Did colonial furniture have tool marks?

[Frederick Skelly]

I spent the weekend working on a kid sized chair, in pine. I used power tools for most of it, but used my smoothing plane to take out the power planer ripples. (I liked the way that felt and it came out tolerably.) I tried several techniques to cut the camphers on the assembled pieces: used a block plane, a chisel and even a scratch stock. Needless to say I got a little tear out, etc. Some of that should go away with a lot more practice. In the mean time, I backed up my crude technique with 150 grit sandspaper, which makes me feel a bit "guilty" but I want to give this away and I can't bear for it to look totally amatuerish.

So I found myself wondering:
1. Did furniture made 200 years ago have tool marks, etc? Or were those guys so good that even in the age before sandpaper, their projects were glassy-smooth?
2. Did they have use any abrasive material after planing/scraping? Maybe some pumice or something? Or did they live with what the plane/scrapers left them?

I thought about asking Mr. Wilson, but decided maybe I should poll the community instead.

Any thoughts guys?
Fred

[John Coloccia]

The finest furniture was glass smooth, and cheap furniture was cheaply and shoddily made...much like today. Either way, colonial woodworkers had various abrasives available to them. That said, there's no reason to use them if you're sufficiently skilled. A good number of instrument makers pride themselves with every surface coming off an edge of some kind.

I wouldn't be one of those woodworkers, by the way, though I have no problem scraping a flat surface ready for finish. Curved surfaces are more difficult. A chamfer should pose any problems. It's definitely a matter of technique, blade sharpness or setup on the plane. You should be able to have a glass smooth surface straight off the plane ready for finish. I routinely use a block plane to straighten out the scarf joint on my guitar necks, and the resulting finish is far more precise and smooth than required for any finish.

[george wilson]

18th. C. furniture definitely had tool marks. Especially on the back side. Sand paper was hardly used. Mostly scraping was resorted to. Any sandpaper they had was primitive compared to ours. Grain size was not carefully controlled,and inferior abrasives were used. I made some furniture with 18th. C. methods when I first came to the museum. I left smooth plane cuts as the final surface. Scrapers cannot leave as smooth a surface as a finely set,razor sharp plane blade. I used a slightly curved blade so that no ridges from the corners of plane blades would be left on the furniture. The effect is pleasant to run the hand over.

[Bob Glenn]

I agree on the hand planed ripple effect, George. I leave the seat bottoms of my windsors right off the scrub plane. It's a pleasure to reach down while seated and feel the plane marks.

[Zach Dillinger]

All it takes is a trip to a museum with a decent 18th century furniture collection for you to have your answer... :)

Most pieces I've seen show tool marks, tearout, etc. even on show surfaces. The exception to this is Newport-made furniture, which is almost always perfect to the modern standard, or even beyond what we consider excellent work now. But by far most 18th century furniture I have seen is full of what we would consider to be flaws today.

[John Coloccia]

Honestly, I much prefer to see the "hand of the maker" in everything, instruments included. I speak for a lot of builders when I say I'd like to tar and feather the guy that decided guitars need to have flawless, glass smooth, mirror-like finishes. Bass guitar builders can get away with a nice, natural finish, or maybe a nice varnish, and it's what I personally prefer but guitarists have come to expect automotive finishes...and that's not even accurate because they'd never accept the typical, orange peeled factory automotive finish either.

One of my customers from a while back had a custom made classical guitar that he kept wrapped in some sort of protective cloth, even while he was playing, heaven forbid the slightest blemish should occur. It's very nutty IMHO.

[jim goddard]

:) Oh ya...loads of tool marks. Ive had a chance to pull apart a Seymour tambour desk. Anything seen was relatively mark free, underneath it looked like the thing was cranked out w/ a dull hatchet. Literally, the tenons in the based were chopped out and mortises roughly made...it was surprising how crude the execution was. Guess veneer can hide a lot. Anyway, when you have a chance go to any friendly antique store and pull some drawers and poke around. Its quite a learning lesson in many ways.

[Frederick Skelly]

Thanks all! This was very informative. I appreciate the history lesson.

Ill have to google Newport furniture to see why its so different. Youve got me curious.

Thanks again.
Fred

[george wilson]

Back then,they didn't waste any time on things that were not easily seen. They were working by hand,competing with other shops.Economy of effort was expressed in many other areas that I've already mentioned: Chisels sold without handles,saws sold with unsharpened teeth and rasp marks still on their handles. I had to ACCURATELY reproduce this sort of thing for years,and really did not enjoy leaving some tools we made that way. I didn't like the prospect of less informed craftsmen thinking this was the best we could do. But,this was the way things were done in the 18th. C..

