Hand Tools Archive
Todd Stock
How does one sort through those choices and determine which are affectation and which are artifact? Are we consciously engaging in what smells a lot like virtue signaling, or do we put the labor hours in and let the result speak for itself, sans obvious symbology?
In my little area of craft, the standard of fit and finish is ridiculously high - essentially perfection in appearance and function if the maker wants to be able to sell at a reasonable price. Despite that standard - which would seem to reward eradication of both obvious and less-than-conscious signaling of 'handmade' - there exist a sufficient number of customers in the market that appear adept at identifying the project which required more hours and a greater level of commitment on the part of the maker. Which begs the question as to whether we are better off doing the very best work we can and trusting to the astute to reward our efforts, or adjust our design and execution to garner a larger audience through more obvious signaling of the great virtue of our work?
Messages In This Thread
- What makes the "handtool" look?
- David Pye's thoughts
- What doesn't result in a hand tool look *PIC*
- Thanks gentleman
- Re: What makes the "handtool" look?
- Re: What makes the "handtool" look? Mistakes?
- Easy... the eye of the beholder
- Re: What makes the "handtool" look?
- Re: What makes the "handtool" look?
- Re: What makes the "handtool" look?
- Re: Tempted
- Re: What makes the "handtool" look?
- Re: What makes the "handtool" look?
- comment
- Re: comment
- Re: comment *PIC*
- This is a line of thought often
- Chamfers on rails and styles
- Edit: incomplete thought.
- Re: comment
- comment
- Re: What makes the "handtool" look?
- Re: Tempted
- What is the objective
- What doesn't result in a hand tool look *PIC*
- David Pye's thoughts