"Money for Nothing" BBC1

[MrTeroo]

Maybe you need to get a life or perhaps you already do if you're watching dross all day. :lol:

Anyway, end of "discussion" as I really can't be bothered to argue with a ............. :lol: Have a good day fella, what's left of it!

BYE

And yet you took the time to butt in and troll lol

 

[Lons]

And yet you took the time to butt in and troll lol

(hammer)

 

[Dangermouse 2nd]

This thread , like the programme is i venture to say full of bull ***** !

 

[rafezetter]

At the risk of setting you off again MrTeroo - regarding Oli & Josh, I've only gone by what I saw on the shows and either they have a limited skill set, or they have obviously rushed it or had some other reasons why they were working out of a garage with few tools in sight rather than a workshop capable of churing out the sort of items on that website.

Several times they have been doing work in an area that looks exactly like "Dad's Garage and a few tools" rather than the kitted out workshops of the other artisans*.

*a word I hate by the way when used in conjunction with the kind of people on the show - I would call Custards work "Artisan", but them... no.

PS I don't know what's got up your snout MrTeroo, but can you dial it back a bit on the forum please? You can /RANT offline in the privacy of your own home as much as you like, just like I do

 

[MrTeroo]

Well my first comment on this thread was tongue in cheek and written with humerous intention.

As the thread progressed the snooty and supercilious opinions of this programme 'got up my snout'

I view a lot of the opinions expressed on this thread as ranting, against the makers (for want of a better word) in the show.

So maybe those posters should dial it back a bit?

BTW, what model of TV do you have? Must be a good one to show sanding marks

 

[Lons]

Well my first comment on this thread was tongue in cheek and written with humerous intention.

Well for someone who lectured in a previous post about grammar it might be prudent to note that "humerous" is a bone :lol: :lol: :lol: Maybe you got confused by its' nickname the funny bone. #-o
Which version of google do you use?

 

[MrTeroo]

Thanks

I use the version that knows the difference between grammar and spelling 8)

 

[Lons]

Thanks

I use the version that knows the difference between grammar and spelling 8)

Ah thanks for that info. It's the misspelling version then. Explains a lot.

 

[MrTeroo]

Anyway, end of "discussion" as I really can't be bothered to argue with a ............. :lol: Have a good day fella, what's left of it!

BYE

What happened?

 

[Lons]

Anyway, end of "discussion" as I really can't be bothered to argue with a ............. :lol: Have a good day fella, what's left of it!

BYE

What happened?

Got bored waiting for an ebay listing I'm bidding on to end. Anyway not arguing just being helpful. :wink:

 

[MrTeroo]

Fair enough.

 

[rafezetter]

Well my first comment on this thread was tongue in cheek and written with humerous intention.

As the thread progressed the snooty and supercilious opinions of this programme 'got up my snout'

I view a lot of the opinions expressed on this thread as ranting, against the makers (for want of a better word) in the show.

So maybe those posters should dial it back a bit?

BTW, what model of TV do you have? Must be a good one to show sanding marks

I agree sometime people get a bit hot - myself included, so I've learned to self edit or I'd be banned long ago.

Yes my TV IS a good one, plus I sit quite close as it's my PC monitor, and I've got keen eyes and the curiosity to pause when something catches my eye, not helped by them using gloss paint

(it was a 3 drawer ercol style chest of drawers, handles changed and then painted a very dark blue / black.)

For the record I've been promoting this sort of thing for years - usually along with the timeworn derisive remarks of "expensive firewood", but when you see people being paid the kind of money they are charging and the work that comes out the other end on occasion, I don't think it's too harsh to critique.

 

[Eric The Viking]

I've seen Rafe's work, and I like it.

It's not the principle, nor the style of the TV stuff I dislike per se, but the execution of the TV stuff, which was pretty poor.

In the case of the floorboard table, there was a substantial piece of ply underneath to back the design, but they still didn't get the pieces suitably flat (unless they intended a glass top - wasn't mentioned). I was waiting for the planing/sanding part, to see how the wood came up, but it didn't happen!

Given the types of paint used on old floorboards, a dining table top was the last thing I'd use them for! It's not on really to (unintentionally) poison your guests. And, assuming it was intended to be used as-is, you'd never keep it clean with all those splintery grooves in it.

And deal on ply will move around, inevitably, (and come unstuck) so you either allow for movement, or do something else. I think this was basically an 8x4 whole sheet, but it might have been trimmed narrower. Their design gave them no options other than really strong glue (and crossed fingers). Overall it was a poor use of materials. The best bit was the table frame and legs, but they didn't show those being made!

The presenter "made" a table lamp out of bits of an old Russian enlarger-in-a-box, basically by clamping bits of it onto an old retort stand (with the original retort stand clamps, one of which had most of it snapped off). Her design depended on clamping (tightly) a Bakelite knob on the end of the focus adjusting rod*. She got an "electrician" to rewire it -- why? It's not hard nor dangerous to put mains cord on things, why do we suddenly see TV shows telling people they shouldn't?

