Woodworker, 1950

[Trafalgar]

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

What a broad brush, oh gracious, so what (hand) tools made and used in the mid-1930s were so superior, maybe saws? I need some. Surely to God he isn't referring to Bailey pattern planes. Maybe machine tools? What of honing stones?

Specifics?

 

[Trafalgar]

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

Good Lord man why are you asking me? These works are right in your backyard (and from it) not mine. Besides, you have the link(s). Visit the site. Plenty more to be seen there without a doubt.

 

[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

What a broad brush, oh gracious, so what (hand) tools made and used in the mid-1930s were so superior, maybe saws? I need some. Surely to God he isn't referring to Bailey pattern planes. Maybe machine tools? What of honing stones?

Specifics?

It's in a chapter on tool developements (from around 1880-1930 which he lived and worked through), I (truly) recommend you read the whole book; it's rather wonderful.

He does mention the introduction of Washita and Arkansas stones, and what he calls "twisty bits", which we calls augers (as used in a brace).

BugBear

 

[Cheshirechappie]

When looking at the 'fine furniture' (and architectural joinery) of the 18th and early 19th centuries, it's worth bearing in mind the working conditions and wages of those times. Seven year apprenticeships were common, with no pay at all for the first two or three years. Even a journeyman's wages were (by modern standards) very meagre - no holidays, no pensions, no sick pay (unless you were in the union hospital club in later years). Long working days, too. So all those hours that had to be expended using 'inferior tools' were done at low cost to the client (by today's standards); one wonders how many unpaid apprentice hours were expended rubbing cutting tools up and down slow-cutting natural stones.

It would be fascinating to know how many hours of work were expended to make some of the masterpieces linked too above. My money would be on many more than most people would regard as commercially justifiable today.

 

[J_SAMa]

Sorry, if y'all could just take a break from that sharpening discussion:
What's he mean a burr'd edge in a spokeshave "cuts better"? Seems to defy logic. And wouldn't that burr be removed in the the first few cuts anyway?

Back to sharpening...
I must mention that for some reason my fine India gives a very interesting surface: almost mirror polished but with just a couple deep scratches visible here and there. My 600 grit diamond stone and 1000 grit waterstone leave a "misty", unpolished surface (small scratches). The resulting edge from the India also feels sharper. Will try to upload a photo (sometime in the future ).

 

[Trafalgar]

When looking at the 'fine furniture' (and architectural joinery) of the 18th and early 19th centuries, it's worth bearing in mind the working conditions and wages of those times. Seven year apprenticeships were common, with no pay at all for the first two or three years. Even a journeyman's wages were (by modern standards) very meagre - no holidays, no pensions, no sick pay (unless you were in the union hospital club in later years). Long working days, too. So all those hours that had to be expended using 'inferior tools' were done at low cost to the client (by today's standards); one wonders how many unpaid apprentice hours were expended rubbing cutting tools up and down slow-cutting natural stones.

It would be fascinating to know how many hours of work were expended to make some of the masterpieces linked too above. My money would be on many more than most people would regard as commercially justifiable today.

This work has a similar complexity but it is by no means done with all hand labor and unpaid apprentices. The owner finds the whole endeavour highly justifiable I'm told:

http://www.pollaro.com/portfolio.php

They make the shop fittings for Tifanny & Company:

http://www.pollaro.com/retail.php

And piano cases for Steinway:

http://www.pollaro.com/pianos.php

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Cheshirechappie - top end furniture design was often influenced by the amount of time something took - a piece of furniture often didn't have to be beautiful, it just had to be very obvious that it took very expensive materials and an age to make. It's main purpose was to show it's owners associates that he could afford to blow a lot of money. The items wouldn't have been commercially viable in our more normal world, though there must be a market there - look what people like the Ecclestone bints spend!

 

[Cheshirechappie]

Cheshirechappie - top end furniture design was often influenced by the amount of time something took - a piece of furniture often didn't have to be beautiful, it just had to be very obvious that it took very expensive materials and an age to make. It's main purpose was to show it's owners associates that he could afford to blow a lot of money. The items wouldn't have been commercially viable in our more normal world, though there must be a market there - look what people like the Ecclestone bints spend!

