"It's a poor workman who blames . . ."

The workman chooses his tools, or makes his tools, or at least chooses the
employer who furnishes his tools. Thus in the end, the workman is
responsible for his tools.

--
********
Bill Pounds
http://www.billpounds.com


"Mike Girouard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."
>
> How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
> is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
> tools. Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
> was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.
>
> I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
> whenever he gets a shitty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.
>
> FoggyTown
> "Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

http://www.ardice.com/Regional/North_America/United_States/New_York/Regions/Adirondacks/

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:50:06 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:


> After all, the 18th century had self-acting power tools for
>the simple tedious work - they were called apprentices.

They also had water and beast of burden powered tools, like saws. You
just had to go to the major metropolises to see them.

Barry

That's cause there's too many people believing that the latest and greatest
power tool will make them better at what they do. If you buy a shitty power
tool and it breaks or does a poor job, that reflects on your skills. Why
couldn't you put the power tool down and do it right. Power tools only make
the job go faster not better.

If you don't believe that then you've obviously never seen a Chippendale or
Queen Anne...
"Mike Girouard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."
>
> How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
> is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
> tools. Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
> was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.
>
> I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
> whenever he gets a shitty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.
>
> FoggyTown
> "Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

Tom Watson wrote:

> The phrase is about the ability of the Craftsman to adapt and
> overcome.

> (as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
> like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)

Yeah, but there are two sides to this coin. There are a LOT of completely
worthless, dog shit tools in the world, both power and hand.

Go to Dollar Tree or Big Lots and stock up on tools, now go build me a
Chippendale high boy.

A good craftman can make up for these deficiencies to a large extent, but
you can't put a decorative edge on a piece of cherry with a hammer and an
ice pick and have it come out looking like anything.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Andy Dingley wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:28:34 -0500, Silvan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Go to Dollar Tree or Big Lots and stock up on tools, now go build me a
>>Chippendale high boy.
>
> What the hell sort of trans-atlantic abomination is a "Chippendale
> high boy" ? Where do you find those? Iceland?
>
> High boys, Chippendale or no, aren't found East of Massachusets.

Oh. OK. I know bupkis about all this Green and Stickely Chippen Farming
Bliffleblather Deco stuff, as I have just demonstrated rather adroitly.
Furniture is for people with big shops, big wood budgets, and houses with
room inside to receive the results of same. I'm in the none of the above
category, so I don't do, and haven't bothered to learn anything about
furniture.

The point about the icepick and hammer was pretty stupid too, now that I
think back.

My ultimate point is that I have seen a lot of tools too crappy to use for
anything. Perhaps a good craftman would never find himself in possession
of such things in the first place, but there's always a line somewhere
between what you might like, and what you can afford. A good craftsman can
make a mediocre blurfl perform better than a poor craftman can do with a
Super Blurfl XL Plus, but the underlying assumption that tools are no
excuse, and a chisel is a chisel is a chisel just annoys the hell out of
me.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Andy Dingley wrote:

>>The point about the icepick and hammer was pretty stupid too, now that I
>>think back.
>
> Well mainly I use bits of old hacksaw blade. The first rule of making
> good stuff with nothing is to learn to make your own tools. If you can
> grind, heat-treat, and find a source of carbon steel, then you're
> sorted for making almost anything the 18th century could offer.

I'm with you up to the heat treating bit, unfortunately. One of these
days...

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Tom Watson wrote
> > The most beautiful furniture that I have ever seen was accomplished by
> > men who had no access to power tools at all.

Chuck Hoffman wrote:
> You obviously hold the "ancient masters" in high regard. And I will agree
> that many of them did striking work. But (just to pick one example we all
> know) Norm Abram makes handsome antique reproductions, which conform very
> well to the originals, with only a small amount of hand work.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'll assume that you're not
joking and really mean what you said about Norm. I've watched
Norm, and while he does better than I do, he doesn't do all that
well. He certainly isn't up to the quality of the "ancient
masters". You might want to take a look at Tom's work before you
make comparisons.

Dave in Fairfax
--
Dave Leader
reply-to doesn't work
use:
daveldr at att dot net
American Association of Woodturners
http://www.woodturner.org
Capital Area Woodturners
http://www.capwoodturners.org/
PATINA
http://www.Patinatools.org/

The workman used to make a lot of his own tools. Now does it ring better?

"Mike Girouard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."
>
> How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
> is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
> tools. Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
> was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.
>
> I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
> whenever he gets a shitty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.
>
> FoggyTown
> "Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

You ever see pictures of the chow halls in lumber camps?

