Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Another vote for the Ashley Iles bevel edge chisels from me. I am very pleased with mine, there’s a sort of delicate feel and balance to them that encourages fine work. And they have a lifetime guarantee (your lifetime, that is). Finding them in stock can be tricky sometimes.
I also like some older chisels, presumably because of different steels. They can be cheap (especially if you are prepared to refurbish and/or re-handle with the help of Paul’s videos), but a bit hit and miss.
So my strategy has been a small set of AI, with a random selection of old chisels built up over time.Fine-tools has them for Eur 9.90 https://www.fine-tools.com/schlangenbohrerfeile.html
Just another thought – after Paul uses the poor man’s beading tool, he crisps up the bead with a saw kerf. A slightly sturdier version, used from both edges and followed up with a tenon saw might achieve something similar to the kerfing plane, at lower cost.
Paul
This craft school, The Good Life Centre maintains a page with links to suppliers in London https://www.thegoodlifecentre.co.uk/recommended-links-suppliers/
Certainly:
[Left card]
Chair
Qurnet Murai, western cemetery, wood and straw[Middle Card]
Items mostly from the western cemetery of Qurnet Murai (opposite Deir el-Medinch). Middle of the 18th dynasty (about 1,450 BC), a period when they still placed furniture that had really been used into tombs.[Right Card]
Storage basket
Qurnet Murai, western cemetery, esparto [Stipa tenacisissima – had to look that one up!] and palm leavesSo it implies that the chair was a real, used example.
Maybe people were lighter then 🙂First off, I’m very happy with the WWMC format. However I also like this new format (which worked without any glitches).
Like @davidr I am in the habit of making notes when watching the videos and taking the notes into the workshop. Without this memory aid, I struggle to remember the sequence of work, measurements etc.
So I see the big benefit of the new format as the overview of the entire process that the step-based approach gives, and the way the steps are itemised in the text.
It would be extremely useful to have these notes in an easily printable form – perhaps bound into a ‘project pack’ pdf with the plans and any templates needed.
I think the approach would work well for more complex projects too.
The only slight downside I can come up with is that with the lack of comments, there is less of a ‘community’ feel to the new format.
I think that’s a great-looking table, especially considering the “naughty knotty” wood you have used. And the joinery looks flawless. If there are tearout problems, I can’t see them.
Your original question was about design presentation and changes to that design for a client, even if a family member, and that is something I have experience with. The experience taught me that if one has worked wood, thought about the design elements, the realities of construction, and attempted then to put ideas on paper – the end result (while very useful to oneself) is not at all what a potential client might want, or be capable of understanding. I suspect most of us here approach a design and construction process similarly. Of course with Paul or Greg’s level of drawing skill it would be different.
My wage-paying job is programming, and an axiom of that (first said by I cannot remember whom) is that, despite an extensive design process, customers do not know what they want until they see what you have built, and then they know that that is not it. We just accept this as part of life and change things. Of course in software that generally means fewer changes than in woodwork (but less firewood :))
I don’t have a complete answer, sorry, but what helped me was to concentrate more on physical objects (museums or whatever) than (certainly my) drawings. Even wood colour can be a point of misunderstanding – my wife sees some woods whose natural colour I like as ‘too orange’. So I sometimes reluctantly paint the objects I make.
Well the grinder I got was something like this, but with a basic toolrest built in.
It’s cheap and cheerful but for my very occasional use for rough shaping it’s fine.
However if I were to buy now I would be looking for a bigger toolrest with a more positive lock.Hope that helps.
Paul’s video on converting a #4 is really all you need.
I did this to a very nasty 1970’s plastic handled Stanley Handyman plane and it works well.
I did use a grinder to shape the iron, but files would work. All the rest is just sharpening kit you need anyway.
A very basic grinder may cost less than a dedicated scrub and find innumerable other uses.Good luck
-
AuthorPosts