They use these things to fly planes, you know...

About a year ago I purchased a beautiful little Spear & Jackson dovetail saw, circa 1888 from woodnut4 on eBay. Its open handled, rip set, and is just the nicest thing to work with. Since then I have been searching for a cross that would be a match to it, mainly on eBay, but the odd time, when I think of it, I'll just do a general search for one on Google to see if there is any out there that happen to be looking for a new home.

Tonight, I pulled up Google and entered "jackson open handled dovetail cross".

Have a look at what came up as the forth hit on the list...

Sometimes computers are just dumb.

Peace,

Mitchell

If I didn't have bad luck, I wouldn't have any luck at all

My life often mirrors George Goebel's famous line, “My luck is so bad; I bought a suit with two pairs of pants, damned if I didn’t burn a hole in the jacket”. For those of you who are too young to remember, George Goebel was a stand-up comic, singer and actor whose variety show, The George Goebel Show, was popular on television from 1954 to 1960.

I have been checking out the listings on eBay for Stanley Everlast #40 chisels, the non-SweetHeart variety, for the past year. Over this time I have picked up 5 of the original set of 11, with one duplicate. I got a good 2”, a good 1 ¼”, a fair 1”, a fine ½” and two pristine ¼”. I have paid anywhere from $90.00 for the 2”, down to $38.00 for the ½”. The prices I paid average around $45.00 each, which I have considered to be fair, given a good set of 11 would run around the $1,500.00 mark.

The whole idea behind these acquisitions is put together a really good user set of chisels that are of better quality than the current offerings of today and will appreciate in value over time. This theory is behind all my tool purchases, and while I believe it is sound, I doubt I will ever know if I was right or not. I’ll never know because I will never consent to selling my tools as long as I am breathing. After I’m gone, my son will inherit the collection and he can do with it whatever he wants; add to it, use it, or sell the whole lot to the highest bidder.

We are all aware that the world’s economy is in the toilet. I don’t know if you have noticed it or not, but as a result of this tanked economy, the prices for vintage tools has fallen considerably, especially on eBay. An example of this is my old friend woodnut4, a serious vintage tool collector and saw aficionado, who has taken to putting reserve prices on his saw sales. This is something he has never done before in the two or three years that I have been following his offerings on eBay.

I have always been taught that when the economy tanks and prices fall – buy. This goes for real estate, stocks and bonds and all those things you believe will bounce back after life returns to normal. As my tool acquisitions are something I believe will bounce back in value, and then some, I have taken to watching the eBay listings even more closely.

So why, if I smell a good deal in the air, did I start this rant quoting an almost forgotten television personality?

Well the fact of the matter is, every listing that has appeared on eBay for Stanley #40’s over the past four months have either been too short or too beat to consider being a sound purchase or they match the size and quality of the ones that I already own.

Damn!

Peace,

Mitchell

Hand Saw Massacre

I had the distinct pleasure today of having to cut up some 3/4-inch birch plywood by hand. Ok, it was really neither distinct, nor a pleasure, but I did it.

Over the years I have used a number of different computer desks, a few purchased, a couple I built myself and one that was make-shift (on the boat I took over the dinette). A few years ago I finally got down to building what I thought was the perfect unit. Twelve feet long, the whole thing rested on three bases. At one end I built a two-drawer file cabinet and at the other, a two-door cabinet for stashing the printers, a scanner and the like. The center unit holds my hard drives; one Mac and one PC, both resting on a pad that rides on full extension slides. The base is 28” from floor to desktop, which I find perfect for keyboard and mouse use. At either end, bookcases run to the ceiling. The whole thing was built out of 3/4” birch ply and stained a deep walnut with a few coats of satin varnish (spar for the top). It looked like a million bucks, give or take for inflation. After throwing in a good pair of 5:1 speakers, I had the perfect set-up.

I spend half my life at that desk. When the decision was made that we were moving (one day my wife will explain to me how “we” came to that decision), there was no question the station was coming with me. Once the burly men with the strong backs had dumped all our possessions in our new abode, unceremoniously I might add, a glitch reared its ugly head. My beautifully designed 12-foot long computer station now had to fit into a 9-foot wide room.

It took me about 24 hours to finally come up with a solution. The only solution was to turn the straight run station into an L-shaped one. That part was easy, it was deciding which unit to put where that was the problem as I had to have space for the office chairs to slide in and out from under it without banging on either side each time. Surprisingly, the bases of those chairs are wider than my butt – who knew? I played with scale models digitally, moved, switched and tweaked the real life ones around and mucked with the figures on paper. It took a while, but I finally hit on what I thought would be the ideal arrangement.

Once the configuration was confirmed and the bases set into place, I was ready to install the tops. The originals were 28-inches wide and were flush with the face of the base cabinets. This was my only flaw, more because of aesthetics rather than serviceability. Because of that, I decided to replace the tops with wider units, going for a width of 29-inches. Ok, I’ll admit it; I’m anal about these things. Anyway, the tops were easy once I found a Home Depot that had their panel saw working.

