sand paper and shame...

Re: sand paper and shame...

David Miller from Iowa

>No shaming required, just confidence. If you are not using a scraper (a #80 is my staple)you might want to consider it because once you get that glass smooth finish you can better see the areas that need more work. I hope they don't take my Neanderthal badge away, but I sand between finish coats and often pick up a few scraper ridges.

Re: sand paper and shame...

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>At that point you're sanding the finish, which doesn't muddy up the surface like sanding the wood.

Pam

Re: sand paper and shame...

Jim in Burlington Ontario

>The way I figure it people served a long apprentiship perhaps 12 hour days 6 days a week for 5-10 years. So as long as my waterstones are getting smaller and I'm using less sandpaper it's all good.

Re: sand paper and shame...

Jack Guzman from Maine

>When I was making a bowsaw out of rosewood I resorted to sanding to shape the wood because the tools I had at the time weren't up to shaping rosewood.I too felt uneasy. Guilt? Shame?Whatever,it was wrong.I came to the conclusion that it's not a matter of shame.It all depends on what you want for a finish and how you like to work. I alost never use sandpaper anymore but it's because I hate the dust.If you need sandpaper to get the job done then it's just that-you "need it".End of story.---Jack

No shame, & sandpaper's a handtool, too

David Barnett

>I never sand maple. I sometimes sand walnut for tung oil finishes. Sometimes sandpaper's right for rosewoods, too. I don't sand cherry or red oak. I'm not a big fan of 'shiny' but I do appreciate chatoyance. I do love to sand-in those last coats of Tried & True Varnish Oil, and sometimes Waterlox, which I love on red oak. Then again, I'll take French Polish to as glossy as I can get it, then matte it with bronze or steel wool (hand tools), or maybe some spirits and pumice on hard felt. Mostly I leave things fresh from the smoothers and scrapers, but for those quiet subtle rubbed woods, sanding has its place.

Traditional Efficiency

Christopher Schwarz

>Sandpaper, glasspaper and sharkskin have been part of the hand-tool arsenal of the traditional woodworker for hundreds of years. I don't have the cite here, but Don McConnell has dug up references to its use in shop inventories from the 18th century (and perhaps earlier).

The idea has always been to do the work efficiently. Plane the wood until it gets to the point of diminishing returns. Then turn to scrapers and then sandpaper because they are the fastest way to remove the final surface imperfections.

All that said, I like to work straight from the tools when I can. But I think it's one of my few macho flourishes.

But you can relax and know that even the hardcore traditionalists from the peak of furniture production would turn to sandpaper in their time of need.

Chris

Re: Traditional Inefficiency

TMStock

>How about matted rush with a BC after the date? Sounds like an abrasive to me.

Reminds me of the time when I volunteered to surface a 2' x 12' bench top for a local boatbuilding school. I was heavily into hand tool purity at the time, so showed up with a 40-1/2 plus good intentions. The fact that the bench top had a fair amount of wood to remove may have accounted for the fact that I failed to make much of a dent in the project that day. I think the kids could have handled the job with an adze, but got too much of a kick out of seeing me tackle this tree with a dinky hand plane.

Someone flattened things out overnight with a power plane, leaving just the jack/smoother stuff left for the purist. The senior instructor said something about the students never knowing the difference anyway, and the main thing was to get something done.

Re: sand paper and shame...

Sgian Dubh

>When you've got to make a living at this game, Matt, like I do, abrasive papers are used in 99% of the polish prepping stages.

There's no shame in using abrasives, and not using them hurts profitability. Woodworkers have been using them for centuries too, so there's plenty of precedents. Slainte.

Re: Traditional Sandpapers

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Chris,

I'm not as confident as some regarding the use of backed abrasives in the 18th century. There are primary source materials including glass paper and some others.

I suspect 18th glass paper was a horribly coarse affair. Its use for surface work would have been limited. Other less coarse abrasives (rushes? shark skin?) may have not had the hardness required to work wood effectively.

We know loose pumice and brickdust were used as grain fillers. It may be that some 18th century abrasives were used to rub out the rare film finishes*.

I don't think anybody should be ashamed of using sandpaper. But if you are looking to 18th century shops for justification for its use, you may not find what you are looking for.

Adam

*I've been told film finishes on 18th century pieces were much rarer than one would expect by examining surviving pieces, due to subsequent refinishing. It is my understanding that 18th century original finishes were on the whole much flatter and drier than most of us prefer today.

Re: Traditional Sandpapers *LINK*

Don Clark

>For the non-believers, this is just one example. There are many others.

In fact, backed abrasives may be the only handtool that was used by the actual Neanderthals that is still in use in woodworking today.

Planes are tools of the late iron age and industrial age.


http://http://www.rook.org/earl/bwca/nature/ferns/equisetumhye.html

Here is the link *LINK*

Dan Donaldson

>The dreaded double http ;-)


Fixed

But what grit?

Christopher Schwarz

>I wonder if you grow it in batches by grit?

I can hear it at Williamsburg: "Hand me some #220-grit Equisetum hymale, young apprentice, and I'll learn you how to remove ridges left by a smoothing plane."

Fascinating link. Now I'm going to have to give some a try.

I'll try to dig up some of the source material on early sandpaper. Don McConnell and I have long talked about exploring this issue in depth. Perhaps now is the time.

Good point about the grit, Adam. I'll keep that in mind as I dig deeper.

Chris

Re: But what grit?

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Chris,

I've seen it in period inventories. The Seaton inventory might include it (can't remember). Don is the right guy to help. My mini library is packed away while I redo my office.

(Greg Sloop mistakenly thought I was kidding, but I really am building book shelves from dimensioned pine using only some saws, a smooth plane and a skew rabbet!)

If you intend to do a study, it would be my priviledge to donate a small portion of my 18th brick. Their bricks, and thus the dust from them, were different than modern bricks. They have a hardened outer casing, and a soft crumbly clay interior. I've had good luck mixing it with linseed oil and rubbing it into mahogany. It doesn't so much smooth, but fill the grain and provide a rich reddish tint. Modern bricks are completely different and not as useful IMHO.

Adam

Adult male hand (dry) = 8000 grit

David Barnett

>...according to a Solingen razor and strop maker. Read it somewhere. Will try to find the exact quote.

Well I must admit

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>I try very hard not to use sandpaper. Sometimes it's unavoidable. You see I have this psycho piece of claro walnut. I'm building a box for a plane with...Ahhh... Let's not go there...