Woodworker, 1950

[JimB]

We are, of course, presuming that the time served craftsman was taught by another old time served craftsman who actually knew what he was doing. Practise doesn't make perfect - perfect practise makes perfect. I've seen some awful things done by people who insisted what they did was right, because that was the way they were taught.

No doubt Phil. I know of a case where when a tradesman retired he was given a box of wooden slips because of his inability to make a joint without having to glue one into them.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

:lol:

 

[G S Haydon]

Great links Charles, some eye candy of the highest order.

 

[Corneel]

Another intersting observation. At the time of writing, the method of the two bevels seems to have gone out of fashion and more of a single bevel aproach seems to have been the norm. Of course, as far as the writer was aware.

 

[bugbear]

Another intersting observation. At the time of writing, the method of the two bevels seems to have gone out of fashion and more of a single bevel aproach seems to have been the norm. Of course, as far as the writer was aware.

Good point, and a curious one, since double bevel (or just "grind at 30, hone at 25") is pretty much the universally recommended system in books of instruction from around 1830 to the current day.

BugBear (with most of those books )

 

[Trafalgar]

I think the hollow grind at X and then hone at Y (a little higher) has as much to do with relatively slow cutting stones as it does anything. My understanding of Japanese sharpening, if it's relevant to the conversation, is that they hone the entire bevel and keep flat backs (though assisted by the peened hollows). I would say this has as much to do with using relatively fast cutting stones as anything else. Slow cutting stones make honing an entire bevel somewhat less attractive though it's not all that bad once you get things moving in that direction.

 

[Trafalgar]

Great links Charles, some eye candy of the highest order.

It is certainly a destination site for me. It's also a nice sanity check on what the guys were able to accomplish back then, especially when 'inferior' this or that has been invoked on a forum thread. One often hears the assertion, 'they would have used "X" had it been available,' well, yes they might have but the truth of the matter is that "X" wasn't available, and yet the masterpiece exists nevertheless.

 

[bugbear]

Great links Charles, some eye candy of the highest order.

It is certainly a destination site for me. It's also a nice sanity check on what the guys were able to accomplish back then, especially when 'inferior' this or that has been invoked on a forum thread. One often hears the assertion, 'they would have used "X" had it been available,' well, yes they might have but the truth of the matter is that "X" wasn't available, and yet the masterpiece exists nevertheless.

We have proof at Giza that you can build a pyramid without a tower crane.

But in an era where tower cranes are available, you'd have to be a fool to build a pyramid the old way.

BugBear

 

[Trafalgar]

Great links Charles, some eye candy of the highest order.

It is certainly a destination site for me. It's also a nice sanity check on what the guys were able to accomplish back then, especially when 'inferior' this or that has been invoked on a forum thread. One often hears the assertion, 'they would have used "X" had it been available,' well, yes they might have but the truth of the matter is that "X" wasn't available, and yet the masterpiece exists nevertheless.

We have proof at Giza that you can build a pyramid without a tower crane.

But in an era where tower cranes are available, you'd have to be a fool to build a pyramid the old way.

BugBear

Well, I guess all of us who don't use Japanese waterstones are fools. Happy to be one in this case.

 

[bugbear]

We have proof at Giza that you can build a pyramid without a tower crane.

But in an era where tower cranes are available, you'd have to be a fool to build a pyramid the old way.

BugBear

Well, I guess all of us who don't use Japanese waterstones are fools. Happy to be one in this case.

Unless you're working in a similar vein to Adam Cherubini or Mack Headley, you're already
benefiting from more recent tools than the makers of those beautiful pieces, and I don't
think that reflects negatively on you at all. Why on earth would it?

BugBear

 

[G S Haydon]

[/quote]

We have proof at Giza that you can build a pyramid without a tower crane.

But in an era where tower cranes are available, you'd have to be a fool to build a pyramid the old way.

BugBear[/quote]

That's a fair point indeed but the difference between an oilstone and a jap water stone does not compare with that analogy. Nothing wrong with waterstones at all but there is nothing wrong with oilstones. And in the example links I don't think the end result would of been any better or easier if the maker had a waterstone or a modern hand plane.

I think the term "sanity check" is worthy. There is a gent posting on another forum who bought expensive (and excellent btw) modern plane and he cant prepare a board properly. The "sanity check" works when you look at a task and think the answer is in yet another purchase. Sadly practice is more the order of the day. That does not mean people should not buy whatever they like with their hard earned, a lovely tool can feel a treat, but owning a Wooden smoothing plane or a Bailey #4 sharpened on an oilstone has never been a barrier to producing great work and the links demonstrate that brilliantly.

 

[Trafalgar]

By the whole ridiculous analogy we wouldn't even be here discussing this on a forum called "Hand Tools." We'd be completely mechanized and/or epoxying and screwing everything together.

 

[Trafalgar]

We have proof at Giza that you can build a pyramid without a tower crane.

But in an era where tower cranes are available, you'd have to be a fool to build a pyramid the old way.

BugBear

Well, I guess all of us who don't use Japanese waterstones are fools. Happy to be one in this case.

Unless you're working in a similar vein to Adam Cherubini or Mack Headley, you're already
benefiting from more recent tools than the makers of those beautiful pieces, and I don't
think that reflects negatively on you at all. Why on earth would it?

BugBear

I'm actually pretty close...

Besides that there are those who would say, perhaps rightly, that I'm actually working at a disadvantage with my mostly WWII and post-WWII era kit. So 'benefiting' is actually debatable.

If I thought a 10,000 grit waterstone and a few Lee Valley planes stood between me and building the pieces I linked to, believe me when I say that I'd order them so fast it would make your head spin.

 

[JimB]

Well, I guess all of us who don't use Japanese waterstones are fools. Happy to be one in this case.

=D>

 

[JimB]

I think the term "sanity check" is worthy.
I'm with you their GS but it is hard to get the worms back in the can.

 

[bugbear]

By the whole ridiculous analogy we wouldn't even be here discussing this on a forum called "Hand Tools." We'd be completely mechanized and/or epoxying and screwing everything together.

No, that takes it too far. It's perfectly easy to demonstrate that, if you're not doing bulk production,
the overhead of setting up complex equipment can outweigh the time saved.

In any case, many people actively enjoy some hand processes, and production be damned.

As long as the choices are made in an informed way, people can do what they wish (although
professionals have the additional constraint of needing a profit).

In many cases it's the simple difference between "want" and "need".

BugBear

 

[JimB]

By the whole ridiculous analogy we wouldn't even be here discussing this on a forum called "Hand Tools." We'd be completely mechanized and/or epoxying and screwing everything together.

Bit of a Luddite aren't you? Screws! Everyone knows staples are the way to go.

 

[Trafalgar]

By the whole ridiculous analogy we wouldn't even be here discussing this on a forum called "Hand Tools." We'd be completely mechanized and/or epoxying and screwing everything together.

No, that takes it too far. It's perfectly easy to demonstrate that, if you're not doing bulk production,
the overhead of setting up complex equipment can outweigh the time saved.

In any case, many people actively enjoy some hand processes, and production be damned.

As long as the choices are made in an informed way, people can do what they wish (although
professionals have the additional constraint of needing a profit).

In many cases it's the simple difference between "want" and "need".

BugBear

OK, let's don't take it too far.

Oh, to be limited by Western quarried stones (the encore version).

Please, Lord, please let me be so hindered:

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/P ... oryid=1363

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/P ... oryid=1363

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/P ... oryid=1363

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/G ... oryid=1363

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/G ... oryid=1362

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/S ... oryid=1362

 

[bugbear]

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/P ... oryid=1363

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/P ... oryid=1363

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/P ... oryid=1363

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/G ... oryid=1363

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/G ... oryid=1362

http://www.ronaldphillipsantiques.com/S ... oryid=1362

Very nice.

But then, so were the last lot. Got any more?

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

To examine the woodwork of past days is to be impressed with the
fact that in spite of inferior tools a high degree of excellence was attained.

- Walter Rose "The Village Carpenter" writing in 1937



BugBear