period surface prep

Glass scrapers?

Jim Reed @Tallahassee

>Old timers sometimes made scrapers out of broken window glass.

Metal Scrapers

Sam Simpson

>Hi Y'all,

Paul, it has been possible to achieve exquisitely fine finishes for over 500 years. The period of the late 17th and early eighteenth centuries was the pinnacle of such work.

In Robert Mussey's book "The furniture masterworks of John and Thomas Seymour" there is a reproduction of a painting of Thomas Mitchell, a Welsh cabinet maker from the period. It is an interesting time capsule study of tools of the period. Apart from the odd looking brace hanging on the wall, there is nothing among the many tools displayed that is not still in use in this day and age.

It has long been a practice of English cabinet makers to usurp the tool steel from a bent or otherwise damaged saw, for use as scrapers and scratch stock.

It amuses me when questions are asked like this. If you just stop and think for a moment of all those fine sculptures that still exist from Byzantine, Egyptian, Greek and Roman times, and see the fine surfaces that were imparted to marble, it should not surprise you that even greater things where possible with wood.

In fact the questions that jump into my mind when I see the works of the Seymour's, is more like "why don't more of us still do it that way" rather than "how did they do that."

Regards Sam Simpson.

Too many ways

Michael R

>It's way too long to adequately cover here, because there were so many techniques used in various lacales at various times.

Scrapers and planes were ceratinly used a lot, but so were abrasives. Pumice was of course used in french polishing, but pumice blocks were also used like sandpaper. I can't remember how far back glasspaper and flint paper go, but I'm thinking early to mid 1700's. Before that, shark and dogfish skin were used as abrasives. Japanese used horesetails a highly silaceous plant for polishing. Old books I have read on finishing mention rubbing mahogany down with brick dust to both smooth and color it.

That's just all I can think of off the top of my head. I don't know how much there would be it I took time to do a little research.

Michael R

Re: Metal Scrapers

Paul Warnock

>I guess the question was more rhetorical than practical. I get confused when I hear certain people talk of how the original surfaces were left "shoddy" in the name of efficeincy and what we now see has been re-finished over and over and is not the original surface as has left the makers shop. I often am able to re-create the same finish with a good smoother, a scraper, some pumice and shellac. The longest time is letting the finish cure before rubbing it out. Thanks though

Re: Metal Scrapers

Jeff Schmidt (KY)

>Paul,

I believe that you are referring to the discussion during the Chat discussion this past week. I happen to believe that high end shops (Goddard, Townsend, etc) did indeed achieve extremely good surfaces and finishes. American conservators tend to be extremely careful about over-working a piece that is being preserved. Further, these pieces were expensive when they were originally produced. As such, they were often very carefully taken care of and received very little wear. Many of these homes of the wealthy were like museums themselves.

I have furniture that is over 50 years old with its original shellac finish completely intact. I just don't buy the assertion that the vast majority of these museum pieces at one time had tear-out and plane lines in between the holly inlay, and that they were all stripped down, scrapped, sanded, dyed, and refinished to produce a surface finish only known in the twentieth century.

Re: Time Period

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>I tried to do a search on "Seymour" at dogpile to find out what time period he worked in, and came up with nadda, zip, zilch. I did get a good hit on "Finding singles in Seymour", but since I'm already married I am probably better off not pursuing it.

There may be some truth to Adam's statement in the chat Tuesday night. One thing to keep in mind is that the late 1800's was very different from the late 1700's. And the other thing is that there is not much documentation of processes of early furniture makers. At one time the trades were a very closely gaurded secret, and knowledge was simply passed on from master to apprentice, and not in written form.

Another thing to keep in mind is that names like Chippendale are still around because they became famous for their woodworking. This was probably not the average woodwork. I am not sure where the theory comes from that finishes only lasted five years, and what time period it is referring to. But it is a different concept from the way we view finishes now, so I find it somewhat thought provoking and therefore intersting. To view surface prep in terms of what actually needs to be done versus what contemporary peer pressure tells us needs to be done I think is the point that Adam was trying to make.

If we have no written history of what was actually done, it is fairly easy to make up something and say "This is how it was done." And if you have an institutional sounding name and a good uniform, people are apt to believe you without ever questioning your statements.

Re: Time Period

Michael R

>Moses, It's certainly true that good information on how old finishes were done is not real common, but there are quite a few contmporary sources for descriptions of finishing methods from the late 1600's on. Some of them were remarkably sophisticated. Same goes for information regarding surface prep. The methods I quoted above, for example, were all from original sources, and there are lots more. I have been a student of finishes for a long time, partly because I do some restoration work and like to match the old finishes exactly, but mostly because I find it interesting.

MR

Correct!

Michael R

>>>>I happen to believe that high end shops (Goddard, Townsend, etc) did indeed achieve extremely good surfaces and finishes. American conservators tend to be extremely careful about over-working a piece that is being preserved. Further, these pieces were expensive when they were originally produced. As such, they were often very carefully taken care of and received very little wear. Many of these homes of the wealthy were like museums themselves.<<<

You're absolutely right, and not just about the high end shops. A lot of makers didn't waste time on the parts that nobody would see or touch, but but the surfaces that a user would see and touch were always excellent, certainly from the 1600's on.

The claim about surfaces left "shoddy" has no basis in fact at all. Such a practice would be like leaving paint runs on a Ferrari. I suspect that claim may have been dreamed up to explain the poor craftsmanship on a lot ot those crummy fakes coming out of Southeast Asia, and being passed off as genuine. I often see pieces that are literally falling apart in the store, with single-dovetail drawers (never done anywhere in Europe past the Middle Ages) being offered at prices comparable to genuine antiques.

M R

Re: Time Period

Paul Warnock

>the Seymours worked in Mass. in the late 1700's to the early 1800's. They are regarded by most as being the greatest of the American Federal Period cabinetmakers. I guess after reading the transcript of the Chat with Adam Cherubini and seeing his posts and the posts of some others, I was trying to rectify what I was reading and what I have personaly seen.

Re: period surface prep

Adam Cherubini

>Now see I think this is a really cool topic. I find this very exciting. Here are a few things I've learned, and I'll try to back this all up with sources that you guys can investigate further:

1) I don't know of any 18th c english language documentary sources discussing methods of surface prep. Moreover, if we could find a documentary "smoking gun" we'd have to challenge how wide spread it s application was. Moxon is pretty much all we haveand he doesn't talk about surface prep very much.

2) According the chief conservator at Philly (David DeMuzio), there is no original finish. Most pieces have repairs, non-original hardware and the like. The wealthiest families probably provided the finest care which probably included periodic refinishing. What all furniture people dream about is the proverbial "barn find" but I think the joinery and finishes are too fragile for this to be common.

3) My work focuses on "typical" or middle class furniture. Cheap furniture which uses cheap wood (like tulip) and painted furniture generally simply cannot last in tact. I've already begun to see degradation in some of my 5 year old pieces. Moreover, when the dark paint begins to wear off of light wood, it looks like crap and begs for refinishing. I doubt any of my "period" finishes will last more than 20 years.

4) I believe the Hand Tool Challenge participants are alone in timing the use of hand tools and comparing that to period sources. Anyone can say the Goddards did this or that. But all we know is what the piece sold for. By converting money into time, I've tried to match their billable hours building similar pieces (but simpler and cruder in my case). So far, I've not been able to meet their times.

So just in terms of economics, I'd say Goddards or John Head simply didn't have the time to produce some fantastic finish. If they did, I can't begin to explain how and my entire theory would fall apart. As it is, it appear very robust.

You can figure it yourself. Here's what I've learned:

a) There seemed to be very little inflation throughout at least the first half of the 18th century both in the colonies and in England. (multiple sources including Simon Edgell and John Head account books)

b) Hardware, glue and nails were cheap. I have numbers for all. For wood, I use .6d/bdft* for most common species throughout the first half of the 18th century (John Head account book). I think I calculated 5s of materials in a 3L-0-0 chest.

c) Figure a tradesman earned 1-2L per 6 day week (london tradesmen, john Head account book)

So the 3L chest probably took a little over a week to make.

*this number pays the sawyer. I never found prices for timber which makes me think it was cut for free somehow. The hauling of the log to the sawyer indicates it wasn't the sawyers' log. In Head's case the log seemed to go at least 10 miles up river to a mill. Hauling was paid for both directions.

4) DeMuzio says the single biggest mistake made by modern reproductionists is that we make everything too nice. (Now we don't have to believe DeMuzio). But I think his opinion suggests he feels the furniture he cares for simply isn't well built.

BTW, John Head used a used white cedar roof shingle for a drawer bottom in one of his most expensive pieces.

5) Can I say, I think it would be cool if more of us worked together to solve some of these riddles. Taking the Hand tool challenge is a great place to start. I've been wanting to redo itthe webpage and Ellis said he would host it.

Just sorting out the facts from the myths is a tough job.

Back to work!

Adam

Re: period surface prep

Michael R

>>>1) I don't know of any 18th c english language documentary sources discussing methods of surface prep. Moreover, if we could find a documentary "smoking gun" we'd have to challenge how wide spread it s application was. Moxon is pretty much all we haveand he doesn't talk about surface prep very much. <<

I can't take the time to go searching for many quotes, but for starters, I would refer you to Pages 449 through 454 of "Conservation of Furniture" by Rivers & Umney, published in 2003. Among other things, they describe some of the different kinds of abrasive papers used over the last 200 years, show a plate from a 1772 book on finishing, and show a listing of 18th Century abrasives including scrapers, sharkskin,horsetail rushes, pumice, rottenstone, and glass. I have seen similar illustrations and quotes from several different sources over the years, so I'll stand by what I said above. Certainly different methods were used in different traditions, but these materials were effective and commonly avilable.

As to finishes, I have finishing schedules and formulae for both oil and spirit varnishes dating back to the late 1600's if memory serves, including the varnishes typically used by Cremonese violin makers of the time of Stradivarius and Guarneri.

Certainly there are pieces up to 200 years old that have their original finish. I've worked on pieces from the 1700's that show no signs of refinishing, and refinishing wasn't all that popular,as far as I know, until after WWII. I I have no doubt that a lot of old pieces were refurbished by french polishing in the 19th Century, but without removal of the original finish. For that matter, I have seen and used furniture that has stood in the same place for 150 to 200 years, as far as anybody knows. The furnishings in some churces I have been in date back even farther. I have a table from around 1740 in my front room that I have owned for years and inspected thoroughly. As far as I can tell from detailed inspection, it has been "polished up" a couple of times,but never refinished. By the way, it shows lots of tool marks on the insides of the aprons, the undersides of the drawer bottoms, etc., but the "show" surfaces are exquisite.

I'm not a conservator, nor do I play one on TV, but I know enough of them to say with considerable understatement, "Opinions vary" among that crowd. But contemporary documentary evidence is pretty hard to ignore.

Michael R

Re: period surface prep

Joel

>It seems to me that a table with a less than pretty flawless top surface would be pretty useless as would a desk.

When you veneer something the subtrate has to be fairly good otherwise the veneer won't sit right. so finishing a visible surface cannot be that much of a stretch.

Not all furniture was high end. not every cabientshop had the chops to do super work.

THere is a goodly amount of furniture from before the 1850's that has been in the same place since then with no indication that is was ever refinished.

THat we today cannot match the early production figures is more of a comentary on us than them.

THere is enough comtemparary writing where the necessary high standard of work is mentioned and we certainly know how long it took to make basic low end London furniture (Henry Mayhew c. 1850). THis is high end stuff we are talking about and it would be better made. The London price guide of 1793 gives a breakout for oiling and polishing costs on all their prices and even their use of the work "polishing" suggests sanding or some other sort of abrasive finish.

In my own experieice if I use pretty decent wood, If I glue it up correctly, and If I pay attention when I plane, a surface ready for finishing isn't brain surgery. The problem is of course I 'm not good enough to do it instinctively and certainly nowhere near as fast (or with the stamina) as I would need to be to be employable 200 years ago. But those guys would have been.

Incidently Mayhew (1850) quotes an experieice cabinetmaker saying that the influx of machinery (primarily power saws and planing machines) did not increase productiviety at all but it did allow the use of less skilled craftsman to work at the same speed.

Re: period surface prep

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>You say the book is published in 2003. What we are lookng for is a book published in 1703, or at the latest 1803.

Re: period surface prep

Michael R

>Moses,the book was published in 2003, but it reproduces a plate from a book in the 1770's, and it is the most complete, up to date, and authoritative book on furniture conservation I know. It was written for museum conservators, not the general public, and runs to almost 800 pages. In order to conserve furniture, you have to know as much as you can about how it was originally made. I am willing to accept their research

If that won't do, how about Alexi's "Secrets of the Arts, published in 1550, or Christopher Morely, 1692, or Fiorovanti's "The Universal Mirror of Arts and Sciences" published 1564?

Even Ernest Joyce, in his Encyclopedia of Furniture Making refers to traditional use of "Sand-, Brick- and stone dust, Shagreen (shark's skin) and other primitive materials for leveling surfaces". Buried in my files and other books, I have several other articles and books which quote contemporary sources verbatim on surface preparation and finishing.

You may, of course, believe it or not. It's your choice, but I'm certainly convinced.

Michael R

Re: period surface prep

Sam Simpson

>Hi Y'all,

Well put Joel and Michael, my sentiments exactly. I tried to write a rebuttal to some of Adams statements, and just couldn't get it down to anything less than five pages of counterpoint and contradiction. It doesn't serve the conversation to print such stuff. The last thing I want to do is have Adam feel like we are ganging up on him.

But I think Adam is genuinely interested in the conversation, and is tough enough to engage in it. I would like to point out that the historic record that we have for period furniture, exists more in the furniture itself than in written documentation.

I have restored Seymour pieces also English and American pieces of greater and lesser execution. As far as finishes go, you can pretty much assume that the materials used as vehicle, binders and ellastomers in period furniture, do not differ from those used in fine art. (painting) And though it is true that some cleaning and retouch is required from time to time, there is no reason to suspect that those organic finishes will not remain consolidated indefinitely. Just as the Mona Lisa has survived, so will many of the original finishes on fine furniture. Mr. DeMuzio's statements perhaps refer more to these practices than implication that "no such thing as an original finish" means destruction of the old finish.

As for the carpentry.- As an apprentice I was taught to produce. I remember repeatable times of ninety seconds to chop a mortise 2x2x1/2. I remember constructing a fully jointed case for draws in a single day. Even later in life I have turned 24 small table legs in a day when non of my employees have ever exceeded 12.

As for trying to reconcile practices of work against time and motion studies new and old, I think it will tell nothing. On this subject I can offer this. - Some days I can lay twelve books of gold leaf and on other days only one. Trying to explain why and how and when to take such discrepancies into account, would require explanations more complicated than the instructions for laying the gold leaf in the first place. I think this is just one clue as to why there is so little written word on the subject of how the crafts were accomplished.

Regards Sam Simpson.

Re: period surface prep

Joel

>a couple things

should be "word "polishing" " not work. The other typos are more understandable.

But it occured to me that if we want to know the surface condtion of 18th century furntiture just look at 18th century paintings with furniture in them. Those painters painted what they saw and if tables weren't supposed to be perfectly flat and polished and reflect light they wouldn't see them flat and polished and or be expected to paint them that way anyway.

Now i have to go run to a museum to look at some paintings but it seems like a pretty reliable way of getting contemporary evidence of what the stuff looked like new.

(for expensive furniture look at pictures with rich people in them)

Re: period surface prep *LINK*

Joel

>took two seconds to find this.

2nd picture from the top. of Paul Revere. The table has a nice warm reflection of a way finish with no distortion from an uneven top. The moldings on the sides of the table have a slightly wonky look of slight irregularities as if the moldings were hand worked but aren't perfect and certainly don't have the gloss of the table top.


some pictures

Re: period surface prep

Mark Harrison -- in Sydney, Australia

>Something else to bear in mind here is the quality of timber that was used (squandered, in hindsight) is vastly different to what we have to use today. Surface finishing with a shaving tool (plane/scraper) is far easier if you are not fighting the material all the time.

Just a thought.

Maybe someday.....

Michael R

>You'll tell us how you chop mortises that quick. Obviously, it involves a solid bench and no drilling.................

What slows me down is getting the bottom cleaned out.

M R

Re: period surface prep

Steve Wargo

>I think the statement that Paul was trying to get is that mediocrity is O.K. but not for everyone. There are cabinetmakers that strive to create works of art in which everything is perfect in appearance, shape, and feel. That's not to say there's anything wrong with mediocrity, close to square, or close to flat, or close to polished, but that's exactly what the piece reflects. There are a good portion of woodworkers out there who strive for perfection, be it a piston fitted drawer, or flawlessly French polished top. There are others who are simply happy with the fact that the project was completed and is approved by the people around him. When the piece is viewed for the first time by another they are happy to hear �That looks really nice". However, there is something to be said when someone seeing a piece for the first time says "Wow!" instead.

Re: period surface prep *LINK*

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>"It is important to recognize that the sound of the great Italian instruments we hear today is very different from the sound they would have made in Stradivari's time. Almost all Cremonese instruments underwent extensive restoration and "improvement" in the 19th century."

"However, historical research has shown that the varnish is no different to that used by many furniture makers when Stradivari was alive. Claire Barlow and co-workers at Cambridge University, for example, have used electron microscopy to identify many of the important ingredients of the varnish itself, and the materials that are used to smooth the surface before the varnish is applied. It turns out that most could easily have been bought from the pharmacist shop next to Stradivari's workshop."

"Indeed, ultraviolet photography has revealed that many fine-sounding Italian violins have lost almost all their original varnish, and were recoated during the 19th century or later. "

"Over the last 150 years, physicists have made considerable progress in understanding the way the violin works. In the 19th century the "modernized" Stradivarius violin emerged with an "enhanced" tone as a result of scientifically guided "improvements" by the leading violin restorers of the day. However, Stradivari would be amazed to find that the modern musical world credits him with such a secret. After all, how could he possibly have had the clairvoyance to foresee that his instruments would be extensively modified in the 19th century to produce the kind of sound we value so highly today? Indeed, those sounds would have been totally alien to the musical tastes of his time!"

"Indeed, some leading soloists do occasionally play on modern instruments. However, the really top soloists - and, not surprisingly, violin dealers, who have a vested interest in maintaining the Cremonese legend of intrinsic superiority - remain utterly unconvinced."


Science and the Stadivarius

I obviously was not very clear.

Mark Harrison -- in Sydney, Australia

>My point was that the quality of materials available to earlier cabinetmakers was of a vastly superior quality to what we are with left today. For instance, the two fixed leaves of my extension dining table (c1850) are made of mahogany boards that are 520mm (almost 20 1/2 inches) wide. All clear boards and no joins. The large leaves that are removable are only 500 mm wide! This table comfortably seats eight, ten at a pinch.

I have no idea what this sort of timber would cost today, assuming you can still buy it, but I would bet it would not be a lot less than I paid for the table!

These days we are dealing with boards that early cabinetmakers would have rejected, and with good reason. They didn't have the tools to use it. Australian hard woods being particularly notable. Many of them make the northern hemisphere native hardwoods look like Balsa (which is technically a "hardwood")!

Not to mention...

Michael R

>that the neck was shorter and the angle different, and that concert pitch and string tension were lower than it is today. Almost every 18th Century violin in use today has had a longer neck grafted in, with the old scroll and pegbox grafted onto the new neck. The only exceptions would be instruments that are not played, or that are used in baroque orchestras.

By the way, quite a few modern makers produce violins that cannot be distinguished from Strads or Guarneris in blind evaluations. The old instruments are great, but not incomparable.

M R

Why clean it out?

Dan Donaldson

>As long as it is not a through mortise and is deepenough that the tenon doesn't bottom, why clean it out?