The place fror accuracy

[Mr T]

Hi

I recently started a thread about traditionally fitted drawers, I must admit I lost track of it after a while (a bit busy at the moment), I also notice aniother similar thread is running. I thought it would be interesting to kick around a related topic which is - is it always impoortant to be absolutely accurate at all times in your work.

What set me thinking about this is that we have someone sharing bench space with us who recently graduated from the London Building College (I think that's what it's called - the one where Colin Eden-Eaden teaches). He has an extreme approach to accuracy, as he was taught at College. This is very laudable, but unfortunately uneconomic. Now perhaps we at Designer Makers Furniture have slipped into bodgerdom over the years, I hope not, but I would suggest that the mark of an expereinced maker is one who can tell where extreme accuracy is important and where you can get away with less. It is only by making these judgements that you can make stuff economically. A similar judgement to the drawer runner debate.

Possibly the Colleges need to be a little more nuanced in order for their graduates to be more economically viable.

 

[doctor Bob]

I think it's a balance Chris, experience teaches us that not all measurements need be accurate, the same applies to certain joints, unseen edges need not be sanded etc etc.

I'm still confident my work is top notch, even if the odd cabinet ends up 1mm bigger than it's supposed to be.

 

[tomatwark]

Chris

I think you may have started another debate.

I think it has alot to do with the eye.

For example a uneven gap around a door or drawer stands out like a sore thumb.

But if the overall size of the unit is a couple of mm bigger or smaller I don't think it really matters too much.

Tom

 

[Paul Chapman]

I remember chatting to John Lloyd at Westonbirt about antique furniture restoration and he made the point that he had never worked on a piece where all the legs were the same size. As he said, as long as it looks right, it is right.

Where I think you do need to be careful, however, is that you can get cumulative errors which can cause problems, particularly when you come to assemble a piece. A good example would be a rectangular picture frame with mitred corners. There are eight surfaces to join and if each one is out by just a small amount, it won't go together well. As Bob said, you need to know where you need to be very accurate and where you don't.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[woodbloke]

I totally agree with the comments thus far. A maker needs to know what's critical and what's not so important...Paul's example of the picture frame is spot on. An example of where it's not critical?..perhaps the final finished thickness on a big table top. 23 or 22.5mm where .5mm or so won't make a lot of difference - Rob

 

[mailee]

I also have to agree with all the posters here. Accuracy is down to the eye, if it looks right it is.

 

[goldeneyedmonkey]

+1. Beauty's in the eye of the beholder, not his or her callipers. As long as it looks right to you and the client then all's good.

 

[Mr T]

I think the point I was trying to make is that many people come out of professional courses of various types obsessed with accuracy and doing things "right" eg traditional drawer fitting. Then get disillusioned when reality bites. They say that there is none so righteous as the newly converted, I think this applies to the newly converted furniture maker. Certainly our bench sharer looked at us as if we were a couple of bodgers when we tried to bring in a bit of reality to a problem he had.

Chris

 

[adidat]

its called the building crafts college

adidat

 

[yetloh]

In part it depends what you aim to do. For me, a perfectly fitting draw or door is a sign of quality and craftsmanship, and I strive to achieve it. I agree with all the other posts so far as actual dimensions are concerned. As my good friend and West Dean tutor, Bernard Allen, would say, "There is the drawing and then there is reality and it is reality that you work to".

Jim

 

[Frank House]

Generally, I agree that one should go for what is needed.

It is also worth keeping in mind the distinction between precision and accuracy. Precision in this context meaning "make it to fit", accuracy meaning "make it to size".

Given that - there is something to be said for aiming at the best ACHIEVABLE accuracy when starting out. One day you might really need to make an object to be a close fit into a gap which is not in the workshop for reference. Learning the skill on pieces where it is not critical is no bad thing.

Acquiring the experience to know how accurate/precise measurements need to be takes time (and a few things that don't fit or look wonky).

Of course, understanding of the properties of wood is essential. Some of us take time to learn that timber never forgets that it was once alive, and it will not lie still even after it has been chopped down and seasoned.

My experience with scientists and engineers (for whom measurement is a core activity) suggests that, even at postgraduate level, the logic behind measurement is not always well taught. But as a (grumpy, retired) statistician I would say that of course .

Frank.

 

[Sawyer]

I suppose most of us were like it, just out of college? Full of high ideals, as yet untempered by experience.
I've seen some exquisitely fitting doors and drawers by students - *** paper clearance all round. But it only takes a rainy spell and no central heating, slight increase in timber moisture content - and they're stuck fast!
Accuracy is good, but requires the addition of experience, pragmatism and (dare I say it?) economics.

 

[andersonec]

Chris, What would you expect a college to teach? it has to be the very best you can produce, don't forget these are learners and at that stage it has to be the very best teaching, there is no other way, if they are taught the right and proper way then they will be able to produce the goods when you ask for it. Experience is what you are now showing and experience will come to your bench sharer and he will find his own ways to 'cut corners'. Surely these students have to produce an exam piece and I would have thought it had to be the very best they can do (or they fail) a teacher cannot be expected to teach 'when you can get away with it' they must teach the best and at this early stage that is all your man will know, don't tell him he's wrong, just share your experience and increase his knowledge, one day he will be saying the same as you are now.

Andy

 

[woodbloke]

Experience is what you are now showing and experience will come to your bench sharer and he will find his own ways to 'cut corners'.

Andy

I agree with the idea that students should be taught how to do things correctly, but I'd disagree with the semantics of 'cutting corners' which implies that an inferior piece of work is being produced when clearly, it's not. Experience is knowing when a process (say) needs to be accurate, as in fitting a drawer and when it's not so crucial...say the dimensions of a table leg. 'Cutting corners' to me implies that that there's a bodge going on somewhere to save time or money - Rob

 

[Dibs-h]

What about when the timber moves and the 0.1mm(or greater) accuracy suddenly goes out of the window?

Unless the item lives in a humidity and temperature controlled environment - but I've only ever seen expensive sports\classic cars and rare manuscripts kept like that.

Now if the college was teaching metalwork - that would be understandable, but wood - I think they need to temper the desire for extreme accuracy with reality, both commercial and given the nature of timber.

Teaching the way they do is all good and well - but what if in the time it takes for the ex-student of theirs to temper such notions, financial reality kicks in and they give it up as they can't earn any money from it?

My 2c worth

Dibs

 

[Mr T]

Hi Andy

Andy said:

Chris, What would you expect a college to teach? it has to be the very best you can produce, don't forget these are learners and at that stage it has to be the very best teaching, there is no other way, if they are taught the right and proper way then they will be able to produce the goods when you ask for it. Experience is what you are now showing and experience will come to your bench sharer and he will find his own ways to 'cut corners'.

I understand what you are saying. What I am suggesting is that teaching should encourage the idea that there is "more than one way to skin a cat" and be a little less pedantic about absolute accuracy. I realise that this is a bit of a tight rope I am asking them to walk. We did not say that our sharer was wrong, we just tried to encourage him to see the reality of the situation, I am not sure we convinced him so he will continue on a path that will make the piece he is making economically unviable.

Chris

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Hi Andy
What I am suggesting is that teaching should encourage the idea that there is "more than one way to skin a cat" and be a little less pedantic about absolute accuracy. Chris

I quite agree Chris. But I'm sure you'll have to concede that teachers, myself included with my nearly forty years in the business (most of it in industry before teaching) probably find it difficult to pass on all that accumulated know-how in a two or three year course. It's not hard to work out that an academic year lasts thirty weeks, therefore three years of full-time education in a furniture subject amounts to ninety weeks, bareley eighteen and a half months into a new career.

I reckon now for instance, looking back at my career, that it probably took making something like 75- 100 hand dovetailed drawer boxes before I got really good at the job. Additionally, I also think, again on looking back, that it took me maybe six or eight years to develop anything like a rounded mix of knowledge and skills. I don't believe there is the time on any course in the world to teach everything that needs to be known and, on top of that, the time on a course to give the learners the opportunity to develop the skill, accuracy, speed and quality that only multiple repitions will develop. Slainte.

 

[tomatwark]

There being more than one way to skin a cat is a downside of a full time course.

If you serve an apprenticeship and go to college part time quite often you will learn one way to do a job at college and another way in the workplace.

While I am sure Richard will try his best to let his students try different methods, as he says he only has a limited amount of time with them.

I have worked in enough companies where we have had people join after a full time course, and while alot of them speed up and start to learn the tricks of the trade quickly, some really struggle and can't make a company money.

I would not however knock the full time courses as it is the only way alot of people can now start out.

I have been doing this for over 25 years and I am still learning new ways of doing things.

Tom

 

[bugbear]

Possibly the Colleges need to be a little more nuanced in order for their graduates to be more economically viable.

In the world of metal engineering, it is usual practise for accuracy to be high nuanced - there's a whole system of "tolerances", and a good/clever designer can make a machine work well without needing fine tolerances (which cost money).

Any ***** designer can write "1/10 thou" at the bottom of a drawing.

BugBear