Still a few around here who worked in 'em, and they say the food made a
farmer's breakfast look like starvation rations. More carbs than protein,
though, barring game.

"Brett A. Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
> > The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
> > a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.
>
> I read an article once that estimated lumberjacks two hundred years ago,
> working in relative cold, cutting down trees with axes and saws for ten
> hours a day, probably burned something like 5,000 calories per day. Can
> you imagine the food they'd have to shovel down just to maintain their
> bodies?
>
> And I get hungry just from walking to the donut box at work...
>
> -BAT

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:44:25 GMT, [email protected] wrote:


>>>
>>>BIG SNIP
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
>>>> like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's fair because your opinion didn't mean anything to me either.
>>>
>>>If everyone had your burning quest for technological advancement we'd
>>>still be sitting in unheated caves wondering if rocks are edible.
>>>
>>>FoggyTown
>>>"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."
>>
>>
>>and if everyone had your respect for talent and skill we'd all be
>>living in plastic boxes and eating twinkies out of a tube....
>
>There's a continium there and each of us gets to decide where we fall
>on the continium.
>
>Ain't freedom wonderful?
>
>--RC
>You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes
>
I think it's sort of a catch 22 kinda thing...
IMHO, power tools are more effective and last longer if you know how
to do it by hand... the same as the fact/opinion that you are easier
on a car if you've worked on them and know what happens when you use
the accelerator or brake.. (unlike my wife, who thinks that they're on
& off switches *g*)
I also find that the more/better power tools that I get, and the
better I get with them, the more I seem to enjoy the fitting and
tinkering with hand tools... full circle? I hope not!!

"Mike Girouard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."
>
> How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
> is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
> tools.

Well, not necessarily sub-standard tools. There is and always has been a
point beyond which talent and skill could not prevail over pure junk. It's
really more of a case where acceptable tools get tagged as sub-standard
because of a lack of skill, talent, or patience.

> Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
> was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.
>

Yup, but it's as applicable today as it was back then. A lot of what we
demand in a tool today, especially as we get more into our hobbies,
sidelines, or whatever, really does not have that much to do with turning
out a good product. Not to harp on a point, but the laser is a good
example. It's rapidly gaining acceptance and soon will achieve the level of
must-have. It really offers nothing to the woodworker in terms of quality
product, but even now you're beginning to hear that it contributes to
quality work. At some point a bad cut will be blamed on a miter saw that
didn't have a laser. Shame.

> I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
> whenever he gets a shitty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.
>

Despite everything else that could be said about it, this is absolutely
true.
--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:43:09 -0800, "J" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On the other hand, not all the old work was up to the quality of the ancient
>masters. Who knows how much crap furniture was burned or broken up?
>Some of it was probably just downright ugly.


Right!

I like the saying "There are few poorly made antiques"! <G>

Barry

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:02:07 GMT, "Chuck Hoffman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I don't agree with that. It's just a different set of skills.
>
>Someone with a poorly set up table saw can't cut wood any more accurately
>than someone with poor technique using a hand saw.

It's a lot easier to cut a reasonably straight line on a poorly set up
table saw than it is for a person with poor technique to cut an
equally straight line with a hand saw. Having done both, I know.

The same for nearly any other power tool.


> The skill is in setting
>up the machine for accuracy...then having the skill to operate it for best
>results.

We're not talking best results here -- unless we're talking about the
master with the hand tools -- we're talking about what it takes to
produce average quality work. Producing results comparable to average
quality outpt from a power tool usually takes a lot more skill with
hand tools.

--RC

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>(snip)
>> Power tools can definitely do a better job with less operator skill on
>> a lot of things.
>>
>> It's like almost anything else. A master can outperform the power tool
>> on everything but time, but for the average woodworker, the power tool
>> can give better results in many areas.
>>
>> Essentially, the trend is to transfer the skill from the human into
>> the tool That's been going on for a couple of hundred years now.
>>
>> --RC
>>
>> >Examples:
>> >
>> >A jointer can put a straight edge and a flat face on a board with much
>> >less skill than hand planes.
>> >
>> >A table saw can accurately cut with much less skill than hand saws and
>> >plow planes.
>> >
>> >A thickness planer is a hell of a lot easier to use than hand planes
>> >to accurately plane a stack of lumber to the same thickness, with
>> >parallel faces.
>> >
>> >All tools, powered or not, require SOME basic knowledge. Power tools
>> >will not only ruin wood faster, but they will seriously maim the
>> >operator, if a minimum level of skill isn't present. Most hand tools
>> >require serious forethought to actually amputate a limb. A power tool
>> >can amputate before the user knows something is wrong.
>> >
>> >Poor power tools and dull hand tools introduce variables that can make
>> >them impossible to use accurately, not matter what the skill level of
>> >the user.
>> >
>> >Barry
>>
>> Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?
>>
>

Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:29:59 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The point about the icepick and hammer was pretty stupid too, now that I
>think back.

Well mainly I use bits of old hacksaw blade. The first rule of making
good stuff with nothing is to learn to make your own tools. If you can
grind, heat-treat, and find a source of carbon steel, then you're
sorted for making almost anything the 18th century could offer.

Making a frame saw from scratch isn't something I'd think about
attempting, when I live in a world with cheap shops for bandsaw blade.
But when I needed a veneer saw on a Sunday afternoon, I just sat down
and filed one out of sheet. Didn't even take long to do.
--
Smert' spamionam

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 06:31:42 GMT, mac davis <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:44:25 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>>>
>>>>BIG SNIP
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
>>>>> like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's fair because your opinion didn't mean anything to me either.
>>>>
>>>>If everyone had your burning quest for technological advancement we'd
>>>>still be sitting in unheated caves wondering if rocks are edible.
>>>>
>>>>FoggyTown
>>>>"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."
>>>
>>>
>>>and if everyone had your respect for talent and skill we'd all be
>>>living in plastic boxes and eating twinkies out of a tube....
>>
>>There's a continium there and each of us gets to decide where we fall
>>on the continium.
>>
>>Ain't freedom wonderful?
>>
>>--RC
>>You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes
>>
>I think it's sort of a catch 22 kinda thing...
>IMHO, power tools are more effective and last longer if you know how
>to do it by hand... the same as the fact/opinion that you are easier
>on a car if you've worked on them and know what happens when you use
>the accelerator or brake.. (unlike my wife, who thinks that they're on
>& off switches *g*)
>I also find that the more/better power tools that I get, and the
>better I get with them, the more I seem to enjoy the fitting and
>tinkering with hand tools... full circle? I hope not!!

Perhaps better to hope so. In your dotage, it won't matter if you
fall asleep while cutting a board with a handsaw. You'll have the
hand-skills needed by then to use the hand tools and still build good
stuff for your grandkids.

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:26:40 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Andy Dingley wrote:
>
>>>The point about the icepick and hammer was pretty stupid too, now that I
>>>think back.
>>
>> Well mainly I use bits of old hacksaw blade. The first rule of making
>> good stuff with nothing is to learn to make your own tools. If you can
>> grind, heat-treat, and find a source of carbon steel, then you're
>> sorted for making almost anything the 18th century could offer.
>
>I'm with you up to the heat treating bit, unfortunately. One of these
>days...

Try a cheap propane torch and a couple of firebricks. Instant heat
treat for < $10.

(and practice. Did I mention practice?)

--RC
You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes

U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
> The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
> a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.

I read an article once that estimated lumberjacks two hundred years ago,
working in relative cold, cutting down trees with axes and saws for ten
hours a day, probably burned something like 5,000 calories per day. Can
you imagine the food they'd have to shovel down just to maintain their
bodies?

And I get hungry just from walking to the donut box at work...

-BAT

Just this morning I let loose a steady stream of vulgarity while trying to
do a simple thing like making a notch in a push stick with a hand saw. I
finally gave up and nibbled it away on the table saw.

I almost always get lousy results when trying to use hand saws. But I get
great results when I take the time to make sure my power tools are precisely
adjusted and aligned. Takes most of the "human factor" right out of the
job. Now I find I can use my creativity on the design of the piece rather
than on the mundane task of hand tool technique.

But hell yes I blame the tools. It couldn't possibly be me, could it?

"Mike Girouard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."
>
> How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
> is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
> tools. Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
> was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.
>
> I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
> whenever he gets a shitty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.
>
> FoggyTown
> "Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

ROTFLMAO!

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:_UMqd.1143$zK1.931@trndny05...
>
> "Chuck Hoffman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Just this morning I let loose a steady stream of vulgarity while trying
to
> > do a simple thing like making a notch in a push stick with a hand saw.
I
> > finally gave up and nibbled it away on the table saw.
> >
>
> You should have run out and bought a bandsaw for that!
>
>

I don't agree with that. It's just a different set of skills.

Someone with a poorly set up table saw can't cut wood any more accurately
than someone with poor technique using a hand saw. The skill is in setting
up the machine for accuracy...then having the skill to operate it for best
results.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
(snip)
> Power tools can definitely do a better job with less operator skill on
> a lot of things.
>
> It's like almost anything else. A master can outperform the power tool
> on everything but time, but for the average woodworker, the power tool
> can give better results in many areas.
>
> Essentially, the trend is to transfer the skill from the human into
> the tool That's been going on for a couple of hundred years now.
>
> --RC
>
> >Examples:
> >
> >A jointer can put a straight edge and a flat face on a board with much
> >less skill than hand planes.
> >
> >A table saw can accurately cut with much less skill than hand saws and
> >plow planes.
> >
> >A thickness planer is a hell of a lot easier to use than hand planes
> >to accurately plane a stack of lumber to the same thickness, with
> >parallel faces.
> >
> >All tools, powered or not, require SOME basic knowledge. Power tools
> >will not only ruin wood faster, but they will seriously maim the
> >operator, if a minimum level of skill isn't present. Most hand tools
> >require serious forethought to actually amputate a limb. A power tool
> >can amputate before the user knows something is wrong.
> >
> >Poor power tools and dull hand tools introduce variables that can make
> >them impossible to use accurately, not matter what the skill level of
> >the user.
> >
> >Barry
>
> Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?
>

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:50:06 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:45:34 GMT, Ba r r y
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Sometimes you start with flat boards before doing something more
> interesting, power tools could be useful to even the most devout
> neander. After all, the 18th century had self-acting power tools for
> the simple tedious work - they were called apprentices. I see no
> benefit in ignoring useful power for stock preparation, but a router
> won't be replacing my moulders and scratch stocks any time soon.
>

The 18th Century had self-feeding gang rip saws, only they were water
powered and reciprocating rather than circular and electric powered.

The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.

"Chuck Hoffman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Just this morning I let loose a steady stream of vulgarity while
> trying to do a simple thing like making a notch in a push stick with a
> hand saw. I finally gave up and nibbled it away on the table saw.

I had the same problem last week. Then I got the right handsaw from the
rack, and the task went beautifully.

'Giving up', and 'using a tool with which you could accomplish the task',
are not the same thing. I have some tools which I have not mastered as
yet. Ok, make that many tools. But I haven't given up as of yet.

Patriarch

"Chuck Hoffman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just this morning I let loose a steady stream of vulgarity while trying to
> do a simple thing like making a notch in a push stick with a hand saw. I
> finally gave up and nibbled it away on the table saw.
>

You should have run out and bought a bandsaw for that!

"johnny rotten" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<2ySqd.384668$%k.279133@pd7tw2no>...
> That's cause there's too many people believing that the latest and greatest
> power tool will make them better at what they do. If you buy a shitty power
> tool and it breaks or does a poor job, that reflects on your skills. Why
> couldn't you put the power tool down and do it right. Power tools only make
> the job go faster not better.
>
> If you don't believe that then you've obviously never seen a Chippendale or
> Queen Anne...

I have (my grandmother owned a set Hepplewhite chairs) and I still
disagree. Power tools can do a job better by providing consistency,
for one thing. Also by providing the average wrecker with confidence.
(This NG would be pretty damned small if there were no power tools.)
I'd like to see what Norm could come up with using nothing but manual
tools. I doubt very much it would be as impressive as what he does on
his show.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 29 Nov 2004 06:45:45 -0800, [email protected] (Mike Girouard)
> wrote:
>

BIG SNIP

>
> (as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
> like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)
>

That's fair because your opinion didn't mean anything to me either.

If everyone had your burning quest for technological advancement we'd
still be sitting in unheated caves wondering if rocks are edible.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 1 Dec 2004 02:40:48 -0800, [email protected] (Mike Girouard) wrote:
>
> >Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> On 29 Nov 2004 06:45:45 -0800, [email protected] (Mike Girouard)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >BIG SNIP
> >
> >>
> >> (as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
> >> like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)
> >>
> >
> >That's fair because your opinion didn't mean anything to me either.
> >
> >If everyone had your burning quest for technological advancement we'd
> >still be sitting in unheated caves wondering if rocks are edible.
> >
> >FoggyTown
> >"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."
>
>
> and if everyone had your respect for talent and skill we'd all be
> living in plastic boxes and eating twinkies out of a tube....

Show me talent - I'll respect it. Put yourself in my face and tell me
you're talented - you get shown the nearest window . . . closed or
not.

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

"J" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On the other hand, not all the old work was up to the quality of the ancient
> masters. Who knows how much crap furniture was burned or broken up?
> Some of it was probably just downright ugly.

Look at some of pre-17th century survivors. Crude, ham-fisted,
asymmetrical, awkward, unattractive are some of the adjectives that
come to mind. They look like they were crafted by people that just
didn't know the meaning of "square".

> In general only the best is worth keeping and has the craftsmanship to
> survive.
>
> I don't think that anything Norm does will ever end up in a museum as an
> example of the best that can be done.
>
> -j

Why should woodworking be any different to any other of life's
endeavors? Some few people are born prodogies and can do miraculous
things with seemingly little or no effort in one or several areas. A
few more are born with the almost insectile patience required to
concentrate with the smallest focus until that piece of the whole is
perfect then go on to the next piece and do the same. Yet a few more
have the innovative skills to make something so completely new that no
comparison with precursors is even possible.

The huge mass of the rest of us bodge and dick our way through as best
as possible and are not too distressed if we even get close to, "Hey!
That's not too bad!"

FoggyTown
"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:5EHqd.3287
> Not to harp on a point, but the laser is a good
> example. It's rapidly gaining acceptance and soon will achieve the level
of
> must-have. It really offers nothing to the woodworker in terms of quality
> product, but even now you're beginning to hear that it contributes to
> quality work. At some point a bad cut will be blamed on a miter saw that
> didn't have a laser. Shame.

Don't fall for the hype.

-j

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
<snip>

> Yeah, well, yer full of crap.
>
<more snip>

> Our vision has become restricted to that which is described by
> available tooling, in the worst sense of what a market does.
>
>
> While I'm already pissing everyone off, there is a current thread
> about design-proportion-and the relationship of mass and structure:
>
> Will you please, for gawd's sake, pick up a book, or better yet, go to
> a museum, and look at successful furniture pieces - then cogitate on
> the reasons for their success?
>
>
> (as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
> like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)

Tawm, have you run out of JOAT's dried frog pills?(VBG)

However . . well said. How about those *old*(very old) hand made wood body
molding(moulding for the canuckistanis) planes?

--
Nahmie
The law of intelligent tinkering: save all the parts.

--
'
"Dave in Fairfax" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Watson wrote
> > > The most beautiful furniture that I have ever seen was accomplished by
> > > men who had no access to power tools at all.
>
> Chuck Hoffman wrote:
> > You obviously hold the "ancient masters" in high regard. And I will
agree
> > that many of them did striking work. But (just to pick one example we
all
> > know) Norm Abram makes handsome antique reproductions, which conform
very
> > well to the originals, with only a small amount of hand work.
>
> I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'll assume that you're not
> joking and really mean what you said about Norm. I've watched
> Norm, and while he does better than I do, he doesn't do all that
> well. He certainly isn't up to the quality of the "ancient
> masters". You might want to take a look at Tom's work before you
> make comparisons.
>
> Dave in Fairfax

On the other hand, not all the old work was up to the quality of the ancient
masters. Who knows how much crap furniture was burned or broken up?
Some of it was probably just downright ugly.

In general only the best is worth keeping and has the craftsmanship to
survive.

I don't think that anything Norm does will ever end up in a museum as an
example of the best that can be done.

-j

"Brett A. Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
> > The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
> > a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.
>
> I read an article once that estimated lumberjacks two hundred years ago,
> working in relative cold, cutting down trees with axes and saws for ten
> hours a day, probably burned something like 5,000 calories per day. Can
> you imagine the food they'd have to shovel down just to maintain their
> bodies?
>
> And I get hungry just from walking to the donut box at work...
>
> -BAT

Why do you think Abe Lincoln was always portrayed as such a skinny drink of
water? Making split rail fences qualifies. I've described on here before
about cutting firewood on the farm before my Uncle got his first chainsaw.
Felling with ax and 2 man crosscut, limbing with ax, cutting to 8' length
with crosscut, splitting into fence post or firewood size wedges with wedge
& sledgehammer, etc. Try *part* of the day in the woods like that, you were
pretty dam hungry come supper time!

Re: Lumber camp calories. If you're ever up that way, visit the "Adirondack
Museum" in Blue Water Lake, NY. Plan on most of a day. They had a video
theater(mostly still shots) about logging in the Adirondacks and discussed
the calories. Seems they also kept their own herd(flock, gaggle, group,?) of
pigs, and fresh pork was a staple part of their diet.

