Hand-cut looking machine-made

[Mirboo]

Second, "No kicking of the ball is permissible, except for try conversion attempts. Conversion attempts are coducted in a strict order. First conversion attempt is kicked by the player wearing number 1 on his back. Second conversion attempt is by number 2, etc.."

Good job Jonny Wilkinson and his mates weren't playing by these rules back in 2003.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Good job Jonny Wilkinson and his mates weren't playing by these rules back in 2003.

Yeah, well, there was sometimes a wrinkle to the order of attempting conversions, Mirboo. Ocassionally, if there was a true sense of sportsmanship and fair play between opposing teams, they would agree that all the forwards would play as backs-- and all the backs had to play as forwards.

Then the conversion attempt order was reversed, 15 first, then 14, etc.. At 15 there might be a pug-ugly, lumbering tighthead (1): at 14, perhaps the pretend back-- the fleet footed, nancy boy No. 8 or 7 (that's me): at 14, a gazelle like, lightning fast side-stepping 2nd. row, etc..

Wilkinson wouldn't have had chance to get his kicking boots on from his appointed job as 2nd. row donkey, ha, ha-- ha, ha, ha. Slainte.

 

[Clinton1]

Oh, Well Done Alf!
A fantastic choice of thread topic(s) - unfortunately I've been away and come onto the thread quite late. If I post something that has already been stated, my apologies - I have read the whole 6 pages, but may not have taken it all in.

Mr_Grimsdale made the comment (way back on page 2, no less) in regards to 'old is better' in relation to it being the "culmination of a collective intelligence.
Woodbloke made a point that Joyce commented that a lot of the Victorian furniture was "unbelievably shoddy workmanship".

I'd like to comment that design and manufacture has to be seen through the understanding that:
"the quality stays with us and the rubbish is consigned to the bin" (always?);
that Victorian furniture was made in a time of high pressure to impose sweatshop practices on craftsmen IOT meet the demand by the middle class for "cheap & high-class" household items. (that old "cheap & high-class" chestnut is still with us!), and
do we sometimes view old cabinetmaking techniques as being from "the collective intelligence" when perhaps they are not?

I believe that a lot of Victorian furniture is actually an example of 'dumbing down' the craftsman's art into a process workers task. Think of Henry Fords assembly line, which should be credited with his success more so than his automobile's design.

My point? Lets see if I can tie all this together, its late so be kind :roll: :
My trouble is that I'm self taught - I've a terrible teacher :wink: and have no structure to my education sources. I can copy what I consider to be the best designs of the "collective intelligence", but gaining a full understanding of "why?" is difficult and full of conjecture. What is an example of Victorian factory line assembly, what shortcuts and compromises am I copying? Am I looking at, and learning from a piece of furniture that has survived from 'what sense of worth'? Did it survive because it is worthy from a craftmanship perspective, or because a much loved aunty decreed it be passed on? My trouble is that I am self taught!


MDF - fantastic stuff, just wish the source material was all plantation grown, and a friendlier glue was used. It really is the perfect material for utilitarian furniture, as the recovery level from the log is so much higher than for sawn timber, i.e. a higher rate of the log is turned into the value added product, as opposed to sawing boards which can see a 70% loss. Its ideal for furniture that will end up in landfill. :wink:, and as a stable sub-strate for veneers.

Cheers,
clinton

 

[Alf]

Welcome to the forum, Clinton.

Not sure being self-taught is any worse than having a mentor - being taught by someone else can just give you all their prejudices instead of finding some of your own. :wink:

Cheers, Alf

 

[bugbear]

Not sure being self-taught is any worse than having a mentor - being taught by someone else can just give you all their prejudices instead of finding some of your own. :wink:

It saves time, at least :wink:

BugBear

 

[MarcW]

... Did it survive because it is worthy from a craftmanship perspective, or because a much loved aunty decreed it be passed on? My trouble is that I am self taught!

Hey it is that easy! Good stuff survives because it is good, good enough to make us a richer being. Good enough to withstand daily abuse and for sure war or better wars. I've an almost 300 year old wardrobe. It is a precious but worn piece. Man it has survived all those years. It is easy to detect good old pieces because they have survived. There aren't as many of them these days. Disassemble and you will see. Look at the joints and the wood.

That said, there is good stuff these days too. I think they are those pieces one wouldn't abandon even if their style didn't fit our present furnishings. Those that you can't imagine throwing into the bulk. Although it is much more difficult to make the difference because there is this huge quantity of stuff around and very well formed sellers who can talk that much everything beyond perfection.

All this IMHO for sure.

Regards, Marc