[Zach Dillinger]

Back then,they didn't waste any time on things that were not easily seen. They were working by hand,competing with other shops.Economy of effort was expressed in many other areas that I've already mentioned: Chisels sold without handles,saws sold with unsharpened teeth and rasp marks still on their handles. I had to reproduce this sort of thing for years,and really did not enjoy leaving some tools we made that way. I didn't like the prospect of less informed craftsmen thinking this was the best we could do. But,this was the way things were done in the 18th. C..

I run into that all the time with furniture. Some people will argue about "what they did back then" and say it was the best furniture ever made, from a construction standpoint. In modern times, "period correct" work sometimes equates to "poor work" in some people's minds. A shame really.

[Matthew N. Masail]

Honestly, I much prefer to see the "hand of the maker" in everything, instruments included. I speak for a lot of builders when I say I'd like to tar and feather the guy that decided guitars need to have flawless, glass smooth, mirror-like finishes.

Couldn't agree more. thank G-d people still see the truth in shellac and don't got for "super plastic", at least in classicals..

Another thing when you see a Torres or another old masters guitar with a piece of cedar glued to the inside of the top and a new finish on top... some people have no sense. I think there is a completely wrong correlation between "flawless workmanship" to "flawless guitar..." hyped up by dealers.. but I went of thread..

I think if you can't feel the maker in the piece in some way.... he must have not "been there". . . .

[Mel Fulks]

Seeing old furniture by candle light is a good way to learn to appreciate slight differences in surfaces.

[Dave Anderson NH]

A few points and observations. Not all Newport furniture is cleanly finished on all surfaces by any stretch of the imagination. Even some of the work of John Townsend shows construction methods such as cross grain joinery in hidden places which break all of the rules we have been taught. In fact, some of his interior work is downright sloppy. As George and others have said, all the emphasis was was on the exterior show surfaces. Remember that most of the furniture that survives today in museums is the stuff that was both better made and of a higher level of design, proportion, and finish. Most of this furniture was for the merchant and higher classes who could afford it and they were oriented toward ostentatious display of their wealth to show that they had "made it". Common furniture of that period was of lesser quality,design, and finish. Much of the common stuff bought by everyday folks did not survive because of quality of construction, changing tastes in decor, and even local disasters. Read the history of almost any locale dating from the early 1600s and you will be amazed at the huge number of house fires where everything was destroyed. In my town of Chester NH some of the sites first built on in the early 1700s are now on the 4th or 5th building due to kitchen, chimney, and other fires.

[george wilson]

I have a late 19th. C. machinist's chest in good original condition. I thought it was user made due to sloppy work and knot holes on the inside when the drawers are all pulled out. Then,I saw the same chest in a reprint of an old Montgomery Wards catalog from the period. And,this chest was made far into the period when woodworking machines were commonly used in manufacturing.

[Fred Taylor]

Most of the responses so far have covered it well. I restore antiques and have seen the down and dirty of some fine, and very valuable pieces. Some of the construction is pretty shoddy by our standards, and many break the rules we live by in joining today. But remember, when these pieces were made, it was extremely unlikely they would ever be moved, so the underside would not be seen once they were in place. They were made for homes and buildings without AC or central heat. They were made to be showpieces, but also functional. But functional probably meant something less than the level of everyday use that we think of today. And..., they had servants to to care of it for the first hundred to a hundred and fifty years of its life. Some musems, such as the Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts in Winston-Salem, NC will actually provide booked in advance special tours that will allow you to actually get underneath, behind and inside the doors and drawers, accompanied by a curator, of course. It's quite an education. For instance, craftsmen back then cut dovetails to hold stuff together, not to impress other woodworkers who obsess over photos in magazines. They were interested in making a living.

[Charles Bender]

Another thing to consider is that all the 200+ year old pieces out there have been polished and refinished for 200+ years. This has often muted or obliterated the hand tool marks left on the surfaces originally. To answer your question, I concur with the others who have said that even the finest period furniture has/had tool marks. It's the nature of the beast.

[Jim Koepke]

To answer your question, I concur with the others who have said that even the finest period furniture has/had tool marks. It's the nature of the beast.

Occasionally on Antiques Roadshow they comment on lack of tool marks as being a way to tell replacement parts or modern furniture someone is trying to pass off as antique.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

Again, thanks guys.

Jim, Im glad you told me about that. It never occurred to me but Ill watch out for it next time I buy an antique.

Fred