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

[William Adams]

The Wikipedia article isn’t.

Is there some open woodworking wiki that would be suitable? If not, here?

Just got my copy of Virtuoso....

[mike holden]

Isn't the "appropriate" place the book itself?
Why should you list this set of tools elsewhere?

314021314022314023314024

(From the Studley viewing in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; taken by me)

Mike

[Jim Belair]

Nice photos Mike. You managed to avoid the glare I've seen in some others. Looking forward to getting the book.

[Jim Koepke]

Didn't Chris Schwarz list the tools on one of his blogs?

USPS tracking says my book will be here next Tuesday.

jtk

[Walter Plummer]

May I ask, what book?

[Jim Koepke]

May I ask, what book?

http://lostartpress.com/collections/books/products/virtuoso

jtk

[Chris Padilla]

He is quite the stud! :)

[Keith Outten]

I have the original Studley poster that was done by Fine Woodworking hanging in my shop office. It was professionally mounted and framed by a very old friend of mine and its very impressive.

[Thomas Schneider]

Isn't the "appropriate" place the book itself?
Why should you list this set of tools elsewhere?

314021314022314023314024

(From the Studley viewing in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; taken by me)

Mike

Why not a list of the tools?

[Moses Yoder]

You guys are killing me. Another $50 book I have to have.

[William Adams]

Reasons why I want an online listing:

- sortable
- updatable searching
- crowd source identifying the tools / objects whose usage is unknown
- source / purchase links
- hierarchy / organization not limited by physical book pages
- expandable outline

Also, the book kind of drives me crazy — it’s very nicely printed and designed on the macro typography level, but the micro typography has all the typical errors of desktop publishing. Lee Valley does a nicer job in their catalogue, using real primes and double primes, not having as many widows, &c.

[Jim Koepke]

Reasons why I want an online listing:

- sortable
- updatable searching
- crowd source identifying the tools / objects whose usage is unknown
- source / purchase links
- hierarchy / organization not limited by physical book pages
- expandable outline

-Not sure why the tools would need sorting.
-What updates? It is not likely they will find a hidden compartment with the good tools in the future.
-They seem to have done a pretty good job of figuring usage and identifying the tools. I won't really know until my copy arrives.
-There have been links to reproductions of at least one of the tools. Many of the tools are no longer made in the same form as they were a century ago.
-hierarchy / organization... expandable????


it’s very nicely printed and designed on the macro typography level, but the micro typography has all the typical errors of desktop publishing. Lee Valley does a nicer job in their catalogue, using real primes and double primes, not having as many widows, &c.

I used to work in the printing trade, though not publishing, and do not know what this means.

Maybe in a few years a DVD will be issued so all of the above can be addressed.

Lost Arts Press recently had an article about their "on-line" downloadable books were being copied and distributed without payment. That may be a reason it isn't available for download.

For a tool box that is as much a piece of art, it seems a small price to buy the book and deal with the inadequacies above in order to enjoy a bit of history and art.

jtk

[William Adams]

I bought the book. As I noted, the book isn’t working for me.

I want to know more about the tools than is present in the book. I’ll find somewhere that people do want to discuss a better understanding.

That a person can describe their self as an industry professional, but not know basic terminology such as widows and orphans and not understand the difference between uni-directional stick quotes and primes / double primes exemplifies what’s wrong w/ graphic design since the text composition craft vanished.

[Jim Koepke]

That a person can describe their self as an industry professional

I didn't describe myself as an industry professional. I said my work used to be in the printing trade.

It would be a surprise if anyone else on this forum knew those terms.

jtk

[William Adams]

You tried to dismiss my complaints by arguing from authority ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority ) while dismissing terms which can be found in any dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orphan — sense #4

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/widow — senses #3 a and b

It is really sad if in a group of people who handle dimensioned material and a significant subset of whom do signage that they don’t know the difference between:

5' 2"
and
5′ 2″

[Brian Holcombe]

You tried to dismiss my complaints by arguing from authority ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority ) while dismissing terms which can be found in any dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orphan — sense #4

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/widow — senses #3 a and b

It is really sad if in a group of people who handle dimensioned material and a significant subset of whom do signage that they don’t know the difference between:

5' 2"
and
5′ 2″

I really let them have it at the local yard if they draw quote markers rather than appropriate minute and second markers....just say 'no' to such vulgarities.

