First Bench Build. Roubo or Nicholson?

[JohnM Martin]

I'm fairly new to woodworking and have come to the point where I have decided its time to build a proper bench. It seems there is quite a lot of information out there to reference, but sometimes that is difficult to wade through. When I started down this path, I was set on the Split Top Roubo Design, but now I'm wondering if a Nicholson would be better.

For those of you that have worked on both Nicholson and Roubo style benches, which do you prefer?

I know both would get the job done and it is partially a personal preference decision, but I would like to pose the question to those with more experience than I to see if there is anything close to a consensus.

Not that it matters, but I have come into a sizeable amount of red oak that I plan on using for the build (if not for the top, at least for the undercarriage)

[andy bessette]

Have you read "The Workbench Book"?

[Todd Stock]

These things go through fads - the current fad is vise-less 17th and early 18th century pre-industrial throwbacks, courtesy of a couple of engaging magazine writers that recognized that repeating the same old articles every seven years was not going to expand readership. Might want to read stuff by Kirby, Klausz, and other old-school pros before jumping on the bandwagon. I suspect there is a reason for the end state of Western woodworking bench development being the Scandinavian style (e.g., the Klausz bench) and the English style (e.g., the single face vise/no tail vise espoused by Kirby).

[David Eisenhauer]

If you are not able to get some hands-on comparison between the two designs, maybe the two Schwarz and the Landis workbench books may be able to provide some insight as to the working practice differences between the designs. I use a split top Roubo type bench, but have always had the impression that the Nicholson might be a little quicker/less costly to build than the Roubo. As you said, both should work and I have seen (somewhere) someone's plan for creating a workbench with a Roubo style on one side and Nicholson style on the opposite side of the single bench.

[Hasin Haroon]

Haven't used a Nicholson, but I do have a Roubo. My suggestion to you would be to just pick one style, any style, and build it in cheaper material (softwood like pine or spruce, poplar, whatever is cheap and plentiful in your area). Using that bench for a year will let you know for sure what style you prefer and what features are most important to you. Save your red oak till then, and build yourself a nicer bench, armed with your knowledge of using and building a bench.

As I said, I have a Roubo I built a couple years ago, from mostly pine. It serves me fine, but there are things about it I wish I had done differently, and am planning on building a nicer bench soon from some hard maple. If you want pointers in general about what people like about their workbenches, there are a lot of discussions about this in here, look for 'workbench principles' for a thread that had a lot of useful ideas.

[Rick Malakoff]

Hi John, I recently picked up a copy of The Workbench book by Scott Landis from Amazon's used sellers and I believe it to be brand new. There is lots of good information in it but I don't think it will help you make a decision. I plan on doing a new outdoor bench for myself and I'm thinking of making it a Hybrid split top with Nicholson on the one side Roubo style on the other only because I can't make a decision.

Good luck with your project!
Rick

[JohnM Martin]

Have you read "The Workbench Book"?

I haven't but I have read a lot of folks thoughts/opinions - many of which reference this book.

[JohnM Martin]

These things go through fads - the current fad is vise-less 17th and early 18th century pre-industrial throwbacks, courtesy of a couple of engaging magazine writers that recognized that repeating the same old articles every seven years was not going to expand readership. Might want to read stuff by Kirby, Klausz, and other old-school pros before jumping on the bandwagon. I suspect there is a reason for the end state of Western woodworking bench development being the Scandinavian style (e.g., the Klausz bench) and the English style (e.g., the single face vise/no tail vise espoused by Kirby).

That makes a lot of sense. I wonder if another version of the question basically reads - do you prefer vises or holdfasts for holding work? Thats whats hard for someone in my shoes - not having enough experience or a way to put hands on the various options to get a feel for what "feels best"

[Todd Stock]

Not that everything improves over time, but when one technology supplants another, it's worth looking at why that may have occurred. I view the current fascination with older benches to be more a consequence of the Web and the blog cycle than any serious shortcomings suddenly discovered after apex development of the English and Scandinavian forms. While ignoring a few hundred years of further development seems odd to me, I can agree with the notion that building something - anything - is the first step along the way to ultimately getting a bench that actually works for you. Worst case is that you need to build another bench...which is actually a pretty entertaining project.

[Kees Heiden]

I don't think the Roubo type is "outdated" by the English or Scandinavian types. It's just from a different culture and was made and used until quite recently in France. I still find benches like all these three basic types in second hand stores overhere in Europe.

[Graham Haydon]

With limited tools the Nicholson is easy to build and good value. It's an effective design too. If working with limited tools I would keep the design simple, avoid a tool well or any lift out planing stop, use boards on their flat, avoid laminating a top, use untreated pine or similar. Stick a quick release vise on the front and go to work. In the future you might decide to try another design but equally you may not.

[Matthew Hutchinson477]

Easy. Roubolson.

So the honest answer...I don't actually have a decent workbench right now so I can't comment on either of those designs. However, one thing I've noticed as a beginner myself is that at this stage we're still moldable and in the process of developing habits. Unlike some crusty old galoot who has refined how he prefers to do things, for a beginner it may not matter so much what type of bench you start out with--you'll probably be able to get used to either one just as well as the other. Given that, I'd lean towards whichever one is easier to build. And consider what types of work-holding feel more intuitive at this point. Do holdfasts sound useful to you? A plane-stop? Or do you really focus on using a vise? Try to picture different workpieces you may be dealing with, and consider how you'd hold each one. In the end you really can't go wrong either way, and the answer is subjective. I wouldn't get too worried about trying to be logical about the decision.

[Paul Sidener]

I will probably be in the minority with my opinion. I have worked on both types of benches. To be honest with you they are not all that different. You can use a holdfast on both. You can clamp to both, but that is easier on the Roubo. You can put a tail vise on a Roubo, you can hold work the same way with a wagon vise on a Nicholson. You can put a face vise on both. The Nicholson has holes in the aprons for holding boards to the front, the Roubo can do the same thing with a sliding deadman. So they both will work well, just pick one and build it. In terms of cost the Nicholson is less expensive to build. Roubo's tend to be heavier, because of the top.

The first question you should answer for yourself is , what type of work do you want to do? Then build a bench that will make it easier to preform the work you want to do. Unfortunately you are the only answer that.

I helped a friend build a Roubo. If I remember right he spent $600 on maple for the bench, plus the vise hardware. I wanted to build one for myself, but didn't have the money. I am still using a Nicholson with a leg vise that I built 5 years ago. I spent about $150, including vise hardware. Construction lumber is cheap. Both benches are still solid and do the work that needs to be done.

I think the easy answer to your question Is start with a Nicholson. That will save you a bunch of money so you can buy the tools you need, when starting out in woodworking. After a while you can use the Nicholson to build the Roubo.

For what it is worth, I will be retiring in 5 years. I plan on building a Roubo as a retirement present to myself. I plan on using the Nicholson till then.

[Tom Trees]

Todd
If you were building your bench again, would you choose round or square dog holes?
I think I have some pics of your bench in a file somewhere,
That made me make my mind up
Only getting around to it now though
Tomas

[Joe A Faulkner]

I have a Ruobu esque style bench with a twin screw tail vise and a leg vise. The bench has round dog holes and hold fasts holes. I also have a Veritas Wonder pup (http://www.leevalley.com/us/hardware...838,43847&ap=1).

So there are a number of options for work holding, hold fasts and battens, tail vise, or the bench pup. I've used them all, but I find my self using the wonder pup more often than the tail vise or the hold fast and battens to hold pieces for planing.

My bench is 7' long and I tend to do most of the work on face vise end or left hand side of the bench. This means that parts, plans, tools etc tend to occupy the right hand side. The wonder pup is extremely flexible; allowing me to use it on just about any portion of the bench. The hold fasts and batten range is a function of the number of holes I have for hold fasts drilled in the middle of the bench and the length of my battens. Using the tail vise means keeping the right hand side of the bench clear of parts, tools, plans ...

Long winded way of saying, what works well for me might not work well for you depending on your work pattern, work preferences, etc. Good luck in making a decision.