From past experience training apprentices and having been apprenticed many moons ago, I’d sincerely err on the side of caution in terms of adjusting designs at this stage of training.  Material types, specific dimensions and design elements exist in each grouping of lessons with the primary intention of enhancing skill sets whilst introducing specific woodworking  joints and practices.  Scope for adjustments in dimensions and styles increase massively once each exercise has reached completion.

Potentially the best approach would be to work this project to the letter and then use the knowledge and skills gained to adapt elements for future projects.

Continuing with the descending opinion:

Given the simplicity of the design and joinery (do not confuse “simple” with “precise”) I see no reason NOT to encourage some variation so long as it is well considered and appropriate for the joinery.   For example, don’t expect a housed dado and stub tenons to be appropriate as the structural joinery for a tall-case clock.  But for small wall clock or mantle clock, just fine.  And if all one can locate locally is a small 3″ clock face, then by all means, scale down the overall size to match (consider also thinning the material from 3/4″ too).   Obviously, through a little Google-foo and on-line shopping properly sized clock faces and movements are easily found but some people prefer to shop locally.  And through a quirk of geography & expense of shipping, I can source black cherry for the same or less than good quality (#1 A or B select) eastern white pine or “red” pine (radiata) so choosing a different material may make the project more accessible to some.

It has been my experience (painfully earned) that the goal of teaching should be to inspire the desire.  If one simply wants to learn rote and make exact copies then work on an assembly line and give up your soul.  Learn enough to learn more.    So, once a person learns the mechanical portion (i.e. sharpening, plane use, chisel use, joinery) they should expand their horizons.

(And the “inspire the desire” bit I lifted from somewhere but I can’t remember where so can’t give attribution.  Also, corny.)

So in summary, don’t listen to Gary and I bicker over the minutia.  Go make several dozen clocks instead!

That’s very nice work and a sound timber choice too Gregory 🙂  I hope you’re enjoying the experience 😉

————

Hi Ken,

I’ll not be arguing or rambling my friend. 🙂  I simply thought Rob’s suggestion might risk drawing attention from the specifics laid out in lesson form by Paul, as it had potential to cause others to dart off in different directions instead of following the lesson plans.

@rwyoung, @gazpal and @ken

I am sure that nothing was said or implied that had anything other than the best intentions but let’s remember that online forums are particularly prone to arguments and misunderstanding. Please help to make this one the exception. Be extra careful.

Thanks.

P.S. I have moved this to its own topic.

Hi Ron,

It can certainly be done, but the resulting project would need scaling down to match it’s location and consideration for a plinth and materials dimensions.

Hi Ron,

I’d honestly need to draw it in order to determine dimensions, because the knock on affect will impact upon rail, panel, dado/rebate width & depth, etc..  I’m certainly not saying it can’t be done, because it can, but I am saying it would need to be practical to make whilst also aesthetically pleasing.