I'm probably an oddball, but I'll share...
Am I alone in choosing stock from my pile via the "ugly" method?
First, I'll take the spectacular and/or unique boards and give them
names, as book matched door panels, drawer fronts, etc... I think
everyone does this, so this isn't why I think I'm weird.
For the remaining stock, or all of the stock for trim / finish work, I
find it much easier to start with the least desirable stock and least
visible parts. This earmarks the boards with defects, quickly removing
them from the pile. Barely usable stock goes to totally hidden parts or
the jig / burn bin. As I move backward towards the most visible area,
I'm left with the best quality material.
Once upon a time, I used to try to pick the best stuff and start there,
but my definition of a defect or desired color or figure would changing
during a project. I've found this method to narrow down the pile, and
markedly improve the final result.
Thoughts? Flames? <G>
B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote in
news:%HiRj.23237$%[email protected]:
> I'm probably an oddball, but I'll share...
>
> Am I alone in choosing stock from my pile via the "ugly" method?
>
> First, I'll take the spectacular and/or unique boards and give them
> names, as book matched door panels, drawer fronts, etc... I think
> everyone does this, so this isn't why I think I'm weird.
>
> For the remaining stock, or all of the stock for trim / finish work,
> I find it much easier to start with the least desirable stock and
> least visible parts. This earmarks the boards with defects, quickly
> removing them from the pile. Barely usable stock goes to totally
> hidden parts or the jig / burn bin. As I move backward towards the
> most visible area, I'm left with the best quality material.
>
> Once upon a time, I used to try to pick the best stuff and start
> there, but my definition of a defect or desired color or figure would
> changing during a project. I've found this method to narrow down the
> pile, and markedly improve the final result.
>
>
> Thoughts? Flames? <G>
>
I usually choose shock depending on when I want to swim next. If I
think it'll be later that day, I use shock and swim. If not until
tomorrow, I'll use the more potent and cheaper regular shock.
Oh, your message is talking about stock, like wood selection! Oh! I get
it now, that's why it's posted here and not rec.swimming.pools
My wood selection usually involves looking for a piece close to the size
I need. I am a master at using cut offs and reusing wood from other
projects. I'm not building fine furniture, so I can get away with quite
a bit of "utility" wood in the project. However, I do have a project
that's going to involve a half sheet of Birch plywood... when the
weather cooperates.
Puckdropper
--
You can only do so much with caulk, cardboard, and duct tape.
To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm
On Apr 28, 4:03=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "B A R R Y" wrote:
>
> > Fat fingers, a cheapie laptop screen, and early morning... =A0 <G>
>
> Excuses, excuses. <G>
>
> As far as stock is concerned, it is like women.
>
> None of it is ugly, some is just better looking than others.
>
> Lew
Guess you never met my ex-in-laws then....
"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:%HiRj.23237$%[email protected]:
>
>> I'm probably an oddball, but I'll share...
>>
>> Am I alone in choosing stock from my pile via the "ugly" method?
>>
>>
>
> I usually choose shock depending on when I want to swim next. If I
> think it'll be later that day, I use shock and swim. If not until
> tomorrow, I'll use the more potent and cheaper regular shock.
>
> Oh, your message is talking about stock, like wood selection! Oh! I get
> it now, that's why it's posted here and not rec.swimming.pools
>
As I see it, since the Subject line was/is about "shock", and B A R R Y goes
on to talk about "stock", the body of his post is totally off-topic. Now I
realize B A R R Y is rightfully granted a certain amount of margin here,
owing to a ridiculous amount of talent and skill he has, but listen - rules
is rules. The post is OT. Should be hailed as what it is. Personally,
I'm... shocked.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 4:03 pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "B A R R Y" wrote:
>>
>> > Fat fingers, a cheapie laptop screen, and early morning... <G>
>>
>> Excuses, excuses. <G>
>>
>> As far as stock is concerned, it is like women.
>>
>> None of it is ugly, some is just better looking than others.
>>
>> Lew
>
> Guess you never met my ex-in-laws then....
Old saying: Beauty is only skin deep, but ugly goes all the way to
the bone.
On Apr 28, 10:23 am, B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
> > The post is OT. Should be hailed as what it is. Personally,
> > I'm... shocked.
>
> Fat fingers, a cheapie laptop screen, and early morning... <G>
I buzz through most of these posts so fast, I never picked up on it.
I got through the header, read your post, and never knew anything was
amiss.
Buzzzzzz..... too much caffeine.....
I was still trying to figure out why you named your wood. Doesn't
pretty much everyone use "Johnson"?
Robert
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:14:08 -0400, "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Puckdropper" <puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>B A R R Y <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:%HiRj.23237$%[email protected]:
>>
>>> I'm probably an oddball, but I'll share...
>>>
>>> Am I alone in choosing stock from my pile via the "ugly" method?
>>>
>
>>>
>>
>> I usually choose shock depending on when I want to swim next. If I
>> think it'll be later that day, I use shock and swim. If not until
>> tomorrow, I'll use the more potent and cheaper regular shock.
>>
>> Oh, your message is talking about stock, like wood selection! Oh! I get
>> it now, that's why it's posted here and not rec.swimming.pools
>>
>
>As I see it, since the Subject line was/is about "shock", and B A R R Y goes
>on to talk about "stock", the body of his post is totally off-topic. Now I
>realize B A R R Y is rightfully granted a certain amount of margin here,
>owing to a ridiculous amount of talent and skill he has, but listen - rules
>is rules. The post is OT. Should be hailed as what it is. Personally,
>I'm... shocked.
or stoked?
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:35:55 -0400, B A R R Y <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I'm probably an oddball, but I'll share...
>
>Am I alone in choosing stock from my pile via the "ugly" method?
>
>First, I'll take the spectacular and/or unique boards and give them
>names, as book matched door panels, drawer fronts, etc... I think
>everyone does this, so this isn't why I think I'm weird.
>
>For the remaining stock, or all of the stock for trim / finish work, I
>find it much easier to start with the least desirable stock and least
>visible parts. This earmarks the boards with defects, quickly removing
>them from the pile. Barely usable stock goes to totally hidden parts or
>the jig / burn bin. As I move backward towards the most visible area,
>I'm left with the best quality material.
>
>Once upon a time, I used to try to pick the best stuff and start there,
>but my definition of a defect or desired color or figure would changing
>during a project. I've found this method to narrow down the pile, and
>markedly improve the final result.
>
>
>Thoughts? Flames? <G>
That's how I do it. I find if I do it that way and run out of stock,
I will be buying new stock for the better pieces rather than new stock
for the hidden stuff.
Frank