It's about technique not kit.

[JohnPW]

Advertisers.

Really? Can anybody post any examples of an advertisment for a tool that suggests that buying it will mean you don't have to develop any skill? ...

I rarely look at adverts but manufacturers don't actually say "you don't have to develop any skills", instead they say "easier and faster" which means less skill. Eg:

A dovetail sawing guide:
http://www.leevalley.com/en/shopping/In ... px?p=59418

Dovetail joints have traditionally been the hallmark of a cabinetmaker who had acquired an expert level of skill. They are also a mark of quality and attention to detail that many people look for in high-end furniture. This perception remains despite the fact that modern glues and joinery techniques can create joints of equal or greater strength, often with less effort. Also, dovetail joints can now be relatively easily made with a router and dovetail jigs.

Still, traditional hand-cut dovetails remain desirable for aesthetic reasons, as well as for the challenge they represent. Veritas has developed these dovetail saw guides to allow amateur woodworkers to achieve professional results. This system also allows the seasoned expert to produce dovetail joints more quickly and with less effort.

From another supplier who does say "less skill" but admits if you use it you're just cheating yourself:

The purists of hand-cut dovetails may baulk at the idea of de-skilling the process and I doubt that The Barnsley Workshop would ever use this method. However, once you have put the little guide back in the drawer, no one will know it was used. Your dovetails will be cleaner, sharper and will have taken you a lot less time to do.

Just about every tool innovation is about making it easier and faster, ie less skill.

 

[Jacob]

.......
Just about every tool innovation is about making it easier and faster, .......

Plenty of brilliant machines about but I can't think of any recent (within the last 50 years?)* hand tool innovations which would actually do this, in spite of the makers claims.
If anything they've gone backwards with impractical retro styling - increased weight, thick blades and norris adjusters for starters! Then there's the crazy world of the new sharpening! :lol:

PS * or 100 years for that matter. There must be something! Yankee screwdriver? Or is it just details? e.g. Perhaps the biggest and most valuable innovation is the plastic handle. Or the replacement of woodies with steel equivalents.

PPS I've thought of one! - the cheap throw-away hard edge saw

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Stick around for about four years and read Jacob's posts, Rhyolith. Then you'll see why I wrote my post in the tone I did! Jacob and I have been sparring for a fair chunk of that four years - and others for longer than that! It's all good fun! :lol:

Haha, sorry still a UKW newbie

No worries!

 

[Cheshirechappie]

......

How about a New Year resolution, Jacob? Lighten up a bit and accept that different people have different ways of doing things. After all, you can say, "Here's how I sharpen freehand", but if somebody still prefers using a honing jig somewhere it's hardly going to kill you, is it?

What has set you off on this miserable whinge - have you had a bad christmas or something? If so , I hope the new year will cheer you up!
Do you seriously think I'm suggesting that people should make everything from cow pats? I haven't tried it myself and don't intend to either. I was trying to make a point which obviously escaped you - I'd try to explain it again but I don't think you'd get it

I've had an excellent Christmas, thank you, Jacob. Nice and peaceful, just enough good food and company, not too much booze, and no serious disasters (thank the Lord) - but I do spare a thought for those a few miles further north coping with the aftermath of flooding.

You say you were trying to make a point. Yes - and the first line of my first comment was that I agreed with you - up to a point. I then went on to explain why I only agreed up to a point, and would repeat my reasoning, but then we'd only be going round in circles. Again!

 

[Jelly]

.......
Just about every tool innovation is about making it easier and faster, .......

Plenty of brilliant machines about but I can't think of any recent (within the last 50 years?)* hand tool innovations which would actually do this, in spite of the makers claims.
If anything they've gone backwards with impractical retro styling - increased weight, thick blades and norris adjusters for starters! Then there's the crazy world of the new sharpening! :lol:

PS * or 100 years for that matter. There must be something! Yankee screwdriver? Or is it just details? e.g. Perhaps the biggest and most valuable innovation is the plastic handle. Or the replacement of woodies with steel equivalents.

PPS I've thought of one! - the cheap throw-away hard edge saw

The Hard-Point saw was invented by a Dane in the 1920's*, which kinda illustrates your point.

I'm not sure if it really is an out and out improvement either... For site work, environments where as saw is subjected to constant rough handling & for the cutting of highly abrasive materials (e.g. man made boards) the improved edge holding and disposability are plus points, but for both total life-cycle cost, and for cutting solid wood very accurately and smoothly it loses out a bit over resharpenable saws.

*I'm looking for the link, but I can't remember where it came from now...

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I came to something approaching proper woodwork as a hobby somewhat late in life (58). Before that tools of choice mostly came from B&Q or similar, familiar materials were softwood and MDF. I suspect a number on this forum have a similar background.

I was, and continue to be, in awe of what could be produced by craftsmen before the days of Black and Decker. Pre 1900 only large factories would have some level of powered machinery (often steam, water etc). Widespread electric power for domestic and small workshop use did not make an appearance until after 1918.