[Kent A Bathurst]

I really let them have it at the local yard if they draw quote markers rather than appropriate minute and second markers....just say 'no' to such vulgarities.

No kidding - that same crowd does not know what a fish knife is for, nor which fork to use for desert. Cretins. We have standards that must be upheld.

[Brian Holcombe]

No kidding - that same crowd does not know what a fish knife is for, nor which fork to use for desert. Cretins. We have standards that must be upheld.

Nothing a proper flogging can't change.

[Warren Mickley]

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.

[Malcolm Schweizer]

What I don't get is why do they have it hanging next to a door that swings towards it?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6cGNT-RSkEU

[Jim Koepke]

You tried to dismiss my complaints by arguing from authority ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority ) while dismissing terms which can be found in any dictionary:

William, I am not trying to dismiss your complaints by authority. I do not claim to be an authority on publishing or typesetting.

If your original post mentioned you having the book and finding inadequacies in descriptions of the tools, the discussion may have been completely different.

For clarity - The original post did mention receiving a copy of Virtuoso.

My point is most people will tune out if a discussion gets to the point of them having to look things up in a dictionary. Many years ago widows, orphans, rivers and such were not seen in most professionally set type. Some still crept in.

With the advent of computers many folks have done their own publishing. Today's publishers do not share in the knowledge or disciplines of high end typesetters from a half century ago. The cost of having high end typesetting is likely one reason why so many people went with self publishing. Funny how Lost Art Press is involved in the lost art of woodworking and the art of publishing is another of the lost arts.

Please forgive me if I have upset you.

My intention is to enjoy the book for the information it conveys. I will not likely be upset about having to turn a page to finish a sentence. Nor will I hold the people at Lost Arts Press in low esteem for not being skilled in the art of typography.


It is really sad if in a group of people who handle dimensioned material and a significant subset of whom do signage that they don’t know the difference between:

5' 2"
and
5′ 2″

Most people are happy just to be able to get an apostrophe or quote marks and use them for everything. When it comes to special characters many people either are not aware of them or do not know how to create them on their computer.

jtk

[Frederick Skelly]

You tried to dismiss my complaints by arguing from authority ( http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority ) while dismissing terms which can be found in any dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/orphan — sense #4

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/widow — senses #3 a and b

It is really sad if in a group of people who handle dimensioned material and a significant subset of whom do signage that they don’t know the difference between:

5' 2"
and
5′ 2″

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.

[William Adams]

It would have been a brief bit of work to’ve set the paragraph formats so as to’ve eliminated the orphans (there may not be any widows, didn’t notice them at a quick check through the book). Similarly, computerized typesetting make it quick and easy to examine all special characters and replace them w/ the proper ones.

Most egregiously, the setting of the dimensions make it more difficult to recognize them, since the fractions are shilling style and separated from the whole number by a hyphen.

If typography doesn’t interest you, please skip all of the following save for the last paragraph. Thanks.

Hopefully, someone at Lost Arts Press will take the following as constructive criticism:

Orphans: pgs. 4, 5, 32, 40, 52, 55, 60, 189, 194 (also an atrocious break (...ev-//er-new...)

page bottoms are ragged / not flush, so no reason for such, similarly, no formal grid, so it’s bizarre that they put the first line of a paragraph above two images on pg. 62, then continue the paragraph below them. Similarly on pg. 80, identifying head for Center Gauge appears vertically high than the matching photo, while the same for Drill gauge is pushed down below (on pg. 86 the same elements are consistent — heads are higher than matching photographs, but on the facing pg. 87 they’re inconsistent again). Lots of trapped white space throughout (e.g., pg. 106).

Bad breaks: pg. 27 top (...compa-ny logo.¶), pg. 33 (hyphenated a 2 line paragraph), pg. 76 (... “Russell Jen-nings.”¶), pg. 155, last line of second paragraph is (was.”), pg. 192 (...an ev-//er-flowing...), pg. 193 (...many of//us). The index formatting is beyond bad — I’m fairly certain it’s InDesign’s defaults w/ no adjustments and set in two too-narrow columns. It also ends on a short page, just 7 lines in a single column, almost over-whelmed by the furniture (book title and folio in the upper left corner of versos).

Also fractions are set as shilling style: 1/8" (pg. 56), w/ a hyphen if after a whole number (pg. 59), a lowercase “x” is used to indicate dimensions rather than the proper symbol, × (pg. 57)

It’s really a shame that the micro typography couldn’t be as perfect as the text, the photography, or the tool chest which is the subject of the book.

[Kent A Bathurst]

This is, without a hint of doubt, the most singular thread I have read in all my years lurking and contributing at SMC.

[Jim Koepke]

the most singular thread

My dictionary says that can mean exceptional, strange or unique.

Guess it could be all at once.

jtk

[Kent A Bathurst]

My dictionary says that can mean exceptional, strange or unique.

Guess it could be all at once.

jtk

Switch to the thesaurus........even better there...peculiar, bizarre, unprecedented...........

And, this is me, sitting here all these years foolishly thinking that all the really arcane stuff came out of you neanders and your sharpening schemes. I stand corrected.

[Jim Koepke]

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

Thanks Frederick I appreciate this.

jtk

[Kent A Bathurst]

Thanks Frederick I appreciate this.

jtk

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

[Simon MacGowen]

It would have been consistent — heads are higher than matching photographs, but on the facing pg. 87 they’re inconsistent again). Lots of trapped white space throughout (e.g., pg. 106).

Bad breaks: pg. 27 top (...compa-ny logo.¶), pg. 33 (hyphenated a 2 line paragraph), pg. 76 (... “Russell Jen-nings.”¶), pg. 155, last line of second paragraph is (was.”), pg. 192 (...an ev-//er-flowing...), pg. 193 (...many of//us). The index formatting is beyond bad — I’m fairly certain it’s InDesign’s defaults w/ no adjustments and set in two too-narrow columns. It also ends on a short page, just 7 lines in a single column, almost over-whelmed by the furniture (book title and folio in the upper left corner of versos).

Also fractions are set as shilling style: 1/8" (pg. 56), w/ a hyphen if after a whole number (pg. 59), a lowercase “x” is used to indicate dimensions rather than the proper symbol, × (pg. 57)

It’s really a shame that the micro typography couldn’t be as perfect as the text, the photography, or the tool chest which is the subject of the book.

Good eye. Thank you.

Simon

[Moses Yoder]

I am starting another thread on this subject titled "Communication" in the off topic forum.

[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. :eek::D

[Brian Holcombe]

Well played sir. :p

[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.

[William Adams]

My thanks to Warren for the additional references.

I think that we're coming at this from different angles though, and the fact that the Studley toolchest was made in an age when machines were prevalent in workshops makes it more relevant to the majority of woodworkers than a purer chest from a time of only handwork.

Anyway, turns out that on that basis, I can make a listing fit the Shapeoko wiki which I contribute to already, so I'll probably do it there, unless something more relevant comes up, but I'll certainly incorporate as many of the references which you mention as I can. Thanks.

[Matt Radtke]

I thought the book mentioned that Studley's inventory included mortise chisels and the other "missing" tools not seen in the chest. They then speculated that they were likely in the drawers under the workbench?

[William Adams]

I thought the book mentioned that Studley's inventory included mortise chisels and the other "missing" tools not seen in the chest. They then speculated that they were likely in the drawers under the workbench?

Correct. That's one of the things I'm curious about and would like to investigate.

[Zach Dillinger]

The Studley chest is beautiful but if given the choice of spending an hour with it or the Cartwright or Nixon chests, I wouldn't choose the Studley chest. It just seems like I'd learn more useful information from Cartwright or Nixon than Studley. This does not diminish the Studley chest as a work of art in the slightest.

[John Vernier]

I agree that it would be great if more research were published about some of the other surviving early tool chests/sets. the book "Tools / Working Wood in Eighteenth-Century America" by James M. Gaynor and Nancy L. Hagedorn (Williamsburg 1993) has useful pictures and some discussion of tools from several late 18th -early 19th century chests (Seaton, Nixon, Cartwright, Phyfe), and is a great place to start reading about tools of that era in general. It's still in print from Astragal press, and a lot cheaper than the Dominy book - but it leaves one wanting more. Given the interest in the Seaton chest book, and now in the Studley book, we can hope that some of these other kits will get some attention.

[Zach Dillinger]

I agree that it would be great if more research were published about some of the other surviving early tool chests/sets. the book "Tools / Working Wood in Eighteenth-Century America" by James M. Gaynor and Nancy L. Hagedorn (Williamsburg 1993) has useful pictures and some discussion of tools from several late 18th -early 19th century chests (Seaton, Nixon, Cartwright, Phyfe), and is a great place to start reading about tools of that era in general. It's still in print from Astragal press, and a lot cheaper than the Dominy book - but it leaves one wanting more. Given the interest in the Seaton chest book, and now in the Studley book, we can hope that some of these other kits will get some attention.

Agreed in all respects. My copy of the Gaynor / Hagedorn book is just about worn out but I wish there were more pics of the actual tools rather than just the group shots of Cartwright, Nixon, and Phyfe, although Phyfe's is a little later than my period of interest.

[Stewie Simpson]

http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/tresors/treasure/images/140_1c.gif

http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/tresors/treasure/140eng.shtml

[Bruce Haugen]

Although I am loathe to reignite anything here, I ran across an interesting explanation in another forum (http://www.practicalmachinist.com/vb/woodworking-woodworking-machinery/handworks-tool-show-amana-iowa-304228/). Go to the second post by "oldster."

[george wilson]

I am glad that several people here seem to think that the Studley tool chest is a work of art.

That echoes my own sentiments. As elaborate as that chest is,it seems like making it,with all its ingenious ways of storing tools,was an end in itself,rather than a means to an end(Actually using the tools).

While I love seeing things like that chest,I must say that I'd probably quickly tire of trying to get tools out of it that are buried under other tools. And,I do fear that having taken several tools out,I'd likely forget how they were placed in the chest to begin with. And,I'd never get them back in place!

Perhaps there are ways of getting at tools that I'm not aware of,not having actually examined the chest in person. Working in the museum,I was able to examine the Seaton Chest,The Phyfe chest,and some others at a tool exhibition we did quite a few years ago. There would be no problem getting tools back into those chests.

[Bruce Haugen]

(major snippage happened here)
Working in the museum,I was able to examine the Seaton Chest,The Phyfe chest,and some others at a tool exhibition we did quite a few years ago. There would be no problem getting tools back into those chests.

With the minor exception of having to bend over to do it. I'd be able to put one tool away and then my back would quit for the rest of the day.:D

[William Adams]

I guess part of it is that the Studley chest’s tight organization appeals to me and seems like a workable inspiration for a solution to address my own storage issues — my workbench is at one end of the laundry room, and I’ve a very limited storage / work area — most woodworking is done on my back deck.

I’ve got a bit of a beginning on listing tools on the ShapeOko wiki — we’ll see how long my interest holds up and what the final results are.

[Graham Haydon]

Thanks for the link Bruce. The post "oldster" made was excellent. I personally find knowing the motivations behind things enhance my enjoyment of them. It does have a shrine like feel to it and a nice legacy to of left behind.

[William Adams]

Am I missing something, or does one not get the size of the blade in this description?


Dimensions: Overall length is 14-1/2", blade
length is 10-3/8" and the shaft is 5/16" in
diameter. The ferrule is 3/4" long x 5/8" diam-
eter and the handle is 3-3/8" long x 1-5/16"
maximum diameter.

Should one just assume the tip width is 5/16"?

