Which woodworking YouTube channels do you watch?

[D_W]

Paul Sellers is generally OK and very practical. He isn't trying to flog anything, but sometimes he's out on a limb and you can take it or leave it.

well, except at one point trying to get you to believe that it was smart to spend hundreds of pounds or dollars to get information that's pretty inferior to public domain text, and now, flogging his site to direct you to subscribe.

which has been the gimmick all along. Pretend he's saving you money on tools so that you'll spend it on a subscription, and before that was probably more profitable than site classes, on the classes instead.

Finding monthly low dollar subscriptions is far more profitable than giving site classes, of course. It just takes some time to build it up.

He reminds me of a guitarist in the US who is pretty shoddy so far as guitarists go, but the guy is a master at bringing in beginners and boasted that at one point, he was making 7 figures on site subscribers. I just don't remember him bashing endorsers of other things because he didn't have to, and he was far more open and honest about what he'd done throughout his life.

 

[Ttrees]

this thread is interesting for me - I make the assumption that people will want to get good at making things, but the list of youtubers favored here are generally not much in terms of being makers, and I guess I'm wrong. Doucette and Wolfe are an obvious exception, but almost everyone else mentioned is an absolute dead end.

Depends what you call being a maker I suppose, I'm curious if you were seeking start to finish projects, by hand tool woodworking only in candlelight like Mr Chickadee
or someone who turns the lights on like say KillenWOOD
or perhaps Engel's coach shop.
Most of my subscribed channels I'd regard as wood related entertainment, and design, with as much emphasis on hand tools as possible.
i.e "hybrid" or whatever to me involves logistics rather than ideals.

It's hard to find someone who can video on their own, as if one other person is involved, then it becomes a financial gig,
and generally involves tool slinging, or online video course hawking.

Agreed that some have gone full circle in relation to my list, and trying to get another
generation of newcomers rather than aiming a bit higher,
I need to do some housekeeping, lol.

There's surely a massive gap needing filling in the hand tool section,or even hybrid, likewise regarding H&S using machinery,
Not many examples to even suggest looking at for some folks in the States
Take the new short pushsticks with costly foam inserts which are the newest thing to come onto the market, it's even more ridiculous than how backwards some of the hand tool channels are.

 

[Jacob]

.....
Take the new short pushsticks with costly foam inserts which are the newest thing to come onto the market, ....

Yebbut this is woodwork not a massage parlour!

 

[D_W]

Depends what you call being a maker I suppose, I'm curious if you were seeking start to finish projects, by hand tool woodworking only in candlelight like Mr Chickadee
or someone who turns the lights on like say KillenWOOD
or perhaps Engel's coach shop.
Most of my subscribed channels I'd regard as wood related entertainment, and design, with as much emphasis on hand tools as possible.
i.e "hybrid" or whatever to me involves logistics rather than ideals.

It's hard to find someone who can video on their own, as if one other person is involved, then it becomes a financial gig,
and generally involves tool slinging, or online video course hawking.

Agreed that some have gone full circle in relation to my list, and trying to get another
generation of newcomers rather than aiming a bit higher,
I need to do some housekeeping, lol.

There's surely a massive gap needing filling in the hand tool section,or even hybrid, likewise regarding H&S using machinery,
Not many examples to even suggest looking at for some folks in the States
Take the new short pushsticks with costly foam inserts which are the newest thing to come onto the market, it's even more ridiculous than how backwards some of the hand tool channels are.

I'm thinking like fine makers talking about aspects that make work fine or demonstrating work.

I like mr. chickadee - though I will admit I don't watch many people woodwork. If Mack headley decided to do a video a week on fine work, I'd *pay* for it or use patreon. it doesn't have to be just hand work, I can fill in the dots on rough work if someone wants to use power tools to get to a point.

fine work isn't so romantic, I get that (fine being a combination of design and execution. I'm exceptionally interested in getting all of my work more fine).

but to your point on the video part - if you're not selling something, It's not profitable. and I think any truly good makers talking about something important will find a two-pronged problem. first, the number of viewers who want to see what they're talking about will be small, and second, YT's algorithm doesn't care for small dedicated groups of viewers. It wants new blood because that's what advertisers want. people who have no discretion because they don't know what it is.