Yes - good points; though even the skilled craftsmen probably didn't see much of the purchase price. I suppose the nearest modern equivalent would be work for outfitting billionaires' superyachts.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

When looking at the 'fine furniture' (and architectural joinery) of the 18th and early 19th centuries, it's worth bearing in mind the working conditions and wages of those times. Seven year apprenticeships were common, with no pay at all for the first two or three years. Even a journeyman's wages were (by modern standards) very meagre - no holidays, no pensions, no sick pay (unless you were in the union hospital club in later years). Long working days, too. So all those hours that had to be expended using 'inferior tools' were done at low cost to the client (by today's standards); one wonders how many unpaid apprentice hours were expended rubbing cutting tools up and down slow-cutting natural stones.

It would be fascinating to know how many hours of work were expended to make some of the masterpieces linked too above. My money would be on many more than most people would regard as commercially justifiable today.

This work has a similar complexity but it is by no means done with all hand labor and unpaid apprentices. The owner finds the whole endeavour highly justifiable I'm told:

http://www.pollaro.com/portfolio.php

They make the shop fittings for Tifanny & Company:

http://www.pollaro.com/retail.php

I think you've slightly missed my point. How many hours would it take to execute Pollaro's designs using 18th century tools and techniques?

 

[Trafalgar]

Not enough additional time to put him out of business would be my best guess. I couldn't quantify it for you. He's the go-to guy for Art Deco and Ruhlmann and neither of these styles/periods was ever a handtool-only proposition. I'm not aware of anybody else in the world doing it at the level he does. There's already a lot of handwork in many of those pieces to begin with.

From the site:

"When we have the basic structure of the furniture standing, we can then add any moldings, trim work or inlays. Each one is completely done by hand, with each piece being cut one at a time. Once cut, the hand made molding or inlay is then glued and clamped in place."

 

[MIGNAL]

When looking at the 'fine furniture' (and architectural joinery) of the 18th and early 19th centuries, it's worth bearing in mind the working conditions and wages of those times. Seven year apprenticeships were common, with no pay at all for the first two or three years. Even a journeyman's wages were (by modern standards) very meagre - no holidays, no pensions, no sick pay (unless you were in the union hospital club in later years). Long working days, too. So all those hours that had to be expended using 'inferior tools' were done at low cost to the client (by today's standards); one wonders how many unpaid apprentice hours were expended rubbing cutting tools up and down slow-cutting natural stones.

It would be fascinating to know how many hours of work were expended to make some of the masterpieces linked too above. My money would be on many more than most people would regard as commercially justifiable today.

Not a lot has changed then.

 

[Corneel]

When looking at the 'fine furniture' (and architectural joinery) of the 18th and early 19th centuries, it's worth bearing in mind the working conditions and wages of those times. Seven year apprenticeships were common, with no pay at all for the first two or three years. Even a journeyman's wages were (by modern standards) very meagre - no holidays, no pensions, no sick pay (unless you were in the union hospital club in later years). Long working days, too. So all those hours that had to be expended using 'inferior tools' were done at low cost to the client (by today's standards); one wonders how many unpaid apprentice hours were expended rubbing cutting tools up and down slow-cutting natural stones.

It would be fascinating to know how many hours of work were expended to make some of the masterpieces linked too above. My money would be on many more than most people would regard as commercially justifiable today.

Some people have looked into the books of some old furniture makers, and the speed of work is remarkable. A straightforward cabinet with drawers in a week and a half, including finishing, isn't anything special in the 18th century.

A good example is the build of the warship "Zeven Provincien" in Rotterdam in 1665. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_ship_De_Zeven_Provinciën_(1665)
This ship was completely build in 8 months! 100 men were working on the ship at the warf.

Even today, using modern equipement and powertools, it would be a stretch to build a ship like that in 8 months flat.

 

[bugbear]

I must mention that for some reason my fine India gives a very interesting surface: almost mirror polished but with just a couple deep scratches visible here and there.

http://sharpeningmadeeasy.com/grits.htm

India fine is around 43 micron, or roughly 300 grit in sandpaper terms. That wouldn't give a mirror finish, more a fine "brushed" finish. If you're getting anywhere near a mirror, something unusual is going on.

BugBear

 

[JimB]

Corneel, I couldn't agree more. I'm old enough to have seen old cabinet makers at work and the output was amazing - not a wasted move and not a wasted piece of wood either. If anyone wants to gain some notions of the speed of hand tool productions they should have a look at Frank Klausz's "Dovetail a Drawer" dvd where besides demonstrating techniques he talks about his own training.

 

[Corneel]

Here is another remarkable example. A tilting tea top table in 9 manhours, including finish.

Not at all like myself. I am working on two simple windows for the shed at the moment. Allready took me something like two months! But last sunday I had a good day, cutting the mortices, the tenons and coping cuts of one window in one afternoon. Not too bad for a hack like me.

 

[Trafalgar]

The Barnsley workshop was completely unmechanized when Alan Peters did his apprenticeship there. While I'm sure he received a wage (he was not partially paid in kind with room and board like 18th C. apprentices were) he writes of that time glowingly and not as if he had been exploited at all, which I'm sure he wasn't. One assumes the business was reasonably profitable for its owner.

 

[Trafalgar]

When looking at the 'fine furniture' (and architectural joinery) of the 18th and early 19th centuries, it's worth bearing in mind the working conditions and wages of those times. Seven year apprenticeships were common, with no pay at all for the first two or three years. Even a journeyman's wages were (by modern standards) very meagre - no holidays, no pensions, no sick pay (unless you were in the union hospital club in later years). Long working days, too. So all those hours that had to be expended using 'inferior tools' were done at low cost to the client (by today's standards); one wonders how many unpaid apprentice hours were expended rubbing cutting tools up and down slow-cutting natural stones.

It would be fascinating to know how many hours of work were expended to make some of the masterpieces linked too above. My money would be on many more than most people would regard as commercially justifiable today.

Some people have looked into the books of some old furniture makers, and the speed of work is remarkable. A straightforward cabinet with drawers in a week and a half, including finishing, isn't anything special in the 18th century.

A good example is the build of the warship "Zeven Provincien" in Rotterdam in 1665. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_ship_De_Zeven_Provinciën_(1665)
This ship was completely build in 8 months! 100 men were working on the ship at the warf.

Even today, using modern equipement and powertools, it would be a stretch to build a ship like that in 8 months flat.

The speed was indeed remarkable:

http://www.wpatrickedwards.com/particle.htm

 

[Trafalgar]

I must mention that for some reason my fine India gives a very interesting surface: almost mirror polished but with just a couple deep scratches visible here and there.

http://sharpeningmadeeasy.com/grits.htm

India fine is around 43 micron, or roughly 300 grit in sandpaper terms. That wouldn't give a mirror finish, more a fine "brushed" finish. If you're getting anywhere near a mirror, something unusual is going on.

BugBear

It could be chalked up to one man's idea of a mirror polish vs. another's, but my fine India puts a high shine on steel. I'll post a picture later today.

It is reasonable to assume that one needs the finest media one can lay hands on in order to hone. It is reasonable. Why not just get the finest stone and be done with it? And many do. The fact of the matter, however, is that while it is a reasonable assumption and course of action it is not at all an actual and real requirement for working wood and working it efficiently.

I've sharpened on fine lapping films on a flat substrate. Like racoons who are drawn to very shiny objects the mirror polish is a bit intoxicating. But the actual difference I found marginal. It was not transformative, a eureka moment, an a-ha! situation or anything even close. That's why one eye automatically squints and my eyebrow arches when I see it presented as such.

One day the inevitable happened, the glass was accidentally broken, and out came the oilstones from the drawer and I've never looked back.

Here's a piece built in about 50 hours (slow by period standards) from roughsawn American black cherry and entirely by hand except for the turned drawer pulls which took all of twenty minutes. Started on a Monday and had an application of finish on by Friday afternoon. Top was permanently mounted on a Saturday. Built to be in sympathy with a Form 75 Danish piece the customer already had. Colorized sketches for approval took a couple of hours. This is very easy woodworking:

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy32 ... 188e9d.jpg

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy32 ... 9972ac.jpg

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy32 ... 188e9d.jpg

http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy32 ... 6b6610.jpg

 

[G S Haydon]

I would agree on the fine india polish. I think much of it is how the stone beds in and how you maintain it. I use and wipe off when finished and the stone does improve (IMO) with use. Those lovely stormonts have a lovely sheen, enhanced by the stop.

I would not dispute the BB's micron size at all although I do find they bed in rather nicely and are much nicer than the low micron size would suggest.

 

[MIGNAL]

I especially like the anecdote that Rene Morel tells of his experience just after the second world war. Rene Morel became one of the most highly respected Violin restorers in the world. Just after the war he went to work for one of the small Violin making workshops in France, all hand tools. Each worker was required to complete 3 Violins per week, a stunning output for one person without the aid of any machinery. However one of the workers was given special dispensation and he was expected to complete only 2 Violins per week. That was only given because that particular worker had lost an arm in the war.