[george wilson]

It was a nice legacy to leave behind,even if not very practical. There is a lot of romanticization of the trade evident in it. A thing I am also abundantly guilty of.

One of the saddest things I heard of was an old man who burned all his tools because of all the trouble they had caused him. Clearly Mr. Studley could never have felt that way,nor I.

I met on the street in Williamsburg,an old man in a wheel chair,accompanied by his younger family members. I offered to help get him down the little path so he could see the Musical Instrument Shop. He said emphatically,with sadness ,no,he did not want to see any shops. Clearly he felt bitter about his life working in shops. I think that both he,and the man who burned his tools are examples of people who both spent their lives in what I'd call "Working out of joint". Working in trades which they obviously were not meant to work in. In the old days,people often got pressed into trades or work which they did not appreciate. Economic necessity was frequently the driving factor. Their fathers would find apprenticeships for them and make them go to work wether they liked the trade or not.

I saw that happen in the museum: A person would take a Summer job in a shop in which they clearly had no natural talent for the work. They'd get comfortable financially,get married,etc.,and eventually find themselves unable or unwilling to get a more suitable job. Mostly from inertia,I think. Then,they'd end up in a trade they had no passion for. And often,very little talent. One such guy worked a Summer job in the cabinet shop,where the Master was Dutch,with a heavy accent. The young man told me he was calling a back saw a "bick saw",because the master called it that,and the young man did not know enough about tools to know better! He ended up as a career in another shop,in which I think he did not belong either. His work was never very good. And,his mind was never really on his work.

[William Adams]

Thanks, yes. The annoying thing is the decline of typography standards often makes me feel that way about graphic design, contemporary books &c.

[Glenn Kiso]

I asked Don Williams about the lack of gouges, moulding planes, and other hand tools that would have been used to make the tool cabinet and he surmised that the cabinet was not the only source of tools for Mr. Studley. The likely assumption was that the missing tool cabinet, under the bench top might be where those tools were stored.

After seeing how the tools needed to be carefully removed just to use a chisel, it would be very impractical for *ME* being how lazy and how clumsy I am in organizing. Removing one of the chisels required slowy raising a chisel vertically until the edge cleared the slot and then carefully angling it towards you and lowering it while making sure that keen edge didn't drop and cut into the beautiful trimmings around the chisel holder.

The docents seemed to think that Mr. Studley was a very regimented person who did meticulous work but very OCD-ish in terms of organization. The cabinet is an art piece and way too impractical for *me*. However, it does provide many cool and innovative ways of storing and presenting tools in a modified tool cabinet that one can adapt based on their usage and tools.

Nonethless, the cabinet itself is amazing work of art. A big thank you to the owner for allowing a public (well $25 ticket) viewing

[Jim Koepke]

After seeing how the tools needed to be carefully removed just to use a chisel, it would be very impractical for *ME* being how lazy and how clumsy I am in organizing. Removing one of the chisels required slowy raising a chisel vertically until the edge cleared the slot and then carefully angling it towards you and lowering it while making sure that keen edge didn't drop and cut into the beautiful trimmings around the chisel holder.

Glenn,

Thanks for sharing your encounter with Don Williams.

Where some see an individual who is meticulous in their work, others see a 'very regimented' or 'OCD-ish person.

One interesting note so far in my perusal of the book. There is a tool listed with part of the listing saying something to the effect of it looking like it was used with tubing. It left an impression that they may not have known why Mr. Studley had a tubing tool. It appears Poole Piano did make player pianos and those did use tubing in the roll reading and key actuators. Not sure how pump organs used tubing, but the pumps made air pressure to make reeds produce notes.

My knowledge on this comes from back in the 1950s. My folks had a furniture and appliance store that sold and repaired TVs. One of our neighbors wanted to get a TV and was willing to trade their player piano. My dad was a wheeler dealer in his time so we ended up with a player piano that needed some work. My father did the re-tubing and we enjoyed it for years. It is still in the family afaik, not sure where though.

jtk

[William Adams]

Just in case anyone else is confused, the photo at the top of pg. 70 is not of “two pairs of jeweler’s pliers” but is a repeat of “flat pliers” on pg. 142.

