Originally Posted by
Derek Cohen
Hi Steve
No, I meant that. It's a context thing.
In a nutshell, Japan (East) has been producing advanced tool designs and quality steel for centuries longer than the West. The best of the West is reputed to be the 18th century, and since then we have seen standards going up and down. By contrast, the East have produced quality blades for centuries. The West made some extraordinary blades over about 100 years (don't ask for dates), and then tool steel has relied on metallurgical advances (such as powdered metal) to compete against hand hammered and laminated steels from the East. Its a bit like taking a hammer to swot a fly. The saws are like this. All work but ...
There are islands of excellence in the modern day West. A number of boutique makers, including yourself, are offering tools that require no excuse. However, when one looks at the bigger picture, there are probably a lot more makers of mediocracy. I do not know the Eastern market as well as the West, so no doubt there are also the also-rans there. However, what I am familiar with appears to continue a general history of excellence.
Hi Derek,
You're presenting a moving target here. Your original claim ("Japanese tools are…light years ahead of Western equivalents") was that Japanese tools are more advanced, right now. In the post above, you shift to two quite different claims: That the Japanese were ahead of Western makers historically, and that the average quality of Japanese tools is higher. I think all three of these claims are problematic.
I'd reject the idea that a top-quality Japanese saw is better than a top-quality Western saw, or that a Dai is better than a comparable Western plane. They both have strengths and weaknesses, excelling at certain things and underperforming at others. Japanese saws may produce better surfaces, and it would probably be pretty tough to make kumiko with a Western saw, but a Western saw is easier to maintain, and its surface quality is more than adequate for almost all tasks. A Japanese plane, in the right timber, can sometimes produce a subtly better surface quality, but not always, and the bar for maintaining dai and kanna is much higher than for a Western plan. I think I'd probably rather use a dai for making shoji; I'd definitely rather use Western jack and try planes for turning a big, figured slab into a table top, regardless of wood species. Ultimately the differences are situational and subjective, and certainly one is not "light years" ahead of the other.
Regarding the historical claim, it's true that Japan was making tool steel far earlier. I don't see how that helps anyone buying tools today, but credit where it's due. It's also true that Japanese high carbon steel is unparalleled, and if all I ever did was chop dovetails, I'd use a Japanese chisel. But there is a lot more to a tool than just the cutting edge, and there is a lot more to steel than just edge retention…
Is the average quality of Japanese tools higher? I think that's a tough one. We mostly see only what's exported, and I suspect that this filters out both the very low and very high end, creating a more homogeneous impression than is actually the case. It's also tough to compare apples to apples…there is no Western analogue to the highest-priced Japanese chisels--What Patrick referred to as "Brian Holcombe money."
In the end, for a person who wants to spend x dollars on a tool, it comes down to subjective preference, what you want to make, and how you want to work.
Last edited by Steve Voigt; 10-16-2017 at 12:55 PM.
"For me, chairs and chairmaking are a means to an end. My real goal is to spend my days in a quiet, dustless shop doing hand work on an object that is beautiful, useful and fun to make." --Peter Galbert