Appropriate place for a listing of the tools in the Studley tool chest?

[Paul McGaha]

Rest assured, Jim, that among Fred's estimable talents is quick-draw on the keyboard. He beat many dozens of us to the punch.

Yes, He did.

PHM

[John A langley]

I think I will go to the shop and cut some box joints and if this didn't print out right you can blame Siri

[William Adams]

Good eye. Thank you.

You’re welcome. Relieved that someone understands what I’m trying to express. In a lot of ways, this exemplifies the XKCD comic on graphic design and the awkwardness of being aware of it (search for “xkcd kerning”, “If you hate someone, teach them to understand kerning.”)

The sad thing is, graphic design and typography are idealized writing, so the school systems dropping cursive from the curriculum will likely make this sort of thing worse, resulting in a further diminishing of the public’s ability to appreciate visual design — which as people who make things which are differentiated by visual appearance we should probably be concerned about.

To return back to the original topic, the Fine Woodworking article is:

- inaccurate
- incomplete
- fixed in order
- un editable
- un sortable

[Brian Holcombe]

Edit, re-read your posts. Thank you for clarifying your intention.

[William Adams]

I don’t see that I insulted anyone. I certainly wasn’t trying to, and if anyone is offended, my apologies. If someone would like to point out what was taken as an insult, I’ll certainly examine it and attempt to re-write it so as not to be offensive and to communicate my points better.

I’ve copied a bit of my previous post into the thread on Communications, where we can move the off-topic typography stuff.

[Brian Holcombe]

I appreciate that you want to move forward with this discussion primarily focused on the contents of the box. I do think that can be a very interesting discussion.

i think Warrens point is interesting, I never considered it previously, but it makes a lot of sense that this may be his favourites tools, or his best tools and he decided to build the box for that purpose.

[Mark Stutz]

I appreciate that you want to move forward with this discussion primarily focused on the contents of the box. I do think that can be a very interesting discussion.

I couldn't help but notice the"firewood" in the lower left corner of the case.

[Brian Holcombe]

Well played sir.

[Mel Miller]

I'd hazard a guess that few of us care about the typography Mister Adams - even in a $50 book. For example, I want it to understand his clever storage ideas. But if you're one of the folks who DO care, why not simply return the book and include a letter telling them that their typography lacks appropriate sophistication?

Also, lay off of Mr. Koepke. He's a nice man.

Yeah, what Frederick said.
This isn't the place for a nitpicking typography discussion, unless you're just trying to impress this crowd with your knowledge of such.

[William Adams]

The tools in the Studley chest were listed in a Fine Woodworking article about twenty years ago. I was able to find the listing on line also. I do not think that even half the tools are woodworking tools, and Studley worked in the machine tool era.

Unlike the Phyfe chest and the Seaton chest, the Studley chest does not seem to be any thing like a reasonably complete set of woodworking tools. There are 12 skew chisels, but only two other chisels of any kind. Hard to believe they were the only chisels he used. Only one mallet. A fancy mortise gauge, but no mortise chisels. Turnings on the chest, but no turning tools in the chest. No plough, no fillister, no rabbet plane of any sort. No fret saw, turning saw, or keyhole saw.

I think this chest is just a display case for some of Studley's nicer tools. The chest is clever and nicely made and the tools are very nice. Some of the individual tools are well worth a close look, but I question the historical importance of the inventory as a whole.

The historical import is hard to assess w/o a compleat list, no?

Agree that one aspect of the chest may have been display — that‘s mentioned in the book. Another interesting point is that there was presumably storage in the matching workbench, but the current base is a re-creation, so that’s a lacunae, one which I believe a listing of, and discussion of the tools in the chest would help to highlight and possibly fill in.

Things which I’d like to get out of a discussion / listing of the tools in the chest:

- how are woodworking specialties affected by specialty tools — are there overlaps between specialties?
- what tools are missing / relegated to the workbench which are typically needed in woodworking tasks?
- reasons for this exiling (aside from size considerations and the favoriting mentioned)?
- what are the interactions between tool groupings and woodworking tasks and individual work styles?

I’ve been doing small, special-purpose cases for some of my tools (an image here for the curious: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/500884789778741422/ ), but I’m reaching a point where I either need to duplicate tools, or remember which box a given tool is in and then go get it.

I’ve had a copy of Jim Tolpin’s The Toolbox Book for a while, as well as Andy Rae’s book — suggestions on other resources?

[Warren Mickley]

I have been studying historical woodworking since 1970. I am a professional hand tool only woodworker. I don't think the historical import of the Studley chest is hard to assess. When the Studley chest appeared on the back of Fine Woodworking in 1988, it did not take five minutes to view it as a curiosity only. I certainly have not changed my opinion in the intervening years. As I said previously these tools were from an era when machine work was well entrenched and do not represent anything like a complete set of hand woodworking tools. I mentioned earlier some of the obvious tools that he probably used but were not in the case.

Here are some much better resources:

Dominy collection, tools from 1763 to 1820, documented in Charles Hummel's book With Hammer in Hand(1969). A scholarly treatment of many individual tools with historical references for each tool. Although we have learned quite a bit more since the publication, Hummel's scholarship is still noteworthy. In many cases we have a piece of furniture made in the Dominy shop, the benches and lathes on which it was made, the tools, the patterns, the account book where it was entered.

Seaton chest. A nearly complete set of woodworking tools, purchased in 1796 along with the original inventory with prices paid for each tool. The tools were lightly used at the time and have not been used and abused since. The Jane Rees book has measured drawings by Jay Gaynor and Peter Ross.

Phyfe chest. A set of fine tools that Phyfe assembled in mid career. We also have many examples of work that came out of Phyfe's shop.

The Nixon and Cartwright chests.

Diderot Encyclopedia text and plates of the tools of many different woodworking trades. Also illustrations of the individual shops with craftsmen at work.

Roubo text and illustrations. Three volumes on five different woodworking trades. Roubo's plates have carefully made drawings with scales included. He also separated the tools into those issued to a craftsman, tools owned by the craftsman, and tools owned by the shop used communally.

The 1809 Dinsmore inventory of the joiner's shop at Monticello.

The 1708 Plumley inventory (Philadelphia)

Felibien, Moxon, Plumier, Hulot, Salivet, Nicholson, Smith, Martin, and many inventories.

[Chuck Hart]

It's a coffee table book not a encyclopedia. If you don't like the terms under which it was printed don't buy it. It is a book about a piece of art.

[Frederick Skelly]

Thanks Warren! We always appreciate your insights.
Fred

[Mark Stutz]

It's a coffee table book not a encyclopedia. It is a book about a piece of art.

Warren is absolutely correct regarding the comparisons of all the mentioned chests. This is purely art. Mahogany, Ebony and Ivory. Probably mostly leftovers from some piano. I've not yet read thru it, but Don's speculation was that it was possibly built to show off, and was done very late in his career. Certainly as a tool chest it would be very impractical, with all the fold up and swing out galleries.

And one can't dismiss the attraction because of tge air of mystery surrounding it.

[Brian Holcombe]

It may have been encouraged by the shop in order to show case the quality of the craftsmanship available to their clients.