How many professional woodworkers using no power tools? ....

[Brian Holcombe]

I can't remember what I thought I'd see when I posted the topic (in terms of numbers), but I expected to hear about a few guys, even if they had names we never heard of. Guys who do restoration or who build period pieces or chairs, but only two so far.

I selfishly want to see those people work, those who have made a living doing what they're doing, because I think (well, I know) they work fundamentally differently than the guys who write books and teach classes.

This reminds me of the video of the Japanese guys building those tall cabinets. They used many machine tools and many hand tools, but they were flying through those full blind dovetails.

[David Weaver]

Yeah, and I'm sure that if they had to do coarse work that they've done enough in their life that they could do it efficiently.

what always baffles me is when people who are amateurs talk about how "they couldn't use hand tools only because their output is far to great", and then they say they build something like 4 or 5 projects a year.

I want to pay attention to what professionals using only hand tools would do because I only want to use hand tools. I want to learn to do that as efficiently as I possibly can. At the outset of my hand tool foray almost 10 years ago now, I figured that working wood with only hand tools was impossible. And then I read a lot of stuff on the internet about how if you did it, you needed to leave the non show faces rough because you had to save time.

At this point, I probably work about 2/3rds as fast with hand tools only as I do with power tools, partly because my power tools aren't fantastic, but the point being that I like the things that I build better with hand tools. So I can't imagine anything more satisfying, to me, than just using hand tools, especially if I want my furniture building to improve to include carving and inlay. AT the rate that I've seen a lot of the blog-cowboys working, I can see why people think that work is too tedious for hand tools only. I don't think that, though. But there aren't many people doing a significant amount of genuine work (work that has economic value itself and not because you can write a book about it or something) with only hand tools.

[Sean Hughto]

So as I understand it, you want to work only with hand tools as a hobbiest. This is relatively straightforward to pull off assuming you are making typical stuff. You want to know about professionals who use handtools exclusively because they might tell you that with enough experience, it can be as fast and efficient as power? Maybe you could find some, and maybe they would even have some tips, but my sense is that any super speed and efficiency they have comes mostly from the thing hobbiests will never have - hours and days and years spent doing it so much you can't help but get fast.

On the one hand as a hobbiest, you have the luxury of time (the piece doesn't have to be done at any particular time and can take as many man hours as you see fit), on the othere hand as a hobbiest, you may only have limited time in the shop and little patience with a snails pace in completing projects (or a desire to spend that limited time doing certain aspects of the project (e.g., cutting joints as opposed to four squaring stock).

There are lots of activities that really make little sense to do by hand unless time is unlimited and you feel like a work out. For example, saw my 5 foot long by 1 foot wide 8/4 birdseye maple plank into 1/8th veneer. I could do this in fairly short order with my bandsaw. I would hate to imagine doing it with a hand saw. Sure, it can me done. Why you would want to if a bandsaw was to hand I cannot imagine. Even just straightforward stuff like ripping long (say 8') sticks to width are so much more efficiently done with a basic table saw that I can't imagine bothering to cut that stock with a basic rip saw. And the list goes on and on. There are activities that might yield different results if done by hand - fer sure. Other things, there should be no difference. For example, four square is four square.

[Steve Voigt]

I selfishly want to see those people work, those who have made a living doing what they're doing, because I think (well, I know) they work fundamentally differently than the guys who write books and teach classes.

This reminds me of the video of the Japanese guys building those tall cabinets. They used many machine tools and many hand tools, but they were flying through those full blind dovetails.

This reminds of something I wanted to mention before. I think it is limiting to the point of uselessness to talk about people who use *only* hand tools. If the purpose is really to see how the most expert hand tool users work, and to learn from them, I think it's far more productive to look at people who *mostly* use hand tools.

For example, Curtis Buchanan goes through 40-something videos building a comb-back Windsor, and IIRC the only power tools he used on the entire job were a chainsaw to cut the log in half, and a bandsaw to cut the seat and crest rail. And he even talks about what he did before he had the bandsaw. If he's disqualified from this discussion, that a missed opportunity. It's not like he goes to woodworker purgatory for making a couple bandsaw cuts!

There's a great post on Peter Galbert's blog that I think about a lot. He says it was never his goal to become a chairmaker. It was his goal to work in a quiet, dustless shop making beautiful objects out of wood. And he does. 90% percent of the work on his traditional chairs is done with froe, drawknife, spokeshave, adze, travisher, etc. The fact that he roughs out a seat blank on the bandsaw, or drills some holes with a drill press, doesn't detract from what he does, it just makes the handwork economically feasible. If he insisted on total purity, he probably would've folded a long time ago.

[Brian Holcombe]

I've had a similar goal, I found working with mostly hand tools has driving my result to a much higher standard. It's also much more enjoyable to work with handtools, I get a greater satisfaction out of the process.

I dont mind bandsaws or planers, but spending the day leaning over a tablesaw is not for me.

[David Weaver]

This reminds of something I wanted to mention before. I think it is limiting to the point of uselessness to talk about people who use *only* hand tools. If the purpose is really to see how the most expert hand tool users work, and to learn from them, I think it's far more productive to look at people who *mostly* use hand tools.

For example, Curtis Buchanan goes through 40-something videos building a comb-back Windsor, and IIRC the only power tools he used on the entire job were a chainsaw to cut the log in half, and a bandsaw to cut the seat and crest rail. And he even talks about what he did before he had the bandsaw. If he's disqualified from this discussion, that a missed opportunity. It's not like he goes to woodworker purgatory for making a couple bandsaw cuts!

There's a great post on Peter Galbert's blog that I think about a lot. He says it was never his goal to become a chairmaker. It was his goal to work in a quiet, dustless shop making beautiful objects out of wood. And he does. 90% percent of the work on his traditional chairs is done with froe, drawknife, spokeshave, adze, travisher, etc. The fact that he roughs out a seat blank on the bandsaw, or drills some holes with a drill press, doesn't detract from what he does, it just makes the handwork economically feasible. If he insisted on total purity, he probably would've folded a long time ago.

Well, and a lathe from buchanan - he does a fair bit of that. But those lathe efforts could be duplicated by a skilled pole lathe user. Not someone playing billy big-rigger in the woods making rough bowls, but someone skilled like warren, who uses actually sharp tools and no sanding. Curtis is good to watch, though, the work is genuine and I know he gives classes or some such thing now, but he executes building chairs in a way that a blog-jockey would not.

[dan sherman]

I think you are living in Fantasyland or Disneyland or something. Less than 25% of workers in the United States make the kind of money you are talking about, Dan. The median wage for workers who operate woodworking machinery in Illinois is 11.96 per hour. 90% make less than $21. If everyone made a "real wage" maybe it would not be worth very much. I get a chuckle out of amateurs who fantasize about running a woodworking business.

As I said, I would consider $25/hr a real wage, perhaps a "good wage" is a better way of wording it. It equates to $50,000 a year before taxes, assuming a person works 40 hrs a week, 50 weeks of the year (assuming two weeks of vacation). In most part of the country, it's a wage that provides a decent standard of living, for an individual or small family.

David can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he wanted know how a skilled craftsman who use nothing but hand tools, works. Skilled is the keyword, and $11.96/hr does not sound like a skilled workers wage, it sounds a lot more like an un-skilled workers wage.

Plumbers are usually considered skilled workers, and I found the following national salary info fairly easily.
http://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/P...y-Details.aspx ($41.7k)
http://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/P...y-Details.aspx ($50.4k)
http://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/P...y-Details.aspx ($52.9k)

[Tom M King]

I don't consider 25 a good wage even. Certainly not for self-employed. I remember paying carpenters 25 sometime around 1990. I was on a job a week ago with some independents, and there was a discussion at lunch about what people were charging by the hour. Typical for a carpenter with enough tools to fit in the back of a pickup, by himself, was 50 bucks.