Precise and Imprecise Tools?

[Cheshirechappie]

Skill, experience, methods of work all play a part.

However, some tools are better designed and made for some tasks than for others. You can cut dovetails with a hacksaw, but a backsaw is more appropriate. You can cut dovetails with a panel saw, but a backsaw is more appropriate. You can cross-cut a 9" board with a dovetail saw, but a panel saw is more appropriate. They're all saws, but some are better adapted to some tasks than others.

Going back to Woodbloke's chisels, the LN is better adapted for fine cabinet work than the Marples. That doesn't mean you can't clean up dovetails with the Marples, just that the LN is better adapted for that class of work.

I'm sure there are people who have cleaned up dovetails with a sharpened nail. Just because it's possible in extremis doesn't make it the best tool for the job, or even an appropriate tool.

Certainly true that a skilled craftsman doesn't need many fancy tools, but a good craftsman will choose tools appropriate to his craft, because it makes the job easier, or because it makes it quicker to achieve the desired result.

 

[MikeG.]

I'd suggest precision is more about methods of work than the tools.........

=D> Bingo.

So Mike, you'd like to be operated on by a surgeon who was capable of top drawer, precision work, but who only used mediocre, imprecise and clunky tools? :lol: :lol: Making a quick exit here......- Rob

Missing the point again Rob. No-one has suggested a single tool yet that has a precise and an imprecise version. Not one suggestion has stood up to a second's scrutiny. Name me a tool which has a precise and an imprecise version and I'll take your surgeon analogy seriously.

Besides, who ever gets to ask a surgeon about the tools he is going to use?

 

[dzj]

........Do you see anything controversial in what I'm saying?

Apart from calling me a troll, you mean.

Yes, actually, my fundamental point stands. Firstly, we weren't talking about beginners, so that's a major moving of the goal posts. Put an expensive plane in the hands of a beginner and they'll get exactly the same results, or lack thereof, as they get with a standard Record/ Stanley. The spurious "out of the box" point again only applies to the first hour of use anyway, after which they'll be equally as non-plussed with sharpening and re-setting a £300 plane as a £30 plane. But this is all besides the point, which is that you claimed there was such a thing as a precise hand-tool (for some reason this now seems to be just planes, not handtools in general), and despite days of being asked to back it up, you've still got nothing to show that greater precision can be achieved with an expensive tool than with a standard tool. For the want of another accusation of trolling, I still haven't the first idea why you think some versions of hand tools are more precise than other versions.

I tried to keep my comments relevant to the OP and discussion that followed. The only tool mentioned before my post was a shooting board (and by association hand plane).
My first post was in reference to this. The example in this thread was also about hand planes.

It was you that introduced chisels and whatnot.

Yes with a standard Record/ Stanley they'll get more/less same results. With a knock-off they get nowhere. That was my point , but that would mean you actually read what I wrote.

"That greater precision can be achieved with an expensive tool than with a standard tool."
I never mentioned standard tools, (why do you keep inferring this?) but rather cheap copies that a beginner might be tempted to purchase.

If your heart was really in the right place you'd offer the OP something substantial.
A list of links with types and prices of suitable hand planes she can buy for instance.
(Wouldn't be so hard seeing how ubiquitous they are, would it?)
Instead you offer, yet again, a 'skills trump high end tools' rant.

And I didn't call you a troll, Mike, but regarded your behavior somewhat trollish.

Incidently, I just read the OP's answer from the 'Angles' thread.
I found humor in this part:
"Things like the making a plane work for the task looks like it would involve buying a plane, some waterstones and a grinder to sharpen it, and then the materials to make a sounding board. While these are all tools I would like to own in the long run, it's a big outlay, and any tools I own I have to transport in a backpack on a bike too and from the workshop. Not to mention it kinda takes the momentum out of the project if I have to sacrifice a few days to learn a tangential skill, and make the relevant tooling. "

 

[MikeG.]

........You can cut dovetails with a hacksaw, but a backsaw is more appropriate.

Compare like for like. Is there a backsaw which has a precise and an imprecise version? Same tool. You know, so we're comparing a dovetail saw with a dovetail saw, for instance.

Going back to Woodbloke's chisels, the LN is better adapted for fine cabinet work than the Marples. That doesn't mean you can't clean up dovetails with the Marples, just that the LN is better adapted for that class of work.

It may be able to do something that the Marples can't, but again, that misses the point. The precision of the Marples is absolutely 100% exactly the same as the precision of the LN. If you are paring to a line you can do it exactly as well with one as the other. There is no difference. Being limited as to the tightness of a corner it can get into is not a function of precision or otherwise.

My god this conversation is frustrating.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Example of 'precise' and 'imprecise' tool?

Try square.

Grade AA calibration standard engineer's square - precise.

Bog standard 'there or thereabouts' cheapy square - imprecise.

Or, if anybody is bothered about comparing like with like, try squares for woodworking. Those complying with BS3322, precise enough, those not complying, not precise. Taking it further, somebody installing garden decking may find the bog-standard cheapy fit for purpose, where the fine cabinetmaker might not, and opt for a BS939 Grade B engineer's square as being appropriately precise for their purposes.

 

[MikeG.]

I tried to keep my comments relevant to the OP and discussion that followed. The only tool mentioned before my post was a shooting board (and by association hand plane).
My first post was in reference to this. The example in this thread was also about hand planes.

What? Have you read the OP? It was about chisels.

It was you that introduced chisels and whatnot.

No, it wasn't. See above.

I never mentioned standard tools, (why do you keep inferring this?) but rather cheap copies that a beginner might be tempted to purchase.

That's a lie. Does that make you a liar (see below)?

Here's what you said:

Precise hand tools are often also costly.......

......As for what a precise WW tool is, I somehow doubt that you are utterly in the dark.

No mention of cheap knock-off tools at all, just some inexplicable and unsupportable claim that precision hand tools exist.

Instead you offer, yet again, a 'skills trump high end tools' rant.

You haven't the honesty to quote me. I haven't ranted about skills at all.

And I didn't call you a troll, Mike, but regarded your behavior somewhat trollish.

Oh that's all right then. Hiding behind word games is pathetic.

 

[dzj]

You mixed up 2 threads Mike. The Angles one and the Precise and Imprecise one.
Makes you look foolish.
Or maybe you're just cherry-picking what ever suits your narrative.
Not commendable, in any case.

 

[shed9]

Hiding behind word games is pathetic.

Says the man who has deliberately used words out of context whilst conflating individual tool references to support an agenda of trying to call someone a liar, the second time in a week.

I appreciate you probably have me on ignore MikeG but posting anyhow.

 

[Bm101]

Due to ongoing issues with advanced repetition and inter-channel static levels of this thread will now be.... kcchhhhhBrrrrrrrrrtttt..... Beeeeeeeeee........ BRrrraaaa........ Skeeeeeee..........*high pitched screeching*

[youtube]OIIxIJshmTw[/youtube]

 

[StraightOffTheArk]

While this thread has distinctly disappeared up it's own backside, I do think that the OP's original premise is not quite the right way of focussing on this.

It seems so obvious that it should not need stating that when it comes to hand tools precision lies in the hand that holds it, it is also remarkably obvious that some tools are better than others and generally cost more. I think the more interesting question is what it is that makes the difference. E.g. I have some Aldi chisels with which I can chop mortices, I also have some Marples with fat green plastic handles which I prefer, better weight & balance, in addition I have a couple of Marples with wooden 'carving' style handles which I prefer even more - better balance and the shape of the wooden handle 'feels' better. Obviously there is no difference in the quality or precision of mortice resulting from them. Another example, I have claw hammers with metal and wooden handles - the wooden handled hammer feels better balanced to me so I prefer using it, but the nail gets hammered home equally in either case.

This is all highly subjective and mostly comes down to personal preference, which is great, there's just no need to get personal about it.

Tara a bit,

SOTA

 

[beech1948]

Example of 'precise' and 'imprecise' tool?

Try square.

Grade AA calibration standard engineer's square - precise.

Bog standard 'there or thereabouts' cheapy square - imprecise.

I used to agree with that statement BUT not any longer. Much of the marketing used for tools is just gosippy rubarb. After buying my Starrett squares, my M&W rulers etc I 10 days ago bought 3 set squares from Lidl. I was curious as at £9.99 for all three they would be rubbish wouldn't they.

I tested them when I got home and to my amazement all 3 were bang on as in completely spot on. WOW. Will report back after I have used them for 3 years.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Example of 'precise' and 'imprecise' tool?

Try square.

Grade AA calibration standard engineer's square - precise.

Bog standard 'there or thereabouts' cheapy square - imprecise.

I used to agree with that statement BUT not any longer. Much of the marketing used for tools is just gosippy rubarb. After buying my Starrett squares, my M&W rulers etc I 10 days ago bought 3 set squares from Lidl. I was curious as at £9.99 for all three they would be rubbish wouldn't they.

I tested them when I got home and to my amazement all 3 were bang on as in completely spot on. WOW. Will report back after I have used them for 3 years.

The point about 'precise' Grade AA Calibration squares is that they are supplied against a standard setting limits for their allowable inaccuracy. The allowable limits for Grade A Inspection squares are a bit less onerous, and Grade B Workshop squares are less onerous again. (All to BS939, by the way). The requirements for a BS3322 Carpenter's square are less onerous, and for a try square not made to a standard, you takes your chances.

If you buy a try square against a standard grade, you know how precise it will be, so you select the level of precision you need. Tighter limits, higher cost as a rule. That's the point about 'precision' - you can set your requirements, then see which standard specification matches your needs.

If you just buy a try square not supplied against a standard or specification, then you may get something that is precise enough for your purposes, or you may not. Your LIDL squares are precise enough for your needs, so you've won that one. Well done. However, that in no way invalidates the point about specified levels of precision.

 

[Doug B]

I’ve a Mitutoyo digital protractor & a Wixey one the Wixey works to one decimal place the Mitutoyo to two decimal places, clearly the Mitutoyo is a far more precise protractor but it is also 20 times the price, you pays your money you takes your choice.

 

[SammyQ]

I weighed in once against MikeG, begging to gently disagree and I'm going to do so again, agin several of you now:
Firstly define "precision"? If I am using a microtome, I want a cut of single digit micrometre thickness, no way a blue marples chisel does that. Horses for courses. But...some - very similar- microtomes deliver the desired settings of thickness MORE CONSISTENTLY than others. Ergo, I describe the second as "better" - at delivering my need - and think of them as "more precise" because I can expect the desired outcome more dependably than their rivals. Coming back down to earth, I.e. the workshop, we could make a similar argument for, say, pre-atomic steel holding its edge better than the recycled Beans tins other chisels are made from. Because the edge holds up longer, we can again derive CONSISTENT, expected, results for longer: = " precision tool".
Secondly, accuracy: in my business, we used millionths of a metre as standard. Engineers come near to that, some beyond for telescope glass yada, yada, but the f&c makers are probably content with tenths of a millimetre(?). Custard? Feel free to correct me please? On this point, a bladed device that allows that degree of a cut, time after time, without distractive rehoning, is surely more "precise " (long term) than a monkey-metal jobbie that blunts, then wanders or deflects rather, with age and in so doing, makes an INACCURATE cut? Inaccuracy is then commonly referred to as 'a lack of precision' - long term - whereas they actually meant : 'lack of durability'.
I agree with MikeG, any 2 tools, of VERY similar configuration, edging, grip and dimensions can probably do a near-identical job - if you have the experience (judgement) to compensate for incremental wear.
Where I think everyone is getting hung up, is word use. "Precision" vs "accuracy" vs "longevity". See above.

Jacob? Be quiet.

Sam

 

[Andy Kev.]

Here's my 10p worth (for what it's worth): I suggest that there is a bit of confusion in this thread between the notions of "precision" and "quality". Presumably any chisel can be honed to a fine and precise edge, thus achieving precision. How long it holds that edge is probably an indication of its quality.

A good quality manufacturer will be rated by how much precision he has put into the making e.g. is it flat, straight etc.

Precision is clearly the very point of some tools like combination squares and the degrees of precision have been thoroughly discussed. I supposed that with such tools we more or less equate precision to quality.

I got thinking about this today when I was planing a bit of wood with my new, old, pre-war Record No 6. It's a lovely plane and I regard it as being a well manufactured i.e. high quality tool. However, one bit of wood was being a bit difficult and at one point I switched from the No 6 to my Veritas LAJ and the latter has a sole which is clearly made to a higher tolerance of flatness than the No 6 was and so it finished the job off nicely. This leads me to conclude that the LAJ is the more precise tool of the two although they are both IMO high quality. As a result of this experience I'm thinking about buying a piece of float glass to really go to work on the sole of the No 6 to get the precision of its flatness to the level of the LAJ. (I don't regard the difference as a surprise as I imagine that manufacturing processes have improved over the at least 70 years between the manufacturing of the two planes.)

I suppose that the chances of getting a precisely made tool are more likely the better the manufacturer.

 

[StraightOffTheArk]

Presumably any chisel can be honed to a fine and precise edge, thus achieving precision. How long it holds that edge is probably an indication of its quality.

I haven't really got much to add to this thread except to say that I once had a set of the cheapest possible Chinese chisels, not only were they not the width they claimed to be, but they also managed to not only fail to hold an edge, but never really took one in the first place! So definitely not precise - wrong width - but also low quality - wooden handles though.

Tara a bit,

SOTA

 

[MikeG.]

........I got thinking about this today when I was planing a bit of wood with my new, old, pre-war Record No 6. It's a lovely plane and I regard it as being a well manufactured i.e. high quality tool. However, one bit of wood was being a bit difficult and at one point I switched from the No 6 to my Veritas LAJ and the latter has a sole which is clearly made to a higher tolerance of flatness than the No 6 was and so it finished the job off nicely. This leads me to conclude that the LAJ is the more precise tool of the two although they are both IMO high quality........

You're comparing new with old. Let's see how flat the sole of your Veritas plane is after 60 years of use.

 

[Andy Kev.]

........I got thinking about this today when I was planing a bit of wood with my new, old, pre-war Record No 6. It's a lovely plane and I regard it as being a well manufactured i.e. high quality tool. However, one bit of wood was being a bit difficult and at one point I switched from the No 6 to my Veritas LAJ and the latter has a sole which is clearly made to a higher tolerance of flatness than the No 6 was and so it finished the job off nicely. This leads me to conclude that the LAJ is the more precise tool of the two although they are both IMO high quality........

You're comparing new with old. Let's see how flat the sole of your Veritas plane is after 60 years of use.

That's an interesting point. I assume, in my innocence, that planes can only get flatter with use, as high points will surely be worn down. That said, I suppose that a convex sole could get worse as if the plane is an outward sticking banana in its length, the user will presumably follow the banana curve but surely a concave banana must be worn flatter.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

........I got thinking about this today when I was planing a bit of wood with my new, old, pre-war Record No 6. It's a lovely plane and I regard it as being a well manufactured i.e. high quality tool. However, one bit of wood was being a bit difficult and at one point I switched from the No 6 to my Veritas LAJ and the latter has a sole which is clearly made to a higher tolerance of flatness than the No 6 was and so it finished the job off nicely. This leads me to conclude that the LAJ is the more precise tool of the two although they are both IMO high quality........

You're comparing new with old. Let's see how flat the sole of your Veritas plane is after 60 years of use.

That's an interesting point. I assume, in my innocence, that planes can only get flatter with use, as high points will surely be worn down. That said, I suppose that a convex sole could get worse as if the plane is an outward sticking banana in its length, the user will presumably follow the banana curve but surely a concave banana must be worn flatter.

Wear on plane soles is a bit of a lottery. The Bailey-style planes, especially the longer ones, do flex a teeny bit, so where pressure is applied during use, and how the shaving behaves around the mouth opening, could affect the wear of the sole, along with such things as whether the plane was used a lot for edge-jointing, or used on plywood edges.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Might be worth mentioning that in the case of tools or measuring instruments such as try squares supplied to a recognised specification, it only really means anything when the tool is brand new.

You have no idea whether the BS939 Grade B try square you buy second hand had one careful owner who kept it in a velvet-lined box and only handled it whilst wearing white cotton gloves, or was routinely drop-kicked up and down the works by a numpty who just didn't care (slightly exaggerated example, but you get the idea).

Second hand - all bets are off. You take your chances, and it's down to you to check whether the tool is good enough for your purposes or not.