Started making a clock case today:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/quercus/30507.html
That's the prototype, now I'm doing the real case - Stickley repro,
brown oak. The bezel around the display is a piece of hammered
copper, with a glazed window. To finish the wooden edge, I ran a 1/4"
roundover bit round it.
Which set me thinking - did Stickley or any others of the Craftsman /
A&C movement use routers / shapers ? Did they use roundover bits ?
Should I have gone with a chamfer instead ?
Gimson is well known for his chamfers, and the signature way he
chamfered an inside corner. Although hand-cut with a moulding plane,
these have the same "failing to cut right into the corner" effect that
you get with a bearing guided chamfer cutter.
Is it unreasonable to worry about the details of chamfering, when I'm
building a 1900 repro-style digital clock ? Even though it is using
Nixies.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:10:53 -0700, "JackD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>To be honest, I don't think that they had routers in those days unless you
>are talking about routing planes.
I guess you're right - but they could have sanded this - it's only a
little rounding on the internal edge.
Routers are mid 19th century (great big fixed things) but they were
initially for obscure production line tasks, like naval rigging
blocks. I've a1925 ref here that describes spindles moulders, but
they're not in my 1893 ref. Anyone know when spindle moulders began ?
>I'd go for a chamfer.Rounded-over oak is so 80's.
I'm thinking that I need to make another front panel, chamfer it. and
just see which I prefer.
>The nixies sound like they will be nice.
>Can you make one for me?
Follow the link from my LJ page.
http://www.electricstuff.co.uk/nixclock.html
The design is Mike's, and there's a guy in the USA making PCB sets.
The rest is just trivial soldering and the hard bit - finding some
more Nixies ! I've a few clockfuls left, but I think they're all
spoken for.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:04:27 +0100, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Which set me thinking - did Stickley or any others of the Craftsman /
>A&C movement use routers / shapers ? Did they use roundover bits ?
>Should I have gone with a chamfer instead ?
The furniture work done for the Greene brothers was highly
mechanized where possible to maintain high standards as well. Inlay
work - nah. Rounding over - sure. Don't worry about using a router.
My bet is that if G&G were around today they would take advantage of
the latest equipment.
=====
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others.
=====
{remove curly brackets for email}
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 01:04:27 +0100, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Started making a clock case today:
>http://www.livejournal.com/users/quercus/30507.html
>
>That's the prototype, now I'm doing the real case - Stickley repro,
>brown oak. The bezel around the display is a piece of hammered
>copper, with a glazed window. To finish the wooden edge, I ran a 1/4"
>roundover bit round it.
>
>Which set me thinking - did Stickley or any others of the Craftsman /
>A&C movement use routers / shapers ? Did they use roundover bits ?
>Should I have gone with a chamfer instead ?
>
>Gimson is well known for his chamfers, and the signature way he
>chamfered an inside corner. Although hand-cut with a moulding plane,
>these have the same "failing to cut right into the corner" effect that
>you get with a bearing guided chamfer cutter.
>
>Is it unreasonable to worry about the details of chamfering, when I'm
>building a 1900 repro-style digital clock ? Even though it is using
>Nixies.
You are going to care more than anyone else will. Since you are
already worrying about it, you had better do it as right as you can.
It may well loom larger in years to come.
Rodney Myrvaagnes Opionated old geezer
Faith-based economics: It's deja voodoo all over again
"Andy Dingley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Started making a clock case today:
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/quercus/30507.html
>
> That's the prototype, now I'm doing the real case - Stickley repro,
> brown oak. The bezel around the display is a piece of hammered
> copper, with a glazed window. To finish the wooden edge, I ran a 1/4"
> roundover bit round it.
>
> Which set me thinking - did Stickley or any others of the Craftsman /
> A&C movement use routers / shapers ? Did they use roundover bits ?
> Should I have gone with a chamfer instead ?
>
> Gimson is well known for his chamfers, and the signature way he
> chamfered an inside corner. Although hand-cut with a moulding plane,
> these have the same "failing to cut right into the corner" effect that
> you get with a bearing guided chamfer cutter.
>
> Is it unreasonable to worry about the details of chamfering, when I'm
> building a 1900 repro-style digital clock ? Even though it is using
> Nixies.
>
I've heard about craftsman routers, but I've heard that they are crap.
To be honest, I don't think that they had routers in those days unless you
are talking about routing planes.
I'd go for a chamfer.Rounded-over oak is so 80's.
The nixies sound like they will be nice.
Can you make one for me?
-Jack