doing the same.

That said, I doubt Chris would've posted the review at all if it had been LN, but he's friends with TLN. That's the discretion that he has as a reviewer.

 

[D_W]

I don't think the thing about purchasing on the open market is true, either. It may be for some tools, but it's certainly not for all (and it's probably not possible for some of the small boutique makers). It doesn't matter, though. You accept the fact that anything he gets from a maker or a dealer (who sees his name) will be looked over a little harder than it would for the rest of us.

 

[Trafalgar]

I'm simply repeating what Schwarz has said. He apparently thought it mattered enough to state his policy on at least a few occasions. I personally couldn't care less. My last significant expenditure on woodworking tools was about ten years ago, to replace some things lost in a fire.

Your employer misses you David. Get back to work. Somewhere, somebody has made an unrealistic assumption about pension fund investment returns. Don't let it be you!

 

[D_W]

Charlie, given the station you're in vs. where I am, I think you should be more worried about your work than mine. I don't need to send fake emails as you do. My obligations generally don't care if they're completed at 9AM or 9PM. Rest assured, nobody will write any news articles about my assumptions, either.