Anarchist workbench?

[Andrew Seemann]

I should probably clarify, I've never liked the Roubo bench for the work I do. If I did a lot of thicknessing and edge jointing of larger boards I think the Roubo style bench would be absolutely awesome, no questions whatsoever. It would be the same with chopping large mortices.

Unfortunately, the good features of a Roubo style bench are lost on me: its length, mass, stops, and holdfasts. I only thickness and joint large boards by hand if no other option is available. I rarely chop large mortices by hand these days. In general, the scale of the work I use a hand tool bench for doesn't match the size of a Roubo style bench.

I am typically holding smaller sized boards for finish planing, chisel work, and the odd hand cut dovetails (and power tool work). For that work, I like a shoulder vise, tail vise, a row of dogs, and a more compact footprint. Not surprisingly, I use a Scandinavian style bench, as it does the things that I like well. If I need to face joint a board too wide for my jointer and too long for my Scandi bench, I can do that on my assembly bench in a pinch.

My thoughts on the Roubo style bench really don't have anything to do with Chris Schwarz, I was familiar with it long before I had ever heard of him. That said, I don't tend to follow his videos/books. For whatever reason, he really doesn't appeal to me. I've never really known why; he does seem to be knowledgeable and skilled. Whenever I try to watch his stuff though, I tend to click to something else after a few minutes. I typically read his articles if I come across them, but I don't seek them out.



Having been in this hobby for 40+ years (as both a hobbiest and semi-professional), I've seen things come and go, and the sociology of the hobby fascinates me more and more as the years go by. When I stared, mid century modern was still in style, dowel joints were common, danish oil was the go to finish, hand planes were more or less considered obsolete, and the big tool debate was whether to get a table saw or a radial arm saw (who had money or room for both back then?).
Then there was the rise (and fall) of Shopsmith, Arts and Crafts started to come back in style, cheap East Asian tools began to make the hobby more accessible, the New Yankee workshop debuted, and boutique manufactures like Lee Valley/Veratis and Lie Nielsen started. Hand tools came back into style as well as more and more older and non electrical methods of work. Don't get me wrong, there have always been hand tool woodworkers, but nothing like the hand tool subculture of today.
Then the big change, the Internet and finally YouTube. To be a famous woodworker in the old days you had to either teach generations of students (e.g. Tage Frid) write lots of articles (e.g. Frank Klausz, Garret Hack, Christian Becksvoort, and the rest of the FWW, PW, etc crews) or be on TV (e.g. Norm, Roy Underhill). The internet really opened up the flood of woodworker teacher/inspirors. Many were ones that had been in print that saw the potential of the new medium (e.g. Schwarz, Sellers, Cosman) and others started mostly online only like Marc Spagnuolo.
It does fascinate me how things go in and out of style, like different work benches, finishes, glues, tools, sharpening methods, the whole bevel up vs bevel down thing. I could to on and on, but it is getting to be late, so I will end with, what a long strange trip it's been

[Jim Koepke]

I should probably clarify, I've never liked the Roubo bench for the work I do. If I did a lot of thicknessing and edge jointing of larger boards I think the Roubo style bench would be absolutely awesome, no questions whatsoever. It would be the same with chopping large mortices.

Unfortunately, the good features of a Roubo style bench are lost on me: its length, mass, stops, and holdfasts. I only thickness and joint large boards by hand if no other option is available. I rarely chop large mortices by hand these days. In general, the scale of the work I use a hand tool bench for doesn't match the size of a Roubo style bench.

I am typically holding smaller sized boards for finish planing, chisel work, and the odd hand cut dovetails (and power tool work). For that work, I like a shoulder vise, tail vise, a row of dogs, and a more compact footprint. Not surprisingly, I use a Scandinavian style bench, as it does the things that I like well.
[edited]

That is great Andrew. That is the first consideration of what one's bench should be, what does it need to do for you?

Somethings about the Roubo appeal to me, some do not.

At one time a wagon vise seemed like a great idea. After thinking about it a while it didn't seem to have the versatility of other vise styles. For some folks it is all they need in a vise.

The Scandi benches are great pieces of work that many people find to be the best answer for their needs.

Everyone is doing something different whether it is makeing cabinets or bamboo fishing rods we all have our own needs and style.

jtk

[Warren Mickley]

The bench pictured in roubo's plate 11 was just a typical 18th century workbench. At that time similar work benches were in use by the Dominy Family on Long Island. It is not very different from the many benches pictured in Diderot's work of the previous decade, and not so very different from the workbenches of Moxon and Felibien in the 17th century.

Andrew, you are not the first to suggest that Roubo's bench was typical of joiners only. However, Roubo pictures similar benches in the section on the ebeniste and the box maker and if the bench of furniture makers was remarkable different, he would have illustrated it in the section on furniture makers. Diderot shows workbenches in several different trades, including furniture making, that show this form. Here is one of many Roubo benches.

roubo ebeniste.png

I have had Hubbard's harpsichord book since 1983. It is a good book, well researched etc. However, the idea that he introduced 18th centuryworkbenches and resawing does not stand up. Mercer (1929) shows a bench and resawing from Diderot. See Goodman (1962) Hubbard (1968) et cetera.

[Cory Newman]

Interestingly enough, I built a Roubo a few years ago, and I'm pretty sure I didn't start reading anything of Chris's until afterwards.

I found benchcrafted hardware first and bought the plans from them with the hardware.

[Edward Weber]

Unfortunately, the good features of a Roubo style bench are lost on me: its length, mass, stops, and holdfasts. I only thickness and joint large boards by hand if no other option is available. I rarely chop large mortices by hand these days. In general, the scale of the work I use a hand tool bench for doesn't match the size of a Roubo style bench.

My thoughts on the Roubo style bench really don't have anything to do with Chris Schwarz, I was familiar with it long before I had ever heard of him. That said, I don't tend to follow his videos/books. For whatever reason, he really doesn't appeal to me. I've never really known why; he does seem to be knowledgeable and skilled. Whenever I try to watch his stuff though, I tend to click to something else after a few minutes. I typically read his articles if I come across them, but I don't seek them out.

It does fascinate me how things go in and out of style, like different work benches, finishes, glues, tools, sharpening methods, the whole bevel up vs bevel down thing. I could to on and on, but it is getting to be late, so I will end with, what a long strange trip it's been

Very well said and might I add the entire point I was trying to make, thank you.
Back to the OP's question, maybe the Roubos and similar have run their course and a new style will emerge to be the next wave of benches, things come and go.

[Daniel Culotta]

FWIW I built one, sort of. I was going to build a Roubo-ish bench to replace my less-stable bench around the time the book came out, so I downloaded and skimmed the book and then built a bench. It pretty much looks like the one in the book, although I'm sure my dimensions and details differ. I was going to use SYP anyway because it's plentiful and cheap around me, which is all I want for shop furniture. I did use a leg vise, planing stop, and holdfasts (and was planning to before the book), but didn't use any of the hardware recommended. I didn't add the seat or tool rack or anything either.

When I say Roubo-ish, I mean not a Nicholson or Moravian. Basically a heavy top joined to heavy legs, no knock-down features. I built that design because it seemed more straightforward than the others.

It's a good bench that does everything I need for my varied work. I will throw in the qualifiers that I don't understand the hand-wringing over benches or people who write about them. It's a big heavy table that you mercilessly beat on, with some added ways to hold things in various ways. There are lots of ways to design and approach it, and they'll probably all work. I certainly didn't put an aesthetic consideration into mine, and don't baby it in any way (as the appearance of the top already highlights). But if you do/want to, that's cool.

Per Scott's post, the most difficult part I found in the build was laminating the top, legs, etc. It was just a lot of pieces and clamping going on there, and it took awhile. Once that was done and cleaned up it was pretty easy - the mortises are pretty simple if you auger out most of the waste. As for flattening, once the jointer is throwing consistent shavings along the length of the bench I call it done. I've never had a situation where I thought "if only my bench was a couple thousandths flatter!", but maybe that's just the neanderthal in me...

[Edward Weber]

It's a good bench that does everything I need for my varied work. I will throw in the qualifiers that I don't understand the hand-wringing over benches or people who write about them. It's a big heavy table that you mercilessly beat on, with some added ways to hold things in various ways. There are lots of ways to design and approach it, and they'll probably all work. I certainly didn't put an aesthetic consideration into mine, and don't baby it in any way (as the appearance of the top already highlights). But if you do/want to, that's cool.

I couldn't agree more

[Scott Winners]

Per Scott's post, the most difficult part I found in the build was laminating the top, legs, etc. It was just a lot of pieces and clamping going on there, and it took awhile. Once that was done and cleaned up it was pretty easy - the mortises are pretty simple if you auger out most of the waste. As for flattening, once the jointer is throwing consistent shavings along the length of the bench I call it done. I've never had a situation where I thought "if only my bench was a couple thousandths flatter!", but maybe that's just the neanderthal in me...

Yup, laminating the top also tricky. I agree with Dan (and Chris Scwartz) in general a workbench should be a flat enough surface heavy enough to hold still and stable enough to not wobble, at a comfortable height for the user. Done. Mine could be flatter, but it is flat enough for the work I do. My next one will be heavier, but my current top is 24x48 inches and the whole shebang only comes in around 130 pounds. When I have room to go bigger it can't help but be heavier.

[Jack Dover]

The bench pictured in roubo's plate 11 was just a typical 18th century workbench. At that time similar work benches were in use by the Dominy Family on Long Island. It is not very different from the many benches pictured in Diderot's work of the previous decade, and not so very different from the workbenches of Moxon and Felibien in the 17th century.

It seems that "Roubo's" bench is as much Roubo's as "Moxon vises" are Moxon's.

[Jack Dover]

Yup, laminating the top also tricky. I agree with Dan (and Chris Schwartz) in general a workbench should be a flat enough surface heavy enough to hold still and stable enough to not wobble, at a comfortable height for the user. Done. Mine could be flatter, but it is flat enough for the work I do.

Amen to this.

First and foremost a workbench must be rigid. Weight is a byproduct of construction methods and materials available at that time. It would be more expensive to build a light torsion box in 18th century than just taking a slab that's rigid enough. They didn't have sheet goods, cheap fasteners and glues back then.

If we look at the late 19th century textbooks we can see that workbenches evolved towards being more light, easier to construct, having more functions, adjustability and so on. I personally see very little practical reason replicating 18th century, "French", "Roman" or any other ethnical workbench, unless you work at Williamsburg or something. Woodworking in general went a long way since 18h century, there's a whole bunch of designs that are more practical, cheaper, more accessible and overall better than this "Roubo" thing. No to mention how much more serviceable benches from modern materials are. Usually people asking how to build a "Roubo" bench show up a few months later asking questions on how to flatten it and how to keep it flat for more than a few weeks.

Idk, it seems there's a fair share of woodworkers that just like agonizing over a flawless top, dog holes spacing and angles, searching the most expensive hardware. By the looks of those benches it seems that the only work done is building the bench itself and photoshoots, often on the verge of woodworking p0rn. Mine is what it is: a workshop implement. It has dents, chisel marks, screw holes and screws, dye stains, words and numbers scribbled and so on. I just don't get this whole obsession. Like, how many of you looked at a Chippendale piece and told to himself "oh, I wonder, what his workbench was like?"

[Edward Weber]

Along with a couple of others here, I don't get the entire allure or obsession of benches. I can certainly appreciate the fine construction and detail put into some of them, which seem to be more art than utility, I just don't use mine in that way. I also don't understand why I'm not a allowed to disagree.
It's old, someone wrote a book about it, you have to like it, no. I don't.

Most of us work on our benches to get jobs done. Others seem to work on their benches as a job itself. There is a big difference between to two.

[mike stenson]

Funny.

That's the message of the book.

[Kevin Jenness]

Eh, it's patently obvious that actually none of the books have actually been read. Which really makes comments about them, well, fundamentally hilarious. To be honest.

I did read the Anarchist Workbench to the point where he recounted building a bench from a solid slab that twisted an inch as it continued to dry. That's a little too anarchistic for me.

Then I found a post of a really nice Scandinavian bench that the builder said took him 400 hours. Wow!

I can admire a 400 hour bench, but I would rather spend several hundred of those hours using a less costly one. I don't know if that is anarchy or penury.

[Jack Dover]

That's the message of the book.

Yet the author advocates his design over others for like 15 years. Funny indeed.

[Jim Koepke]

Yet the author advocates his design over others for like 15 years. Funny indeed.

A flat surface with legs holding it up?

What a radical thing to advocate…

Can you point to a page or paragraph in the Anarchist Workbench advocating Mr. Schwarz's design as the best or one and only design to be considered?

From Chapter IV:

Different workbench forms are broadly allied with different woodworking trades. An obvious example is how the shaving horse (which is a low, staked workbench) is used for all manner of green woodworking tasks, from rural chairmaking to making rakes, drags and hoes. And while I’m sure that it’s possible to build a Boulle-work cabinet on a shaving horse, it’s not an ideal place for it.

So as you choose the form of workbench you want to build or buy, consider the tradition your work falls into. This will help you narrow your choices and perhaps avoid building three wrong benches before you get it right.

I think there are five common traditional forms for Western workbenches.

It continues to illustrate the common forms with pros and cons of each.

He also states:

So, are you a green woodworker? A joiner? A traditional carpenter? A home DIYer? Or someone who aspires to work at the top of the furniture trade? Once you know that, picking a bench form (and eventually its vises) is more straightforward.

Then proceeds to cover the benches he has made over the years.

It appears to me he is doing all he can to help people determine what might be the best features for their own needs.

jtk