Not only was the finished thing not actually "made" at all, but it displayed a woeful ignorance of the materials involved. one tap to the lamp and the mounting would shatter, irretrievably. And if that in turn caused the lamp housing (also Bakelite) to drop, there would have been a shattered bulb and glass everywhere. So she actually made a dangerous thing she was evidently proud of!

The chap refurbishing a Danish drinks trolley did OK, but was staggeringly ham-fisted dismantling it (never heard of a knocking block, evidently!), and the carefully highlighted new brass castors (period copies), were the plate type, and fitted with non-matching screws (three countersunk, one domed!), and the wrong type (should have had central pins, as the originals did). This was a shame, as he put some effort into refurbishment otherwise (and repairing damage he'd done himself by clumsy dismantling).

That was what depressed me. Not the idea of recycling/upcycling or whatever. I do that myself and enjoy it, although Rafe is much more innovative than me!

E.

*the focusing rod/tube was originally for the lamp - those enlargers rely on a virtual image being formed of the lamp filament by the collimating lenses (it should be focused in the objective lens. IIRC), to get even illumination, so you had to adjust both the negative's focus and the lamp's too. I used to use a Wray enlarger that was similar. You used to be able to buy special enlarger bulbs, different in that the writing wasn't on the globe of the bulb, because of the risk of it appearing in the final print!

 

[MrTeroo]

I agree sometime people get a bit hot - myself included, so I've learned to self edit or I'd be banned long ago.

Yes my TV IS a good one, plus I sit quite close as it's my PC monitor, and I've got keen eyes and the curiosity to pause when something catches my eye, not helped by them using gloss paint

(it was a 3 drawer ercol style chest of drawers, handles changed and then painted a very dark blue / black.)

For the record I've been promoting this sort of thing for years - usually along with the timeworn derisive remarks of "expensive firewood", but when you see people being paid the kind of money they are charging and the work that comes out the other end on occasion, I don't think it's too harsh to critique.

Yes I totally agree, it's not too harsh to critique, but phrases like:

"I have watched a couple of these, more in sheer surprise that anyone would buy such garbage "

"that's exactly what it is imho - junk!"

Are not critique. They are just grumpy old men firing one off.

I agree about the prices they charge though, way too much mostly. But every marketplace has different levels.

I remember when I first started my own business almost twenty years ago. I was wondering where to pitch my pricing and one day there was a fly on the wall documentary about American prostitutes - stay with me on this.

They interviewed some street hookers charging $10 a turn. Then they interviewed a high class hooker charging $200 per hour.

The high class hooker was asked what made her different. Why was she worth $200 per hour when the street hooker only charged $10.

She admitted there was nothing better about herself but she had realised that if she charged $10 she got $10 customers.
When she charged $200 she got $200 customers.

Simplistic, I know, but there is a lot of truth in it.

There are people who want to pay more.

 

[Lons]

I don't want to set this off again as I've mellowed a bit by tonight but the quote "that's exactly what it is imho - junk" was my post and I stand by that as I am entitled to my opinion as is everyone else on an open forum and by including "imho" I made it very clear that's exactly what it is, my opinion which you can agree with or not as you wish.

I admit to being a grumpy old man occasionally, doesn't make me wrong any more than it makes you right. It would be a strange world if we all agreed would it not? Perhaps it's better to agree to disagree as it matters not one jot. If you approve of the program you watch it, if not then like me you change channel.

cheers
Bob

 

[MrTeroo]

And yet you were happy to pipe up out of the blue last night and weigh in with your criticism of my earlier posts.

You're a hypocrite. imho of course.

 

[SammyQ]

Time out Boys.

This is a mainly constructive forum, with free help provided to those in need. Yes, we can point out dangerous or long-winded/futile ways of doing things and head off the uninitiated from time-wasting, but...'flame wars' (remember them?) or 'dog's abuse' - as it should be called - is uncalled for.

There are varying levels of artistic interpretation; I personally cringe and writhe when Drew Pritchard waxes lyrical about "patina" - to me, in some cases, it's signs of neglect. Those who admire 'shabby chic' would (presumably) beg to disagree. That's their right - "even if you are wrong" (the only Maggie Thatcher quotation I like).

To fall out and publish personal abuse here is counterproductive. To constructively disagree is to educate and enlighten. Toys back in the pram please.

Sam, who both disagrees with Jacob from time to time, but also admires his work - and has not been afraid to say so here.

P.S. There is a difference between shoddy workmanship and the con-trick of calling it "rustic" and 'marketing' it as 'wholesome development on a theme'. Just sayin'. S.

 

[stuartpaul]

And yet you were happy to pipe up out of the blue last night and weigh in with your criticism of my earlier posts.

You're a hypocrite. imho of course.

That's just rude and completely unnecessary.

 

[Lons]

You're a hypocrite. imho of course.

OK, as I said you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, makes no difference to me :lol:

 

[MrTeroo]

And yet you were happy to pipe up out of the blue last night and weigh in with your criticism of my earlier posts.

You're a hypocrite. imho of course.

That's just rude and completely unnecessary.

You're wrong.