The Cutting Edges of H.O. Studley

[twothumbs]

I always thought that joiners would go to the blacksmiths for grinding, just like stonemasons had to do. Blacksmiths would have their tools heated before being hammered and then grouind to an edge I am not part of this discussion, only reading it! Best wishes to everyone.

 

[jimi43]

................I am not part of this discussion, only reading it! Best wishes to everyone.

You are now...it's fatal! :mrgreen:

Jim

 

[bugbear]

......... once can infer that other tools were being ground, but didn't take too long......

Occasionally yes, but as a rule you can be certain that small tools were very rarely ground on a wheel, if ever.

Applying a little thought to

"sometimes the grinding lasted too long on new tools and axes"

we can conclude by simple logic that

"most of the time the grinding took a reasonable time on things that weren't new tools and axes"

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

......... once can infer that other tools were being ground, but didn't take too long......

Occasionally yes, but as a rule you can be certain that small tools were very rarely ground on a wheel, if ever.

Applying a little thought to

"sometimes the grinding lasted too long on new tools and axes"

we can conclude by simple logic that

"most of the time the grinding took a reasonable time on things that weren't new tools and axes"

BugBear

Applying a little more thought to "sometimes the grinding lasted too long on new tools and axes"

we could conclude by simple logic that
"at other times the grinding lasted not that long on new tools and axes" with no mention of old tools at all!

 

[bugbear]

Cooincidence is a funny thing;

Last night I was reading my newly delivered (thank you eBay), Woodworker Annual, Volume 64.

As you do.

There was an article on "Some Customs in the Chairmaking Trade", in High Wycombe.

The short version is that most of the workers were sort of freelance, and the employers provided buildings, equipment and capital.

But the long version was long enough to be in two parts.

Interesting stuff (expanded in to a book "History of Chair making in High Wycombe").

But I digress.

Relevant to the current thread, we find:

Much greater resentment was expressed at the common charge of 2d. a week for the use
of the factory grindstone, probably because here the workmen knew the exact cost
of such an item and could see that at 2d. a week per man it was
being paid for over and over again.

For context, the average wage in the trade was 22s a week.

Sounds like they were had a need for routine grinding,
even if they didn't like paying for it.

BugBear

 

[Jacob]

.....
Sounds like they were had a need for routine grinding,
even if they didn't like paying for it.

BugBear

Well yes, if a stone was available, as it would be in some bigger workshops.
At 2d a go you could be certain that all their routine sharpening would be done on their own flat oil stones!

 

[bugbear]

.....
Sounds like they were had a need for routine grinding,
even if they didn't like paying for it.

BugBear

Well yes, if a stone was available, as it would be in some bigger workshops.
At 2d a go you could be certain that all their routine sharpening would be done on their own flat oil stones!

2d. a go would be expensive. The author said 2d. a week.

BugBear

 

[Tom K]

If I were paying tuppence a week I'd certainly want my moneys worth. Would they all be doing whole chairs though? Or would there be specialists
making different parts and so using differing tools travishers and such (is that the tool for shaping seats?) while others were turners etc

 

[bugbear]

If I were paying tuppence a week I'd certainly want my moneys worth. Would they all be doing whole chairs though? Or would there be specialists
making different parts and so using differing tools travishers and such (is that the tool for shaping seats?) while others were turners etc

Oh indeed - the article was interesting on the wider industry enough that I'm on the lookout for the book.

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

Interesting article. Schwarzy concludes that Studley would say as follows:

1. I like a convex bevel. Nearly all of the edges I observed had a slightly convex bevel. A couple tools had evidence of a hollow grind in the middle that was in the process of being removed by sharpening the bevel (making it convex).

2. I like cambered edges on my planes. Nearly every edge of the plane blades (blocks, smoothers, jacks and try) had a cambered cutting edge. Many of the edges were significantly relieved at the corners.

3. I sharpen the entire bevel. Only one tool had any evidence of a micro-bevel.

4. I lap the backs of my irons and chisels. All of the tools in the chest have lapped backs. The lapping is not to a mirror sheen, but there is evidence of significant and continuous work on the backs.