With the tops installed, stained and with a few coats of water-based varnish (horrible stuff), I was left with two 6-foot pieces of ply that was already finished on one side. As my book and text collection has grown leaps and bounds these past few years I thought it would be prudent, environmentally friendly and just plain convenient to cut these pieces up into 10-inch strips to use as book shelves. Glitch number two.

To thicken the edges of the tops and make them more rigid, I had glued and screwed three 3-inch strips of ply to the underside of each piece; one down each edge and the third down the middle. You know what happens when you try to separate glued plywood lay-ups – they take a layer of ply along with them and that is exactly what happened.

The result of all of this was that after an hour and twenty minutes of pumping my Disston #12 Cross up and down, I ended up with my four 6’ long pieces of shelving. I had to hand cut 48-feet of 3/4-inch play to get them, each shelf requiring two cuts, salvaging the undamaged sections between where the removed lay-ups left their scars. Over the course of this exercise, as the aches grew more intense and the sweat more earnest, I kept thinking, “God, how did these guys build whole houses using these things?”

They are now off in the corner drying after having their undersides stained and shellaced. Tomorrow, I’ll give them a couple of coats of varnish (the real stuff if I can find it) and by Sunday, I should be able to unpack the remaining six boxes of books that are currently pilled in the hall outside my office door. It will be a treat to be able to walk out of the room without walking into a wall of cardboard.

Whose idea was it to do this hand tool thing, anyhow?

Peace,

Mitchell

Its a New Year...

You know, Blog Providers should be forced to post a warning on the pages they use to entice you to start your own blog. Those warnings should have similar wording to: “Your life, if you have one, will get in the way of conscientiously maintaining your blog if you choose to post one!”

Posting a blog is great fun, educational, and a blast interacting with others who enjoy your same interests. As stated in that warning, though, life has a habit of elbowing in on your fun and as a result, you end up with another thing to nag you in the back of your mind – your way behind in your plans for posts.

I started out planning to create the next designer textbook regarding furniture design a short six weeks ago. The research I completed so far filled up a bookmark folder so badly; I had to add sub-folders to it to keep it somewhat organized so I could find things. It also lead me to Amazon, Google Books and a few of my local bookstores to gain even more knowledge on the subject and I have the stack of books with the word “design” in each of their titles piled up by my computer to prove it. I had all of these great plans and ideas, and then it happened. Life came crashing down around me.

Bummer. 

As I have mentioned previously, I’m moving this month. I have tried desperately in the past to avoid having to move but it is now unavoidable. While moving is a royal pain, it is not the aggravation of moving that I have tried to avoid, but the painful realization that I have been forced to face every time I have had to go through this nonsense in the past. Every time I move I have to face the fact that I’m a junkie. Oh not just any old junkie, but a finely honed, finely tuned junkie. If there is a history book, a tool, a computer thingamajig, or any related item to these things, damned if I haven’t bought it. Each and every time I have moved in the past this realization rears its ugly head and bites me on the ass.

Now a normal person, facing this reality upon past moves, would realize this malady for what it is and do something about it. In all probability, this action would involve making a conscious effort not to buy any more junk. I, on the other hand, thought I had found a better way of dealing with it, a more effective and acceptable way of beating this all consuming albatross that hangs over my head down to the ground – I’ll just not move any more. To me, it was the perfect response.

Come on; let’s face it, we all do it. We see a little tool on eBay or at the local flea market and without thought; we reach into our pockets so we can take it home. While we appreciate that little tool for what it is, it is rare that we really need it so it ends up stuffed away in some drawer or cupboard. From that point on, we appreciate and admire that little tool every time we stumble upon it, which, over time, becomes less and less frequent as the drawer or cupboard becomes filled with other unneeded items and in time we start to avoid that particular cupboard or drawer all together, having found a new and empty one that we can fill.

By moving, we are forced to face our addiction. We are forced to take all those admired little bits of unneeded wealth and stuff them into a box so strangers with stronger backs than I can come and haul them off to our next home. Why? Because we accumulated so much stuff in our current homes that there isn’t enough room to store them all so we are forced to get larger accommodations so we have more room for more cupboards and drawers so not only do we have space to store our past accumulations, but room to store our future purchases as well.

This was the Achilles Heel to my plan to overcome my addiction. Like any woodworker setting up a new shop, I didn’t take into account the need for future space. I figured if I stowed away my little purchases in an organized manner I would have enough room to last me a lifetime. If I had enough room, I wouldn’t need to move. If I didn’t move, I wouldn’t have to face my addiction. Little did I know the power that it held over me.

Faced with the necessity of moving to larger abodes, my wife, in her usual confident and justified manner, told me – “Your junk – your responsibility”. Hence my plans for writing the next “necessity for every furniture designer” ended up in its raw form as a pile of research stacked beside and within my computer station.

On top of the move, I have acquired yet another full time obsession. I’m not talking woodworking here, as that is just an all-encompassing need, different than an obsession - a good obsession if you will. I’m talking about my part-time job as a teacher. Teaching digital design involves teaching about the Internet and the different design programs that allow designers the ability to make things happen that were near to impossible before the advent of the digital age. The problem with it all is that it changes faster than any mere mortal can keep up with. What I taught last year as the standard for web structure is now outdated and unused in the up-to-date industry. Many of the programs within my repertoire have all had new releases and now they are bigger, better and faster, and involve not only an updating on how to use them, but a complete reevaluation as to what to use them for.

My greatest nightmare has always been that I would someday face a class of students that have more knowledge than I. Towards the end of last term I started to get the tickle of a feeling that this nightmare is not too far off becoming a reality. As a result of this revelation, when not stuffing the results of my addiction into boxes, I have been researching and teaching myself some cutting edge technology. If I keep at it, I might understand it enough to be able to teach it sometime soon, which should just about parallel the time that all this new stuff becomes obsolete and I'll be able to start all over again with what replaces it.

It is hard to believe that the Internet, as we know it, is turning the ripe old age of twenty this year. Shocking, isn’t it, to think that this thing that we accepted so quickly started its public life in 1989. I have socks that are older than this technology. To give you some idea of its power, did you know that it took the radio thirty-eight years to reach an audience of 50 million, it took television thirteen years to reach that same market, but it only took the internet four. Even the English language hasn’t been immune to exponential growth caused by the Information Revolution. Our language now totals approximately 540,000 words, but that is five times as many as Shakespeare had to work with during his time on the planet. Who makes them up I have no idea.

I often think of the irony that defines my use of this new technology. While I teach it and use it to communicate with my students and to assist them with their studies, the main source of pleasure that I derive from it is to use it to learn about tools and processes used in woodworking long before the Information Highway was even a glimmer in Dr. Vinton Cerf’s eye (Doctor Cerf has been credited by many as being the father of the internet). Here I am, smack dab in the middle of the Technological Revolution and really, all I am using it for is to learn about things that became standards in woodworking as a result of the last major transition in mankind’s evolution, that one named the Industrial Revolution. Now that is irony in its purest form.

Thankfully, we have this technology at our disposal now. I would hate to think what my mornings would be like without it. To return to a paper newspaper would be pure drudgery to me, and to have to limit myself to one or two would be worse. Even though I haven’t had the time to maintain and post my own blog, it doesn’t mean I have been remiss in keeping up with the others that I enjoy so much. Visiting them to see what they have to add to my ever-increasing understanding of woodworking is also part of my morning ritual and to loose that would be mortifying. Other than my newspapers, I have three sites that are as much a part of my morning ritual as my morning cigarette and diet coke are. 

(Yes, I know what you are thinking, but if you have never been able to acquire a taste for coffee you have to get your morning caffeine kick somehow. As for the smoke, leave me alone. I’m old and started smoking back in the days when smoking was cool, hell, back in the days when saying “cool” was cool. There is no excuse for continuing except for the rational reasoning behind burning up all that money each and every day. If I didn’t buy cigarettes I’d have a hell of a lot more money to go off and feed my other addictions and the fact of the matter is, I don’t have to store the cigarettes.)

All right, enough with my dirty habits and back to my morning ritual. The three sites I couldn’t live without? WoodTreks.com, The Village Carpenter and Full Chisel Blog. It would be arrogance beyond reason to think that whoever is reading this found me and not those other three blogs that I believe to be the standards for comparison, but I will mention them anyway in case the impossible has happened.

WoodTreks.com has produced some of the most informative documentaries on woodworking that I have ever seen on the web. I also believe the quality of Keith’s work is far and above anything else available. Having had some experience in video production, I can sum up for you in one sentence what Keith does for us. Here you have one guy who fills his van with equipment, hauls it all over the countryside, spends hours setting up and lighting a set, spends even more hours filming, and when the shoot is all over, he hauls everything home only to spend a few more days sitting in front of an editing suite and then fights to post it all on his web site with the best in technology to ensure it is displayed properly. He does all of this for nothing more than to allow me a vehicle to learn a little more about woodworking. Ya gotta’ take your hat off to someone like that and I hope you guys who visit his site appreciate the work he has done in the back end to give it to you. Having communicated with the man a few times I believe him to be nothing short of brilliant as something most do not realize, all this expertise Keith displays is self-taught, and to me, that is amazingly impressive. I have another thought about Keith, so I’ll return to him in a minute.

The Village Carpenter is next in line and is an absolute joy to read. I’m not sure why, but I have a definite feeling about Kari that is not based on anything I have read specifically in her blog. She has informative posts regarding the different processes in woodworking that she explains so well and others where she brings some place in her world that I never knew existed before to my computer screen. Enjoyable as her posts are, the most important thing that I get out of her blog is Kari herself. She projects through as being one of those rare examples of what a good human being is all about. Reading her blog sort of makes me want to emulate that feeling throughout the rest of my day. Hey, I’m not saying I’m successful, I’m just saying that The Village Carpenter is a good way to start your day.