It turns out in my case for heat treatment, I needed one part verhoeven (free text, I'd have bought it) and another part snapping samples and fining things - some of verhoevens methods are really close to what I ended up doing, but they're starting from a different point and needed slight modification. if someone could've taught me from the point where I am now, maybe I would be further yet.

the nice thing about fine work, though, is it tends to have a whole lot of overlap.

I'll bring up rex kruger and jay bates as examples of youtube. jay bates first started and he had trouble doing anything at all. it was apparent that he was more or less trying to copy other long-repeated videos (for an example of what this is outside of woodworking, just look up "splitting wood with a tire". You could put on a clinic of life long wood splitting, but you'd get 10 times as many views if you pretended you weren't copying every "splitting wood with a tire" video.). But I could tell that what Bates was doing was copying videos that got a lot of press and the reality is most of the viewers aren't woodworkers, or are just barely getting started. within a couple of months, he probably had more views per video than curtis buchanan - the quality of the watcher doesn't matter, or at least not in terms of what they're receiving.

Kruger started with the same thing, except he still can't make much of anything, and he's kind of a less preachy version of wranglerstar (who is a former car parts salesman fool, but he sure does have "lifestyle" narrative thing). so, nobody seems to realize, though, they're watching content (kruger) from someone who has seemed to progress almost none.

here in my state, where furniture making isn't really even a thing, a kid out of high school who isn't cut out for college will generally be able to do decent period work after a 2 year trade degree - if they want. They could also go into pretty much a version of custom cabinetry for kitchens (more practical) and be schooled on how to make them, how to finish them, and the basics of running a business.

but actual woodworkers aren't what people want to see, or youtube would be far more profitable for mack headley than it would be for paul sellers (the latter, potentially only getting value in YT in terms of direction to his site, but even if he finds 50 subscribers a month just through YT, annuitize $800 new dollars a month every month with some lapse rate).

once you get into things like sponsored videos, you're in the range on a larger channel of $10k for a set of three videos plus some residual commissions. there's just no incentive to try to increase quality - it would drive off the suckers who think that there's something going on on the channels that looks similar to pre-youtube amateur or professional woodworking.

 

[Ttrees]

Yebbut this is woodwork not a massage parlour!

Surely someone who's got some observational skills and who's able to do it on their own, would make a few bob for themselves.

 

[Ttrees]

@D_W Perhaps the financial rewards might not be there,
I could easily see someone get at least half of the sub count that the gurus
have.
Take some decent UK channels, perhaps New Yorkshire workshop
Not looked at his social blade stats, there ya go, as expected
Seems profitable for one to do it in my eyes.
I take it's only a percentage of this cash, on the low end of the spectrum of estimates, but regardless, an income it seems to me.
This guys only been utubing in recent years.

 

[D_W]

@D_W Perhaps the financial rewards might not be there,
I could easily see someone get at least half of the sub count that the gurus
have.
Take some decent UK channels, perhaps New Yorkshire workshop
Not looked at his social blade stats, there ya go, as expected
Seems profitable for one to do it in my eyes.
I take it's only a percentage of this cash, but regardless,
an income it seems to me.
This guys only been utubing i recent years.
View attachment 149171

I'm just supposing with this thought, but originally, I think a lot of makers thought that Youtube was a good way to display what they were doing. This was in a sea of high cost advertising - there was finally something accessible and free to drive traffic. I don't watch the NYW but have seen him do some nice substrate and veneer work for audiophile stuff as I recall. there are guitar makers who give a lot of info, but most that I can think of ultimately do it for a while and then start selling courses (as in, I think it was in their plan from the start to build and audience before starting to sell things at them or encourage them to spend money).

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think some folks like NYW may still find it worthwhile for meeting clientele.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a top class maker sharing generalized things with folks, and specific, but differentiating. Talking about results and what is tasteful, which can be tricky because the world is full of sellers type joiners who create a group of folks who think talking about discernment is snobby. here's an example - it's as simple as the eyes on planes.





I don't know if you can see the clark and williams plane.

Which eyes look better? The top ones are mine. I hope you can tell, but it may not be so obvious. the underlying difference is a general classical design rule. I know it because the first eyes I did didn't look right and I was guessing a little.

This isn't just about plane eyes. the rule itself helps you discern good proportions all over the place. It's just a little thing on planes, and would only be a big deal to a maker, and it wasn't universally followed on planes until they were more mature (early 1800s).

 

[D_W]

here's what the issue is - and why I may be the only person who would notice it (because I'm the one making the plane at the top - I'd just notice the eyes look better on the top plane if I wasn't a plane maker, but I wouldn't necessarily know why).....in general, elements are a curve or they are a straight line. To have something curved and then have a perfect straight line at the end of it isn't very natural looking.

It's not much harder to make eyes that still fit neatly in the side of a plane cheek, but that have curvature.

The bevels on the clark and williams planes are in tighter, and I could see someone suggesting that they look better because they're shorter and bolder. i don't like to push the mortise in to make that happen or widen the plane body in a double iron plane, so mine are a bit taller. On an early 1800s plane, the detail is more likely to have curvature, but I don't like it as much.

On the handle, you can see that there is still an even but very obvious transition line between curve and flat (the face and the sides are different elements). it's perhaps more popular now to round that all over completely, but it creates a better visual look to have the sides of the handle set off by a sharp transition, otherwise the elements aren't very separated and it just looks lifeless.

What i've seen from fine makers is that they understand and can communicate these types of design choices very easily. From cosman or Sellers, you'll never hear them, or if you do - I've seen paul's handle work. Beware. Most of the things that he's shown really lack discretion. Mack headley wouldn't go near any of it.

what we're lacking is people who can tell us what things we're building should look like. Figuring out how to make them then isn't such a big deal. What we get generally is a bunch of flat or mismatch work where the draw is to tell people how to make them - not what they're making. and we end up making much uglier stuff than someone would have in 1800. that seems odd to me - we have all of the information and ability to share it now, but the trend is to avoid it instead.

 

[thetyreman]

well, except at one point trying to get you to believe that it was smart to spend hundreds of pounds or dollars to get information that's pretty inferior to public domain text, and now, flogging his site to direct you to subscribe.

which has been the gimmick all along. Pretend he's saving you money on tools so that you'll spend it on a subscription, and before that was probably more profitable than site classes, on the classes instead.

Finding monthly low dollar subscriptions is far more profitable than giving site classes, of course. It just takes some time to build it up.

He reminds me of a guitarist in the US who is pretty shoddy so far as guitarists go, but the guy is a master at bringing in beginners and boasted that at one point, he was making 7 figures on site subscribers. I just don't remember him bashing endorsers of other things because he didn't have to, and he was far more open and honest about what he'd done throughout his life.

he doesn't really push his website though that much to be fair, and I chose to join it, it's excellent, I learnt more from him than any other teacher, he saves the more advanced work as paid for, which is a good business practise, the english woodworker does exactly the same thing, yet you don't moan about him, there are others too such as samurai carpenter, almost every day though you make a derogatory comment about paul sellers on here, I think we get it by now that you can't stand him.

 

[D_W]

he doesn't really push his website though that much to be fair, and I chose to join it, it's excellent, I learnt more from him than any other teacher, he saves the more advanced work as paid for, which is a good business practise, the english woodworker does exactly the same thing, yet you don't moan about him, there are others too such as samurai carpenter, almost every day though you make a derogatory comment about paul sellers on here, I think we get it by now that you can't stand him.

I don't know much about the english woodworker. The only thing I can recall is when I released planemaking videos, people referred to him making a jack plane with a cross pin and I suggested to whoever asked that if you're going to go to the trouble of making a good plane, it probably ought to be single piece body sawn right with a wedge and a proper iron and cap, otherwise it will be less good than a $40 used plane, and then what's the point.

As far as paul goes, I would imagine he doesn't have too many videos that don't have a link to his website and courses.

Just to see if that's true, I went to see his latest video, and he shows a board and goes around everything except the easiest way to deal with it (just plane it with a cap iron and then scrape with a card scraper if it's really so terrible that there's still any fuzziness).

what an silly person. What do you think the board would look like in raking light if you mash away at it with an 80? He shows something that takes multiple times as long and ends up less good.

but, i think he's incompetent for anything perhaps finer than trim work, and as I mentioned, I'd bet the pieces in the white house were mostly made by frank strazza.

i stand behind that.

if you like him, that's fine - nobody is obligated to like whatever anyone else does.

I will say this - I have never seen anyone doing fine work - ever - who said they started by following paul sellers. It's a dead end. if someone asked for my advice, I'd tell them to go elsewhere, but if they just had to follow paul or rob cosman, do it for a year, and then move on, look for fine work even if it's not current and then try to discern why it's fine and figure out how to make it. If you're following paul and you don't want to go to that, it's fine. but it shouldn't be confused as being the same thing as hours spent watching paul leave you not even knowing what questions to ask to move on (not you specifically, anyone who follows the pauls, etc).

I will give him credit - he is good at the business side. I'm sure he's got 40 years of experience figuring out what pays the bills, but it isn't fine work, and I'm not sure he'd be capable of it.

 

[Ttrees]

I'm just supposing with this thought, but originally, I think a lot of makers thought that Youtube was a good way to display what they were doing. This was in a sea of high cost advertising - there was finally something accessible and free to drive traffic. I don't watch the NYW but have seen him do some nice substrate and veneer work for audiophile stuff as I recall. there are guitar makers who give a lot of info, but most that I can think of ultimately do it for a while and then start selling courses (as in, I think it was in their plan from the start to build and audience before starting to sell things at them or encourage them to spend money).

Correct me if i'm wrong, but I think some folks like NYW may still find it worthwhile for meeting clientele.

I'm thinking more along the lines of a top class maker sharing generalized things with folks, and specific, but differentiating. Talking about results and what is tasteful, which can be tricky because the world is full of sellers type joiners who create a group of folks who think talking about discernment is snobby. here's an example - it's as simple as the eyes on planes.





I don't know if you can see the clark and williams plane.

Which eyes look better? The top ones are mine. I hope you can tell, but it may not be so obvious. the underlying difference is a general classical design rule. I know it because the first eyes I did didn't look right and I was guessing a little.

This isn't just about plane eyes. the rule itself helps you discern good proportions all over the place. It's just a little thing on planes, and would only be a big deal to a maker, and it wasn't universally followed on planes until they were more mature (early 1800s).

In my eyes, that traditional shape of both looks a bit odd to me,
but I've never used a woodie to realise why they are so.
I've got no say about this really.

I get what your saying though, I can relate to the small details.
Seen a good video of George Walker regarding the doric principals
or whatever design taken from history.
I'm very much into this, to a certain extent about proportions,
and the math/or techniques to attain the shape desired.
Take these end profiles, which I still haven't got round to finishing, so only roughed out as such. (was going to rough out a bit more with a belt sander, but need to re-design it into an edge sander.
Took me a good lot o pokin about with a compass on cardboard to come up with something pleasing enough.
I've still got the templates but didn't photo them.
I've looked at plenty of these, and all look a bit odd to me.
This is the likes of where your friend George, or the other George might give some honest feedback.
Could even get a bit more OCD and mention I made smaller tenons for the fifth leg,
and screwed it up with my numerical numptiess, haha.

Killenwood's channel has some of this, but this kinda thing might be in his skecthup tutes which I glaze over.

 

[D_W]

What are these ends for?

I have one of the walker DVDs somewhere. there are certainly architectural and cabinetmaking design items (proportions of drawers, proportions of mouldings, orientations, etc. many have gotten around the latter by eliminating them - there's plenty of styles since the advent of machines that's pretty much smudged or gotten rid of elements that are easier to do by hand).

