Hand Tools

Subject:
Why I mention that question..
Response To:
The rest of the story ()

David Weaver
..what's traditional...

I was picking george's brain a few years ago about design, asking him for a list of rules of thumb. Of course, this is an oversimplification and he gave a couple, but he mentioned something to me that stuck.

If you don't know that you're a good designer, then you'd better be able to copy good designs, and for many, that's the limit.

The point of that being that you're unlikely to have a clue about what's good and what's not if you don't become accustomed to the elements in fine work.

I've used flat bevels. I've used hollow bevels. I've used about every kind of stone I can think of aside from the ones regard not to be that good. At some point, stuff was introduced in the 1700s that wasn't traditional to that point. It's likely there was 75 "stuffs" introduced for each one that stuck.

I'm sure that each new thing was perceived as a threat, and I'm sure there were those who decried no need for them.

This is superior to a flat bevel. I'm reminded of george because I'm not trying to find things superior to a flat bevel, I walked into this backwards just being lazy on a number of things. But I have no lack of familiarity with setting up a flat bevel that doesn't fail at the edge in normal use. that was the first step toward this long ago, realizing that most "good" chisels and "bad" chisels are separated less between each other when set up properly than a good chisel is from itself when set up properly and not properly.

Setting out to improve on "traditional" is usually fruitless, and in the case for most chisels, is probably done mostly with the manufacturer's ease in mind.

© 1998 - 2017 by Ellis Walentine. All rights reserved.
No parts of this web site may be reproduced in any form or by
any means without the written permission of the publisher.

WOODCENTRAL, P.O. BOX 493, SPRINGTOWN, PA 18081