Finally, there is the Full Chisel Blog. Stephen’s unpretentious posts are nothing more than pure talent displayed through the unselfish sharing of information. As with Kari, I have never met Stephen nor exchanged more than a few words with either of them through the comment sections of their blogs, yet, just like Kari, Stephen projects a quality of human being that we all find so rare these days – a good one. I’m not sure I agree with his choice of glues, but I do think he is an asset to all of us, woodworkers included.

Oh ya, back to Keith. For those who have watched his documentaries, you have seen his shot of what I call, “The Famous Bench”. For those that haven’t had the pleasure yet, at the end of each intro Keith fades out displaying a vice at the end of a bench that is constructed with one of the best shots of a dovetail, not to mention one of the best and largest dovetails, you will ever see. As it turns out, Keith built that bench and for some reason, has never highlighted it in any of his posts other than this one ongoing shot. It is my belief that you should click on this link, http://woodtreks.com/about/, and complete the form demanding that Keith show us his bench in a full and unabashed display. Tell him Mitchell made you do it.

So there you go. In one post I have explained to you why I haven’t been able to keep up with past short-term plans for my blog, laid out for you my one major addiction, confessed to you all my dirty habits, told you how and why I start my day and alienated a good online friend in the process (be nice in those emails to Keith). In all, it would seem to be a productive day, don't you think?

To be serious for a moment, though, if that is at all possible for me, I would truly like to thank all of you that took the time and made the effort to post a comment or send me off an email to me that is related to this site. I haven't been posting long which makes the number of communications I have received that much more surprising. We are all human living in a world that seems to be less welcoming by the day. When someone actually takes the time to wish you well in one of your endevours, or steers you in the correct or better direction, it just makes you feel better, not only about yourself, but about mankind in general. To all of you that have spent some time reading what I have to say, thank you for letting me be a part of your day, however short, and I hope you gained something from it, however small.

So where am I headed in this New Year? I have no idea. I will keep blogging, I'm just not sure about what. I do know I have to finish off that tool cabinet but before I do that, I'm faced with building a computer station for our new kitchen. I already have some ideas for it which, of course, I will share with you starting the end of the month. I think you may find them interesting.

With that, I’ll sign off by wishing you all a very healthy, happy and prosperous New Year, and as my heading states, quoted from an old Irish New Years toast, “May this New Year find your hand always out in friendship, never in want”.

As usual…

Peace,

Mitchell  

Designing a Box - Part 2...

It has been a busy week or so, but I’m finally getting back to this box design.

To reestablish the premise in this exercise, I want to improve my furniture design skills and to do that, I’m going back to the basics. I am attempting to design a basic box that has no specific purpose, researching the rules of furniture design and testing them as I go along.

In the past post I discussed the Golden Rule of Ratio, or Phi, and tested the concept using some simple outlines drawn to scale. The result was respect for the rule while not committing to using it exclusively. Testing it in this application, it didn’t allow me to focus in on one dimension, but it did allow me to narrow down the choices.

Now that I have a few basic sizes to work with, I need to determine what to add to the design and what effect those additions will have on the results. There are two additions that must be considered; where the lid meets the body of the box and a base for it all to rest on.

I have seen some very well constructed boxes but never one with an invisible joint where that lid meets the body. Even in the finest of cabinetry, a well-hidden joint like this becomes distorted over time and it becomes noticeable. Where that line appears affects the proportions of the piece and its placement must be considered in the original design of the box. That much I know. Where that placement should be is something I have to determine.

If there is a rule regarding whether or not a piece should have a base, I can’t find it. I do know that I like the look of bases on just about everything. To me, a base gives “grounding”, especially when it is a little wider than the piece itself. How much wider is something that has to be decided but most important to me at this point is the height. Is there a rule that works that will tell me how high the base for my box should be? Let’s find out.

The Fibonacci Sequence

Researching this rule I discovered that it is a process of “creating a series of dimensions that are related by the Golden Ratio”. Hopefully, I will have more exacting results from it than I had with the Golden Ratio itself.

The Fibonacci Sequence first become known in 1202 in a math book titled, Liber Abaci which has been translated into either, The Book of the Abacus or, The Book of Calculation. Do you ever wonder about the authenticity of something like this when the translators can’t even agree on what the title means? On top of there not being a consensus on what the title of this publication means, it turns out that the author, a Mr. Fibonacci, worked under a number of aliases, being; Leonardo of Pisa, Leonardo Pisano, Leonardo Bonacci and Leonardo Fibonacci. Hey, I trust him already, don’t you?

The basis of this rule, while complicated to understand, is quite simple to execute. From my previous test I have come up with two different proportions that I have decided to work with; 14” x 8.5”, the one closest to the Golden Ratio, and 14” x 10 1/4”, the one I think best represents an emotion, in this case power.

For the first one, the Fibonacci Sequence would be as follows:

8.5, 14, 22.5, 36.5, 59, 95.5

This may appear to be a random listing of numbers but it is derived from adding 8.5 to 14, which equals 22.5. You then add 22.5 to 14 and come up with 36.5. The 36.5 is added to the number that came before it, which is 22.5, which gives you a total of 59. Add that number to the number that came before it and you get 95.5. Clear as mud, eh?

