Woodworkers squares - why?

[bosshogg]

Hi Jim,

I'm still not sure what you actually mean, but as an attempt to open out what I meant, gaining the experience, putting in the hours of both hard graft and drudgery, that sometimes comes with it, can give a person the insight into how their skills are developing, rather than using aids that someone else has had the insight to make. All of this leads to an knowing of what these aids (tools) are replacing, and what there worth really is, to that person.
I suppose I'm of the "old school" and occasionally wonder if the gathering of shiny new tools is more important than the gathering of experience and skills...I apologise if I offend anyone, but I wholeheartedly believe that learning how to do a job the hard way teaches one some invaluable lessons, bypassing this, under values experience and skills...bosshogg

If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor. A. E. 8)

 

[jimi43]

I am a massive advocate of the "traditional" method of gaining skill and experience and I am a great fan of most tools be they vintage (preferred) or super-modern and shiny and what I am saying is that they can both exist together or indeed....apart.

I don't believe you have to gain the skill and experience before you are "allowed" to buy expensive, shiny things and indeed, it is sometimes better to start with the best because using poor quality tools can lead to disillusionment and failure.

Conversely...if you are just starting out and you have a LN or a Veritas plane for example...the act of planing is going to be enjoyable, although the results may be poor. If you start out with a plane made of cheese and softwood...you are on to a hiding to nothing from the outset.

And you don't have to know how to drive one to own and admire a classic masterpiece such as an old Norris. These people are commonly known as "collectors" and are frowned upon....WHY? People collect stamps but they don't use them to send letters!

Jim

 

[RogerP]

And you don't have to know how to drive one to own and admire a classic masterpiece such as an old Norris. These people are commonly known as "collectors" and are frowned upon....WHY? People collect stamps but they don't use them to send letters!

It doesn't worry me but the usual argument is that collectors remove the item from the the pool and jack up the price of the remainder for those who actually want to use them. You can't send a letter with a used stamp but you can use an old tool for it's intended purpose.

 

[studders]

....... the usual argument is that collectors remove the item from the the pool and jack up the price of the remainder for those who actually want to use them.

There is some truth in that argument but... without the collectors, and the resultant higher prices, there would very likely be fewer sellers and many of these Tools might get binned as not being 'worth the bother'.

 

[RogerP]

....... the usual argument is that collectors remove the item from the the pool and jack up the price of the remainder for those who actually want to use them.

There is some truth in that argument but... without the collectors, and the resultant higher prices, there would very likely be fewer sellers and many of these Tools might get binned as not being 'worth the bother'.

Until the price is such that no one dare use them for fear of damage and they all end up in display cases.

 

[jimi43]

Many have said here that they have a plane that performs better than the recent Norris mitre that sold for nigh on £8K on FleaBay last week...and that is probably true.

I think that preservation of such unique examples...and ones that contributed so much to the design of planes over the last 100 years and more...is far more important than the old chestnut of "it should be used to plane wood". I am one that believes they should be used to work...but that brings the danger that these rare beasts will be damaged or lost forever.

It's a difficult decision to make...same as driving or or worse still...racing vintage cars. Most drivers don't want them kept under covers in a museum but what if you crash one at Goodwood?

It's a discussion that will go on and on and will have many supporters in both camps and on the fence. I know what I believe but it doesn't make me right. Ultimately it's the owner's decision!

Now the Holtzapffel mitre plane...now that's something else! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Jim

 

[studders]

I've nothing against collectors, of any sort, but I do feel that if something from our past is important enough to be worth being 'kept from harm' or as a record of History then it ought to be done in such a way that the majority can benefit from so doing. What tends to happen though is that those with the deepest pockets get to own these things privately so, to all intents and as far as Mr or Mrs Average is concerned, it amounts to the same as if these things were just thrown away.

 

[GazPal]

I posted this earlier in another thread -

>To use a square to check a square appears to be a bit negative in terms of accuracy, if you reverse the stock of a square to a line drawn from a straight edge, any misalignment is visible, and the first straight edges were created by man's eye alone, as there are few, if not any, straight edges in nature<

I am an engineer in wood - A PATTERNMAKER - all my squares and steel rules are engineers tools, but for the life of me I can't see any advantages in bypassing experience and skill with the quest for buying an abundance of expensive tools.
Learning the way things used to be done, gives one an understanding of the "why" all the drudgery of hard graft gives one the reason for things like power tools, gaining the experience and skills gives one the eye for precise beauty. Putting all of these together makes one a craftsman...bosshogg :wink:

I never teach my pupils. I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn. A.E. 8)

Hi Jim,

I'm still not sure what you actually mean, but as an attempt to open out what I meant, gaining the experience, putting in the hours of both hard graft and drudgery, that sometimes comes with it, can give a person the insight into how their skills are developing, rather than using aids that someone else has had the insight to make. All of this leads to an knowing of what these aids (tools) are replacing, and what there worth really is, to that person.
I suppose I'm of the "old school" and occasionally wonder if the gathering of shiny new tools is more important than the gathering of experience and skills...I apologise if I offend anyone, but I wholeheartedly believe that learning how to do a job the hard way teaches one some invaluable lessons, bypassing this, under values experience and skills...bosshogg

I couldn't agree more in terms of both sentiment and meaning.

Coming from a traditional apprenticeship and old school luthiery & cabinetmaking background brought me into the loop from the direction of trying to perfect hand tooling skills and materials manipulation well before moving onto throwing funds at expensive tools and then only if I could justify the purchase by having a tool recoup my outlay over a given period of time. Like many apprentices I'd buy a few tools a week or each month (A saw here, a chisel or screwdriver there), or made items I needed (Such as scratch stocks, panel/marking/cutting gauges, etc) during my own time, but all stemmed from a very basic kit of tools. I can well appreciate a hobbyist/amateur's need to gain skills (Often working with little guidance) and investing in the best tools possible, BUT having the best tool set-up doesn't always equate with skill aquisition or enhancement. The best way forward is by learning how best to manipulate tools and materials in unison and without becoming overly anal over potentially insignificant elements.

If you like tools, by all means purchase and enjoy them, but a perfectly ordinary baseline hand plane, square, etc., will typically serve it's intended purpose IF one puts in the time to learn how to maintain and use it correctly IF your focus is on learning the relevant skill sets. It's simply a matter of steps and stages and there aren't any shortcuts if one wishes to approach or reach craftsmanship levels.

 

[jimi43]

I totally agree with BH too Gary....absolutely. I had to make a brass cube perfectly before I was allowed anywhere near a project in metal...when you can do that you can make virtually anything with a file and measuring tools.

What I find is that people who have the "craft" or the "mark" are assumed to be the only people to be able to buy and use the higher quality kit...it's almost like some old traditional rite of ownership.

There is no doubt whatever, that quality tools produce the potential for quality results...and if you can afford them....even novices should be encouraged to start with good tools. I stress again...these days this does not necessarily have to equate to "expensive". Almost all the tools in my workshop are from bootfairs or Fleabay and almost all of the ones that need to be, are considered "quality".

I have no need for a LN...although I might lust after them...because I have finely tuned Records, Stanleys and (especially) old infills, but I am in no doubt that they produce quality results.

So all in all...I agree with you both...totally...but I want to make sure that newcomers understand that there is nothing wrong with buying expensive gear....as long as you realise that it is not a short cut to perfection....as you correctly say Gary.

Jim

 

[studders]

I bought an Armani Suit once when I went to a posh bash..... 8)
I was still an ugly, bald git though so didn't pull.

 

[heimlaga]

A high quality tool is defined by it's usefulness not by shine and trade mark.

 

[jimi43]

A high quality tool is defined by it's usefulness not by shine and trade mark.

But what a thing of beauty a shiny useful thing is!

:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Jim

 

[Benchwayze]

A high quality tool is defined by it's usefulness not by shine and trade mark.

I quite agree; with the qualification that whilst most high-quality tools (old or new) are useful in the extreme, by default they are shiny, 'well-bred' and expensive.
However, when you consider what they give in return, they are a bargain.



Regards

John :wink:

 

[Jacob]

A high quality tool is defined by it's usefulness not by shine and trade mark.

I quite agree; with the qualification that whilst most high-quality tools (old or new) are useful in the extreme, by default they are shiny, 'well-bred' and expensive.
However, when you consider what they give in return, they are a bargain.



Regards

John :wink:

Dunno. I think the LV/LN productions (and the like) are bit overrated. You don't get much added value for the added dosh.
You can't buy skill however many brass knobs it has. Think of all the brilliant craft work done in the past with some totally crappy tools - made of stone in some cases.
If anything, over the years the quality of woodwork has fallen as the quality of tools available has risen. How do you explain that?

 

[GazPal]

Dunno. I think the LV/LN productions (and the like) are bit overrated. You don't get much added value for the added dosh.
You can't buy skill however many brass knobs it has. Think of all the brilliant craft work done in the past with some totally crappy tools - made of stone in some cases.
If anything, over the years the quality of woodwork has fallen as the quality of tools available has risen. How do you explain that?

I was chatting about the very same problem with a good friend and former work colleague last evening. We agreed much of it stems from an overall lack of emphasis on adequate training over a long enough period of time. General concensus used to be that a suitable period of indentured service as an apprentice could vary between four to six years, but - in many cases - has now fallen below three years, with some even attempting to pass themselves off as craftsmen after a six month craft foundation course at college or other training establishment. I'm all for giving people a fair chance and if they possess the skills and passion, why not use them, but it takes years of training and learning to become a craftsman and not six months at college or muddling around in a makeshift garage workshop. This isn't a jab at individuals, but it is a view shared by many time served craftsmen out there who've seen the craft they're passionate about devolve from something they could take pride in, to one where web presence, photography and over emphasis on the use of gadgets seem to take centre stage.

This includes over-emphasis on the possession and use of boutique tools instead of focussing upon aquiring adequate skills.

 

[jimi43]

Absolutely agree Gary.....the government and business community should encourage apprenticeships...as an active part of the revival of the economy and industry. The loss of this method of training at the expense of college courses was a mistake...without doubt.

But we have moved from the village community which fostered the apprentice and so some form of modern equivalent...within SMEs needs to be encouraged.

I think that we should treat this as one issue and the love of "boutique" tools as a separate issue.

There seems to be some form of inverse snobbery, whereby the mere possession or love of owning or collecting high quality/price tools is looked down upon. I see nothing wrong with owning a Norris that costs £8k and just admiring it...if you have £8k and it rocks your boat. If I had a spare £600, I would have bought the Holtzapffel mitre plane and thoroughly enjoyed it and used it.

Gadgets are fun...nine times out of ten they are completely useless but occasionally they result in better or quicker results. I use my little digital box bevel gauge all the time to check to ensure my tablesaw blade is perpendicular to the bed. I know I could use a square but it's quicker and if I need to create a random bevel angle...it is as easy as turning the knob on the tilt.

Web presence is here to stay...get used to it. You embrace it otherwise you wouldn't be here and I don't get that point at all.....nor the photography one...without resorting to the cliche in full...a picture is worth....

I repeat for the umteeeeeeemth time...the ownership and use of quality tools is not a pre-requisite of skill but it does not mean that it cannot exist in tandem...yet again...I detect an old school sneer...a Four Yorkshiremen moment! :mrgreen:

Jim

 

[GazPal]

Absolutely agree Gary.....the government and business community should encourage apprenticeships...as an active part of the revival of the economy and industry. The loss of this method of training at the expense of college courses was a mistake...without doubt.

But we have moved from the village community which fostered the apprentice and so some form of modern equivalent...within SMEs needs to be encouraged.

I think that we should treat this as one issue and the love of "boutique" tools as a separate issue.

There seems to be some form of inverse snobbery, whereby the mere possession or love of owning or collecting high quality/price tools is looked down upon. I see nothing wrong with owning a Norris that costs £8k and just admiring it...if you have £8k and it rocks your boat. If I had a spare £600, I would have bought the Holtzapffel mitre plane and thoroughly enjoyed it and used it.

Gadgets are fun...nine times out of ten they are completely useless but occasionally they result in better or quicker results. I use my little digital box bevel gauge all the time to check to ensure my tablesaw blade is perpendicular to the bed. I know I could use a square but it's quicker and if I need to create a random bevel angle...it is as easy as turning the knob on the tilt.

Web presence is here to stay...get used to it. You embrace it otherwise you wouldn't be here and I don't get that point at all.....nor the photography one...without resorting to the cliche in full...a picture is worth....

I repeat for the umteeeeeeemth time...the ownership and use of quality tools is not a pre-requisite of skill but it does not mean that it cannot exist in tandem...yet again...I detect an old school sneer...a Four Yorkshiremen moment! :mrgreen:

Jim

I'm a Northumbrian and proud of it. lol

I agree Jim. "Boutique" tools should be considered separately, BUT some seem to think the suit makes the man instead of the man making the suit. I'm a massive fan of tools and all things revolving about their use, but also hate assumptions that the best pair of running spikes will make a person capable of sprinting like Linford Christie. They might help, but the only route to achieving such a goal is through hard work and perseverance and this is what I mean when referring to high end tool purchases being incapable of teaching an enthusiast the necessary 75% theory:25% practical skill that pool together to produce a craftsman/craftsperson.

Much of the time we're problem solvers. Fine-tuning and maintaining tools to partner your own requirements is simply a part of the craftsmanship and crafting process. Tool maintenance and set-up (Sharpening, saw tooth setting, matching tool handles to your own grip, etc.) were amongst the first things I was taught during my apprenticeship.

Yes, I agree web presence is here to stay and photography is a fantastic tool (I've always been fascinated by and embrace both), but - referring to my previous comment - they can be used in a misleading manner in terms of selling the skills and wares of one off builders/makers masquerading as experienced craftsmen/women. The field of guitarmaking is one such example of an area flooded by cowboy makers pretending to be luthiers instead of admitting their involvement is on a hobbyist/semi-professional basis with minimal experience.

In terms of gadgets, I agree many can tend to be fun to use, but useless, but my point encompassed the widespread reliance upon them prior to learning a long-hand route which tends to be more skills based. Many are at a total loss and unable to carry out their work if their prized gadget breaks and this is where learning traditional methods pays dividends, because one can fall back on such skills whenever necessary.

High end and antique tools are lovely pieces of workmanship in their own right and - in many cases - a pleasure to use. While there's nothing wrong in owning and using them, the choice of whether to or not one invests in and uses one/a set is up to the individual and one aspect I'd be the last to criticise. If it floats your boat, go for it.

 

[Benchwayze]

Jacob,

I am too long-in-the-tooth to believe that 'fancy-tools' will improve my skill, which is at a level I am happy with. (As it should be after almost 61 years.) Also, I like to think my work got better through my efforts rather than because of any tool I ever bought. By the same token, I like to feel it's wasn't DESPITE any tools I bought.

So like anyone else, with half an ounce of interest in the craft, I buy the best I can afford. To me it's worth a bit extra to use tools that feel and perform better, don't need hours of fettling and keep a good edge for longer. These days, if that bit extra goes on an old Norris, or a shiny new LN, so be it.

Lately, I have bought a few 'shiny' planes, because in the main they are better quality than even my 1950s Stanleys, which I bought new. I will fettle, if I need to. I can smooth a surface with a 'Woolworth-Wonder, Wannabee No. 5', my father left among his earthly goods and chattels. I don't use it, because to make it work properly, for decent periods of time, takes a lot of messing about. For me, time is running out. So picking up a plane, in the knowledge I won't have to fiddle with it, is a bonus.

Had British tool manufacturers maintained their standards, they might not have gone out of business (in some cases) and I might not need to buy foreign imports. (My sole Clifton being the exception.) But if that's what it takes to make my woodworking time go that bit sweeter, then so be it.

So that's why I like my two LNs and my one Clifton. Why should I be castigated for that?

EDIT: I just noticed the Linford Christie analogy.
Would Christie have achieved his performances on the same running surface, using the same equipment and training methods as athletes like Roger Bannister? Somehow I don't think so. Most athletes will openly admit, that advances in technology (shoes, tracks, coaching) have helped improve sporting performance. Nowhere is this more evident than in sprint cycling. I think you might have chosen the wrong area to analogise. :wink:
Regards
John

 

[Jacob]

...
So that's why I like my two LNs and my one Clifton. Why should I be castigated for that?.....

Not intending to castigate!
But there is a firm impression (successful advertising) especially in the minds of many beginners that these posh tools are essential and will radically improve your woodwork. It's an expensive delusion.
I've got one (LV smoother) which very rarely will do what a Record won't, but it's very marginal and they are very expensive. Not that convenient to use either, but I'm keeping it just in case!

 

[Benchwayze]

...
So that's why I like my two LNs and my one Clifton. Why should I be castigated for that?.....

... there is a firm impression (successful advertising) especially in the minds of many beginners that these posh tools are essential and will radically improve your woodwork. It's an expensive delusion.

Yes, an expensive delusion, but not one shared by me. They won't improve my work, (much) but they do make the work easier, these days. So hang on to yours Jacob. You will need it one day!


John :wink: