The Cutting Edges of H.O. Studley

[Paul Chapman]

Presumably he also contributed to the making of several hundred pianos, some of which will be extant no doubt.. As a craftsman, a maker, a tool user, this would probably put him in a much higher league than Peters &co.
You need to separate the craft from the design to understand my point.
Pity they couldn't have met. Amongst other things Studley would no doubt have talked Peters out of that silly idea of doing everything with a no 7!

Yes, still talking rubbish.......

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Jacob]

You need to get out more Paul.

 

[Jelly]

Presumably he also contributed to the making of several hundred pianos, some of which will be extant no doubt.. As a craftsman, a maker, a tool user, this would probably put him in a much higher league than Peters &co.
You need to separate the craft from the design to understand my point.
Pity they couldn't have met. Amongst other things Studley would no doubt have talked Peters out of that silly idea of doing everything with a no 7!

Yes, still talking rubbish.......

Cheers :wink:

Paul

I'm struggling to see whether this is overzealous self-derrogation or totally ignoring the salient parts of jacobs post simply because some of it is clearly opinion.

It's undeniable that making a high class piano or organ requires a great deal of skill and dare I say it artisanship, unless you reckon steinway and sons just bang them out down a production line with a CNC router and a power screwdriver.

Trying to compare Designer-Makers and Skilled Men is an apples and eggs comparison; they may share many of the qualities of an artisan, but they're rather different things.

 

[Jacob]

........
Trying to compare Designer-Makers and Skilled Men is an apples and eggs comparison; they may share many of the qualities of an artisan, but they're rather different things.

I think they are not that different but their products are. They are both woodworkers using the same tools and materials but working in a different part of the market.
I'd guess that a higher volume of demanding work passed through Studley's hands and this could have made him a much more experienced/competent woodworker than Peters.
'Designer-Maker' is a somewhat precious term which has been adopted by the bespoke 'fine furniture' mob, but it sounds as if Studley was also a designer/maker (of pianos - and a chest!) though he wouldn't have used that term.

In any case many (most?) designer/makers who are at all successful are sooner or later going to drop the 'maker ' bit and get others to do the hard work.

NB Blasphemy though it is, I'm not an enthusiast for the saints, icons, dogma , relics, of the so-called 'top end'. They are just another set of workers with a different market from IKEA, and they don't have magical powers.

 

[neilyweely]

I think Peters and Studley will be upstairs laughing their bo110x off at all of this. Do you think they care about 'my mates better than your mate'?
Perhaps they were both very good at their chosen profession. Does that offend anyone? Maybe even JK was quite good?

Neil

 

[Phil Pascoe]

............so you wouldn't buy anything from the Linley workshop then, Jacob?

 

[Jelly]

........
Trying to compare Designer-Makers and Skilled Men is an apples and eggs comparison; they may share many of the qualities of an artisan, but they're rather different things.

I think they are not that different but their products are. They are both woodworkers using the same tools and materials but working in a different part of the market.
I'd guess that a higher volume of demanding work passed through Studley's hands and this could have made him a much more experienced/competent woodworker than Peters.
'Designer-Maker' is a somewhat precious term which has been adopted by the bespoke 'fine furniture' mob, but it sounds as if Studley was also a designer/maker (of pianos - and a chest!) though he wouldn't have used that term.

It's where the value is added that's different to my mind, someone doing one-offs is charging a premium for the uniqueness and has to focus on making exactly what the customer wants, someone doing volume work has to work to an acceptable quality but they need to work at a profitable rate too; which requires a different take on the same basic skill.

In that vein, machine made stuff is often seen as being devoid of skill, but having seen the concentration, deftness and experience required to sort for grade and align for jointing on the infeed of a moulder running at between 600 and 1000 linear meters a minute; it's definitely skilled, just not very traditional!

As to the Designer-Maker thing it's hard to say if Studley was designing the instruments he built or not (at least not until the book on him is published?) but one would think he had input into what was feasible/practicable to produce even if someone else was doing the overall design (and given the complexity of the mechanics of an organ in particular I suspect that it would have drawn on people of several disciplines to produce the finished product). That said, as someone from a physical science background, I see the acoustical problems of making an instrument as being significant, but if you know what works by a series of rules of thumb or similar, it may well be unnecessary to consider all of the complicated factors around how the instrument will make sounds.

 

[GazPal]

............so you wouldn't buy anything from the Linley workshop then, Jacob?

A higher possibility of me perhaps buying from Ikea, but never Linley

------------

The degree of focus necessary for one to succeed as a furniture designer involves far more than skill in tool & materials manipulation if producing work from your own designs. It often necessitates the move from artisan to designer and the employment of others to fulfill your designs.

Piano maker isn't quite the same as cabinetmaker, although piano companies employ craftsmen with cabinetry skills they're not necessarily as skilled in performing the more varied tasks, but tend to focus within a more particular area. If considering the design and layout of Studley's tool chest, it very probably mirrors the nature of the work he was involved in, as much of his work would have revolved around crafting the finishing touches on pre-assembled/part completed piano carcass. He most probably fitted lids, made fluted/beaded legs, carved decorative feet, etc., whilst other specialist areas were covered by other artisans. I think there's a Youtube video showing the work involved in the making of Steinway piano, It's very much a production line operation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAInt7hIZlU

Many old tool chest interiors - sometimes also their exteriors - were laid out to illustrate their owner's skill sets. This helped prospective employers and customers visualise the artisan's skill. If he possessed design skills they'd doubtless be evident in the structure and manner in which he laid out the tools within his tool chest.

Many craftsmen possess skills which lay dormant once they move into speciality work and I'll never say one is more skilled than another, although some present their skills in a less attractive manner.

 

[Jacob]

I was defending Studley from the suggestion (in various posts above) that as a humble piano maker he wouldn't be as skilled as a 'cabinet' maker. I'd put my money on Studley personally, but we'll never know, unless signed pianos turn up!

............so you wouldn't buy anything from the Linley workshop then, Jacob?

Not unless it was hand made entirely by Lord Snooty under my close supervision and personally delivered on a hand cart by himself .

 

[GazPal]

I was defending Studley from the suggestion (in various posts above) that as a humble piano maker he wouldn't be as skilled as a 'cabinet' maker. I'd put my money on Studley personally, but we'll never know, unless signed pianos turn up!

I know you were. The funny thing about this situation is we don't know where he worked prior to his last known job and this other work could very easily involve serving his time and working as a cabinetmaker before moving onto piano work.

We all start and finish our careers somewhere.

 

[Jacob]

.........
It's where the value is added that's different to my mind, someone doing one-offs is charging a premium for the uniqueness and has to focus on making exactly what the customer wants, someone doing volume work has to work to an acceptable quality but they need to work at a profitable rate too; which requires a different take on the same basic skill.............

The thing about multiples, whether it's a Studley making pianos, or an American indian making birch bark canoes, is that design and techniques evolve. IMHO they evolve to a much higher level of perfection than is going to be possible with one offs.
And to get back to my original post which was about sharpening - I think Studley's sharpening techniques, under pressure and from necessity, are likely to be extremely economical and effective, notwithstanding the (probable) fact that he didn't make expensive one-offs for wealthy clients.

 

[pedder]

Hi Jacob,

my point was not to debase Mr. Studley or anyone else. Certainly he and many others could work with wood very well.

But that doesn't tell me that Mr. Studley was a good sharpener.

It doesn't tell me that I should use his methods. Since he died, many new products have been invented to the western world. If Mr. Studley would live today, he would use modern saws (probably japanese saws like the piano make I happened to share a kitchen and bath for the last year) and modern sharpening mediums.

So how Mr. Studley sharpened his chisels may be fascinating to some historical research magazins and authors, but it doesn't mean that we have to follow him, once we found better methods. Nor does it tell us to sharpen like Tage Frid did (Beltsander and jewelers green coupound on a wheel.) Or one of the modern teacher.

The goal is a sharpe edge. And there are many roads and all lead to the goal. Walk one road and don't go back because it is a loop way. It is better to get used to one method than to change methods and mediums with every new or old teacher.