Museum: Many displays of Adirondack life, as well as actual artifacts and
displays; old horse drawn snowplows & snow packers from sleigh days, very
early snowmobiles, Cedar strip canoes, early racing boats, etc. We had
driven by some yrs. before visiting, and they had a full 25-30' sailboat
under a glass dome. When we visited, it was no longer there, and they
explained that the dome trapped the moisture so bad that the boat was dry
rotting, so they had to remove it.

--
Nahmie
The law of intelligent tinkering: save all the parts.

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:16:11 -0500, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>"Gothic and Proud"

>
>Visi- or Ostro- ?

This week it's Pugin-

Usually though it's somewhere between trad- and cyber-

You obviously hold the "ancient masters" in high regard. And I will agree
that many of them did striking work. But (just to pick one example we all
know) Norm Abram makes handsome antique reproductions, which conform very
well to the originals, with only a small amount of hand work. Most of his
time is spent operating his extensive collection of power tools.

It is possible to do craftsman-like work with power tools. It just requires
a different set of skills.

"Tom Watson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
(snip)
>
> The most beautiful furniture that I have ever seen was accomplished by
> men who had no access to power tools at all.
>
(snip)>
> Regards,
> Tom.
>
> "People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston
>
> Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
> http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 11:28:34 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Go to Dollar Tree or Big Lots and stock up on tools, now go build me a
>Chippendale high boy.

What the hell sort of trans-atlantic abomination is a "Chippendale
high boy" ? Where do you find those? Iceland?

High boys, Chippendale or no, aren't found East of Massachusets.
--
Smert' spamionam

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:20:14 GMT, "johnny rotten"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Power tools only make
>the job go faster not better.

I'll agree that a power tool can ruin a good board faster, but
disagree that a power tool can't sometimes do a better job with less
operator skill.

Examples:

A jointer can put a straight edge and a flat face on a board with much
less skill than hand planes.

A table saw can accurately cut with much less skill than hand saws and
plow planes.

A thickness planer is a hell of a lot easier to use than hand planes
to accurately plane a stack of lumber to the same thickness, with
parallel faces.

All tools, powered or not, require SOME basic knowledge. Power tools
will not only ruin wood faster, but they will seriously maim the
operator, if a minimum level of skill isn't present. Most hand tools
require serious forethought to actually amputate a limb. A power tool
can amputate before the user knows something is wrong.

Poor power tools and dull hand tools introduce variables that can make
them impossible to use accurately, not matter what the skill level of
the user.

Barry

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:57:29 -0500, Tom Watson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Our typical tooling only embraces the Roman style of profile.

Speak for yourself, classical-ogee boy

"Gothic and Proud"

"Mike Girouard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I'd like to see what Norm could come up with using nothing but manual
> tools. I doubt very much it would be as impressive as what he does on
> his show.
>

The Woodright Shop on Line 1...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:26:40 -0500, Silvan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Andy Dingley wrote:
>
>>>The point about the icepick and hammer was pretty stupid too, now that I
>>>think back.
>>
>> Well mainly I use bits of old hacksaw blade. The first rule of making
>> good stuff with nothing is to learn to make your own tools. If you can
>> grind, heat-treat, and find a source of carbon steel, then you're
>> sorted for making almost anything the 18th century could offer.
>
>I'm with you up to the heat treating bit, unfortunately. One of these
>days...


do you have a gas stove in your kitchen?

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 01:10:35 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Speak for yourself, classical-ogee boy
>
>"Gothic and Proud"



Visi- or Ostro- ?



Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 10:26:48 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>On 1 Dec 2004 02:40:48 -0800, [email protected] (Mike Girouard) wrote:
>
>>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>> On 29 Nov 2004 06:45:45 -0800, [email protected] (Mike Girouard)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>BIG SNIP
>>
>>>
>>> (as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
>>> like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)
>>>
>>
>>That's fair because your opinion didn't mean anything to me either.
>>
>>If everyone had your burning quest for technological advancement we'd
>>still be sitting in unheated caves wondering if rocks are edible.
>>
>>FoggyTown
>>"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."
>
>
>and if everyone had your respect for talent and skill we'd all be
>living in plastic boxes and eating twinkies out of a tube....

There's a continium there and each of us gets to decide where we fall
on the continium.

Ain't freedom wonderful?

--RC
You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:47:17 -0800, "Brett A. Thomas" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
>> The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
>> a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.
>
>I read an article once that estimated lumberjacks two hundred years ago,
>working in relative cold, cutting down trees with axes and saws for ten
>hours a day, probably burned something like 5,000 calories per day. Can
>you imagine the food they'd have to shovel down just to maintain their
>bodies?

There was a reason the cook was one of the most important people in a
lumber camp. And why there are so many jokes about bad lumber camp
cooks.

--RC

>
>And I get hungry just from walking to the donut box at work...
>
>-BAT

You can tell a really good idea by the enemies it makes

On 2 Dec 2004 13:16:18 -0800, [email protected] (Mike Girouard) wrote:

>A few more are born with the almost insectile patience required to
>concentrate with the smallest focus until that piece of the whole is
>perfect then go on to the next piece and do the same. Yet a few more
>have the innovative skills to make something so completely new that no
>comparison with precursors is even possible.

Michael , I absolutely loved the description of the patience needed
to create the detailed piece. The hearkening to the insectile was
masterful. Yet, it requires more.

Without the sense of the whole, your take on creativity becomes the
slavish devotion to minutiae.

There is both one mind and two - the overmind tempers the creation of
the obsessed mind, to the degree that they act in consort.

But the overmind must rule, lest it succumb to ritual.

Innovation is the natural result of attempted replication, and that is
why it is a good exercise to re-create the best of what the world has
to offer, based on your take on things.

I happen to revere a particular Goddard-Townsend secretary desk.

But, as an older man, there are things that I would change.

Innovation, in the sense that you have evoked, is really a
re-imagining of the genre - and I would not choose to go there.

I'll settle for dovetailed intersections of the pigeonholes, and a
change of finish, to something that doesn't take so much of the
caretaker's budget of time or money.

I suppose it is a paean to evolution, rather than revolution.

Just my take on things, you know - not a knock.






Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:13:50 +0000, rcook5 wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:26:40 -0500, Silvan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I'm with you up to the heat treating bit, unfortunately. One of these
>>days...
>
> Try a cheap propane torch and a couple of firebricks. Instant heat
> treat for < $10.
>
> (and practice. Did I mention practice?)
>
And making your own tools is fun. The trick to heat treating is to use a
magnet. The pros can tell by color, or they have a pyrometer, whatever
that is. Don't try the propane torch alone on anything bigger than a piece
of hacksaw. Oh, and practice...

--
"Keep your ass behind you"
vladimir a t mad {dot} scientist {dot} com

On 29 Nov 2004 06:45:45 -0800, [email protected] (Mike Girouard)
wrote:

>"It's a poor workman who blames his own tools."
>
>How many times have we heard THAT old chestnut? The broad implication
>is that talent and ability should be able to overcome sub-standard
>tools. Last night I realized for the first time that the expression
>was coined a LONG time before power tools even existed.
>
>I now believe that a good workman is fully entitled to blame his tools
>whenever he gets a shitty result. Makes me feel better, anyway.
>
>FoggyTown
>"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."


Yeah, well, yer full of crap.

The phrase is about the ability of the Craftsman to adapt and
overcome.

The most beautiful furniture that I have ever seen was accomplished by
men who had no access to power tools at all.

Talent and Ability Do overcome the lack of tools.

I hear constant whining along the lines of, "if I only had this xyz
wondertool I could do great work."

This is absolute bullshit.

If you have a bandsaw or a table saw, you are way ahead of those who
have produced some of the most wonderful furniture known to man.


I own a Leigh Dovetail Jig - I'd be happy to sell it.

It can't make the sort of elongated tapers that I'm fond of.


I own a Delta Cabinetshop Shaper (TURT) and I'd be glad to sell it -
because it imprisons me within the profile libraries of the major
cutting tool distributors - unless I want to pay a King's ransom for a
custom knife.


The men who made furniture during the late eighteenth to the mid
nineteenth century were some of the most creative furniture making
minds known to man - and they didn't have shit for tools, compared to
us.

We find ourselves locked in a vernacular of available tooling that
restricts our work.


There are two great progenitors of Western molding profiles (actually
there is only one, the Roman is a diminution of the Greek).

Our typical tooling only embraces the Roman style of profile. We have
a bunch of Ovolo and Caveto shapes, but the use of the Ellipse is lost
to most of us.

It was not lost to the men of the age that I have previously
referenced.

If they wanted to use a section of an ellipse, as did those
Goddard-Townsend boys - they damned well made a knife up to fit their
vision.

Our vision has become restricted to that which is described by
available tooling, in the worst sense of what a market does.


