Chucking Recesses

[Walter Hall]

imo- it’s nothing to do with snobbery it’s all to do with your own pride and the care taken to do justice to the wood etc- you will never obtain the same fine finish on a chuck recess as you will on the rest of the piece due to not being able to sand & finish it to the extent of the rest of the piece and you also may or may not get some marks from the jaws. you should finish every piece of your work to the very best of your ability especially if you are selling it as you are representing not only yourself but the woodturning community.
now don’t get me wrong make what pleases you and do it how you want to- but unfortunately if our hobby is ever going to lift itself out of the cheap craft stereotype it’s got..... the level of detail in allot of "craft fair work" must change.... as some (not all) seem to have this "it’ll do" attitude

I agree totally with everything you say except the 'nothing to do with snobbery' part George. I have met a few turners who feel that any evidence of how the piece was held is a sign of bad workmanship and I can't go along with that. Spigots can be cut back and made decorative as can recesses. I think that on the type of work that you do , boxes, hollow forms etc, a spigot or a recess would detract and ideally should be removed but on bowls, platters etc they can be a part of the design. Any piece that can be held over the bed with the tailstock can be reversed and refined with no extra cost other than a scrap board turned to size and some foam so the need for fancy jaws etc is only necessary for out board turned work.

Pete

well all i can say then Pete is that there is no snobbery on my part

I agree with you George that it is not to do with snobbery, and I agree with you too that we should all endeavour to finish our work to the highest standard we are capable of achieving. However I also agree with Bodrighy when he says that there are some who feel that any evidence of how the piece was held is a sign of bad workmanship. I do not think this kind of thinking is snobbery, but it is pedantic and unnecessary. A platter or bowl with a well finished and/or decorated recess or spigot can be just as well made and attractive as one where they are removed. I often rework and decorate the recess as part of the design and this requires more thought and work than removing it altogether

The problem also manifests itself in competitions and the like where judges will disqualify or mark down a piece for reasons of pedantry rather than genuine issues of poor workmanship.

 

[Bob Chapman]

Well, I think I'm going to stick my neck out here and put my fourpenneth in.

Pete (Bodrighy) amazes me! Removing a spigot or chucking recess is snobbery? Sorry Pete but you're well out of order on that one. This is the same sort of snobbery that makes me sand until all evidence of toolmarks is removed (not just some of them, or until I get fed up with it). Its that same snobbery that makes me strive for a good design and not make do with any old shape. If that's your idea of snobbery then, yes, count me among the snobs - and proud to be there! I prefer to call it 'doing a good job' rather than producing whatever degree of poor workmanship the customer's ignorance will let me get away with.

John (Jonzjob) - you don't need a chuck the size of the foot if you make the chucking spigot and the foot different things. Make the spigot to fit the chuck and the foot to suit the bowl. JohnnyT is right to say he decides the size of the foot, not the chuck.

Treeturner123 asks whether customers at craft fairs are discerning enough to pay for quality. He answers 'no' to his own question. Of course, it rather begs the question that they wouldn't be, would they, if all they ever see is poor quality work. My own answer would be yes - many of them, and if we want to see more of them, we must present them with good work to use as their yardstick.

Hooray Richard (Findlay) it's good to know George and I are not alone. Why would anybody deliberately do a second-rate job if they are capable of a first-rate one?

Bob

 

[Walter Hall]

Why would anybody deliberately do a second-rate job if they are capable of a first-rate one?

I agree absolutely you with you Bob. I would never be happy with anything other than my very best work and I too will continue finishing until it is right, not just "near enough".

However, if I design a piece with chucking recess or spigot that is intended to be modified (and possibly decorated) to form a foot is that poor workmanship? I suggest that it is not, whereas if I were just to leave an unfinished recess possibly with marks from the chuck then that would be very poor workmanship. Surely if I produce what I have designed to the best of my ability the fact that it retains a (well finished and possibly decorated) recess that is capable of being re-chucked at some future date does not make it a second rate job.

Walter

 

[Bodrighy]

Well, I think I'm going to stick my neck out here and put my fourpenneth in.

Pete (Bodrighy) amazes me! Removing a spigot or chucking recess is snobbery? Sorry Pete but you're well out of order on that one. This is the same sort of snobbery that makes me sand until all evidence of toolmarks is removed (not just some of them, or until I get fed up with it). Its that same snobbery that makes me strive for a good design and not make do with any old shape. If that's your idea of snobbery then, yes, count me among the snobs - and proud to be there! I prefer to call it 'doing a good job' rather than producing whatever degree of poor workmanship the customer's ignorance will let me get away with.


Bob

Before you stick your neck out Bob read what I actually have said.

" Personally I think that there is an element of snobbery involved in the idea of it being unacceptable to have any sign of the mounting."

I have not said that removing a spigot or recess is snobbery. I'd be grateful if you were more careful in your comments. I said that I have come across people who have an arrogant attitude to leaving a recess, spigot or anything else that indicates how a piece was held on the lathe. Good quality workmanship should not be judged by whether or not there is a recess or a spigot left on but on the quality of that holding device in the overall finish of the object. To hear someone judging a piece and condemning it because there is a visible recess in a bowl (decorated mind you) is in my opinion a bad attitude. Maybe snobbery is not the best word to use but it is definitely something that exists.

With all due respect to accuse me of saying that removing either a spigot or a recess is a mark of snobbery is out of order.

pete

 

[Walter Hall]

Maybe snobbery is not the best word to use but it is definitely something that exists.

In my opinion:-

Removing a chucking point is not snobbery. (I know you were not saying it was Pete)

Designing a piece with a chucking point as part of the design is not poor workmanship.

Leaving a chucking point because you can't be bothered to remove it or don't know how to is poor workmanship.

Insisting that there is only one right way to do something is pedantic rather than snobbish.

 

[big soft moose]

Maybe snobbery is not the best word to use but it is definitely something that exists.

I know what you are saying pete - its the same in all club situations - you get people at camera clubs insisting you "have" to have a leica, or a hasselblad, or this lens or that accessory to be a "propper" photographer -personally ive always thought it was the pictures that counted.

likewise in nearly every club situation whether its woodwork, photopgraphy or flipping origami there will always be a few who play the big "I am" and get off on putting others down (not that in am saying that anyone posting in this thread is like that)

 

[Richard Findley]

Designing a piece with a chucking point as part of the design is not poor workmanship.

True, it's not bad workmanship, it's bad design!!

I think the real question is, why use a recess, which is hard to hide/remove when you can use a spigot which is easy to remove?

The only time I might use a recess and decorate it over my usual method is if the diameter was larger than I could turn over the bed and so I couldn't bring up my tail for support. I very rarely (if ever?) turn this size though (in fact I can count on one finger the amount of times I've done this since having my lathe)

Cheers

Richard

 

[Walter Hall]

I think the real question is, why use a recess, which is hard to hide/remove when you can use a spigot which is easy to remove?

Hi Richard

A spigot allows a firmer grip anyway so I would only use a recess where I actually wanted a recess in the base which was to be textured or treated in some other way to mirror part of the design of the rest of the piece. I would suggest that that is only bad design if I let the size or shape of the chuck dictate the size of the recess.

A spigot would only be left (as the foot) if it was designed to be the same size as the chucking point in the first place and would be reworked anyway to remove dovetailing and chuck marks. There is every possibility that no-one looking at it would ever know it had been a chucking point. Again the chuck size should not dictate the size of the foot.

Where foot and spigot are different sizes I would (obviously) remove the spigot.

Walter

 

[Lightweeder]

Might be worth someone giving some informed tips on how to remove a spigot - for those who don't have cole jaws or a vacuum chuck. Some new to turning might be put off by this, as it's not as easy as we're all making it sound

 

[SVB]

A simple mdf (or similar) disc on a faceplace with a layer of thin rubber / neoprene type stuff is all you need.

Hold the job in place with tailstock support and turn the spigot away / shape as required leaving 1/2" or so nub at the drive centre. Remove from the lathe and remove small nub with sharp chisel / carving gouge. Hand sand nub to blend. Open beer and admire professional job!

(as per previous posts, a ring live centre is prefered as it does not dig in as deep as a simple point and provides better support but one is not essential to do the above).

S

 

[CHJ]

Might be worth someone giving some informed tips on how to remove a spigot - for those who don't have cole jaws or a vacuum chuck. Some new to turning might be put off by this, as it's not as easy as we're all making it sound

________Worst case scenario I do it the same way as removing this socket detail,
________
________Reverse mount with plain Nyweb for friction and padded revolving centre.
________Tidy up mounting socket with bowl gouge, sand finish and seal.

________Just have to remove the last little central pip by hand off the lathe.
________

 

[Mark Hancock]

Very interesting discussion.