Because it is not about sharpening, but woodworking. And in that I can learn a lot, from You, Mr. Studley David Charlesworth and Chrisopher Schwarz.

Cheers
Pedder

 

[Jacob]

Hi Jacob, my point was not to debase Mr. Studley or anyone else. Certainly he and many others could work with wood very well.
But that doesn't tell me that Mr. Studley was a good sharpener.

Really? It tells me that he probably was a good sharpener. He'd have to be to survive (and make his chest!)

It doesn't tell me that I should use his methods.

It should tell you that he was doing something right. But yes you are free to do what you like.

Since he died, many new products have been invented to the western world.

Mainly diamond dust. But in use (freehand) a diamond plate will produce exactly the same results as an oil stone - as per Schwarzs 5 points above

.....So how Mr. Studley sharpened his chisels may be fascinating to some historical research magazins and authors, but it doesn't mean that we have to follow him, once we found better methods.

Slight exaggeration here - modern methods aren't that different, except that freehand has gone out of fashion to some extent and there is that great irrational fear of convex bevels!
Still plenty of people at it, freehand, convex bevels and all, maybe using diamond plates instead of oil stones.
Things haven't changed that much.

 

[Sawyer]

A working life spent making pianos, which at the time were also a very expensive status symbol, but which also needed to function well as a musical instrument: an item which had to be very, very well-made; and to do all of this at a pace which was commercially viable. To have done this will have required Mr. Studley to have been an extremely competent workman. One of the countless unsung heros of woodworking history who earned a living and left an often anonymous legacy of excellent craftsmanship. Such men were surely the equals (at least) of many who are known simply because they were better self-publicists.

 

[Racers]

Well not much hand tool work these days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRBzl9FbJP0

That chisel dosen't seem to have a convex bevel ;-)

 

[jimi43]

Well not much hand tool work these days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRBzl9FbJP0

That chisel dosen't seem to have a convex bevel ;-)

Yup...definitely hollow ground...honed using the back and front of the grind as a guide...

One or too far more famous people than Studley do it this way...and I agree with them.

BTW...that bears about as much resemblance to old methods as I do to the Queen of England! :mrgreen:

Jimi

 

[bobbybirds]

Wow! This has to be the most redundant thread topic in history. Talk about going around in circles...

 

[DTR]

Yup...definitely hollow ground...honed using the back and front of the grind as a guide...

One or too far more famous people than Studley do it this way...and I agree with them.

Interesting approach, what angle go you grind at?

 

[jimi43]

Yup...definitely hollow ground...honed using the back and front of the grind as a guide...

One or too far more famous people than Studley do it this way...and I agree with them.

Interesting approach, what angle go you grind at?

Hi DRO...

As you are effectively creating a single bevel and on most of my planes the irons are bevel down so it's the pitch of the bed that is the important bit....so I grind to about 25 degrees...though I'm not particularly bothered whether is a few degrees out either way.

The point I am trying to make is the front and the back of the hollow grind is your guide...I don't use a honing guide anymore.

Jim

 

[jimi43]

Yup...definitely hollow ground...honed using the back and front of the grind as a guide...

One or too far more famous people than Studley do it this way...and I agree with them.

Interesting approach, what angle go you grind at?

Hi DTR...

As you are effectively creating a single bevel and on most of my planes the irons are bevel down so it's the pitch of the bed that is the important bit....so I grind to about 25 degrees...though I'm not particularly bothered whether is a few degrees out either way.

The point I am trying to make is the front and the back of the hollow grind is your guide...I don't use a honing guide anymore.

I think Jim K used to do it this way...and Philly's skew mitre was like that...though whether it was like that when it left him...only he would have to say. :wink:

I'm not saying this is the utopia of sharpening, nor am I saying it's any better...it's just the way that I do it and it works for me.

Jim


UPDATE....I googled this issue and found THIS ARTICLE

Seems like Jim Krenov used 30 degrees. I'm happy with greater than or equal to and about 25-30 degrees...and I don't get that bothered about it. :lol: And I sure ain't going to be looking at bevels when I eventually get my backside over to Rochester either!

Not that I wish to encourage the perpetuation of the "bevel issue"..... :twisted: