On another sub-fora I was stupidly sucked into what was described as a "flame war" by a couple of posters with opposing viewpoints.
There were some interesting and valid arguments used in opposition to my opinions.
One in particular struck a nerve with me: that you need high quality (and expensive) new hand tools to achieve good results.
I have neither. My tools are generally old. Some positively ancient. Some of my oldest chisels (Ward & Rob't Sorby) picked up cheaply, gifted and inherited, are of the laminated steel variety, with a thin layer of extremely hard steel forge-welded to a softer body. These take an edge with difficulty, and hold it with tenacity. Others are Stanley-Titan and Marples, bought new in the 70s & 80s, or picked up from markets which perform well, and seem to have pretty good quality steels.
Likewise, my saws, from an eclectic mix of English & Australian makers seem to perform well. Teaching myself how to sharpen them resulted in requests for the service from colleagues and through word-of-mouth. There's a satisfaction in having a freshly sharpened saw positive "sing" its way through a board. However, there's no future in saw doctoring: it takes an hour or more to top, breast, set & file a saw in poor condition, and while the results are satisfying, the financial reward isn't. Sure, an embroidery needle will slide down between the neatly set rows of teeth, and the saw will cut well, but so will a $10 Jack.
Are these obscenely expensive Wetzloff or Lie Nielsen saw really better than a well-sharpened $10 Sandersen or Symmonds from the market? Likewise the chisels that cost tens of dollars, or hundreds in the case of some exotic smithied Japanese ones must be better than a $5 market pickup.
At some point the law of diminishing returns must apply. Or is the quantum of difference that great? I'm doubtful. Metallurgy, while a bit of a black art, isn't magic. Surely the products of mass production from the steel mills in Sheffield or Port Kembla a century ago aren't so far removed from those of contemporary mass production?
Hand planes are an even more extreme example. The cost of planes from premium makers beggars belief. All but one of mine are second hand, and old. Canadian, Australian and American Stanleys, an English Record T5 "Technical" Jack that was designed for schoolboys to use, a pre-war Stayset smoother & 3 in 1 shoulder/chisel/bullnose. None are all that special, yet after basic lapping, cleaning and fettling all seem to do good work. My most used plane, and my favourite, is a late 70s early 80s vintage 60 1/2 low angle block plane, now into it's 3rd or 4th blade. The only "new" plane I own.
An 8, 6, couple of 4 1/2s, a few 4s, a 3 (my favourite smoother) a few Blocks, a Carter "78", combi shoulder/bullnose and a Router Plane. Worth I guess a couple of hundred the lot.
Yet I have been told that I should spend thousands on a new suite of HNT Gordon (whoever s/he is) planes to be more effective. Why?
I don't get it.
Sure, there's expensive old planes too. I've seen some fairly ratty old Spiers, Mathiesons and the fabled Norris planes sell for literally King's ransoms. The primary reason, I suspect, is more to do with their rarity than their utility. A hand made, hand dovetailed, gunmetal & brass rosewood stuffed Panel Plane is a thing of beauty to behold. Probably even a work of art. I'm sure it also planes well too. But few can afford to buy one, and even fewer can afford to actually use one, for fear of damaging such a precious item. I never will. The deposit on my house was less money than one of these cost.
Given the amount of time to make, and the level of skill involved in their construction, they were always expensive and rare. In fact, as millions of lesser tools are worn out, damaged and lost these rare beauties would have been treasured and preserved. Meaning that back in the day of their construction (late 19th/ early 20th centuries) they were relatively even rarer then than now. Given a journeyman's meagre wages, it's more likely that "gentleman hobbyists" were the makers' key customers.
Is that still the case today? Do most of us "make do" with old, recycled tools acquired cheaply and restored to usefulness? Are the products of Lie Nielsen, Veritas, HNT Gordon and Wetzloff et. al. really for the well heeled connosseur hobbyist or for everyman?
Who uses these fancy, expensive and beautifully designed wonders, & are they actually as good as the makers and marketers would have us believe?
There were some interesting and valid arguments used in opposition to my opinions.
One in particular struck a nerve with me: that you need high quality (and expensive) new hand tools to achieve good results.
I have neither. My tools are generally old. Some positively ancient. Some of my oldest chisels (Ward & Rob't Sorby) picked up cheaply, gifted and inherited, are of the laminated steel variety, with a thin layer of extremely hard steel forge-welded to a softer body. These take an edge with difficulty, and hold it with tenacity. Others are Stanley-Titan and Marples, bought new in the 70s & 80s, or picked up from markets which perform well, and seem to have pretty good quality steels.
Likewise, my saws, from an eclectic mix of English & Australian makers seem to perform well. Teaching myself how to sharpen them resulted in requests for the service from colleagues and through word-of-mouth. There's a satisfaction in having a freshly sharpened saw positive "sing" its way through a board. However, there's no future in saw doctoring: it takes an hour or more to top, breast, set & file a saw in poor condition, and while the results are satisfying, the financial reward isn't. Sure, an embroidery needle will slide down between the neatly set rows of teeth, and the saw will cut well, but so will a $10 Jack.
Are these obscenely expensive Wetzloff or Lie Nielsen saw really better than a well-sharpened $10 Sandersen or Symmonds from the market? Likewise the chisels that cost tens of dollars, or hundreds in the case of some exotic smithied Japanese ones must be better than a $5 market pickup.
At some point the law of diminishing returns must apply. Or is the quantum of difference that great? I'm doubtful. Metallurgy, while a bit of a black art, isn't magic. Surely the products of mass production from the steel mills in Sheffield or Port Kembla a century ago aren't so far removed from those of contemporary mass production?
Hand planes are an even more extreme example. The cost of planes from premium makers beggars belief. All but one of mine are second hand, and old. Canadian, Australian and American Stanleys, an English Record T5 "Technical" Jack that was designed for schoolboys to use, a pre-war Stayset smoother & 3 in 1 shoulder/chisel/bullnose. None are all that special, yet after basic lapping, cleaning and fettling all seem to do good work. My most used plane, and my favourite, is a late 70s early 80s vintage 60 1/2 low angle block plane, now into it's 3rd or 4th blade. The only "new" plane I own.
An 8, 6, couple of 4 1/2s, a few 4s, a 3 (my favourite smoother) a few Blocks, a Carter "78", combi shoulder/bullnose and a Router Plane. Worth I guess a couple of hundred the lot.
Yet I have been told that I should spend thousands on a new suite of HNT Gordon (whoever s/he is) planes to be more effective. Why?
I don't get it.
Sure, there's expensive old planes too. I've seen some fairly ratty old Spiers, Mathiesons and the fabled Norris planes sell for literally King's ransoms. The primary reason, I suspect, is more to do with their rarity than their utility. A hand made, hand dovetailed, gunmetal & brass rosewood stuffed Panel Plane is a thing of beauty to behold. Probably even a work of art. I'm sure it also planes well too. But few can afford to buy one, and even fewer can afford to actually use one, for fear of damaging such a precious item. I never will. The deposit on my house was less money than one of these cost.
Given the amount of time to make, and the level of skill involved in their construction, they were always expensive and rare. In fact, as millions of lesser tools are worn out, damaged and lost these rare beauties would have been treasured and preserved. Meaning that back in the day of their construction (late 19th/ early 20th centuries) they were relatively even rarer then than now. Given a journeyman's meagre wages, it's more likely that "gentleman hobbyists" were the makers' key customers.
Is that still the case today? Do most of us "make do" with old, recycled tools acquired cheaply and restored to usefulness? Are the products of Lie Nielsen, Veritas, HNT Gordon and Wetzloff et. al. really for the well heeled connosseur hobbyist or for everyman?
Who uses these fancy, expensive and beautifully designed wonders, & are they actually as good as the makers and marketers would have us believe?
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire