Hand Tool Speed II

[James Pallas]

In speaking of hand tool work only, from rough to finish and having a place to start conversations I ask this.
if you were building a small side table with no drawer to what level would you take the back of the aprons. For instance would you make all four aprons to the exact same thicknesses and the back parallel to the front and to a smooth plane level? Also why would you find that necessary?
Jim

[James Waldron]

In speaking of hand tool work only, from rough to finish and having a place to start conversations I ask this.
if you were building a small side table with no drawer to what level would you take the back of the aprons. For instance would you make all four aprons to the exact same thicknesses and the back parallel to the front and to a smooth plane level? Also why would you find that necessary?
Jim

Scrub plane and move along.

[Jim Koepke]

My only reason to smooth both sides of an apron would be to decide which side looks best facing out.

My SO thinks even the underside of a table should be as smooth as the top. She is of the school of power sanding everything.

She even wants the bottom of drawers to be smoothed.

jtk

[steven c newman]

One reason would be the "reveal" where the aprons meet the legs. Another would be keeping the corners square.

Corner blocks to attach the top, would need a consistent corner to fit into.

If there is any "cockbeading" applied to the bottom edges of the aprons, would make things easier to size the beads for width, before you nail them in place to the bottom edge of the apron.

I like the insides to smooth....maybe a few passes with the non-cambered jack plane, before I lay out tenons. Rough backsides of aprons makes it a bit rough to smooth plane the outsides ....

[John C Cox]

I think it depends on how the aprons are attached. So for example - if you are going to M&T the aprons into the legs - then you would probably want the apron pieces carefully prepared all the way around to make the tenons go more accurately and so everything would line up properly... But I wouldn't go any further on non-show faces..

So for example - if you are good at getting tight fitting tenons right on scrub-planed non-square surfaces - then I wouldn't go any further. I am not that good... So I would probably at least have to square them up and flatten them so I knew where I was on the tenon layout...

If on the other hand - you use your Kreg pocket hole jig with your bit and brace - then it may not take such careful stock prep.. Just make sure the ends of the boards are good/flat and off you go... ;)

[Warren Mickley]

This is an interesting question, James. In 17th and 18th century work we see quite a bit of variation in how makers approached this. Some were very careful about their stock preparation others rather sloppy.

Theoretically the thickness and the back surface does not matter at all. The tenon is completely laid out from the face side and is generally not centered in the board. For my own work, however, I usually plane aprons to a specific thickness like 7/8. The reason is that then when you are doing joinery, all the joints look the same, all the cuts are parallel to both surfaces. So it is easier mentally to do precise work. While we might think we only need to follow the line, and we can do this if the back is irregular, our mind notices things like this. Kind of like a distraction. Uniformity helps with speed.

If the apron pieces are uniform they also stack nicer (we stack them half a dozen times at least during various operation) and are easier to handle. If a piece is on the thin side, it is fine if the back is not completely planed or not planed at all. It often happens that some sawmill marks are still visible after the trying plane. I would not use a smoothing plane or a finish on the back.

[James Pallas]

This is an interesting question, James. In 17th and 18th century work we see quite a bit of variation in how makers approached this. Some were very careful about their stock preparation others rather sloppy.

Theoretically the thickness and the back surface does not matter at all. The tenon is completely laid out from the face side and is generally not centered in the board. For my own work, however, I usually plane aprons to a specific thickness like 7/8. The reason is that then when you are doing joinery, all the joints look the same, all the cuts are parallel to both surfaces. So it is easier mentally to do precise work. While we might think we only need to follow the line, and we can do this if the back is irregular, our mind notices things like this. Kind of like a distraction. Uniformity helps with speed.

If the apron pieces are uniform they also stack nicer (we stack them half a dozen times at least during various operation) and are easier to handle. If a piece is on the thin side, it is fine if the back is not completely planed or not planed at all. It often happens that some sawmill marks are still visible after the trying plane. I would not use a smoothing plane or a finish on the back.

Im glad you are posting on this Warren. I have no claim as to any expertise. I do like to investigate though. From what I have seen it appears that the hand tool workers of the past knew very well how far they needed to go with the work. By the time they had their own bench in the shop they were well schooled. They went as far as they needed to go and that was it. I also believe that how far they went was directly related to how much price was involved. If they were making market pieces the work reflected that. If they were making custom pieces the level of finish seen and unseen was better. The finish on the back of a table apron reflected that. They absolutely knew that the back had little effect on the joinery as they layed out from face and face edge. I always keep that in mind when doing hand work.
Jim

[James Pallas]

My only reason to smooth both sides of an apron would be to decide which side looks best facing out.

My SO thinks even the underside of a table should be as smooth as the top. She is of the school of power sanding everything.

She even wants the bottom of drawers to be smoothed.

jtk

Do not let your SO look under the car for any reason. I somehow have this picture of you on a Jeepers Creeper doing Mr Miyagi on the crankcase.:)
Jim

[John C Cox]

Jim,

I think as Warren mentions - you would find that each workshop would train their apprentices to do the work the way they did it... So for example shops that carefully prepped all the stock faces would probably attack the workflow differently than those who do not.... And as such - you would likely see a diversity of training and methods used.. And no doubt journeymen would learn multiple methods of doing things because "This is how we do it here"....

So for example - the shop that only did minimal prep on non-show faces of an apron will probably attack the process of laying out and making the tenons differently than one which carefully preps all sides...

Of course no doubt some of this was also related to the price as well... Time is money - and there simply isn't budget in cheap stuff for much labor.... And carefully prepping stock and finishing stuff is time consuming... And so in the case of cheap chairs - then as now tenons just simply end up a bit loose because it's easier if you don't have to massage a closely cut fit....

And so it goes....


Im glad you are posting on this Warren. I have no claim as to any expertise. I do like to investigate though. From what I have seen it appears that the hand tool workers of the past knew very well how far they needed to go with the work. By the time they had their own bench in the shop they were well schooled. They went as far as they needed to go and that was it. I also believe that how far they went was directly related to how much price was involved. If they were making market pieces the work reflected that. If they were making custom pieces the level of finish seen and unseen was better. The finish on the back of a table apron reflected that. They absolutely knew that the back had little effect on the joinery as they layed out from face and face edge. I always keep that in mind when doing hand work.
Jim

[Dave Anderson NH]

Everything depends on the customer or where the table is being presented. If doing 18th Century reproduction work minimal surface work on the backs of aprons and the undersides of tops would be perfectly acceptable. If doing modern work the reverse is true. As a case in point a good friend was listed in that book on the best craftsman of early American furniture. He only finished the show surfaces as was common practice in the mostly Queen Anne furniture he made. He was 3 times rejected to become a juried member of the League of NH Craftsmen which requires that all work be produced to the highest standard with all surfaces finished to the same level. He chose to stay true to the period, never applied again, and continued to sell well until his retirement.

[James Pallas]

Everything depends on the customer or where the table is being presented. If doing 18th Century reproduction work minimal surface work on the backs of aprons and the undersides of tops would be perfectly acceptable. If doing modern work the reverse is true. As a case in point a good friend was listed in that book on the best craftsman of early American furniture. He only finished the show surfaces as was common practice in the mostly Queen Anne furniture he made. He was 3 times rejected to become a juried member of the League of NH Craftsmen which requires that all work be produced to the highest standard with all surfaces finished to the same level. He chose to stay true to the period, never applied again, and continued to sell well until his retirement.
This is a good example of how things are viewed. We of course have to adhere to current thinking when we are building items to sell. That does not mean that we must adhere to the same ideas when building something for our own use. I wonder if the same people that require all surfaces to be finished to the same level would require that you can not fill with mastic on inlay work or that you can't have saw marks on tenons.
That being said we would have to throw out some of the greatest pieces ever built in the past. Those artisans that made pieces in the past were capable of finishing work with all the skill that can be done by machines and in many cases far better. They simply didn't do things that served no purpose in the construction, usability, or beauty of the piece. When is the last time that someone came to your house and crawled under your dining table or turned over chairs to see if you finished the bottom, other than another woodworker of course. Many times that hand work is considered slow is because machine work is trying to be matched. If a planer could work without both sides being flat than it would be used that way and table aprons would be a lot less finished on the back.
Jim

[John C Cox]

I think though that we can also lean on an appeal to tradition and traditional ways when that is what we are doing. I think a little education can go a long way in this regard.... But the biggest single thing with "pulling it off" is making it an intentional part of the design and discussing it this way.... Never allow it to be looked at as "sloppy" or "lazy" or to be sold as a "cost cutting" or "labor saving" effort (even if that is kinda what it was at the time)...

So for example - talk about unfinished internal bits as "period correct construction" or replicating Chippendale/Hepplewhite (or pick your favorite old master) "traditional" internal finishes or whatever...

[James Pallas]

I think though that we can also lean on an appeal to tradition and traditional ways when that is what we are doing. I think a little education can go a long way in this regard.... But the biggest single thing with "pulling it off" is making it an intentional part of the design and discussing it this way.... Never allow it to be looked at as "sloppy" or "lazy" or to be sold as a "cost cutting" or "labor saving" effort (even if that is kinda what it was at the time)...

So for example - talk about unfinished internal bits as "period correct construction" or replicating Chippendale/Hepplewhite (or pick your favorite old master) "traditional" internal finishes or whatever...

All good points. Sticking with the table apron this is my method of preparation. I break down the material over size some for length and width I run a jack plane over each side if I can't pick a face from rough. I plane the face side and then a show edge and plane that square. I then will thickness if necessary to make it fit within the inside of the legs. I don't spend a lot of time trying to make the front and back coplaner. I then move to the next apron and do the same. I don't spend time trying to make the aprons the same thickness unless there is an outlier requiring it. I then smooth plane the face. I lay out the joinery from the face and reference edge. That's how I do it and of course others proceed differently. I have yet to have someone turn a table over to look at the bottom. These are not "juried" pieces of course. I've probably made 20 or more smaller pieces like this hand tool work and I'm happy.
Jim

[James Waldron]

Well, I originally posted my view: scrub plane and move on.

It seems in some contexts, my approach is far too sophisticated. Shamelessly cribbed from Peter Follansbee:

https://pfollansbee.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/back-of-mulliner-chest.jpg?w=637&h=423

Sometimes, going beyond hatchet work is more than a job needs.

To see the other side of the panel, go to https://pfollansbee.wordpress.com/2018/05/14/i-can-do-that/

[James Pallas]

Well, I originally posted my view: scrub plane and move on.

It seems in some contexts, my approach is far too sophisticated. Shamelessly cribbed from Peter Follansbee:

https://pfollansbee.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/back-of-mulliner-chest.jpg?w=637&h=423

Sometimes, going beyond hatchet work is more than a job needs.

To see the other side of the panel, go to https://pfollansbee.wordpress.com/2018/05/14/i-can-do-that/


I saw that also James. Had a good laugh about it. I don't believe I could go quite that far. It is a very good example of how non show surfaces were perceived in the past. My reason for starting this thread was seeing many questions about stress over not be able to make pieces to machine tool accuracy with hand tools. It can be done, is it necessary? I believe that there has to be done if the work demands it and that includes reasons such as "I like it that way" as much as drawers will be fit on both sides of a part. I don't feel that things like the back of table aprons need that type of accuracy.
Jim

[John C Cox]

I bet the movers curse that fellow. Not only does it look like it weighs 2 tons - all the places you would grab onto are full of splinters. ;) ;).

My best advice is to try it out and see how it goes for you. I think you may find that if you are already dialed in with "factory type" design/layout/workflow - it may take longer initially because you have to circle back around and figure out how to lay stuff out when parts are not flat/square/straight....

That and my hatchet skills are pretty rusty.... I think I would make a mess of a bunch of pieces initially trying to get things roughed out with a hatchet....

Perhaps you will like it better.... Maybe not.

[James Pallas]

I bet the movers curse that fellow. Not only does it look like it weighs 2 tons - all the places you would grab onto are full of splinters. ;) ;).

My best advice is to try it out and see how it goes for you. I think you may find that if you are already dialed in with "factory type" design/layout/workflow - it may take longer initially because you have to circle back around and figure out how to lay stuff out when parts are not flat/square/straight....

That and my hatchet skills are pretty rusty.... I think I would make a mess of a bunch of pieces initially trying to get things roughed out with a hatchet....

Perhaps you will like it better.... Maybe not.

if you notice in the picture the outside styles and rails appear to be worked to a higher level. It's the inside fillers that are hatchet worked. For myself I have always worked from face and face edge even when working with machined materials.
Jim

[James Waldron]

I'll join in with the reference face and reference edge as key to lay out and marking. Even when working with machined surfaces, having two reference surfaces to work from is good practice. In the long term, it will enhance consistency.

[James Pallas]

I'll join in with the reference face and reference edge as key to lay out and marking. Even when working with machined surfaces, having two reference surfaces to work from is good practice. In the long term, it will enhance consistency.
Sort of like using 2 tape measures?:)
Jim

[James Waldron]

Sort of like using 2 tape measures?:)
Jim

That's actually tougher. I keep mixing up my edge tape measure with my face tape measure. So confusing. I did it better when I was younger.

[James Pallas]

That's actually tougher. I keep mixing up my edge tape measure with my face tape measure. So confusing. I did it better when I was younger.
i apologize James. I took what you said wrong. I thought you were saying that having machined surfaces allowed you to work from both faces. Age does have an effect on how the written word is perceived, at least in my case.
Jim

[James Waldron]

i apologize James. I took what you said wrong. I thought you were saying that having machined surfaces allowed you to work from both faces. Age does have an effect on how the written word is perceived, at least in my case.
Jim

I might have been clearer in the first place. I suppose I shouldn't take it for granted that the concept of reference surfaces becomes clear to everyone; my shorthand was ambiguous. I throw myself on the mercy of the Court, yr. Honor.

Those reference surfaces are one important concept (not the only one, of course) that sometimes seems to be at the heart of quite a few newbie problems. It's so easy to rush through layout to get on to "actual building," and not be entirely tidy. Until they grasp the essence of the concept, mis-marking and mis-measuring throws a lot of projects off - perhaps appearing only at assembly time - and the cause of the problems isn't always easy for the inexperienced to recognize.