Producing high quality wood workmanship, as opposed to local bodger style, required a master craftsman who would have served a lengthy apprenticeship working 12 hours a day, six days a week for a pittance. A basic set of tools would cost a huge amount and were treasured and often passed from one generation to another. A £15 set of chisels and a £20 jigsaw from Lidl were a fantasy technology.

If I spend 10 hours a week in my little workshop for the next 20 years (10000 hours) I will not begin to match the skill levels of earlier apprentices who may have accumulated 15000-20000 hours of apprenticeship training.

I may eventually develop the skill to produce work of an adequate quality, but tools which make the task easier and shortcut the '000s of hours to become truly proficient in 18th century techniques will always have a place in the workshop. This is no different to days of yore where steam powered mills took over the task cutting planks, and better steel replaced existing tools.

 

[Benchwayze]

I'm heartily sick of the hand-tools v machinery 'debate'.

The wood DOESN'T KNOW!
The wood DOESN'T CARE!
Just do the best work you can, with whatever you use. Then it's honest woodwork.
To each their own.

Now I am going to buy some tools. 8)

 

[custard]

If I spend 10 hours a week in my little workshop for the next 20 years (10000 hours) I will not begin to match the skill levels of earlier apprentices who may have accumulated 15000-20000 hours of apprenticeship training.

Terry, you raise an interesting question. How many hours are required to build real proficiency in woodworking?

I'd argue that to get to the position where you can make pretty much anything given a simple sketch or photograph would probably take at least 10,000 hours. But, with discipline, structure, and organisation you could hit a very useful interim level much, much faster.

I'd guess I could take a complete beginner and after 1,000 hours they'd be fully capable of making something like this,

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/wp-co ... 4-Seg2.pdf

Furthermore, they could make it to the very highest standards, with hand dovetailed drawers, drawer slips, tapered legs, haunched mortice & tenon joints, twin tusk tenon joints, buttoned on top, etc. (so rather better in fact than Christopher Schwarz achieved). Even more significantly, they'd then be in a position to make the entire extended family of basic, solid timber, rectilinear furniture. So hall tables, dining tables, bedside tables, desks, dressing tables, cupboards, etc.

They wouldn't be particularly fast, and they might need reasonably comprehensive plans for each project, but given enough time they could get the job done and done well.

The remaining 9,000 hours of training and experience and development are what's required to add speed plus items like this to the repertoire,

http://www.simonthomaspirie.co.uk/chairs.php

Or this,

http://www.furnituremakers.org.uk/galle ... slide=1374

So if 1,000 hours, or two years at 10 hours a week, are all that's required to get to the level required for the Shaker side table, why are so many hobbyists still floundering around making amateur tat after actually accumulating more hours than that at the bench?

Some of course have no interest in making real pieces of furniture, they just want to play, and that's their call, it's their time and their money so they're free to spend them as they wish.

But I've met many more who would dearly love to make serious if simple, rectilinear items of furniture, but don't seem able to progress towards that goal. I think it reflects the fact that there are so many diversions thrown in the way of learning today that it would require massive self discipline to stick to a structured programme that progressed in a systematic way towards a basic level of competence. From agonising about which tool to buy, to getting spun around by the blur of conflicting advice on the internet, to not appreciating the need to invest the hours in mastering the tedious basics of the craft, there's a whole host of reasons that act as barriers to proficiency.

But in case there's anyone reading this who really does want to move systematically towards making grown up pieces of real furniture, I can assure you that 1,000 carefully invested hours will get you to that position.

 

[Jacob]

I agree with all that except I find the "top end" decorative stuff somewhat grim in the desperate search for originality with no expense spared. Personally I wouldn't want to go there even if I could, though I could see musical instrument making as an attractive idea (if I had the chance to start again!).
On the other hand the shaker table is very fundamental and in fact I've made and sold quite a few of these, and larger pieces too. Slightly more refined than Schwarzy's example though I say it myself!
The top-end over worked decorative stuff, arts n crafts etc, is perhaps a distraction from the large and rich world of "ordinary" stuff of simple shapes and humble materials. Like bread making rather than patisserie.

 

[No skills]

Have to agree with Jacobs post there. Even if I could (never in 200000 hours) I wouldn't want to produce some of the flashier furniture linked to.
I liked the koi top desk/table but the rest of the piece wasnt to my taste.
It would appear that I like simpler design but perhaps with better material (better to my eyes that is, subjective!).
Having said that I do find some small pieces (small jewellery boxes and the like) attractive when they are flamboyant.

I'll stick to 'playing'

 

[ED65]

So if 1,000 hours, or two years at 10 hours a week, are all that's required to get to the level required for the Shaker side table, why are so many hobbyists still floundering around making amateur tat after actually accumulating more hours than that at the bench?

Now that ladies and gents, that's the question at the heart of the matter.

I've been an artist my whole life and I have regularly despaired at the glacial progress that is the norm for most amateur artists beavering away at home. You see hobbyist painters who desperately want to produce better work but still after years, sometimes even decades, of "effort" on their part they haven't progressed much or at all. My personal theory is it comes down to commitment, dedication, application – in short, despite the fact that they think they've put in the effort they really haven't.

It's not a direct parallel with woodworking (although not as distant as most people assume) but I think it's much the same for most hand skills and it does come down to this basic thing, not fully committing to getting better.

It is seriously effortful to get better at anything and the more complex or subtle it is the more effort it requires. It's much easier to muddle along while fooling yourself that you're "working away at it", rather than focussing your entire being into it every time you get into the studio.

so rather better in fact than Christopher Schwarz achieved)

Mee-ow

 

[NazNomad]

How can they make a pile of sh** look like a bowl, but when I try to make a bowl it looks just like a pile of sh**? 8)

 

[Jacob]

Have to agree with Jacobs post there. Even if I could (never in 200000 hours) I wouldn't want to produce some of the flashier furniture linked to......

The flash stuff reminds of the daft hats women wear at Ascot - ingenious, sometimes good for a laugh but not something you'd want to keep around the house. Strictly for the bin after their day out.

 

[shed9]

I appreciate this is probably contentious but I’m not sure I subscribe to the concept of being able to specifically convert a set number of worked hours into a defined ability, especially when 10-20,000 hours and upwards is banded around. Perhaps a shorter turnaround of that ability but the ability itself will usually be attained much quicker in my opinion.

There are plenty of artisans that will utilise less skilled minions to churn out perfectly identical copies of their work under their own name. Minions with certainly less than 10,000 hours under their belt.

 

[Jacob]

....
There are plenty of artisans that will utilise less skilled minions to churn out perfectly identical copies of their work under their own name. Minions with certainly less than 10,000 hours under their belt.

That's the well established and very traditional best way to learn. Repeat, copy, over and over again. Which is why the bespoke one-off is such a hopeless dead-end idea especially for the beginner.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Custard - you make a convincing case. It can be truly astonishing what amateurs, individually or in groups, can achieve when they take on a task or challenge with single-minded determination. However, in the amateur woodworking world, not everybody wants to apply such single-mindedness. The world of work can be challenging, and can demand discipline and considerable application. Not all workplaces are entirely pleasant places to be either, for all sorts of reasons. Family demands can be time-consuming, too. In that context, 'the shed' becomes a place to retreat and relax, and a place to skake off the demands of self-discipline and pressure. Just pottering can be very theraputic; the pressure of self-discipline and targets may be exactly what some people don't need more of. In that context, it can be entirely understandable if someone just wants to fiddle with tools, or use some disposable income on nice things for themself.

Another aspect of amateur woodwork which rather plays against the 'repeat over and over' approach is that once you've equipped the kitchen with wooden spoons, furnished your own house, and made every female relative a jewellery box, what do you do with all the other identical spoons, chests of drawers and jewellery boxes? The amateur is more likely to make one or two of something and take longer over it. True, you can try and sell, but not everybody wants the hassle.

 

[davin]

I found similarities in playing music,
I played in lots of bands when I was younger. I noticed that just because you are technically great musician, doesn't mean that you can write good songs.
Same goes for woodworking. You might be a super craftsman who can make technically perfect reproductions of old furniture, but can't design anything original or different yourself.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

I wrote the original post comparing time spent under an apprenticeship with amateur/hobby. The responses are really quite interesting and summarise most of the reasons why people like me are still a long way adrift.

Two further issues which may be worth adding to which have impacted upon me are:

- in a work environment much is done to a standard "adequate to meet the need or in the time available". Changing behaviour (difficult after 40 years) to "as good as I can do" without time constraints allows quality to improve with practice.

- learning basic skills - setting plane blades, sharpening, marking out, cutting a mortise etc - can be fraught with a "try it and see" learning technique. The apprentice of old could learn by looking and would quickly be told how and and how not. Learning would no doubt be reinforced by minor physical violence or assignment to more menial tasks for the day.

 

[Jacob]

I found similarities in playing music,
I played in lots of bands when I was younger. I noticed that just because you are technically great musician, doesn't mean that you can write good songs......

But unless you are a technically competent musician you can't play anything. This may be as simple as knowing your way around 3 or 4 chords in 3 or 4 keys.
For a lot of guitarists this is all they can do but they get good at it by endless repetition and practice - but ask them to pick out the notes for "Happy Birthday To You" or "Baa baa Black sheep" and 90% of yer amateurs couldn't do it impromptu.

And 99% of the music performed is cover versions of someone elses, whether it's Beethoven or Max Bygraves. There's no particular call for originality or new stuff but people do want a good performance.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The flash stuff reminds of the daft hats women wear at Ascot - ingenious, sometimes good for a laugh but not something you'd want to keep around the house. Strictly for the bin after their day out.

[/quote]
What hat ?