The only time I might use a recess and decorate it over my usual method is if the diameter was larger than I could turn over the bed and so I couldn't bring up my tail for support. I very rarely (if ever?) turn this size though (in fact I can count on one finger the amount of times I've done this since having my lathe)

Cheers

Richard

Richard
In this situation use a donut chuck ie disc screwed to faceplate + a ring - bowl is centred on disc and held in place by ring using bolts exposing base to be worked outboard on lathe or even easier with a swivel headstock. No need for cole jaws, vacuum chucks etc unless you are a wealthy woodturner :lol:

Cheers
Mark

 

[Richard Findley]

No need for cole jaws, vacuum chucks etc unless you are a wealthy woodturner :lol:

Cheers
Mark

....which I'm not!! :roll: :wink:

For anyone interested here is my usual (cheapo) method:

Held onto an MDF board by the tail centre with a bit of router/non-slip mat for padding. A few light cuts and a little hand or power sand to remove the left over pip and Bob is your Uncle!!! Simples!!

Richard

 

[Walter Hall]

You could always make your own Longworth chuck. This is a cheap alternative to Cole jaws and there are instructions in my article in April 2010 Woodturning Magazine (No 212) and also a couple of on line articles if you Google Longworth Chuck.

Walter

 

[CHJ]

You could always make your own Longworth chuck. This is a cheap alternative to Cole jaws and there are instructions in my article in April 2010 Woodturning Magazine (No 212) and also a couple of on line articles if you Google Longworth Chuck.

Walter

Somewhat difficult to use with a natural edge piece though Walter

A Donut chuck can cope with them by fitting a central support, if you want something a little more positive than my friction alone methods.

 

[Walter Hall]

Somewhat difficult to use with a natural edge piece though Walter

No Chas, not difficult at all, quite impossible. :lol: :lol: :lol:

I just meant as a general alternative. I rather like your method and Richard's cheap and simple approach too.

Walter

 

[CHJ]

I made myself a Longworth very early on when I did not have the funds for cole jaws etc. Although useful I find I use it less and less, the main complaint, or should that be reservation, I have with using one is the difficulty in achieving a firm clamp of the piece.
I often had to revert to using the tailstock for confidence/safety so in effect it was little more advantage than Richards plain friction disc. other than an aid to centralising.

I've racked my brains trying to develope a method of applying a positive and controlled rotary clamping force* to grip the piece whilst tightening the buttons/clamps but so far to no avail.

*I know this is influenced by the geometry of the spiral but I find finger pressure not enough for my peace of mind on the ones I have knocked up.

 

[Lightweeder]

I rest my case. I think Chas's jam chuck is excellent, as is Richard's MDF board (I also use this method) - both also inexpensive. I just think it puts pressure on new turners to do something they might find a little difficult in the early stages, and it's easy to forget how daunting these things can be when even the simple things are difficult - if you know what I mean :?

 

[Walter Hall]

I made myself a Longworth very early on when I did not have the funds for cole jaws etc. Although useful I find I use it less and less, the main complaint, or should that be reservation, I have with using one is the difficulty in achieving a firm clamp of the piece.
I often had to revert to using the tailstock for confidence/safety so in effect it was little more advantage than Richards plain friction disc. other than an aid to centralising.

I've racked my brains trying to develope a method of applying a positive and controlled rotary clamping force* to grip the piece whilst tightening the buttons/clamps but so far to no avail.

*I know this is influenced by the geometry of the spiral but I find finger pressure not enough for my peace of mind on the ones I have knocked up.

That is why I opted to use the Vicmarc rubbers on mine. It racks the cost up but improves the grip. Any rubbers with a dovetail shape (e.g. cut down demijohn bungs) help improve the hold. It is after all intended for light cuts and you can still bring up the tailstock for support if you feel the need to.

It also helps if you have three hands. :lol: :lol:

You have got me racking my brains to think of a way of applying a rotational force too now. :?

 

[CHJ]

I have a 1 ltr ice cream box full of different buttons, in rubber, wood and plastic, tapered and hooked ridged etc. for different clamping configurations but the fundamental problem of not having any more gripping capability than that supplied by the taper of the buttons as they are secured I find limiting.
It only takes one catch on a 90% plus finished item to disillusion you no end.

They do certainly have the advantage of aiding the centralising of the piece, perhaps a combinaton of a Longworth and a Donut Ring is the answer in homemade holder.