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

[Zach Dillinger]

Yes I think you would be hard pressed to see a difference between a machine planed board which is then roughed up with a jackplane, and a board that is prepared with handtools from the start. I also think that most shops in the 18th century got their wood from their suppliers in a quite advanced state of preparation. In the little booklet The Joiner and cabinetmaker, they talk about 1/2" deal. You would be hard pressed to find stock like that today. So i don't think you would be totally out of line when you start your hand tool odiseea after you cut the boards to aproximate size and used the planer to bring them down to an approximate thickness.

When you want to make stuff like these wainscott chairs, or for example a viking chest, or a 17th century warship, and you want to make it authentic, you really have to start with the log.

I agree that you can probably fake the toolmarks of a truly handmade piece of early work. But the hand tool process changes more than just the tool marks left; it changes the whole composition of the piece, especially the early stuff. It's really difficult to simulate the "economical" nature of 18th c. stock prep with power tools. Boards are rarely the same thickness, almost never four-square, and most of the time the faces are not remotely parallel except where needed, if needed. So, yes, you can fake plane marks but you can't really fake the "look" without essentially ignoring everything you know about machine stock prep. It's like the difference between effectively aging a piece and someone just beating the bejeesus out of a new piece with a chain and house keys without regard for realistic wear patterns... you can fool some people but not the people who really know what they are looking for. So, my answer to Derek's question is that power tool usage does fundamentally alter the composition, though perhaps not the "design" of period work and that it really has no role in accurate reproduction work. That is my opinion and I do not expect anyone to share or endorse it.

I have been known to buy pine 1x12s from my local woodworking store and plane them for quick and dirty projects. I don't think this is too far off from period practice, especially in the bigger cities where stock could be bought in almost-usable thickness. For a piece where historical accuracy requires it, I start with rough sawn stock and proceed from there. I wish I had a source for pitsawn stock so that the saw marks on the rough wood could be more easily left and I wouldn't have to plane them away to avoid leaving an ugly anachronism on the inside or back of a case (yes, that bothers me). That is my preference and that is all that matters to me. Others do things differently and that is totally fine as long as they aren't trying to mislead the customer. There is more to "handmade" furniture than hand-cut or hand-adjusted joinery...

My bottom line is that I think about the Keno brothers and their colleagues and try to make a piece that would cause them to take a second look, not something that is obviously modern. Power tools make this nearly impossible. Again, this is my opinion.

[Kees Heiden]

Glad you chime in Zach. You know a thousand times more about this then me. I though that the stuff from later dates was a bit less rough on the inside, stuff like federal furniture Derek was mentioning in the post I answered. The couple of pine antiques I have in my house which are late 19th century would be possible to make with modern rough sawn stock in thin diameters if you could find such wide boards. they are planed both inside and out, just a lot rougher planed on the inside.

When you're looking for some pitsawn stuff, may I point you to Inle Lake in Myanmar?

[David Weaver]

They have a tip box!!

Those boards on the ground look like nice stuff. I'll bet they don't waste much time sawing junk wood like we do here in a lot of cases (since it costs little to cut it here, and lots there).

[Zach Dillinger]

Thanks Kees... I suspect the shipping cost might make buying lumber from Myanmar a little cost-prohibitive . It would probably be easier to pay the guys down at CW to make me some.

From what I have seen, later work is a little less rough (though still not to modern aesthetic standards), especially by the late 19th century pieces you mentioned. By then, machines were doing most of the work. My interests lie in early 18th century work, pre-1730ish. That is what I have studied in-depth and that is all I can meaningfully discuss. When I referenced 'early work' in my first sentence of post 91, that is what I meant. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

[george wilson]

I would not say it is impossible to make a real accurate job of faking anything. I have been making parts for 18th. C. mechanical devices for many years. My main customer is the sharpest eyed and most particular person I have ever met. She really deserves curator status more than many of the curators I have met.

Thus,it is pleasurable when I hand back to her the original and the parts I have reproduced for her,and she studies them,and has to ask "Which is the original?"

Also,do not forget the fellow who faked the Brewster chair years ago. He was peeved with the arrogant attitude of some curators in the Wadsworth Anthenium. They were saying that it was just impossible for a modern person to EQUAL the original work. His chair,which he never said was original,was sold fairly cheap in a small antique shop. The buyers thought the owner did not know what he had,and they had taken advantage of him. After some time,and changing hands,I think it made it to millions,and ended up in the Henry Ford museum. That is when he called them,and told them to x-ray the chair. They would see that he had drilled the holes with a modern drill bit. He had done that on purpose. He fooled every big time curator who had carefully examined that chair. They were so sure of themselves,they had never x-rayed the piece. He could not be prosecuted because the chair was never represented as an original piece.

[Zach Dillinger]

I would not say it is impossible to make a real accurate job of faking anything. I have been making parts for 18th. C. mechanical devices for many years. My main customer is the sharpest eyed and most particular person I have ever met. She really deserves curator status more than many of the curators I have met.

Thus,it is pleasurable when I hand back to her the original and the parts I have reproduced for her,and she studies them,and has to ask "Which is the original?"

Also,do not forget the fellow who faked the Brewster chair years ago. He was peeved with the arrogant attitude of some curators in the Wadsworth Anthenium. They were saying that it was just impossible for a modern person to EQUAL the original work. His chair,which he never said was original,was sold fairly cheap in a small antique shop. The buyers thought the owner did not know what he had,and they had taken advantage of him. After some time,and changing hands,I think it made it to millions,and ended up in the Henry Ford museum. That is when he called them,and told them to x-ray the chair. They would see that he had drilled the holes with a modern drill bit. He had done that on purpose. He fooled every big time curator who had carefully examined that chair. They were so sure of themselves,they had never x-rayed the piece. He could not be prosecuted because the chair was never represented as an original piece.

George, I did not, nor would I ever say, that it is impossible to fake anything. I know for a fact that it is possible to fake furniture of any period. My point is that to effectively fake, or to use the less problematic phrase "accurately reproduce", any piece of furniture you need to use the correct tooling to get the correct result.

[george wilson]

But,I use my modern lathe to make ivory,wrought iron,and brass parts. The hard part is ageing them properly. Of course,I leave properly filed,hammered,etc. surfaces on these things. But,they were made on my Hardinge HLVH lathe. Here's an original,and my repro of a bobbin and flyer from a sophisticated type of spinning wheel. It was used in the 18th. C. by wealthy women,more or less as a toy. Part of a woman's education back then was learning how to spin . Even Queen Elizabeth I spun.

[David Weaver]

Also,do not forget the fellow who faked the Brewster chair years ago. He was peeved with the arrogant attitude of some curators in the Wadsworth Anthenium.

It has always seemed to me that people getting an "expert opinion" about whether something is authentic always think that they are getting a definite answer. All they are doing is improving their odds.

Some of the provision of opinions for pay remind me of a con man and his mark, the con man knows they know more than the mark, they can say whatever they want. I wouldn't doubt that quite a few well faked items have been sold as original intentionally because someone has figured out that they're in a situation where they want money and they can play the con man role, just the same as it's not uncommon for an appraiser to low ball an appraisal if they have an interest in buying the item being appraised. I would never get appraisal from a person who is buying.

[David Weaver]

I get what zach is saying by the boards, though. One could snuggle up to a bookshelf with a caliper in hands and measure a few shelves at different places and get a pretty good idea of whether or not something was thicknessed by hand, even if it was done relatively well and you weren't able to see the back side. On many pieces you can tell just by looking.

One of the benefits of working by hand (to me) as a hobbyist is that you get out of the mode of trying to make things geometrically perfect, and joints like rabbets on the back of a case as tight as you could do with a dado blade set and plywood, and you think more about the proportions of your work, the profile of the mouldings, etc.

[george wilson]

It all depends upon the skill of the reproducer. I won't say I fake things,because I do work commissioned by those who need parts. Those parts cannot be bought,and must be made.

Here's a lock case I made for a historic building(I can't remember what one). The old lock on the door was a replacement that was too short. I made a longer case,and elongated the old parts to work within it.

The piece of brass was dinged up from being in a pile of metal for many years. I just polished it enough to be polished,but left the dings in the brass. It looked quite naturally old,but cared for.

Unfortunately,because of light reflection,you can't see the hundreds of little dings in the new case. You can sort of see some over to the left side. So,my purpose is a bit defeated here. The doorknob covered the large hole,so I didn't bother to make circular gouges in the new case. Similarly,no need to make marks where the screw heads would cover them in the small holes.

[Kees Heiden]

They have a tip box!!

Yes sure! They are on the tourist track, otherwise I wouldn't have found them either. Still nice to watch though. They were making fisherboats, from teak they say.

More pictures on my blog. I can't post a link, but when you search for woodworking in Burma, you'll find it easy enough.

[Zach Dillinger]

But,I use my modern lathe to make ivory,wrought iron,and brass parts. The hard part is ageing them properly. Of course,I leave properly filed,hammered,etc. surfaces on these things. But,they were made on my Hardinge HLVH lathe. Here's an original,and my repro of a bobbin and flyer from a sophisticated type of spinning wheel. It was used in the 18th. C. by wealthy women,more or less as a toy. Part of a woman's education back then was learning how to spin . Even Queen Elizabeth I spun.

First, beautiful work as always. I aspire to have the skill to make such things some day. You know I have nothing but the highest respect for your craft. Your lock was, I suspect, made much in the same way as the original. Perhaps I am wrong.

I guess the conclusion one can draw from your bobbin, in this particular application, the tooling used didn't make an impact on the overall success of the reproduction work. I might hazard a guess that this would be the case for most lathe work, since the fundamental skill / operation of the tool is the same and the overall goal is the same; the only thing that changes is the source of the power that spins the work. I suppose even a CNC or duplicator lathe could be used and could easily make proper reproductions, although there are some indicators of such usage that can differentiate such work. I will also stipulate that mortise and tenon and perhaps panel (not including raised panels) and groove work can be done by machine and not be spotted in the finished, assembled piece. But the first person to repair the piece would spot it immediately.

For case furniture (which is really my main area of knowledge / interest), I think that the tooling used does make a noticeable impact on most visible things. As David said, hand planed stock is fundamentally different than machine planed stock, and the way the tooling is used is fundamentally different and easily differentiated. Moldings made on a router table are fundamentally different and easily differentiated from moldings made by plane or scratch stock, no matter what is done to them to disguise them. Exposed machine cut dovetails are fundamentally different than hand cut and the two are easily differentiated. These are the things that contribute to the overall success of a truly handmade reproduction and the composition thereof.

I would rather not sell something than make an reproduction piece that is not wholly accurate because I consider myself more of an amateur experimental archaeologist than a furniture maker. I realize that others do not have that luxury because they have to sell to eat. Perhaps that makes their work the most period correct of all, at least in spirit if not at all in detail.

[george wilson]

You do beautiful and realistic work,Zach. I guess we just go about it by different means. At my age,with several things wrong with me,I'm not going to hand plane wood from the rough,like I did in the instrument shop. And,like you pointed out,wood was available in man thicknesses back then. Today,we are stuck with just a few. I can process machine planed wood to look old,well enough to fool the "experts". It's in the knowing how to do it,and in having the eye for the subtle details to pull it off.
It is the skill of the worker that the finished product depends upon. I have made parts for harpsichords on order from the curators that fooled every one of them as to which was the original. Then,they got all exercised about it,and wanted me to SIGN each part I made. I did so. They are going to have a great time of it if my main patron dies and leaves her collection,full of parts I made,to the museum. She did not want me to sign them.

About the lathe: modern lathes feed the cutting tool extremely evenly. 18th. C. lathes were like wood lathes: The tool was moved over the metal by hand. So,a lathe is not just any lathe. After I process a part,I still have to go back over it and apply a properly worked surface,be it filed,irregularly turned,chatter marks,etc.,and age it. 18th. C. threads are different looking too. I won't get into everything here,though.

