Hand-cut looking machine-made

[engineer one]

well you do go from one extreme to another.
last week ikea were selling of a solid, well alright
built up beech dining table that they had been selling
for 250 quid, for 49. none of us can buy the wood for
that price.

but recent conversations with someone looking to get
pub furniture made in a factory in slovakia, you discover
the reason why so much factory built stuff is tat.

shipping and storage costs, there are as we know break
points at which items can be shipped in the uk for the
lowest price. hence the cheap backs.

i think that if you are lucky enough to always deal with the
best of the old furniture then you are lucky, but for most people,
it is a mish mash of good and bad, and why should we continue
promoting bad practice because it is an old practice.

i agree that some old practices are worthwhile saving, but
modern techniques evolve to make it easier and more cost
effective to produce something. if you have the time to slavishly
follow the past more power to your elbow, but that means hand
made screws, and cut nails, and animal glue.

i believe like alf that there are certain things from the machine age
that can be copied and there are others which need to be
avoided if you use hand tools.

we all admire the regency furniture styles, but it was made in general
in factory situations, made quickly and to a price, so the bits
that were hidden were generally of poorer quality in both
wood and workmanship. check what things are veneered on to,
you will be amazed by some of the rubbish that was used.

modern living means that many of the old ways do not actually fit into
the modern house, or the need to move more frequently, so we
have to make more use of ckd fittings, and thus machine joints which
allow for this knocking down in an effective way.

and by machine i hand tools also.

alf sorry if i was a bit out of line about the location, we all make decisions
based on things other than woodwork when it comes to where
we live.

bet you did not think you would have started such a thread when you made your comments??? :lol:

final thought how many of those who mention older furniture have looked
hard at some of the painted french furniture which these days seems
to be very expensive, but of pretty poor quality wood. in addition it is
easy to forget that the definition of antique allows for only a few
bits in a piece to be old to qualify, but as colin has said are often thrown
together without thought, only in the attempt to make money.

time and experience suggests that you need to combine machine and
hand tool usage to produce what you want within a reasonable timescale.

paul :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

You must enter a message when posting

 

[Anonymous]

You must enter a message when posting

 

[Alf]

bet you did not think you would have started such a thread when you made your comments??? :lol:

My bread was cast upon the waters to promote discussion - anyone's guess where it was gonna go but odds were it was never going to be where I thought it might. :lol:

Jacob, yeah there's a four wheel thing in there - that'll be the one. As far as the structural mechanics goes, well I'm out of my depth there but it does seem to be a weak point. What I wonder though, is whether it's a weak point that'll ever be reached or whether it's technically weak but not an issue in practice. Perhaps you've come across actual examples of failure, in which case I withdraw my thoughts unreservedly.

In one of the old Woodworker's there's a piece about Ye Olde Time Woodworke Shoppe that restored and "manufactured" antiques and what sort of bad habits were employed with regard to nails and such. I'll see if I can locate it 'cos it's quite entertaining.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Anonymous]

You must enter a message when posting

 

[Paul Chapman]

Same tradition as Parnham House

Not sure why you seem to be critical of Parnham House. It seems to me that it turned out some very accomplished craftsmen who are producing some stunning work.

Paul

 

[Alf]

Stuck up some hurried scans of the aforementioned articles here. They look potentially a bit small to read but fwiw - I'll do something about it tomorrow if it's a problem. It must have been "Dan" that came to mind, I think.

Jacob, I don't dispute it's a weak point - just is it weak enough to actually be a problem, or is the thing over-strong already so it doesn't arise? Evidentally neither of us knows for sure.

Cheers, Alf

 

[Anonymous]

I'd say structually, there really isn't much difference between half and full. strength wise.

I think half ones don't look as nice. Look unbalanced. Thats just me. And if you found a way cut the angle on one side, might as well do the other :lol:

I believe if its done by hand, you'll mostly pick it.

The biggest thing to overcome, is simply I think, the pins are so much easier done with a powered router. Can do it blind folded sort of easy. A rotating cutter is perfect for that sort of cut. But thats not very romantic.....and noisy and dusty. I don't like powertools at all.

And a powered router is ideal for stopped housings for shore. Planes just don't like to stop dead like that eh....

My first attempts at cutting them by hand was with a stanley 45 body.
http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au ... hp?t=29198

Bit of fun. Turned out to be quite a stable way of doing it actually, due to the high fence. But in hindsight, it would have been a better process if the depth stop could be fine adjusted (like say the stanley 55's depth stop) and if I'd added a angled shoe to it to match the angle of the cut.....ie. so it rubbed flat at the completion of cut.

but I what I liked about my 45 modification, was that it was quick. Single tool process. No clutter. Just drop the plane, flip the board and do it again, then clean out the muck in between.

Would be quick enough for me to cut many of these housing cuts all at once on a single board, say for shelves or whatever, cause I could do all the left sides of each housing first, say, flip the board then do all the right sides......

 

[Anonymous]

You must enter a message when posting

 

[Colin C]

There have been some very intresting points in this.

For a start if you think French painted furniture is bad then try some of the old Italian furniture that I have seen and restored :shock:, one chair comes to mind ( a round seated chair ) that when I took the joints apart, they where all different sizes ( from 18mm - 8mm). I mean not even the tennon in one side of a leg to the other was the same.

When it come to antique of all periods you will find some at the top end and some at the bottom, plus all in between.
I mean by this that you will see eg some panels that been veneered on pine that is not very good and some of the same period the have been done on good mahogany ( that would have been used for a piece of furniture in other workshops.

I think part of the think with hand tools v machines is that some have missed the point that they are not all bad ( norm being one the would set up a machine to to do some thing that would be quicker to do by hand but I think this is changing a bit )

I also think ( you can stop laughing at the back :roll: ) that some of the old ways of doing things have been droped just because they are the old ways but if this does happen, then I think when some problems come up people will not have answer but I could wrong.

As for veneering I use MDF myself but if it is antique and will show ( like the Vitorian table top I am remaking as I was given the base), I use what is right for the job.

When it comes to antique furniture as long as it has 10% old wood in it ( yes 10% :shock: ), it can still be called antique.

I think that hand skills are still very important but from work at The British museum and being told that one of the foremans for a firm doing some of the work in the reading room roof, that he wished that he had us instead of the chippys that he had used for some of the work but it was in the roof os no one will see it ( lucky I think ).

I guess I am trying to say that you can use both without forgetting one but some do I think

 

[engineer one]

my 2 cents about the sliding dovetail with both sides angled,
in principal, it is weaker at the top of the tail, but i would suggest
that as long as you completely stop the racking of the
bookshelf or cabinet, then the weakness is not too
detrimental.

but then as has been said before the customer/user never
does what you expect, and if there is a weakness, real or preceived
they will find it and expose it.

the original thought from alf, is can we do machine cuts with
hand tools, and should we. i would suggest that we can,
and if we want to then why not?

what we should all aim for is enjoyment, and enhancement of our
skills commensurate with our need to produce tuits sooner
rather than later.

paul :wink:

 

[Paul Chapman]

Stuck up some hurried scans of the aforementioned articles here.

Alf,

Thank you so much for posting those articles. How graphically and delightfully Charles Hayward always wrote. What I found so interesting was the reminder of how ordinary people in those days accepted their lot, for there was no way in which the average person had the means to change it. He was writing, of course, about people who were working around the time of the First World War (1914-1918), and he refers to change, from a woodworking perspective, with the introduction of more machinery in commercial workshops. However, I think the feeling that ordinary people had that they were powerless to change their lot, lasted far longer. I was born in 1945 and through the 1950s I can vividly remember that most average people felt much the same as those Charles Hayward describes in his articles.

Of course many things had changed by the 1950s such as the introduction of the National Health Service, so in that sense people were better looked after. However, people were still relatively powerless to change their lot from an economic viewpoint. I have often wondered what was the single most significant thing that changed and led to the more affluent society in which we now live. I reckon it was the ending of resale price maintenance which was brought about by Ted Heath in the 1960s when he was President of the Board of Trade. Today it is difficult to think back and remember that before then manufacturers set the prices of goods so, for example, a six-penny bar of chocolate cost the same wherever you bought it. Shops were not allowed to sell it for less. When we think of the swinging sixties we think of Elvis, the Beetles and long hair but I think it was the ending of resale price maintenance and the effect that had of driving consumerism, employment and cheap prices that really changed things.

Thanks again for posting them - they were a really good read :wink:

Paul

 

[Anonymous]

You must enter a message when posting

 

[Pete W]

Alf,

Thank you so much for posting those articles. How graphically and delightfully Charles Hayward always wrote.
Paul

Agreed... fascinating stuff, and as good a read as I've had for ages.

 

[dedee]

Just finished reading those articles, a bit out of focus but no headache yet :lol:

There are two quotes within that struck a chord with me.

a good craftsman turned out good work whatever tools he used

and (too long for me to re-type verbatim) the bit about no one sharpening their own saws, either prevented in so doing by the foreman as the job took so long or it was regarded as a trade of its own. That sure makes me feel better.

Andy

 

[woodbloke]

Paul wrote:

I have often wondered what was the single most significant thing that changed and led to the more affluent society in which we now live

To go off topic a bit:

There is little doubt in my mind that the most significant thing by far to have happened in the 20 century was the invention by two American scientists in 1947 of a little thing called a transistor...remember them? This led directly, a few years later, to the introduction of integrated circuits, or 'chips' as we now know them in the early 70's and the consequential mushrooming of the consumer society and all the associated electrical/electronic goods which are so much a part of our everyday life and which we take very much for granted.

Mr Grimsdale wrote:

almost everything made up to about 1914 was excellent,

Statements like these cause me to smile a little :wink: :wink: ....do you recollect a certain Belfast built liner launched in 1912 with a single skin hull that went to the bottom of the North Atlantic on April 15th taking more than 1500 souls with her? I would concede that the build quality of the ship was fantasic, save in certain elementary design considerations namely single skinned hull, lack of lifeboats and poor watertight compartments. It may be of interest to know that had Brunel's Great Eastern hit the same iceberg, it is reckoned that she would have survived the collision as she was built with a double skinned hull way back in the 1850's - Rob

 

[Anonymous]

You must enter a message when posting

 

[woodbloke]

Jacob - as I said, nothing wrong with the craftsmanship, but clearly it wasn't an 'excellent' ship - Rob

 

[Alf]

Just finished reading those articles, a bit out of focus but no headache yet :lol:

Sorry Andy; I'm trying to do what BB told me I ought to except I've lost his email explaining how, it's unfamiliar software and, well basically I don't have a clue what I'm doing. #-o But at least their a bit bigger now, which should help. :roll:

Someone on one of the fora (might be here - I'm easily confused) has a sig line along the lines of:
Noah's Ark was built by amateurs.
The Titanic was built by professionals.

Always makes me chuckle, that one. Course the Ark was built by hand too. :wink:

Cheers, Alf

 

[engineer one]

i agree alf it is a good chuckle, but i am concerned at the all encompassing
comment that ALL craftmanship pre the first world war was fantastic.

frankly that is such rubbish it is difficult to know where to start.

since more people were taught both at home and at work to
do things with their hands more regularly, the standard of basic
handiwork was better, but not necessarily than now, just that more
people could do the basic work in those far off days.

but anyone who has studied early industrial archeology as i have will
know that much of it was pretty basic and not very pretty.

reading those article that alf published, it is obvious that there were a
number whose skills were pretty basic, and it was difficult for them
to move up the ladder. but as an apprentice in the late 60's, i
met a couple of guys who could do things with metal and their hands
that i still could not do after a couple of years metal bashing.

it is fascinating to see a man massage a dent from a copper kettle
with his fingers and not see the work, whilst if i did it with a hammer,
even after hours of dressing did not look as good.

the other pain is the old guys who used to be able to paint coach
lines with a brush, and refill with paint and restart, and you
could not see the join. i have seen a couple of p/d's who can
do similar.

craftmanship is craftmanship whenever, but the rubbish will generally
get left in the dump, or broken up and rebuilt properly if you are lucky.

i think too many people see great crafted pieces and forget how many
did not make it through the years for us to see. that is why many have
a distorted view of the level of craftmanship at any one time.

remember history is always written by those who win, and the
things that survive are generally the best that was made, rarely
the cheap tat.

paul :wink: