English Workbench Build

[nabs]

I know the bench is finished but I still have a couple of vaguely bench related topics to get off my chest. While I was researching woodworking vices (yes, I know) I came across this entry in the 1905 Melhuish catalogue (pic below).

Of course it was heartening to see they had used half-lap dovetail joints (although for some reason they have left off the unnecessary leg brace - I expect it was available as an optional extra!) but I also notice what appears to be a mortice behind the insert used to form the rear jaw of the vice. Does anyone know what this is for?

https://archive.org/stream/MelhuishCata ... 7/mode/2up

PS sundaytrucker, thanks for the link above - it was useful, in particular it had not occurred to me to space the holes out so that they are separated by roughly the diameter that the the holdy bit of the hold-fast travels (thus maximizing coverage per hole).

 

[Bm101]

Wild guess... Pulling stuff apart?

 

[AndyT]

I reckon it might be the dark iron rear jaw, exposed flush with the bench rather than covered over by wood. It seems to be the right width for that.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

That's what I thought - but why? That would make the metal front the same height as the surface of the woodwork as well, assuming the vice is the design as a Record. Anyone let alone a commercial manufacturer with any sense would lower it.

 

[nabs]

ah, of course - this also explains another mystery - I could not understand why Record went to the effort of putting a removable metal cover above the half nut on their quick-release vices. Bizarrely they patented this idea and the patent claims that tradesmen who make a sloppy mortice for the rear jaw are plagued by shavings falling in the gap and clogging up the mechanism - perhaps the above illustrates a common way to fit these vices?)

 

[nabs]

PS the vice shown is a one of these post1166725.html#p1166725 (made by Entwistle and Kenyon) - it does not work the same way as the Record, but I don't think there is anything about it that would mean you had to fit it flush with the top. Perhaps they are just easier to fit this way?

 

[MusicMan]

Congrats on the bench, lovely job.

I use the Simon James holdfasts almost daily, on a 75 mm beech top. No problem with them holding, I just give them a satisfying thump with a big mallet!

Always use a piece of scrap between the holdfast and the work, or it will damage the surface. Sometimes this can be used as a saw stop, for example this stopped slot being cut for a carving knife:

Personally I like the holes drilled in a regular grid.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

And if you run a rounding over cutter around the holes it saves any tearing up of the bench top.

 

[AndyT]

Ok, having looked at the Melhuish bench on a bigger screen, here's Theory no 2.

The black rectangle is a thin piece of hardwood covering the rear jaw of the vice which is slightly lower than the rest of the surface.

The difference is only about 1/4", judging from the height of the front jaw, and allowing for my guesswork. Cutting a stopped mortice into the desktop and leaving a bit of wood that thin would be difficult - you couldn't drill out the waste without the auger lead screw or centre-bit spike poking through the surface. Chiselling to depth by hand would be possible with care but it would be slow and risky.

Instead, they sawed a big stepped notch from the front edge of the top board. The rear of this notch is the width of the iron vice jaw. The front is wider, the width of the wooden false jaw. Quick and easy to saw and chisel square. The only problem is the shallow depression above the top of the rear jaw. This gets filled in with a slip of hardwood, glued in. It's hardwood to make sure it doesn't flex and come out, so the engraver has shown it as dark in colour.

How's that for an explanation?

 

[nabs]

I think your original theory was right - these vices have a thick rear jaw (3/4-1''?) compared with the front and I think it is shown mounted flush with the top.

I cut a stopped mortice to fit my own vice and the method you describe sounds a lot faster (particularly if you remembered to do it before nailing the top and the apron together!)

Possibly the explanation for not inserting it a bit lower on the apron is that they could cut the notches only in the top board and simply drill a hole in the apron to fit the screw - as per Phil above, this does seem a bit short sighted though.

(pic from a lumberjocks thread: http://lumberjocks.com/gawthrrw/blog/93858)

edit: clearer pic here:

 

[nabs]

tools.
Paul Sellers and Richard Maguire go to admirable lengths to show how to build a workbench with a minimal set of tools, and without an existing bench. I was lucky to have a bench already, but they both go through their instructional videos using a couple of sawhorses and some basic tools: a hand saw, a chisel, a combination square, a marking gauge, a mallet and a marking knife.

PS gets by with a single bench plane (a #4 smoother) - RM uses a couple of longer planes during his build, but argues that a no 4 or 5 could be used quite satisfactorily for the whole job, only pointing out that if you have access to a longer plane you'd be daft not to use it.

I am in the fortunate position of having collected a good selection of decent quality 'vintage' tools and thus had an opportunity to experiment - below are the tools I actually used.

Bench planes:
I used a wooden jack plane & a wooden jointer on some boards and a Record #5 & #7 on others. Generally I preferred the woodies for the rough prep work and the metal planes when I was trying to be more accurate.

Must haves:
Richard Maguire has a short video on which plane he would use if he had to chose a single plane and his conclusion is that a no 5 equipped with two irons (one cambered) would be ideal. Having experimented with cambered vs straight irons it is hard to overstate how much energy/time a cambered iron saves when doing the rough prep stages. Paul Seller’s shows what can be done with a humble no 4 if you know what you are doing, but as a learner I found longer planes really did help by removing some of the judgment from the process of flattening the boards.

Nice to have:

• #4 - I did use a smoother to do a final pass on the top but it really is not necessary (in fact I soon bumped and dented my pristine smoothed surface). BTW, my favourite smoother is a Miller Falls 209 which those of you who waded through my review of the same will know is one of the best smoothers in the world EVER!
  #7/wooden jointer - If I were doing another bench and had to start my tool collection again I would still get a cheap 22' wooden jointer even if I only used it for this job. Having said that, of all my planes my Record #7 is the one I enjoyed using the most (they really don't make 'em like that any more!).

Other planes

• 
  * A block plane (A Veritas low angle block plane as it happened, but I am sure any other kind would do!). I suppose this was something of a luxury plane for the job at hand, but there were a few times where it was convenient to use the plane one-handed (for instance where the part is already installed on the bench and awkward to get to) and the block plane is ideal for this. A no 4 would have done the same at a stretch but would be unwieldy in comparison.
  * Record shoulder plane - completely frivolous (good at cleaning up shoulders though!)

Saws
Must-have: any old panel or hand saw (R Magurie makes do with a bog standard B&Q hardpoint for his whole bench). I used my Spearior 88 panel saw for most of mine.

Nice to have: I was glad to have a decent rip saw (Disston) when I had to reduce the width of one of the top boards, but you can easily avoid the need by adjusting your design to use full width boards so this cut is not needed. I used my 14’’ carcase saw (Drabble and Sanderson) for most to the cross cuts - it has 10 TPI so cuts reasonably quickly and I found the stiff blade and extra weight made it easier to saw straight.

One observation about my saws is that despite the fairly pedestrian desing of the Disston and Spearior handles they are very comfortable to use.

Compare my carcase saw which has a nice hand-made handle but was not nearly as nice to use. The reason is that - as is common with old saws - part of the top horn (the bit that fits over the web of your hand betwixt thumb and finger) has broken off at some point in the past. I have fixed the broken horns on couple of other saws and it is surprising how much difference this tiny bit of wood makes when using the saw (I probably should fix this one too!)

Squares and hammers
Everyone seems to agree it is worth splashing out on decent combination square. Mine is a 2nd hand Starrett. Incidentally, when I built my workshop I used a cheapo Bacho square for the whole thing - these can’t be relied upon to be square but can easily be made so by carefully filling the brass fitting that holds the blade in place. However I found that it only took the slightest knock to make it go out of square again - I guess that is why it is worth getting a decent one.

Hammers - everyone should own at least one Plumb hammer (ideally several!) and a Thor mallet. The internet seems to be reaching a consensus that Thor hammers are the bees knees for hitting chisels and bits of wood with (its true - try it!).

Chisels and drills
I mainly used a 1 1’2 marbles bevel edge firmer and could have used it for the whole bench, bar one (optional) part when I created a blind mortice for the rear vice jaw which required a 1/2 '' chisel. I did use my W&P Aristocrat chisels for refining some of the joints, but I had no reason to do other than justifying my posh chisels.

You need a brace and 3/4'' auger bit for your holdfast holes. A millers falls no 2 drill is cool but entirely optional!

That’s it - what did I miss?

 

[AndyT]

Nail punch?

 

[nabs]

oh yes - that's an important one - your nail punch will get a lot of action if you do a nailed down plank top.

skills.

The good news for fellow newbies is you need hardly any!

You can practice the basic skills needed as you go, just so long as you are prepared to make a few mistakes and accept you will have to work rather slowly.

Although this was not my first project (I made a saw horse first), I'd still say a workbench is a good starter project because it can be done with relatively cheap materials and the scale you are working at means you can get away with some inaccuracy without the end product falling to bits or looking awful.

Having said that, there is one pre-requisite skill: sharpening - you need to be able to keep your chisels and planes sharp. Although it is relatively easy to learn how to do this, you may find you need a fair amount of practice to get the knack (I certainly did) and this is not something I'd recommend trying to learn on the job. It would be incredibly frustrating to try and do even the basic techniques needed for the bench using blunt tools, so do a bit of practice sharpening first!

There is a lot of bewildering - and sometimes contradictory - advice on sharpening. My advice, for what it is worth, is just to watch what Paul Sellers has to say on it and do that, or if you are feeling flush spend £24 on Richard Maquire's brilliant video series on the same, it is by far the most comprehensive and clear account I have come accross. Try and avoid trawling the internet for advice or your head may explode. You have been warned!

Talking of Richard Maquire - the few quid I have spent on his workbench and sharpening video are easily the best woodworking investment I have made to date. He and his other half, Helen, clearly put in a huge amount of effort into their videos and it shows - they are beautifully filmed and produced and very easy to follow.

Richard is a natural teacher and has an entertaining and very watchable approach - the videos are carefully thought out and there are a lot of really helpful close ups showing how he goes about each technique (frequently he shows more than one approach to accomplishing a task so you can experiment too). Highly recommended (I have no affiliation with their business, btw!)

that's it from me. Good luck to those of you about to embark on your own benches, I am sure you will enjoy it and learn a lot - don't forget to post your progress!

 

[sundaytrucker]

There is a lot of bewildering - and sometimes contradictory - advice on sharpening. My advice, for what it is worth, is just to watch what Paul Sellers has to say on it and do that, or if you are feeling flush spend £24 on Richard Maquire's brilliant video series on the same, it is by far the most comprehensive and clear account I have come accross. Try and avoid trawling the internet for advice or your head may explode. You have been warned!

Talking of Richard Maquire - the few quid I have spent on his workbench and sharpening video are easily the best woodworking investment I have made to date. He and his other half, Helen, clearly put in a huge amount of effort into their videos and it shows - they are beautifully filmed and produced and very easy to follow.

Richard is a natural teacher and has an entertaining and very watchable approach - the videos are carefully thought out and there are a lot of really helpful close ups showing how he goes about each technique (frequently he shows more than one approach to accomplishing a task so you can experiment too). Highly recommended (I have no affiliation with their business, btw!)

I am a huge fan of Richard Maguire and have bought everything he has released to date. The sharpening video series has made me reevaluate my tools and consider using older tools such as vintage Record and Stanley planes and plain Jane O1 steel.

Out of interest which method do you use, Maguire or Sellers?

 

[nabs]

I learned a lot of new things from the Maquire sharpening videos and this made me go and look again at what Paul Sellers demonstrates. Having done that I concluded that they are doing essentially thing, namely combining the grinding and honing steps at each sharpen resulting in a gently rounded bevel.

The only subtle difference is that Maquire does nearly all the grinding and honing work at a lowish angle and then does a final few strokes on his fine stone at a steeper angle to hone the cutting edge, whereas Sellers does it all in one motion.

That's how I understood it anyway!

Having watched the RM videos I did adopt the 2-step way he shows because I noticed that, before then, my bevels were tending to get steeper at each sharpen. This was just down to sloppy practice on my part - it is tempting to skip removing the material at the heel of the bevel in order to get to the bit where you hone the edge sooner - and I found keeping the iron lower for all but the last few strokes stopped me doing it.

sorry, probably a longer answer than you wanted!
cheers

 

[Jacob]

.... my bevels were tending to get steeper at each sharpen. ....

I haven't watched either vid (life's too short!) but it sounds like they are doing the rounded bevel trick.
The whole point of this is that to avoid rounding over you deliberately round under by dipping the blade as you thrust it forwards over the stone. The angle only hits 30º at the cutting edge at the start of the pass.
It's very simple and easy to do once you've got the idea. Also it's fast - most of the time you are working on the back of the bevel at less than 30º and can put as much force into it as you can muster.

 

[nabs]

yes that is a good description of what they do - and what I was not doing (not enough 'rounding under'). It is easy/fast once you get the hang of it.

 

[Jacob]

yes that is a good description of what they do - and what I was not doing (not enough 'rounding under'). It is easy/fast once you get the hang of it.

If a burr doesn't come up quickly you move on to a coarser stone until a burr appears across the whole width especially the middle where it will appear last. People tend to give up too soon and end up working with an only partially sharpened edge.

 

[sundaytrucker]

I learned a lot of new things from the Maquire sharpening videos and this made me go and look again at what Paul Sellers demonstrates. Having done that I concluded that they are doing essentially thing, namely combining the grinding and honing steps at each sharpen resulting in a gently rounded bevel.

The only subtle difference is that Maquire does nearly all the grinding and honing work at a lowish angle and then does a final few strokes on his fine stone at a steeper angle to hone the cutting edge, whereas Sellers does it all in one motion.

That's how I understood it anyway!

Having watched the RM videos I did adopt the 2-step way he shows because I noticed that, before then, my bevels were tending to get steeper at each sharpen. This was just down to sloppy practice on my part - it is tempting to skip removing the material at the heel of the bevel in order to get to the bit where you hone the edge sooner - and I found keeping the iron lower for all but the last few strokes stopped me doing it.

sorry, probably a longer answer than you wanted!
cheers

Thanks for the reply. I am considering giving up my Veritas planes with their thick irons moving over to older planes and adopting Maguire's method as it seems faff free which is one of my reasons why I enjoy his content so much.

 

[Halo Jones]

Does anybody know what Richard is up to? I haven't seen him update his website or any of his other social media channels for ages.

I have been tempted by his videos for ages and these reviews might finally make me hit the spend button!