I'll tell you one thing that is difficult to do: properly age boxwood; the effect of sunlight on boxwood turns it that wonderful brown color with no darkening in its pores. Stain it,and the stain gets into the grains. I haven't done boxwood ageing enough to have figured out how to age it completely realistically. Ivory,I have pretty well gotten nailed. It doesn't have open grains in it for stains to get into.Most of the time,old ivory parts have a thin layer of soot that has gotten into the ivory. This from being in old houses heated by wood,or coal. It really gets incorporated into the ivory. If you can't put it onto your new ivory,plus the yellowing,the part just will not look right. I have done this for many years,and have worked out ways to add this nearly imperceptible layer of soot.

I ought to take down the picture of the lock: The picture does not show the surface very well. Guess it's too late.

I had to make a very large lock,about 9" x 12",for the state capital in Richmond some years ago.(Or one of the buildings in that complex. I can't remember). No pictures,sorry. I used a really old,beat up sheet of brass,polished it a bit and left it full of little dings. They had the RANDOMNESS that only natural years of being in a pile of other metal could bring. Fakers most often fall way short of properly distressing surfaces. That is a main short coming(among many others!) So,if I can get a piece of dinged up brass to make a lock,I'll use it.

On another occasion,I fixed up a lock for Bruton Parish Church. Old locks get too worn out to work after 200 years. I've done a fair amount of messing around with old locks. Lots of original old buildings around here!And,the available reproductions do not fit the old place on the door,worn from the lock being there. I think it looks horrible to put a different size lock on an old door. They were going to buy a Williamsburg repro lock of a smaller size,until one of the church members brought me the lock.

Actually,my lock cases just look good on the outside . The old ones were cast,which I am not prepared to get back into. And,it would be very expensive for me to make a unique wooden pattern,cast it,and work the surface down. They'd be paying well into 4 figures. The fabricated ones look just fine,and that is all that is needed in this application. Besides,it keeps future curators from thinking my repro is an original. I used to cast brass,but really do not have a convenient place to do it.

[Mike Holbrook]

Green wood, bowls, spoons, chairs....I find it a revelation to watch Curtis Buchanan's videos. Curtis starts out at a sawmill picking out logs. Yes, I believe he cuts the logs into workable lengths with a chain saw. The interesting thing to me though is he obtains most of his stock or blanks by splitting logs not by sawing them. Well maybe not seat blanks, but there are not a large enough number of cuts to make a huge time difference. I suspect that Curtis splits out blanks for chair spindles, slats, chair arms & backs as fast or faster than it could be done with a saw. Certainly the blank that is produced is a different animal in terms of grain direction.

Another interesting thing I found out at the Windsor Chair class I took with Peter Galbert. At least in Galbert's case, he wants his final product to both reflect that the work was done by hand and make the observer wonder how the work was done. Peter and his assistant could create finished surfaces on chair seats, backs & arms using just a very sharp drawknife that I doubt could be improved on with machines or fine grit papers. It is very hard to improve on the cut a very sharp blade makes, moving in the proper direction to wood grain.

Working seats, I find a point of diminishing returns in the precision of the work. A spokeshave or travisher, obviously, does not leave a perfectly flat surface when working those concave & convex surfaces. There is a point at which the object seems aesthetically pleasing and as comfortable to sit in as one can make it even though the surfaces are not "perfect". I am hesitant to sand paper or scrape away all those faint marks that reflect the work that went into making the pieces by hand. How much furniture gets made by machines and "antiqued" after it is made to "improve" the appearance? Is more "perfect" always more beautiful or functional?

Machines do not care which way the grain in the wood moves, hand tools do. Working with split wood in which the grain direction is more consistent, at least to my mind ends up creating/inspiring a different result. This discussion has a whole new set of factors if we move away from a flat board, flat surface mentality. Are we letting machines define the playing field or are we just agreeing to compete on a machine made playing field?

[dan sherman]

Exposed machine cut dovetails are fundamentally different than hand cut and the two are easily differentiated. These are the things that contribute to the overall success of a truly handmade reproduction and the composition thereof.

I have to disagree with this statement as it's to broad in my opinion. I have seen several examples of hand cut dovetails over the years that look exactly like machine cut ones because the craftsman was very skilled and precise. Now if you bring the size of the pins into the equation then yea, you can definitely weed out dovetails made with a router. However you still have the hybrid bandsaw method, and that muddies the waters a bit.

like everything else in life its all shades of grey, and circumstantial.