For my other choice the series would be:

10.25, 14, 24.25, 38.25, 62.5, 100.75

These numbers can be applied to a design in a number of different ways, even using them as the numerator in a fraction to develop a series of measurements based on one of the overall measurements of the piece.

So now that I have these numbers, what am I supposed to do with them?

The answer, in this particular case, is nothing. In this example only the ratios are relevant as the only dimension that we can use is the actual height of the box.

For these calculations we need to start with a consecutive sequence of three Fibonacci numbers as we are looking to divide the height by 3 for the three sections of the box; the base, the body and the lid.

Using the base three numbers of 2, 3 and 5, I come up with a value of 10, or (2 +3) + 5 = 10.

Dividing the height of the box, 8.5” by this value,10, gives me a decimal value of .85.

Now I have to multiply this value by the first value in the sequence and you end up with a value of .85 x 2 = 1.7”. This is to be the height of the lid.

Now, multiplying that same value (.85) by the second number in the sequence, and I get - .85 x 3 = 2.55”. This is the height of the body of the box.

One more time, I multiply the same value by the third value in the sequence and I get -  .85 x 5 = 4.25.

If this works, the three values should add up to the height I started with. 1.7 + 2.55 + 4.25 = 8.5. Son-of-a-gun – it totals correctly.

So what these calculations tell me is that the lid should be 1.7” high while the base should be 4.25” high.

That same set of calculations for my box that has a height of 10 1/4 works out as follows:

Dividing this height of 10.25 by the same sum used previously (10) and I get 1.025

Multiplying 1.025 by 2 gives a value of 2.05. When multiplied by 3 I end up with 3.075 and multiplying it by  5 results in 5.125.

Checking my math, 2.05 + 3.075 + 5.125 totals 10.25, so my math is correct.

These calculations tell me that for this higher box, the lid should be 2.05” high while the base is a whopping 5.125” high.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t hold up much hope for this rule resulting in a pleasing display in this particular application, but lets see.

I think I can safely say that if your building a chest of drawers, Mr. Fibonacci’s trip into mathematical hell might be worth the adventure, but for my little box, I believe it is only partially right. The proportions for the lid line work very well for me, but on both there is just too much base to give the box a balance.

For this experiment, I’ll give the Fibonacci Sequence 50% out of a possible 100%.

Shaker Influence

As I cannot find a specific rule that is purported to be the “Golden” one for determining the height for a base on a box, I’ll have to turn to accepted examples from the past and figure the ratios they used to base my calculations on.

I don’t know anyone interested in furniture design that isn’t impressed by a piece of Shaker. The craftsmen of this style truly knew a thing or two about proportion and design so searching the web I came up with this example.

This particular pine painted blanket box, circa 1820, is a dovetailed example that was probably made in New York. It has a hinged breadboard lid and stands on a finely dovetailed bracket base. It is 24 1/4” high, with a width of 45 3/8”.

I chose this example because its dimensions do not conform to the Golden Ration. If created using that rule, at this height it would be just shy of 40”. Obviously, the designer of this piece made it considerably longer than he should have.

In the hopes that this particular image wasn’t distorted in any way, I brought it into AutoCAD to take some measurements from it. Using the known height, I scaled the traced image to gain other measurement, the main measurement I was after, of course, being the height of the base. Achieving that I could calculate how that height value relates as a percentage of the overall height of the piece. I recorded a height of 7 1/4” for its base, and based on the known overall height of 24 1/4”, I calculated that the base is 30% of the total height of the piece.

In the case of my box designs, using that value of 30%, the 10.25” high box would have a base roughly 3” high, while the golden rule example, being 81/2” high would have one 2.55” high. Lets see how those figures work out.

In both of these I left the lid line where the calculations of the Fibonacci Sequence told me to as I do like those proportions.

In this case, the Shakers knew what they were talking about. The base is in complete agreement with both the golden ratio developed proportion and the one that exceeds it.

The Golden Thirds

The base of this box is 30% of its overall height, which is relatively close to being one third of that overall height.

There is actually a rule out there called “The Golden Thirds”, or “The Golden Mean” which states that if you must divide up a plain, divide it into thirds, both horizontally and vertically. If you are going to place something on that plane, place it at least on one of the lines of that grid, preferably where the gridlines intersect, but if not at those four points, then at least on the lines.

So lets see what happens when we start to analyze what my Shaker friend did when he was calculating the dimensions of this blanket box.

As stated, according to the Golden Ratio, this blanket box should have a width of 39 1/4”, the result of multiplying its overall height of 24 1/4” by 1.618.

The designer, instead, gave it a length of 45 3/8”, or, in other words, he extended its length by approximately 15%.

Now going by the Golden Thirds, the base should be 33% of its overall height, or just a hair over 8”. The designer, however, only made it 7 1/4” high. This means that not only  is the box 15% longer than the first rule calls for it to be, but the base is actually 10% lower than the second rule says it should be. Did the cabinetmaker that made this box not understand these rules, or did he ignore them for a reason? Lets find out.

