By candle light or by instinct and feel?

[Sam_Jack]

My humble workshop relies, mostly, on ‘natural’ light. I was trying to finish up a job (lots of ‘dovetails) and ‘fiddley’ toward the end of daylight; turned on the lights. No blooming help at all, in fact, the cut guides on dark timber (Jarrah) became invisible. Dragged out a ‘spot-light’ (Painters work light) but the shadows were a nuisance; had to keep shifting the wretched thing. Anyway – I sort of managed, got ‘done’ and staggered off to the fridge for a canister of refreshment. Sat down in the shop (swept) and wondered; how the hell did those fellahin, back in the days when they built wagons and carriages manage? They started almost before daybreak – worked the whole day long and managed to produce some stunning work. Dovetails to a ‘thou’; spokes that fit; draws which closed (and opened) flawless tenons to last a lifetime and door frames without a twist – in dark, damp workshops - how?

Dark, closed (against the cold) workshops in English weather – as in (I hasten to add) ever changing light. Must have had some very good candles and ‘automatic’ tools. Any ideas? Anyone?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

In many cases their life expectancy was so low they probably died before their sight deteriorated.

 

[AndyT]

In the eighteenth century it was rare to find glass in workshop windows - oiled paper was used instead. This stayed in use even longer in the High Wycombe furniture workshops, since glass in the windows was one of the 'extras' which the owner charged the workers for by a weekly deduction from their wages. Apparently some workers objected to this practice and preferred to manage without the benefit of glazing!

 

[dzj]

In the eighteenth century it was rare to find glass in workshop windows - oiled paper was used instead. This stayed in use even longer in the High Wycombe furniture workshops, since glass in the windows was one of the 'extras' which the owner charged the workers for by a weekly deduction from their wages. Apparently some workers objected to this practice and preferred to manage without the benefit of glazing!

Two percent for looking in the mirror twice.

 

[custard]

The workshop where I trained didn't get electricity until the late 1950's. I listened to a chap reminisce about workshop life in that era. Apparently you just got used to scheduling jobs around that reality. Glue ups were afternoon work when the place had warmed up, critical finishing work when you had glancing side light, rough dimensioning was the task for cold mornings. There'd always be something to keep you occupied.

 

[AndyT]

It's also worth mentioning that in many trades, the working day was a couple of hours shorter in winter, when there wasn't enough daylight. (I think the pay dropped in proportion though, IIRC.)

 

[Jacob]

Have had several workshops well illuminated by daylight. Never enough - basically lights on all day, fluorescent tubes or superior modern equivalents.
North lights for artists?

 

[Sam_Jack]

Finally, the sub conscious kicks in. I read this book a few years ago, an ancient copy, borrowed from a mate. It fascinated me and the descriptive of the men and their work was often re-read. Imagine being in the bottom of a saw pit; or, watching the selection of timber; or, making spokes in the environment those fellah’s worked in. That is what triggered my post – dark, cold, tired under pressure, no light etc. A far cry from today’s conditions, respect don’t enter into it – admiration does. Anyway, FWIW, this is the book and the sales blurb.

"George Sturt's frank and moving account of his trade as a wheelwright in the late nineteenth century offers a unique glimpse into the working lives of craftsmen in a world since banished by technology. The wheelwright's shop where he entered business had been operating for two centuries; this chronicle, first published in 1923, is a poignant record of that tradition, written as it was passing into history. E. P. Thompson's new foreword acclaims the significance of Sturt's engaging narrative as a vital document in the history of labour at the turn of the century."

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Brilliant book - I lent mine and never saw it again.

 

[dzj]

If you have only one light source, shadows will be unavoidable.
A combination of direct, indirect or diffused light will probably solve your problem,
but for optimum results, you'll have to experiment a bit.

As for 'Dovetails to a ‘thou’', I think we sometimes idealize the past.
Sure, there was excellent work done, but on the whole, I think today's standards are more rigid.

 

[Rorschach]

If you have only one light source, shadows will be unavoidable.
A combination of direct, indirect or diffused light will probably solve your problem,
but for optimum results, you'll have to experiment a bit.

As for 'Dovetails to a ‘thou’', I think we sometimes idealize the past.
Sure, there was excellent work done, but on the whole, I think today's standards are more rigid.

It's partly rose tinted spectacles, thinking everything made in the past must be better than things made today, which is a fallacy but also the fact that we often only see the best work because that's all that was worth keeping due to it's value.

 

[Jacob]

,,,...
As for 'Dovetails to a ‘thou’', I think we sometimes idealize the past.
Sure, there was excellent work done, but on the whole, I think today's standards are more rigid.

Really? We can measure to a thou and we have precise machines and tools but this has led to the loss of craft skills IMHO and lowering of standards in many ways.
Wood trade was a major industry with millions of skilled craftsman employed. When the most precise measure they had was a box-wood folding rule they produced very precise work with a whole different set of techniques not reliant on measuring.

I just bought an IKEA bed - fantastic precision and clever design reducing wood craft skill to zero!

 

[dzj]

I understand your line of thought Jacob, but I wasn't referring to mass production.

 

[Sam_Jack]

‘Dovetails’ to thou was jut a little poetic licence; and, I can agree that much of the work done today is equivalent or, even better (sometimes). Who could, with hand tools, match Ikea for precision – speed and price? Not many I’d bet. I’m not even wearing my rose tinted specs when I look back at what was achieved; no doubt some ‘clunkers’ went out the door at a price to the merchant, who sold ‘em on to the unwary as ‘class’. That’s not the nail I was driving.

Back in the day the men knew little else bar ‘the wood’ – within their ambit; a spoke maker could probably inspect a load of billets; pick out the top notch ones, the working ones and the dross – but could he identify that wood at source – in the forest, before the tree was taken? Whether that matters or not is subjective. But are such skills relevant today; are they even important to a carpenter?

I think it’s down to ‘exposure’ and education. For instance, the man who taught me much was an expert on Walnut and Cherry, couldn’t ever get a job to come out to his satisfaction using Oak. I, to this day cannot finish a job I’m ‘happy’ with using some timbers; yet with others I can ‘feel’ the job is going to turn out well – because I am familiar, through exposure, education and practice with the material. I wish there was time travel though; I’d love to go back to those days where the wagon and carriage ruled, when all joints were made by hand and apprentices did the rough sizing of timber. Just for a while, try my arm in the saw pit, learn to make an axle etc. But then I’d want to come home to a hot shower, good light and the comforts of my own workshop – (with the ‘labour saving devices’) – I reckon one day of ripping and sizing down rough planks would be enough.

Anyway – was just a ramble chaps; a whimsy brought about by a cold evening, bad lighting and an awkward job. Nothing there more than a ‘hair’ (2.5 thou) out, but less than that was pure luck. Jarrah is a lovely timber to work with, that you can, with time and patience get to very close tolerances – once you understand it.

PS – Jacob – the 220 has become a constant companion; lives on the bench. I’m no longer surprised when I find it in my hand first instead of another. Thanks again for telling me what it actually was for; spot on. Cheers.

 

[MatthewRedStars]

If you have only one light source, shadows will be unavoidable.
A combination of direct, indirect or diffused light will probably solve your problem,
but for optimum results, you'll have to experiment a bit.

As for 'Dovetails to a ‘thou’', I think we sometimes idealize the past.
Sure, there was excellent work done, but on the whole, I think today's standards are more rigid.

It's partly rose tinted spectacles, thinking everything made in the past must be better than things made today, which is a fallacy but also the fact that we often only see the best work because that's all that was worth keeping due to it's value.

Yep.

Cute story:

During the war there were problems (obviously) with US bombers getting shot down on daytime missions. So they brought in experts to come up with a solution.... so they started assessing where the bullet holes were on the returning planes and putting more armour on the places that were most commonly hit with bullets.

It had no effect.

So they started putting even more armour on the places the bullets were hitting. It still had no effect. No progress was made until one of the experts had the idea of putting more armour on the places there were NO bullet holes on the returning planes. And loads more bombers started making it back to England.

Something to think about.

The reason that worked in the war is the same reason we have a rosy view of old craftsmanship. Survivorship Bias. We think the survivors (whether its planes or chairs) tell us about the general case. But they don't, in fact they take us away from the truth.

 

[Jacob]

If you have only one light source, shadows will be unavoidable.
A combination of direct, indirect or diffused light will probably solve your problem,
but for optimum results, you'll have to experiment a bit.

As for 'Dovetails to a ‘thou’', I think we sometimes idealize the past.
Sure, there was excellent work done, but on the whole, I think today's standards are more rigid.

It's partly rose tinted spectacles, thinking everything made in the past must be better than things made today, which is a fallacy but also the fact that we often only see the best work because that's all that was worth keeping due to it's value.

Yep.

Cute story:

During the war there were problems (obviously) with US bombers getting shot down on daytime missions. So they brought in experts to come up with a solution.... so they started assessing where the bullet holes were on the returning planes and putting more armour on the places that were most commonly hit with bullets.

It had no effect.

So they started putting even more armour on the places the bullets were hitting. It still had no effect. No progress was made until one of the experts had the idea of putting more armour on the places there were NO bullet holes on the returning planes. And loads more bombers started making it back to England.

Something to think about.

The reason that worked in the war is the same reason we have a rosy view of old craftsmanship. Survivorship Bias. We think the survivors (whether its planes or chairs) tell us about the general case. But they don't, in fact they take us away from the truth.

Interesting story and I see the connection - it's the ones which weren't coming back which we needed to know about, very clever!
I've spent a lot of my life working in old buildings looking at stuff which failed. By definition I'm not called upon to look at stuff which hasn't failed. But it's not like aeroplanes. In the process of repairing/replicating you get to look at the good bits too and you start seeing what works and what doesn't. I came to the conclusion that 90% of failure was due to lack of paint maintenance, accelerated if modern paints was used (it's water retentive behind the impervious surface). Modern paint the equivalent of being shot up by German Ack Ack!

 

[nabs]

the anecdote about bombers in the war does not tell us that it is wrong to draw conclusions based on what we see in survivors, only that we need to remember we may be missing (possibly important) examples.

There is a similar thought experiment about a fisherman trying to assess the average size of fish in the are of the ocean he is fishing - no matter how many samples he takes he will never discover fish that are small enough to swim through the mesh in his nets. Thus he may never know the true average size, but he may still find out other useful information about fishing.