Preservation or Utilisation? Antique Tools

[mseries]

Here's an extreme (and hypothetical, of course) test case to think about.

Imagine that Larry Ellison (a multi-billionaire) had been reading
the Arts & Mysteries posts of Adam Cherubini, and been inspired,
having never done woodwork before, to "have a go" at 18th century
woodwork. Being rather wealthy he decides to buy, sharpen,
and use a handy, complete set - the Seaton Tool Chest.

How would people feel about that?

Is it "His money, his tools, his rules", or "those tools,
with their astonishing provenance, completeness as a set,
and preservation are a precious record".

BugBear

I met Larry Ellison once, actually had dinner with him. I was at an Oracle conference in Dallas, at a Texan barbecue. We were sitting and eating and Ellison came over and asked if he may join us. We were all wearing our delegates name badges. We swapped pleasantries then on discovering I am English he started talking to me about football. Seemed like a very nice chap, I enjoyed his company. It would be a shame if he wore out the Seaton Tools but that's what they are for. If I was to advise him, I'd suggest he uses them but keeps them in working order. If he was to buy Mallard, I'd encourage him to get it mainline ready, employ and train a team of engineers to keep in mainline ready.

 

[bugbear]

It would be a shame if he wore out the Seaton Tools but that's what they are for. If I was to advise him, I'd suggest he uses them but keeps them in working order.

An even better idea (for the real Ellison) would be for him to commission a complete copy-set from
the guys at Williamsburg, and probably hire Adam Cherubini as a helper, but that's not the point
of my carefully posed scenario.

In my scenario he's going to use them exactly as he pleases, and he has
no woodworking knowledge.

The point of the scenario is to be extreme, for the purposes of clarity.

BugBear

 

[custard]

Here's an extreme (and hypothetical, of course) test case to think about.

Imagine that Larry Ellison (a multi-billionaire) had been reading
the Arts & Mysteries posts of Adam Cherubini, and been inspired,
having never done woodwork before, to "have a go" at 18th century
woodwork. Being rather wealthy he decides to buy, sharpen,
and use a handy, complete set - the Seaton Tool Chest.

How would people feel about that?

Is it "His money, his tools, his rules", or "those tools,
with their astonishing provenance, completeness as a set,
and preservation are a precious record".

BugBear

He can do exactly as he pleases, after all isn't that what ownership means! We might feel outraged, but a thousand years of property law tells us that his rights of ownership trumps our grievances every single time. And rightly so, as the courts would quickly point out, Larry's right to do what he pleases with his property is actually a way more important issue than our fretting and hand wringing.

We get far too precious about tools and skills on this forum. If it was all lost so what, we could get it all back again in the blink of an eye, because what man has invented man can re-invent. It's worth considering the example of Philly Planes, he decided he wanted to re-create 18th century planes. There was no specialist tools, no convenient training courses, no decent manuals. But he's a clever chap so he sat down, figured it all out, and before you know it he's turning out items every bit as good as the originals.

 

[shed9]

The point of the scenario is to be extreme, for the purposes of clarity.

In the extreme, Larry can and will do what he wants regardless of the conclusion of this thought experiment. I do get the point of this hypothetical but not sure it will achieve a conclusive objective.

NB: I've actually met Larry as well back in the 90's and concur he was (and assume still is) a decent guy.

 

[bugbear]

For people who think Larry Ellison is an OK kind of guy, substitute Petro Poroshenko, or other multi-billionaire of your choice.

(I mean I could have just said "a billionaire" and "a rare old set of tools", but I was trying to make
a concrete hypothetical example, if that's not a contradiction in terms).

BugBear

 

[shed9]

For people who think Larry Ellison is an OK kind of guy, substitute Petro Poroshenko, or other multi-billionaire of your choice.

Now your talking :lol:

 

[custard]

Try another thought experiment.

Larry Ellison and Petro Poroshenko are having a chat when Larry says, "Hey Petro, have you heard about these silly old fools in the UK, wasting their weekends and retirements rubbing rusty old saws with bits of wire wool. They should be getting out more, making stuff, building things, instead of wittering on about tat they've found at car boot sales."

"I know", says Petro, "but let's remember that it's their time and their lives, so it's absolutely their decision what they do with them".

 

[Cheshirechappie]

A great deal of this comes down to discretionary activity - things some people can do if they want to. Many of the tools we're thinking about were made as necessary items - society needed houses, ships, carts, barrels and so on, and craftsmen needed the tools to make them. Whilst they probably cared for their tools in the sense that they were their means of earing a living, they would have been quick to discard and replace any tool that wouldn't do it's job, just as we'd throw out an old computer or a broken washing machine. It's only because we have the luxury of some spare cash and spare time that we can afford to bother about such things.

Some do say that learning the lessons of history can inform the future, which is a fair point. Some say that we need to consider making more things to last, and fewer things disposable or of short life if human existence and the planet are to be sustained long-term, which is perhaps a more debateable point - and besides, why do we have to make lasting things with old techniques? Can't we make them with modern ones, or even with techniques and materials not yet invented?

I can't help feeling that the main reason for preserving and using old tools and techniques is because it's fun, intellectually and physically rewarding, and ultimately as much an expression of the human condition as music, literature or drama. With that in mind, I'm not sure we should set 'rules', though by common consent we tend to preserve the very rare and special; all else is fair game for whatever one chooses.

 

[shed9]

I'm not sure it's about the tools as such but more the financial aspect and other forms of value.

Old tools are still around because they have a perceived value and more importantly these days, a means to achieve that value. Imagine how many old tools would be in the bin if it wasn't for the likes of car boots, flea markets, Ebay (other online auctions are available), etc. People usually hang on to them because they think they are either worth something to someone else or worth something to themselves directly (sentimental, etc).

I do subscribe to the notion that old tools does not equate to good tools. Most old tools around are quite frankly dire and probably should to be melted down for their respective base metals. The concept that pre-mass consumerism products were even slightly superior just doesn't wash in my opinion. With the obvious exceptions, most suppliers will manufacture the cheapest product they can conceivable market and convince people to buy regardless of time period, intended use or indeed generational usage. Again, with exception, people always have and always will continue to buy and (to a lesser extent) use inferior tools regardless of the significance, livelihood or dependency based around their use.

I bet if you calculated the actual number of old tools in question that only a very very small number are actually in use or will ever get used.

To sum up my response to the OP, when it comes to the scenario of whether or not old tools should be used, I'm not sure that question covers an awful lot of hardware in reality.

 

[Bedrock]

Vann - I think you and I have to disagree on this. Thankfully there are enough enthusiast's with enough money to rebuild Spitfires and Hurricanes, and old Ferraris and Aston Martins, and most are in better nick than they ever were, even in service. My view is that a large part of the essence of say a Spitfire or Daytona Cobra, is seeing and hearing them in use, and I hope that for generations to come they will be able to appreciate the sight and sound. Stick them in a motor museum, and I don't think the kids of tomorrow will even start to understand what they were about.
Some years ago, I was lucky enough to see a Sopwith Camel, flying over the Family estate in the Test Valley. It wasn't an air show, just a real enthusiast enjoying a Spring morning all on his own. The pilot was rolling, and looping the loop, without regard to his or the plane's safety. It was only then that I really appreciated how fragile were these early war planes, and what shear balls was needed to fly them.
This is somewhat straying into the exotic, but I remain in the use it camp, and if it needs some work to get it working properly, so be it.
Regards Mike

 

[bugbear]

Vann - I think you and I have to disagree on this. Thankfully there are enough enthusiast's with enough money to rebuild Spitfires and Hurricanes, and old Ferraris and Aston Martins, and most are in better nick than they ever were, even in service. My view is that a large part of the essence of say a Spitfire or Daytona Cobra, is seeing and hearing them in use, and I hope that for generations to come they will be able to appreciate the sight and sound. Stick them in a motor museum, and I don't think the kids of tomorrow will even start to understand what they were about.
Some years ago, I was lucky enough to see a Sopwith Camel, flying over the Family estate in the Test Valley. It wasn't an air show, just a real enthusiast enjoying a Spring morning all on his own. The pilot was rolling, and looping the loop, without regard to his or the plane's safety. It was only then that I really appreciated how fragile were these early war planes, and what shear balls was needed to fly them.
This is somewhat straying into the exotic, but I remain in the use it camp, and if it needs some work to get it working properly, so be it.
Regards Mike

It sounds as if all the goals you mention (very poetically) would be fulfilled by faithful replicas.

That's (probably) cheaper than restoring an original too.

BugBear

 

[Bedrock]

BB At face value, and very cold-bloodedly, you should be right, but I suppose I am strongly driven by the shear emotion. If you ever go to the Goodwood Revival Meeting, seeing and hearing a Maserati, worth £5m. plus, that has been driven by one of greats, being driven to the limit by some complete nutter, without regard to the possible repair bills, certainly engages my interest.

A replica, however good, just wouldn't do it for me.

Given that the cost of building a complete "new" Spitfire from scratch, may well require many millions, so may not be that much cheaper any way. I think someone is doing this at the moment.

Mike

 

[Bm101]

Eric Olsen might be a better example for a concrete hypothetical example Bugbear. He's the CEO of Lafarge, the world's biggest cement company.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Interesting question about where you draw the line in preserving or building replicas of things. It would be technically possible to preserve a nuclear power station or an aircraft carrier in working order, or indeed to build a perfect working replica of either. But we don't, probably because the costs involved (not least in satisfying the proper safety authorities) would be prohibitive. (I suppose it's conceivable that there may be other matters preventing the preservation in full working order of significant military assets, too!)

It's in no small part down to cost. The likes of us can afford to buy or make tools. If we band together, we can afford to restore or build such artifacts as steam locomotives (there are about twenty 'new' standard gauge locomotives under construction in the UK at present, and several narrow gauge ones as well). The Vulcan remained airworthy whilst the technical expertise and funds were available to keep it so, but when the costs of renewing major parts and retraining the technical support became excessive, the plane had to cease flying. It would be possible in an engineering sense to build fully working replica nuclear power stations, but would society (which is quite happy to see money spent on the first two items mentioned) be willing to see the sort of sums of money needed to be thus spent, or would it start to mutter about money being better spent on health, education and so forth?

Just because it's technically possible doesn't necessarily mean it can, or in some cases should, be done.

There's a lot to be said for using one's leisure hours and spare pennies on much simpler technologies. Apart from anything else, you'd need quite a large back garden to build a replica nuclear power station. Not to mention good relations with the neighbours...

 

[bugbear]

BB At face value, and very cold-bloodedly, you should be right, but I suppose I am strongly driven by the shear emotion. If you ever go to the Goodwood Revival Meeting, seeing and hearing a Maserati, worth £5m. plus, that has been driven by one of greats, being driven to the limit by some complete nutter, without regard to the possible repair bills, certainly engages my interest.

A replica, however good, just wouldn't do it for me.

Surely it's not just the money - formula 1 cars cost that much and more to develop and build. But they're replaceable, albeit at cost.

But they're just not making Maserati Tipo 61's anymore , and if it is pranged, and repaired, it will become less and less original, and become Trigger's broom.

BugBear

 

[G S Haydon]

Is it "His money, his tools, his rules", or "those tools,
with their astonishing provenance, completeness as a set,
and preservation are a precious record".

BugBear

Interesting but not something to reflect on too much. It would be disappointing if something so unique would be tampered with. It's so unlikely to happen as naturally things like that end up in museums. Rational people rarely follow path 1.

Same goes for furniture or anything we make or restore really. It's nice that we make something with the potential to last a long time but even the most robust and or beautiful items get neglected, destroyed or go out of fashion.

 

[Rhyolith]

My opinion is that If I pick up a random hand tool at a car boot that is over 50yrs old, then the chances are it will be better than its modern equivalents. This of course might be just because the better ones survive and the rubbish ones don't... but personally I don't think thats the only reason.

I am interested that a number of people don't believe that old tools are better quality as a general rule of thumb, what makes you think this? I have seen virtually no exceptions where hand tools are better now than they were about 100 years ago (except tools for which the technology did not exist for). This is obviously just the tools I have come across, but all craftsman I have spoken with do seem to agree with the "older is better" principle, thats is until this thread.

Hand drills are defiantly an example of being better the older they are (until you get the the incredibly rare 18th C. ones), with modern equivalents I have seen being being incomparable quality wise. This even goes for the ones within the same company (older Stanley drills are far better then newer ones).

I can entirely believe these tools were not cheap in their day, as it does not seem possible to produce good metal tools cheaply. However, I struggle to believe that the plague of cheap crud that lines hardware stores today was present in the past... Indeed I know the quality of tool offered has dropped significantly just within my lifetime. This is not to say that there are not tools produced today that are as good as any of their sort that has ever existed (Lie-Nielsen, Festool, etc...), however I believe today these are exceptions rather than a common trend. I am also pretty confidant that there are less skilled practical workers (professional users of hand tools, such as wooden boat builders, cabinet makers, etc...) then 50+ years ago in Britain, naturally meaning that there will be less available to justify the manufacture of good hand tools.

I am a long way off being convinced that hand tools were not at there peak in the past, particularly at the lower end of the market (not big expensive machines).

What I said before was by no means "fact" just a theory, probably should have presented as such... the same goes for that lot.

... (there are about twenty 'new' standard gauge locomotives under construction in the UK at present, and several narrow gauge ones as well). T.

Where? I am very interested it this Had no idea there were that many (or any at all!) being made new.

There is a lot of "Tools where made to be used", I strongly disagree with this as a reason to use them. Lets say we have 17th century ship that is sea worthy, shall we head on over to Africa for some slaves then continue on to America to sell our ill gotten gains? Or what about a nice old Tiger Tank, shall we invade Russia with it? In both cases, thats what they were made for; but of course we are not going to do those things... cause it would be stupid and illegal to boot :wink: Further, I have heard about tools made for beauty primary, decorative planes etc... these tools are perfectly functional far as I am aware, but they were not made to be used, but looked at.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Here you go - http://newbuildsteam.com/

As far as I'm aware, the 5AT project is stalled, probably permanently, but the rest are active - some very much so, with construction quite advanced in some cases. Locations - all over the country, really. Best follow the links. I think that makes 21 active projects.

 

[AndyT]

Old tools were better? Yes, because up to about WW2 there was enforced quality control by the manufacturers and their trade associations, using a system established in the time of the medieval guilds, where nobody was allowed to sell sub-standard rubbish, at least not with a registered trade mark on, or marked as made in Sheffield. It's all been swept away since and condemned as restrictive practices or a makers' cartel, though we are not necessarily better off as a consequence.

There were different grades of tools, and the idea of offering price points matched to a wide range of buyers' pockets is nothing new, but there was not the tolerance of stuff that would break on first use - the minimum grade was still ok to use.

 

[Rhyolith]

Old tools were better? Yes, because up to about WW2 there was enforced quality control by the manufacturers and their trade associations, using a system established in the time of the medieval guilds, where nobody was allowed to sell sub-standard rubbish, at least not with a registered trade mark on, or marked as made in Sheffield. It's all been swept away since and condemned as restrictive practices or a makers' cartel, though we are not necessarily better off as a consequence.

There were different grades of tools, and the idea of offering price points matched to a wide range of buyers' pockets is nothing new, but there was not the tolerance of stuff that would break on first use - the minimum grade was still ok to use.

I didn't know any of this, thanks for that