5. I lift my plane irons slightly when I polish the backs. Over and over I saw evidence that the very tip of the back was polished to a higher degree than the metal behind the tip. And (using a machinist straightedge) I could see that the tip of the back was ever-so-slightly dubbed from this polishing. The polishing on the backs was heavier on the bevel-up planes than on the bevel-down planes.

You can take the above information and twist it however you like. Studley was a hand-sharpener. He sharpened the entire bevel. He did something similar to the ruler trick – though he probably didn’t use a ruler. He knew that he needed two intersecting surfaces to create a sharp and durable edge.
.....................[/quote]

Pedder basically beat me to it. Messrs. Studley and Seaton are known for their chests of tools. Where's the furniture? A whole lot of guys are going to kick the bucket and leave a beautiful collection of tools. Few will leave furniture remembered by later generations.

Fellows are laboring over projects (me included) that take dozens of hours to build, you know - the ubiquitous and at the end of the day basic bit of woodworking/rectilinear monument to the one-trick-pony (three months later: look Ma, no gaps!) that dovetailing has become - projects that would have been completed in less than a week by our forbears with a big yawn. Cutting a single joint well has become the well-trodded path to internet fame if not a way to earn a living for some. I think the antidote to all of this might be making a pair snowshoes, yeah, that's it - I'm going to make snowshoes! :lol: Or maybe just a little mindless turning of a chair-leg at the lathe, just sketching really, sketching in 3-D, looking for a shape, a new combination that pleases the eye. A lowering of the blood pressure rather than the raising of production of yet, another, rectangular, box, project, of, some, sort, small, or, big, take, your, pick, (hands moving down the keyboard playing loud, minor, chords). Blech. And more blech.

Back on track - a slight bit of a back bevel is not a deal killer nor is it the woodworking equivalent of the Rosetta Stone. It is certainly not worth all of the virtual ink that has been spilled discussing it. And of course a wisp of a cambered edge certainly beats pesky plane tracks. All of this should be kept well between the ditches of course. Truth, like woodworking best practices, is rarely found at the extremes. All of these little bits of curvature here and there should take on the subtlety of a mistake - when they look purposeful, or are achieved by the tenacity of purposefulness, they are almost always overdone. An artfully executed slight error is what's needed.

File it under "How did Alan Peters hone?" That's probably the way to do it. 'cept dear Alan didn't leave behind a nifty tool chest full of cleverly packed ebonied gear (or at least one that is famous at this point), apparently just a few Record planes (who wouldn't kill to own his trusty No. 7?). But, oh, the furniture!

 

[Jacob]

.....Messrs. Studley and Seaton are known for their chests of tools. Where's the furniture? A whole lot of guys are going to kick the bucket and leave a beautiful collection of tools.

Not sure of the point of the question. Studley was a piano maker by all accounts. So that's the answer isn't it? Pianos. A lot of them I imagine. Some of them probably still in existence. He also made a chest which is very much in existence!.

Few will leave furniture remembered by later generations.

Er, so what? Most furniture is anonymous anyway, without that having any bearing on the quality.

 

[Trafalgar]

OK

 

[Sawyer]

Hi, Jacob

Have you read the book?

Pete

Certainly have. A classic. The classic really, as it tells more than any other book I've read, about 'traditional' working practices, unwritten knowledge and how it works.

I prefer "the Village Carpenter" by Walter Rose. He's less pretentious and more cheerful than Sturt, who is a miserable old scrote.

BugBear

Both books are all-time classics, but in very different ways. I don't think Sturt was pretentious though - very candid in recognising his own lack of skill by comparison to some of his employees. We should remember that he only came to run the business through circumstance and that felt a real responsibility towards his men and the need to be a good and fair employer. He was also deeply interested in politics, literature and philosophy and his diaries reveal the angst he felt over the conflicting demands of being (as he described himself) 'A Socialist employer of labour'.
I agree that Rose is more cheerful though. Both books are fascinating, but The Village Carpenter a delight to read in its own right.

 

[richarnold]

Interesting article. Schwarzy concludes that Studley would say as follows:

1. I like a convex bevel. Nearly all of the edges I observed had a slightly convex bevel. A couple tools had evidence of a hollow grind in the middle that was in the process of being removed by sharpening the bevel (making it convex).

2. I like cambered edges on my planes. Nearly every edge of the plane blades (blocks, smoothers, jacks and try) had a cambered cutting edge. Many of the edges were significantly relieved at the corners.

3. I sharpen the entire bevel. Only one tool had any evidence of a micro-bevel.

4. I lap the backs of my irons and chisels. All of the tools in the chest have lapped backs. The lapping is not to a mirror sheen, but there is evidence of significant and continuous work on the backs.



5. I lift my plane irons slightly when I polish the backs. Over and over I saw evidence that the very tip of the back was polished to a higher degree than the metal behind the tip. And (using a machinist straightedge) I could see that the tip of the back was ever-so-slightly dubbed from this polishing. The polishing on the backs was heavier on the bevel-up planes than on the bevel-down planes.

You can take the above information and twist it however you like. Studley was a hand-sharpener. He sharpened the entire bevel. He did something similar to the ruler trick – though he probably didn’t use a ruler. He knew that he needed two intersecting surfaces to create a sharp and durable edge.
.....................

Pedder basically beat me to it. Messrs. Studley and Seaton are known for their chests of tools. Where's the furniture? A whole lot of guys are going to kick the bucket and leave a beautiful collection of tools. Few will leave furniture remembered by later generations.

Fellows are laboring over projects (me included) that take dozens of hours to build, you know - the ubiquitous and at the end of the day basic bit of woodworking/rectilinear monument to the one-trick-pony (three months later: look Ma, no gaps!) that dovetailing has become - projects that would have been completed in less than a week by our forbears with a big yawn. Cutting a single joint well has become the well-trodded path to internet fame if not a way to earn a living for some. I think the antidote to all of this might be making a pair snowshoes, yeah, that's it - I'm going to make snowshoes! :lol: Or maybe just a little mindless turning of a chair-leg at the lathe, just sketching really, sketching in 3-D, looking for a shape, a new combination that pleases the eye. A lowering of the blood pressure rather than the raising of production of yet, another, rectangular, box, project, of, some, sort, small, or, big, take, your, pick, (hands moving down the keyboard playing loud, minor, chords). Blech. And more blech.

Back on track - a slight bit of a back bevel is not a deal killer nor is it the woodworking equivalent of the Rosetta Stone. It is certainly not worth all of the virtual ink that has been spilled discussing it. And of course a wisp of a cambered edge certainly beats pesky plane tracks. All of this should be kept well between the ditches of course. Truth, like woodworking best practices, is rarely found at the extremes. All of these little bits of curvature here and there should take on the subtlety of a mistake - when they look purposeful, or are achieved by the tenacity of purposefulness, they are almost always overdone. An artfully executed slight error is what's needed.

File it under "How did Alan Peters hone?" That's probably the way to do it. 'cept dear Alan didn't leave behind a nifty tool chest full of cleverly packed ebonied gear (or at least one that is famous at this point), apparently just a few Record planes (who wouldn't kill to own his trusty No. 7?). But, oh, the furniture![/quote]
I promised myself Iwouldn't get dragged into this one, but what the heck. I was very lucky in being asked to help with the dispersal of the late, and very great Alan peters tools. Some people would be very surprised at the diversity of Alan's hand tools. Most of it was very basic, and there was no high end shinney stuff. I don't know what Alans preferred method of sharpening was, but I do know this much. he was a full time proffesional woodworker, and his kit was sharp!, but if you had tried to analyze how he actual sharpened his tools, you would be struggling. There were concave bevels, flat bevels, and yes on occasion the odd convex bevel!!. A lot of the chisel handles had masking tape wrapped around them, presumably to give them a more comfortable grip. As to his trusty number 7, i'm afraid it met a sticky end a long time ago. he dropped it, and smashed the casting. He replaced it with another one that was made up of a mixture of Record, and Stanley bits. I seem to remember that the front knob was beech, and the rear handle was rosewood. Of all the kit that I sold off for Alans wife, I only bought one piece for myself. It was the tattiest beech marking gauge you would ever see, but it works like a dream, and to me it's priceless.

 

[Trafalgar]

"Surprised at the diversity... though basic"

It sounds contradictory but I understand what you're saying. Otherwise, I'm honestly surprised there wasn't a museum involved for at least a couple of items. Or was there? Seems a shame for the entire kit to become scattered.

I think his kit of tools would be worthy of more study than that of an employee of piano case manufacturing firms whose most outstanding solo work might have been (likely was) his toolchest.

That certainly was not the case with Alan Peters.

As far as pure woodworking goes, Jim Kingshott made a much more impressive tool chest IMO than did Mr. Studley and did so at the end of an apprenticeship, which I think was customary.

 

[Jacob]

"Surprised at the diversity... though basic"

It sounds contradictory but I understand what you're saying. Otherwise, I'm honestly surprised there wasn't a museum involved for at least a couple of items. Or was there? Seems a shame for the entire kit to become scattered.

I think his kit of tools would be worthy of more study than that of an employee of piano case manufacturing firms whose most outstanding solo work might have been (likely was) his toolchest.

That certainly was not the case with Alan Peters.....

I have to disagree.
I think it is likely that as productive craftsman the skill and breadth of work of the Studleys of this world are likely to be much higher than the Peters.
What distinguishes modern 'fine' furniture (or whatever you call that narrow slot in which Peters worked) is not 'craftsmanship', it is design.
Studley would have had no problem copying the work of Peters, probably more efficiently and to a higher standard of finish. He would probably have been able to teach Peters a good deal about the craft (and about sharpening!) but the converse would be unlikely.
This is a basic and very common misunderstanding in the world of woodwork.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I think it is likely that as productive craftsman the skill and breadth of work of the Studleys of this world are likely to be much higher than the Peters.
What distinguishes modern 'fine' furniture (or whatever you call that narrow slot in which Peters worked) is not 'craftsmanship', it is design.
Studley would have had no problem copying the work of Peters, probably more efficiently and to a higher standard of finish. He would probably have been able to teach Peters a good deal about the craft (and about sharpening!) but the converse would be unlikely.

Still talking rubbish, Jacob.......

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Jacob]

Then there's old St Jim Krenov - whose craft skills were laughable. :lol:

......Cutting a single joint well has become the well-trodded path to internet fame if not a way to earn a living for some. I think the antidote to all of this might be making a pair snowshoes, yeah, that's it - I'm going to make snowshoes! Or maybe just a little mindless turning of a chair-leg at the lathe....,

CStanford - I think you need the antidote as a matter of urgency! You will find that even the traditional makers of snowshoes (N American indians?) will have developed production to a high level of refinement.
This is true of a great many 'ordinary' craft products. There's a lot more to woodwork than that claustrophobic narrow world of the one-off 'bespoke' 'fine' furniture makers and it's potentially a lot more interesting.

Not seeing this and casually dismissing the Studleys of the world, is a form of blindness, and you are the loser.

I'd prescribe one of those green woodwork courses - axe, draw-knife, adze, gouge etc. That could be the start of a cure.
Get well soon!

PS Or start here? http://www.birchbarkcanoe.net/

Here's the book you need http://www.birchbarkcanoe.net/books.htm . Beautiful stuff!

 

[Trafalgar]

Jacob, to my knowledge Mr. Studley has one extant piece of *presumably* solo work - an admittedly fine tool chest. Bravo.

To put him in the same league as Alan Peters is a huge, huge stretch.

 

[Jacob]

Jacob, to my knowledge Mr. Studley has one extant piece of *presumably* solo work - an admittedly fine tool chest. Bravo.

To put him in the same league as Alan Peters is a huge, huge stretch.

Presumably he also contributed to the making of several hundred pianos, some of which will be extant no doubt.. As a craftsman, a maker, a tool user, this would probably put him in a much higher league than Peters &co.
You need to separate the craft from the design to understand my point.
Pity they couldn't have met. Amongst other things Studley would no doubt have talked Peters out of that silly idea of doing everything with a no 7!