In terms of starting with original designs, it's awfully difficult for amateurs - at least I find it so. If one is going to make something original, a loose sketch is probably good enough, and then make the thing and find what you don't like

A good designer will be able to sketch something that looks a lot like the final project. I don't think there will ever be a point in my life that I can do that - adapting other things or taking bits from something and adjusting them is doable. George W. had at one point mentioned that in the even that one has no sense of good design, it's better to make versions of items that are known good designs. I agree with what he's saying, but it's a bitter pill when you realize there's no secret trick to good original design - it's one part experience and nature, and one part gift. I think the gift is rare - it wasn't wasted on my street address.

and now that I'm further along, I realize I would rather understand what makes another design good and just copy it if it's going to be better than a design of my own. In the end, nothing about me designing it makes it special if it's uglier.

 

[D_W]

almost every day though you make a derogatory comment about paul sellers on here,

if it helps, I think Chris Schwarz is a doofus, too, except for editing and publishing - he's good at that - really good at it so far as I can tell. Being the source of information instead of a refining conduit of it from elsewhere, not so good.

His recent comments about saving people on sharpening materials by being a trusted source (or whatever) remind me of someone pleasure driving on Monday in rush hour and driving to work on Tuesday complaining that maybe some of the slow traffic is people who don't need to be on the road.

 

[Ttrees]

What are these ends for?

The same reason New Yorkshire workshop has, I imagine.
Unless you can give me a better reason
I suppose it also ties into what you're saying, and perhaps may irk some folk,
but IMO one needs to find excuses for effort.
Mine is pleasing workshop vibes that don't upset me, as I'm kinda OCD about
some work, and cant leave something alone.

 

[Molynoox]

Workshop companion is excellent
Nobody has mentioned Badger workshop or Peter Millard yet either, both fairly reliable for entertainment in my experience.

But workshop companion is the top find - defo check it out

 martin

 

[Ttrees]

What are these ends for?

I have one of the walker DVDs somewhere. there are certainly architectural and cabinetmaking design items (proportions of drawers, proportions of mouldings, orientations, etc. many have gotten around the latter by eliminating them - there's plenty of styles since the advent of machines that's pretty much smudged or gotten rid of elements that are easier to do by hand).

In terms of starting with original designs, it's awfully difficult for amateurs - at least I find it so. If one is going to make something original, a loose sketch is probably good enough, and then make the thing and find what you don't like

A good designer will be able to sketch something that looks a lot like the final project. I don't think there will ever be a point in my life that I can do that - adapting other things or taking bits from something and adjusting them is doable. George W. had at one point mentioned that in the even that one has no sense of good design, it's better to make versions of items that are known good designs. I agree with what he's saying, but it's a bitter pill when you realize there's no secret trick to good original design - it's one part experience and nature, and one part gift. I think the gift is rare - it wasn't wasted on my street address.

Surely if I were a bit more partial to using math, or more knowledgable about using the dividers, I could have worked out the exact shape.
I did try a few things, but didn't get far with that.
Perhaps I should have paid more attention to George's video, and I could have drawn if differently.

I still reckon these principals to be relevant, and not to be messed with,
regardless of what you make.
I just haven't bothered studying, quite lazy on my part, seeing as I've
pondered about this.
I'm not sure it's a gift as such, I think there's simply unquestionable methods/rules for given things, something which one can see in about one second.
but perhaps the gift is having patience for such research,
which I guess is a long, long haul of architectural rabbit holes.

Proportions and shapes certainly has not been demonstrated in depth if atall by many youtubers,
well... unless you are looking for extremely vague information.

 

[foxbat]

Sampson Boat Company is a great channel, rebuilding a large wooden sailing boat, what's nice about it alongside the actual woodworking is the obvious passion and puzzling involved in the project

 

[johnnyb]

the trouble with youtube is shown by bradshaw joinery. an obviously fussy and talented maker...his most popular video is insulating a container!

 

[NormanB]

Sampson Boat Company is a great channel, rebuilding a large wooden sailing boat, what's nice about it alongside the actual woodworking is the obvious passion and puzzling involved in the project

LEO is an absolute star.

 

[frankederveen]

Lots of good ones mentioned already. I always enjoy watching Ishitani Furniture. No music, and he makes really elegant stuff.