[Steve Kinnaird]

It is truly a work of art

[William Adams]

I also added the theoretical list of tools which would've been stored in the workbench base to the wiki --- if anyone thinks anything is missing, please let me know (or register and edit the wiki yourself).

[John Crawford]

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.

I could not help but notice that you used spaces around your em dash, a choice that many would find lamentable, if not repulsive.:)

[William Adams]

It’s a quaint, old, Victorian-style choice, and works better on-line where typefaces are typically more widely spaced. In print of course, they’re either set solid or set off w/ thin or hair spaces depending on the font’s sidebearings and/or the publisher’s style guide.

FWIW, I actually prefer to use a ¾s Emdash when available, though often on-line, I’ll instead type three dashes, “---” which (La)TeX would convert automatically into an Emdash.

[Jim Koepke]

— which as people who make things which are differentiated by visual appearance we should probably be concerned about.



I could not help but notice that you used spaces around your em dash, a choice that many would find lamentable, if not repulsive.:)

Not to mention ending a sentence with a preposition is unforgivable in the eyes of many a high school English teacher. :eek:

jtk

[William Adams]

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/11/grammar-myths-prepositions/

[Mel Fulks]

[QUOTE=Jim Koepke;2430528]Not to mention ending a sentence with a preposition is unforgivable in the eyes of many a high school English teacher. :eek:

Winston Churchill to secretary after being corrected for preposition at end of sentence: "Madam, that is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put!"

[Jim Koepke]

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/11/grammar-myths-prepositions/

Interesting read.

Now if there were a time machine at my disposal perhaps a quick trip back 50 or so years would improve my high school English grades.

Though that is something of which reason and experience leaves me doubtful.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

[QUOTE=Jim Koepke;2430528]Not to mention ending a sentence with a preposition is unforgivable in the eyes of many a high school English teacher. :eek:

Winston Churchill to secretary after being corrected for preposition at end of sentence: "Madam, that is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put!"

Also paraphrased by Kirstie Alley (as Rebecca Howe) on Cheers.

jtk

[Kent A Bathurst]

Not to mention ending a sentence with a preposition is unforgivable in the eyes of many a high school English teacher. :eek:

jtk

Sir Winston, when chided about same: "Madam, that is pedantry up with which I will not put." :p :p

[george wilson]

Typical Pennsylvania Dutch speak: "Let's walk the street down". "Make out the light". My co worker Jon is from Pa. Dutch extraction.

[John Crawford]

FWIW, I actually prefer to use a ¾s Emdash when available, though often on-line, I’ll instead type three dashes, “---” which (La)TeX would convert automatically into an Emdash.

I've been away from the internet for a month or so, and am stopping in to catch up on old threads. I'm glad to see others with interest in type and woodworking....

I think by this point we don't need to apologize for thread drift (oh, yes, Studley!): Did you see the entertaining documentary "Helvetica"?

[William Adams]

Well, most of the typography discussion got moved to Communication here: http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?231399-Communication

Yes, one of my co-workers bought a copy of Helvetica, and save for the one or two places where they showed Arial where it should have been Helvetica, it was fine when I watched it w/ my daughter — there might have been one or two places where I commented on it, but it’s been a while. The overuse of Helvetica has always disappointed me, and it’s one of the typefaces I don’t choose to use and replace where possible (Adrian Frutiger’s Univers is a favorite, I just wish the “Q” where less idiosyncratic).

Trying to find time for another read-through of the book, not sure what sort of schedule the Lost Art Press folks are on for a reprint, but I guess I’ll have to buy a second copy even if all they do is fix the typos. Christopher Schwarz did respond that he’d seen my comments / corrections on the blog and Megan Fitzpatrick sent me a PM here.

Oh well, yet another instance of buying a contemporary book and being really disappointed — the previous one I actually licensed the rights for, fixed the most egregious errors and reprinted. Guess it’s back to just reading what the local library will put on their shelves, until Donald Knuth puts out another book I’m interested in.