Paul Sellers

[David Barnett]

His sharpening method has allowed many people to start sharpening free hand, something no other woodworkers before him, including Rob Cosman, have succeeded.

New to you, perhaps?

Ever hear of Ian Kirby, Simon? His "Sharpening with Waterstones: A Perfect Edge in 60 Seconds", written well before Sellers' recent re-popularizing, is an entire book based upon his method, just one style of freehanding which worked for a generation of woodworkers. And how about Frank Klausz? So many others, too, but I'll leave it there.

When I started, a mere twenty years ago, freehand sharpening was pretty much the norm in the shops I visited and learned in. Jigs (which had been around forever) were becoming ever more popular, though, especially with Veritas' introduction, and many of us incorporated them into our work, in spite of the stigma still prevalent in many shops. Sellers' convex technique (with fewer steps, mind you), was more common among on-site tradesmen—a somewhat quick-and-dirty way to keep going until they could touch up and restore their bevels once back in the shop. Nothing wrong with convex, though—nothing at all.

[george wilson]

Kim,I spent 40 years studying woodworking in a historical context in Williamsburg. A bit longer than Chris has been working,I'd think.

Most of my life,I have used a convex edge by default,since I have always sharpened freehand,starting about 1954 in a more serious involvement in woodworking. Frankly,sometimes I sharpen with a micro bevel,now that I can use a grinder. I just don't make that much of a deal out of the two methods. When I was in an 18th. C. setting,we didn't have an effective grinder on hand,so hand beveling was what we had to do.

Those sandstone wheels the museum managed to get made at $300.00 a pop,were so fine,it was impossible to bevel a plane iron on them. They were all we had.I once spent 3 or 4 hours,with kids from the audience turning the crank,trying to grind a bevel. Mostly just made the existing bevel more shiny.

[David Barnett]

Hill House chair and the Argyle chair are very incredible everyday objects. I appreciate his goal, being that everyday objects are the interface of everyday life.

Truly so. CRM's vision, simpler and more straightforward than FLW's, say, reflected this more deeply than most others in the the A&C movement.

I enjoying living amongst craftsman built objects. Taking a moment when using an everyday object to contemplate the creative process, consideration for the user, skill and execution of processes is something I find great enjoyment in.

Having, too, grown up surrounded by Craftsman furnishings and objects, I share your sentiments and sensibilities.

Brian—your avatar—it never fails to make me wonder whether the Duke shifted from his characteristic Sasieni to perhaps a Charatan (I have two like that) or even a Barling in those later years—a question likely never to be resolved.

[Jim Matthews]

When starting out, I took the introductory machine woodworking course at NBSS.

I hated it.

The endless set up, to fine degrees of precision for individual pieces seemed inefficient.
I spent more time dialing in cutterheads than cutting wood.

The approach seemed geared toward making multiple, uniform pieces - where I need cut only one.

Backwards, exactly to my thinking. But it was NBSS, so I tried to keep an open mind.
By the fourth day of ear splitting shop time, I knew this wasn't for me.

The last 5 days were liberating, as I spent less time in the shop and more time visiting the students upstairs.
The most interesting things were being done by hand. It was to be three years before I saw my first
Sellers video, illustrating a method that has proven easy to emulate.

While I understand that the NBSS method prepares students to build furniture for a living,
it's not my aspiration, in the least.

I was flummoxed.

I didn't see any way that I would fit a jointer the size of a battleship in my garage.
The instructor mentioned that he had a 6" Craftsman and lunchbox planer at home, what he could afford.

I felt that the approach of the school, while laudable, was heavy on conservation and light on innovation.
It focused on historical perspective, and as a result, produced what appeared to be fine replicas
for most of the full-time program.

Only when I saw the showcase of graduating students did I see novel approaches.

The instructor reluctantly showed his photo book to me, on the condition that I did not mention it,
and it was breathtaking, inventive and fresh.

He confided that there was no market for "his stuff" and clients kept asking for Hepplethwithe TV cabinets.

It pays the bills, mostly.

Teaching the classes started as a necessity, but he enjoyed the enthusiasm of us Noobs.

I loved that instructor's furniture, but took little from his instruction.

******

I've seen Paul Sellers display book, and it's not to my taste - but his stuff sells.

I'm not a fan of his furniture, but his instruction has made it possible
for me to start and finish projects; out of my basement shop.

Something of a paradox, that.

[Brian Holcombe]

I should clarify my statement, I mean to say objects having been built by a craftsman, rather than Craftsman era objects. Though I do enjoy much of both. If I had to narrow down a period of furniture that I like the most it would probably be Danish Modern.

I agree, While I like much of FLW's work, it's the work like that of CRM and Earnest William Gimson that really call out to me from the period. They achieve their goal without the heft of FLW. Gimson's cabinets, in particular, have an incredible amount of detail without complicating the design.

Hah, we'll never know unless his collection goes to auction (if it hasn't already?) The duke certainly shared our enjoyment of handmade objects. I saw a cabinet by Dunhill claimed to have been commissioned by him, on ebay, and being a Dunhill, it's gorgeous.

[David Weaver]

Since not every woodworker likes him, he must be doing something right. I consider his free Masterclass episodes a community service.

Simon

They are intended as a hook. If there wasn't a pay class, the free one wouldn't be offered. Let's be realistic about it.

In terms of teaching and learning, I'd much rather spend two weeks a year in george wilson's shop with an open agenda, but that's just me. He may be a better teacher than those of us who literally are not doing it for a job, and he may be a better instructor of beginners than someone like george, but if you judge teachers by results, I seriously doubt the results of his students compare to those produced by the apprentices the george has taught.

Let's keep all of this in context when the context is folks teaching beginners. No pieces that are made are going to show up on MJD auctions (or their furniture equivalents) in 50 years. Something that is already occurring with george's work.

[David Weaver]

When starting out, I took the introductory machine woodworking course at NBSS.

I hated it.

The endless set up, to fine degrees of precision for individual pieces seemed inefficient.
I spent more time dialing in cutterheads than cutting wood.

I had a friend who introduced me to woodworking, and not the NBSS class, but the start was the same otherwise. He was (and still is) a fanatical machine user, but with a bias toward everything being absolutely perfectly fit to a level appropriate for metal. Multi routers, dial indicators on equipment, etc.

Seemed interesting at first but the interest quickly went away - way too much time setting things up. I'll admit that I wouldn't mind having his planer, though, a DC 580 delta with a spiral head and dial indicator depth setup.

[Simon MacGowen]

That was my point: Others before Sellers failed to popularize the simple quick free-hand sharpening method. I didn't nor does Paul say he invented the method. Because of Paul's free youtube vid on the convex sharpening method, many have taken up free-hand sharpening while many of us are still looking for or discussing about a better jig.

Simon

[Simon MacGowen]

Until and unless George does the teaching as Paul is doing, we can't tell if he can match Paul's success. Woodworkers around the world, not just in North America, wrote to Paul to express their gratitude for his "hooks," if you may. I prefer my students to get free "hooks" rather than no hooks. Rob Cosman offers freebies that fit into your definition of hooks, but not Paul. To say Paul offers free videos to hook people into his classes means you have not had a chance to see what he really offers. He offers full episodes that really teach people something, not just a highlight of the end result. No one new to woodworking could cut dovetails with the result Rob showed in his famous youtube vid no matter how many times he or she has watched it. Everything Paul shows in his vids can be copied or duplicated.

Hooks? I hate them, unless they are from Paul. The more the better.

Simon

[David Barnett]

I should clarify my statement, I mean to say objects having been built by a craftsman, rather than Craftsman era objects. Though I do enjoy much of both. If I had to narrow down a period of furniture that I like the most it would probably be Danish Modern.

As much as I've admired so many Danish Modern chairs, it's the rare one I could actually sit on without catastrophic attrition. Following the '92 Windsor Castle fire, David Powell was commissioned to replace the saddle-seat chairs with their sleek lines and pristine workmanship for which he was known. Those chairs always seemed very Danish to me with their delicately contoured rosewood arms and narrow legs. He kept an exemplar at the Leeds Design Workshops and when John Tierney brought it out during the chair design seminar I attended, I immediately pretended to mindlessly sit on it. Given my prodigious avoirdupois and that neither Powell nor Tierney knew my sense of humor, I probably shaved years from their too-short lives.

I agree, While I like much of FLW's work, it's the work like that of CRM and Earnest William Gimson that really call out to me from the period. They achieve their goal without the heft of FLW. Gimson's cabinets, in particular, have an incredible amount of detail without complicating the design.

Gimson's use of ornament, while intricate in pattern and execution, was always naturalistic, lively and never overwhelming in scale. Although I rather disdained the Byzantine and Baroque in my previous post, I can actually absorb a whopping dose of the ornate, especially in the Belle Époch-Art Nouveau, such as the Carson Pirie Scott entrance ironwork that transfixed me as a child or Louis Sullivan's Owatonna bank features and luminaires.

I saw a cabinet by Dunhill claimed to have been commissioned by him, on ebay, and being a Dunhill, it's gorgeous.

When I go, my 1934 Dunhill Liverpool goes with me.

[David Barnett]

That was my point: Others before Sellers failed to popularize the simple quick free-hand sharpening method. I didn't nor does Paul say he invented the method. Because of Paul's free youtube vid on the convex sharpening method, many have taken up free-hand sharpening while many of us are still looking for or discussing about a better jig.

Simon

Ah, I see. My bad. Right, I suppose it's more widespread again, at least among those who started out with jigs. Systole and diastole. Freehand sharpening must be quite novel and refreshing to the more recent leisure woodworkers.

[Simon MacGowen]

Some of Chris' blog posts are quirky and off-point, his style is ... I can go on and on, just like people who want to describe Paul Sellers in a negative way. Again, if a leader is liked (not the same as respected) by all his or her followers, he or she is not the best leader...may not even be a good leader at all.

Both Paul and Chris have had their share of naysayers and that is a good sign (read the above para). We want people like them to lead the current and new generations of hand tool woodworkers, to get them excited about the craft, to understand and learn how they can work wood using techniques Paul or Chris "preaches" as the only right way or as one of the ways and so on. They have their share of conviction and it shows through their personal approaches and styles.

I cut tails first and teach cutting tails first and why should I tell my students to learn cutting pins first as well? They can do so if they want to, but it is not my job to cover everything for them. Am I wrong to say cutting tails first is better? Heck, no. That is my conviction and I don't have to change that to please someone out there who says either way works. I have yet to meet anyone in person who cuts pins first for drawer #1 and then tails first for drawer #2...that's ridiculous unless for showmanship. I don't have shop time to be a fool like that.

To Paul, Chris and whoever is "controversial," I thank them for being so.

Simon
PS I have never been a subscriber of Paul's Masterclasses.

[David Barnett]

We want people like them to lead the current and new generations of hand tool woodworkers, to get them excited about the craft, to understand and learn how they can work wood using techniques Paul or Chris "preaches" as the only right way or as one of the ways and so on.

Why? What am I not understanding?

[ian maybury]

Must say I feel the whole deal is something of a storm in a teacup - but one that possibly has a whiff of marketing patter about it. (it's packaged to appeal to a certain mindset)

Sharp isn't when reduced to realities a complicated concept, and sharpening isn't magic. Properly thought through and reduced to essentials there's multiple ways of getting there. Some may suit better than others depending on orientation and needs/habits, but none when properly figured out need take longer than a few minutes. They by definition all reduce to a simple few easy looking steps when delivered by somebody well organised and used to using them. All have to deliver an edge shaped to quite a high degree of precision though, so all are by definition the result of a balancing of many variables, and all are very capable of being messed up.

One bit that's not so quick or straightforward is (again regardless of method) the removal of large amounts of metal without doing harm - to either form a bevel, or to flatten a dodgy back. Funny how the performers tend not to dwell on this arguably much more difficult step. (somehow they always start with a tool that's very close to being there)

It's not rocket science, but subtle issues always arise that inevitably get glossed over in presentations. The requirement as ever is to put in enough practice and figuring out time to gain an understanding of what's truly going on. Videos, teachers and the like can help with inspiration, choice of a broad method (it'd be a very long road if we each had to not just work our way through all options but also optimise them to make a choice), insight/understanding and avoidance of gross error - but they can't do it for us.

There's inevitably many that seek to shortcut/avoid putting this time and thought in, and who will instead be drawn to seeking out the 'magic words', the 'touch of the master's cloak' or whatever. This while potentially valuable is also likey to be a recipe for running into trouble through lack of knowledge/awareness if the effort is not made to make the method our own…..

[David Weaver]

Hooks? I hate them, unless they are from Paul. The more the better.

Simon

I can't imagine what's wrong with hooks. The business model is proven. If people don't come for something, you give them a little of it. It's only a problem when your hooks are better than the paid stuff.

In terms of students, I think you're missing the point. George's students are his apprentices. His apprentices have or are making a living practicing their craft. He is teaching people on a far different level, a level that's intended for the students to be professionals.

The entire point of my commentary is that once people are in the hobby, it is essential that anyone who wants to go somewhere with the hobby learns to examine what they're doing, understand what they want to produce, and not sweat exactly how they're doing something if there are 5 ways to do it and all of them work fine. If they can't get to the point where they can understand what good design is or whether or not some result is generally better than the other when there are two similar results and a decision to be made, then it's just going to be a troupe of woodworkers who imitate the teacher's sharpening method, etc, and who goes around making things like book rests.

I personally don't have any interest in that stuff, I can figure it out myself. There are probably things paul has classes to make that I've never made, like chairs, but I wouldn't really need his class to learn that, either. There's plenty of information elsewhere that if I wanted to build a chair, I could figure it out.

But my point about George is to suggest that he hasn't yet taught anyone and we don't know how well he can teach is plainly incorrect. George's students are literally making a living doing what they learned under him. It would be a twaddle to compare their works to the works of the average Sellers student. What sellers teaches is easy to find, and in most cases, figure out on your own if you're willing to be the type of person who does such a thing (as most successful craftsmen doing more than just making reproductions of specific pieces over and over are). What Georges apprentices have learned from George is not so easily obtained. If you want to find out what I mean, try really hard to do something in good design, proportion and execution. Make a couple and then send a picture of one you're happy with to George. You will find out just how much you could have improved, and it won't be related to sharpening, spokeshave restoration, etc. All of that stuff is just repackaged material, just like the sharpening techniques (and to suggest that there haven't been other successful free hand methods taught is also incorrect. A superior and more accurate and faster method was described by joel moskowitz years ago, and it wasn't something he owned as a method either, it was something someone taught to him and that he has relayed to everyone).

There's nothing new under the sun.