In these four illustrations, the bottom two have used the rules covered to set the height of the lid as well as the height of the base. The two in the top row have used the rule to set the heights of their lids, but the bases are set according to my Shaker friend’s calculations.

Tough call, isn’t it. I can see a distinct difference in the proportions of the bases, especially in the box with the exaggerated proportions.

Starting with the obvious one, the one at the lower right, I believe the base is way out of proportion for the height of the box. The lid is fine, but the base, which is set by the Golden Mean, is just too much.

The one to its left, with its overall proportions calculated using the Golden Ratio and its base height set by the Golden Thirds, has a better balance between the two and tends to support the rules.

The two at the top, however, whether Golden Rule proportioned or my exaggerated proportions, have a better balance between their overall dimensions and the dimension of the base than the other two, their bases being calculated from the Shaker value.

The result of this is that I think I have developed a new rule here – “The Tin Rule”. This new rule states that a base should have a height that is 30% of the piece’s overall height. Let’s see if that one holds up for a number of centuries like the others have.

Summary

Thus ends this part of the experiment. I have learned some more interesting things about design and rules.

1. The Fibonacci Sequence works well when there are a fair number of divisions in a piece, but when there are few, like on my box, it is not that helpful
2. Having used this rule to determine the height of the lid, however, I have to acknowledge that it can be of some use, but only when used with caution
3. The Golden Mean Rule works reasonably well in applications like this, but again, I’m not sure I would rely on it completely
4. Good design is not finding one rule and sticking to it, but combining different rules to achieve balanced proportions
5. Finally, my Shaker friend taught me that if you are going to distort one rule of proportions, you had better be prepared to distort the others

One other thing I have learned researching the in’s and out’s of furniture design -  designing furniture is really no different than any other type of artwork. All these rules that I have come across researching this topic are the same ones that all graphic designers, architects and artists get drilled into their heads their first year of learning their crafts.

So it is back to researching the next phase of this experiment – shapes. Catch ya’ next time.

Peace,

Mitchell

Designing a Box - Part 1...

Given that the weather here is a constant -2˚C (around 28˚F) and we haven't seen the sun in weeks, it is not conducive to working in my shop, which, in case you were unaware, is currently located on the balcony of my apartment. Thankfully, we are moving into a new residence and I will be able to return to sawing, chiseling, and in general, whacking away on wood by the end of next month.

As I currently cannot spend time being intimate with a hand tool, I had to figure out something to keep my brain functioning and keep myself moving forward in my quest to master the art of putting two pieces of wood together so they stay that way. I could; of course, while away my hours cruising the web looking for more technical information, but the creative juices are humming so I must find a “fix”.

Before I get carried away in this writing and forget, did you see the latest video WoodTrek.com has posted? I don’t know anyone who isn’t fascinated by carving, whether actually doing it, or just looking at it. Keith’s latest video documentary has Brad Ramsay, of Irion Company, showing us more of his magic with a gouge, this time explaining how to hold it, motivate it and direct it. Definitely an informative filled 4 1/2 minutes.

All right, back to what I plan on doing with my next month.

Creating furniture, whether on a small scale like me, or pumping out whacking big armoires, all require an understanding of design. I have spent a lifetime in design, in one form or another; either in photography, graphic design, architecture and interior design, and have spent a lifetime studying the basis to ensure those designs have been commercially successful. The one thing I have never done, though, is put any formal thought into the in’s and out’s of designing furniture. This abundance of arrogance or lack of understanding has been proven time and again as I have never been completely happy with any particular piece of furniture design I have come up with. While I have never been completely happy with any piece of design I have done, I have noticed that I’m even less enthralled with my furniture pieces. Thinking about it, I feel this is because I have never taken the time to properly understand the design principles that furniture design is based on. I am not alone and I am sure this phenomenon of never being happy exists in all endeavors. I really don’t know any designer who is ever happy with what he or she has produced. This, I think, is a good thing. When you complete a design of something or other and you can find no fault in it, nor find a way to improve it - sell your pencils, your done. That second guessing of yourself and that pushing for something better is what keeps a designer motivated and striving for something a bit more “perfect”.

So here is what I have come up with as a way to challenge myself over the next month and improve my furniture design skills at the same time - I’m going to design a box. That’s it. A box. You can call it a Tea Caddy, or a Jewellery Box or even a Keepsake Box, but the bottom line is that it is just a box. I plan on using this simple object as a test to see where formal knowledge about design will take you. As I complete one element of design theory I’m going to take what I learned and apply it to this simple six-sided object to see if the theory works or not. Where will it take me, I have no idea, but I expect to have a hell of a time with it and enjoy the journey. So let’s get started.

The first “rule” is one that anyone who has even glanced at a woodworking article about design will recognize - “The Golden Ratio Rule”. Now there is a whole mathematical equation behind this basic rule and even a special name for it - “Phi”. Now I have never been one to get lost in the technical side of things, and given I have a difficult time balancing my chequebook, this is definitely not the one I’m not going to start getting technical with, so let me simplify it for you.

The Golden Ratio Rule, simplified, means; to give something a pleasing balance to the eye, its height should be 60% of its total width, or visa versa. (For those that appreciate the exact, this is a “rounded off’ value. If you must, the full value is 1.6180339887498948482)

Sounds simple, doesn’t it? So lets see if it works in practice.

Below are eight shapes, all based on one dimension – 10”  (I told you I wasn’t good at math). Two employ the Golden Ratio Rule. Click on it to enlarge it and remove the distractions and see if you spot which ones employ this rule.

When you read my answers, the first calculation is always the width and the second, the height.

1. 100% x 100%, or 10” x 10”
2. 100% x 75%, or 10” x 7.5”
3. 100% x 60%, or 10” x 6” (The Golden Ratio)
4. 100% x 35%, or 10” x 3.5”
5. 35% x 100%, or 3.5” x 10”
6. 60% x 100%, or 6” x 10” (The Golden Ratio)
7. 75% x 100%, or 7.5” x 10”
8. 100% x 100%, or 10” x 10”

Analyzing each shape, here are my observations.

Numbers 1 and 8 definitely do not work for me and I will admit that my opinion is tainted in this case from experience gleaned from other design applications. Squares, while used often in modern design, have no sense of line or balance on their own. They are just, well - there. To work, a square must rely on its surroundings to give the shape proportion. As this is a box all on its own, my opinion is that a square one just won’t work.

Number 2 is one I could live with, although it appears to me to be a bit bulky. If these dimensions were to work, there would have to be some accoutrements added to force it to appear, for lack of a better word, sleeker. Staring at it, I did have to acknowledge that its height is out of proportion with its width, yet it does project a certain power, which is what I like about it.

Number 3 does work, so the rule does have teeth. The balance between its height and width is right on the money. The one thing that struck me about it, however, is that it did not evoke any feeling in me. There was no jumping up and down, screaming, “That’s the one, that’s the one!” The dimensions do not offend the eye, but they didn’t tantalize it either.

Number 4 appears too squat for me, like there is something missing. Its squat appearance, to me, is less than gratifying. It just does not draw my eye to it, and when my eye does pass over it, it keeps on going, as the shape holds no interest.

Number 5, with the same dimensions as number 4, but standing on end, looks like it will fall over in the slightest wind. At these dimension ratios, there is no stability horizontally. This shape, for me, defines the reason why I have never seen a pretty telephone pole – too skinny – too tall. You could modify this shape to improve it, like give it a prominent and wider base, and that is something to be considered.

Number 6, another sized to the Golden Ratio, but this time vertically, works, but to me, it is a toss-up between it and number 7. Number 6 is well proportioned, but it does seem to me to be slightly narrow, and therefore, a tinge unstable. It is not near as unstable as number 5, but not as stable as number 7. Again a wider base would be a huge asset to it.

Number 7, the same dimensions as number 2, works for me vertically, but has only borderline acceptance horizontally. While it is wider than the one that employs the Golden Ratio, to me it has more “presence”, more “power”. Proof of this is in the viewing. When your eye wanders from one to another within the vertical samples, it keeps coming back to this one and is held there longer than with the others. Unlike numbers 5 and 6, it does not need anything added to it to give it stability; its dimensions give that all on their own.

Another thing I noticed while viewing these shapes is that many can be categorized as “masculine” or “feminine”, especially the vertical ones. Numbers 1, 2 and 8 are seriously masculine. There is power in their dimensions, and they do not require any further additions to project that feeling of power. Number 4, with its low dimension ratio, appears to me to be very feminine. It projects a “softer” connotation than the others. You could also add number 5 to the feminine category, but really, it is just too damned skinny to be anything but a bad choice. What I find a bit fascinating, though, is that the Golden Ratio ones, numbers 3 and 6, are neither masculine nor feminine in stature. Could this be one of the reasons the Golden Ratio has been a rule of thumb these last two thousand years?

So there it is. The first “test’ of a rule. With these simple forms, all based on one similar dimension, I have convinced myself that the Golden Ratio Rule should always be considered. As with any “rule”, however, you have to know it to know when to break it. From this simple test of it, I have learned a couple of things about it.

1. While there is strong evidence this ratio works in the vertical, it does not seem to me to stand-alone when it is rotated horizontally.

2. A shape conforming to the Golden Ratio is gender neutral. While some may think this observation is a bit of a stretch, the reality is, there is gender in shapes, and proportions go a long way in defining them. Applying this observation to my simple box is going to cause a quandary because the essence of this exercise is to produce just a simple box that is pleasing to the eye yet has no defined purpose. If this box were to be a man’s Jewellery box, a higher ratio might not be a bad idea. If it were to be a woman’s, however, a lesser ratio might be in the cards. This means that, to properly determine the ratio, the final usage of the item and the gender to which this item is meant for, must be determined first.

The final conclusion that I came to is that the Golden Ratio must be considered in the design as it does have a great deal of merit. I just won’t be chiseling it in stone anywhere soon.

Peace,

Mitchell

Why Are British Mid-19th Century Tools So Much Prettier...

Why are mid-19th century British tools so much prettier than North American ones of the same era? I have been asking this question for months wherever I can around the web and I haven’t received a qualified answer yet.

When you don’t get an answer to a question, you tend to develop your own, and that is exactly what I have done here. If you agree - good. If you don’t agree - even better, but tell me why. The one thing I hope you won’t do, however, is take offense.

First on the agenda is a disclaimer. I am not a historian, although I do read a great deal about the people and events during this particular timeframe. The following opinions are based on those readings and from my limited understanding of people.

On Stephen’s blog, The Full Chisel, I posted a comment to his entry, “Think of Old England”, in which I asked this specific question – “Why are British tools so much prettier than the ones available from the same time period in the United States and Canada?” This resulted in a number of further comments that spilled over onto WoodCentral and the discussion continued, and continued, and continued. I didn’t participate in this discussion, but I did read the aftermath. Where you guys learned all this stuff is beyond me. What a wealth of information. The problem I had with it all, though, is that it didn’t answer my question – Why are British tools so much prettier than the ones available from the same period in the United States and Canada?

What all of that discussion focused on was the importers' and manufacturers’ end of the equation and any good capitalist will tell you, manufacturers fill a need, they don’t create it. You can manufacture and import whatever you want, however you want, in any style you want, but if the public ain’t buyin’ it – you ain’t sellin’ it.

There was consensus of opinion reached through all of this discussion, though, and that is, British toolmakers in the mid-19th century produced pretty tools, while the American manufacturers in that same time period produced utilitarian tools. This fact, that we all agree on, tells me, and this is where I will probably get into trouble, that the British craftsmen of that timeframe held the tools of his trade in greater esteem than his counterparts in America.

Before I go further, let me qualify my position about where Canada fits in to this discussion. When it comes to tools, throughout our history, Canadians generally used American made tools rather than British made ones and we still do. We did so even in the middle of the 19th century when we weren’t even Canada yet, but still a British colony made up of two relatively separate sovereigns. To give you an example of how we Canadians like to suck on the straw from both ends, the United States declared war on the British on June 18th, 1812 and established the front for this war as being the borders of both Upper and Lower Canada. On June 19th, 1812, Mr. John Jacob Astor, an American and owner of The South West Company, which was headquartered in New York, negotiated with the governments of the two Canadas to be allowed to continue his trade for furs across the borders even though war had been declared. He was quickly given permission. One of the items Mr. Astor traded were tools made by American manufacturers. Here in Canada, we were British, unless, of course, it cost extra.

So now, if I may, I’ll rephrase the question, “Why did we, in North America, not desire pretty tools?”

I think the answer to this question can be found in the different types of societies found on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as how their respective craftsmen choose to view themselves and their positions within those societies.

From what I have read about cabinetmakers on both sides of the Atlantic during this timeframe, neither was making money hand over fist. While the daily earnings of the British craftsman were higher than that of his counterpart in the United States, he also faced a much higher cost of living, so the two equaled out, I think, surprisingly well.

In Britain, a tradesman was held to his post by the aristocratic social order and as a result he held his craft in higher regard than his equivalent in the North America. That is not to say that, as craftsmen, the British version was better than the North American, or the reverse. It is just stating, in my opinion, that, as individuals, the British craftsmen viewed their “lot in life” differently. I believe the greater emphasis British tradesmen placed on their trade Guilds, Unions and apprenticeships support this position 

In the United States, there was a completely different kind of social order. There, a man’s position was based more on what he became after he was born, rather than what he was before he took his first breath. The emphasis was less on what type of labor a man did for his living, and more on what type of living a man did with his labor. A good example to support this is residential architecture in both countries during this timeframe; the one referred to as the “Victorian Era”. During this era homes in North America were build with gingerbread fronts, fretted millwork, and large and ornate porches. Even smaller, less expensive homes were built with much of this decoration. Homes in Britain, during this same timeframe, were built, by comparison, rather restrained and remember, "Victoria" was their monarch. While North Americans painted these homes in elaborate color schemes, the more austere homes in Great Britain were painted any color you could want – as long as it was white. Another strong example of the differences in the perception regarding their trade, while unions were strong in North America, apprenticeships by the 19th century had lost a bit of their charm and Guilds were almost non-existent.

Within these differences regarding each man’s opinion of his self worth, I believe you find the answer to the question of tool styles. The British craftsmen found self-worth and self-respect within his craft. His craft was who he was. To support that opinion he insisted his tools be accented with different woods, metals and decorative materials, more ornate and therefore, more impressive, and he was more than willing to pay for those additions. To the North American craftsman, on the other hand, his tools were a means to an end and therefore he insisted on them being as utilitarian as possible and, of course, acquired as cheaply as possible.

I think the answer to all this is that, while the men were equal, they’re trades similar and the performance of their tools comparable, the societies that they lived and worked in caused them to differ in their perception of how those tools should look. To one, looks were important in recognition of his station in life, to the other, the look of his tools had little to do with his station and everything to do with his life.

Comments, please.

Peace,

Mitchell