While I'm already pissing everyone off, there is a current thread
about design-proportion-and the relationship of mass and structure:

Will you please, for gawd's sake, pick up a book, or better yet, go to
a museum, and look at successful furniture pieces - then cogitate on
the reasons for their success?


(as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)





Regards,
Tom.

"People funny. Life a funny thing." Sonny Liston

Thomas J.Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.)
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:45:34 GMT, Ba r r y
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 04:20:14 GMT, "johnny rotten"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Power tools only make
>>the job go faster not better.
>
>I'll agree that a power tool can ruin a good board faster, but
>disagree that a power tool can't sometimes do a better job with less
>operator skill.

Power tools can definitely do a better job with less operator skill on
a lot of things.

It's like almost anything else. A master can outperform the power tool
on everything but time, but for the average woodworker, the power tool
can give better results in many areas.

Essentially, the trend is to transfer the skill from the human into
the tool That's been going on for a couple of hundred years now.

--RC

>Examples:
>
>A jointer can put a straight edge and a flat face on a board with much
>less skill than hand planes.
>
>A table saw can accurately cut with much less skill than hand saws and
>plow planes.
>
>A thickness planer is a hell of a lot easier to use than hand planes
>to accurately plane a stack of lumber to the same thickness, with
>parallel faces.
>
>All tools, powered or not, require SOME basic knowledge. Power tools
>will not only ruin wood faster, but they will seriously maim the
>operator, if a minimum level of skill isn't present. Most hand tools
>require serious forethought to actually amputate a limb. A power tool
>can amputate before the user knows something is wrong.
>
>Poor power tools and dull hand tools introduce variables that can make
>them impossible to use accurately, not matter what the skill level of
>the user.
>
>Barry

Sleep? Isn't that a totally inadequate substitute for caffine?

On 1 Dec 2004 02:40:48 -0800, [email protected] (Mike Girouard) wrote:

>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> On 29 Nov 2004 06:45:45 -0800, [email protected] (Mike Girouard)
>> wrote:
>>
>
>BIG SNIP
>
>>
>> (as always, the above is purely personal opinion and, if you don't
>> like it, it doesn't mean a goddamned thing to me.)
>>
>
>That's fair because your opinion didn't mean anything to me either.
>
>If everyone had your burning quest for technological advancement we'd
>still be sitting in unheated caves wondering if rocks are edible.
>
>FoggyTown
>"Cut to shape . . . pound to fit."


and if everyone had your respect for talent and skill we'd all be
living in plastic boxes and eating twinkies out of a tube....

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:45:34 GMT, Ba r r y
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I'll agree that a power tool can ruin a good board faster, but
>disagree that a power tool can't sometimes do a better job with less
>operator skill.

Agreed. So if you just want to make flat boards, go with the machine.

I'm expecting Ikea's new range of Chippendale chairs with great
interest.

Sometimes you start with flat boards before doing something more
interesting, power tools could be useful to even the most devout
neander. After all, the 18th century had self-acting power tools for
the simple tedious work - they were called apprentices. I see no
benefit in ignoring useful power for stock preparation, but a router
won't be replacing my moulders and scratch stocks any time soon.


--
Smert' spamionam

In article <TBlrd.3297$zK1.737@trndny05>, [email protected] wrote:

>The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
>a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.
>
A friend of mine is irritated by the paintings that show Jesus as (in her
words) "a skinny, wimpy-looking kind of guy". She says "He was a carpenter.
They didn't have power tools two thousand years ago. He must've been buff!"

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:43:18 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:47:17 -0800, "Brett A. Thomas" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
>>> The physique of lumbermill apprentices before water power must have been
>>> a sight to behold from ripsawing or wedge splitting planks from logs.
>>
>>I read an article once that estimated lumberjacks two hundred years ago,
>>working in relative cold, cutting down trees with axes and saws for ten
>>hours a day, probably burned something like 5,000 calories per day. Can
>>you imagine the food they'd have to shovel down just to maintain their
>>bodies?
>
>There was a reason the cook was one of the most important people in a
>lumber camp. And why there are so many jokes about bad lumber camp
>cooks.
>
>--RC
>
same with the cooks on cattle drives...

I was reading about the "real" cowboys in a book (chili recipes,
actually *lol*) that said that the amount of calories burnt in a day
was awesome...
their favorite desert was beef fat with molasses on it... because
their bodies crazed the fat that they were burning up so fast..
(still better than the Eskimos, who crave fat so bad in the winter
that they eat blubber)
I think I'll take that trip to the frig now.. *g*