SAPFM

[jdavis]

If nothing else, this thread shows that forum members do agree and disagree so they aren’t as like minded as reported elsewhere.

Thanks for the link to the original thread. It seems SAPFM formed a conference and coordinated a Museum tour to learn from Curators and the collection. Presumably, it was open to anyone that wanted to join regardless of their preference for tool use, skill level, or age. After the curator showed a dovetail feature that can’t be done with power tools, the SAPFM speakers showed the conference attendees why they make the cut with a dovetail saw. Like Don, I would have wondered why, in the same thread, anyone would claim that sapfm was doing a disservice to its members for not paying attention to curators and not teaching how to do period furniture with hand tools. Why bring it up now? If I claimed sapfm was doing a disservice, I think it would be hypocritical to then take advantage of its forum services to further my own purposes, without rational clarification. I’ll end with a quote also from the original thread “serious minded furniture makers, under the age of 50, should bear this in mind.” 

[Mark Hickey]

All,
What is important here is what you get out of the infomation that is presented. I work only with hand tools and, to me, it is the journey not the destination that matters. I enjoy the research and useing 18th century tools when I can find and afford them. I have a complex molding plane from 1750 that works just as good today as it did in 1750. I get such satisfaction when I use it and a nice looking molding.  This process may not be for everyone but it sure is fun. I think learning is what is important and enjoy the journey.

mark 

[CBWW]

I have been following this thread and thought it was time to add my two cents.  Saying that SAPFM does a disservice is just plain silly in my opinion and Im not even a memeber.  The general interest is in period furniture, how you achieve a result.. well there is more than one way to skin a cat and they all can be correct. 

I make a living making period and custom furniture(mostly period) and do a fair amount of high end antique restoration.  I do not have the luxury of exclusively using hand tools etc. as Adam wants.  I would just plain starve.  The buying public/my clients really do not care wether I use hand tools or not, or even know how it is made exactly.   THey are after a certain look.  Be it a clean art deco desk were the client/dec. shows up with a tape measure to see if it is made to spec, or working for a dealer(some do not even know how it is made), filling out a period set of chairs with color matching and distressing.  This leads into a whole other realm of the antiques world and the dishonest dealers and unsuspecting clients, I could go on...   Dkeller- yes there are people that make a living copying surfaces, joinery... but no I do not file my owns screws but have a huge collection of period screws.  This is getting of subject now a little maybe.

I guess there will always be a difference of opinion on the use of hand tools vs machines etc.  There will always be a difference b/w a hobbyist and a professional.  If I find myself standing in a pile of plane shavings.... I know I am loosing money.  The power of the almight dollar may change your stance.  Adam, if you were to attempt to make a living at making furniture, would you use all hand tools?  Please do not take offense to this question.  I really do respect your stance toward it.  It is just not realistic when money is involved. 




       

[Steve Rogers]

I haven't commented on much but - This horse has been beat to death a million times over. Lets move on.

[K A R]

With my apologies to Steve:

I have some observations that I offer not as arguments to any of the above but just simply my thoughts related to period furniture making.

It is very difficult for me to admire and study a particular period piece of furniture without having some understanding of the technology and techniques that were available during the period in which the piece was constructed.  To me, a piece of period furniture would lack a critical dimension absent some understanding of its historical context. 

Early craftsmen were not generally hobbyists.  They made furniture to make a living or to fill a personal storage or other need.  They used hand tools because that was the technology available.  They made choices about construction and wood preparation and dimensioning based on the limits of their knowledge and of hand tool technology.  These limits, and other things, all contribute to defining the historical context of the piece.  We are not, nor should we be, surprised that the 18th Century case piece we are studying was made with hand planned wood, or with hand cut dovetails, or with wood that may have a rough unfinished side. 

While the shop “machines” for the early craftsmen were limited to their ranks of indentured servants or apprentices, we should not forget that some of these earlier cabinetmakers were indeed innovators and were likely always looking for ways to increase their production and to decrease costs.  If TimberKing bandsaw mills had been available to the early craftsman, how much wood would have still been ripped over a pit?  If John Townsend had a good source for Baltic Birch plywood would he still have used less stable solid wood for his drawer bottoms?

Today, we all have choices in the technologies and techniques we can use for constructing period furniture reproductions.  This Forum ought to be the place where all these ideas are shared and openly discussed.  “Practical period furniture making” could be anything from – “I don’t pit saw my lumber; I buy it at a lumberyard.” – to – “I first dimension my lumber with machine and then hand plane.” –or – “I use only hand tools and hide glue.”   If you aren’t buying the piece or putting it in your museum, why should you care?   I think misplaced zeal stifles the important sharing of ideas that ought to be the staple of this Forum. I for one want to “hear” from you on the Forum even if you use nails (Please, hand wrought only!) instead of dovetails to assemble the drawers in your case piece!

One final thought:  What if the Shakers had had biscuit joiners?   That might not be too far fetched a thought – recent reading (Pop Wood) leads me to believe the Shakers used pocket screws to make step stools! (I jest!)  And yes, I will still keep paying for and reading that magazine.

Kent Ryan

[Adam Cherubini]

I don't care what kind of tools you use. I think you are better off if you know how the furniture you are copying was put together 250 years ago.  Call me a zealot, a purist, any names you wish.  Just makes sense to me.

Adam. 

[msiemsen]

All,
These two quotes are from Mark Twain:
This first covers what I believe Adam is trying to get across.

" Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." MT

This second needs to be employed by all whenever it applies:

"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." MT

They have been kicking horses like this one forever.
Miike

[K A R]

Hey Rich,

I care what Rich Dininny thinks!

Kent

[David Conley]

Rich & Ed,

You asked, “Who Cares?” 

It depends on what part of this thread you are talking about.  If it was the misunderstanding listed in the original post in Wood Central “… spray shellac …”, then I would agree with you.  “Stick a fork in it, this thread is done.”

If it is about “SAPFM does a disservice?” then I care very much!!  And the reason I care is because I want this organization to continue.  I enjoy the topics.  They are very informative, even if it is not on something that I am directly concerned with.  I just enjoy learning.  I can also ask for help when I get into a jam. To me, this is a wonderful site and organization.  I also care about whether; we as part of the leaders of this organization are doing what our members want.  Are we taking care of their needs?  My payoff is this organization will still be around 10, 20 years down the road. 

Finally, if I did not care about “SAPFM does a disservice” to its members, and no one else cared about it either, then there would be no need for this organization to exist, and thus it would eventually die.

I care about SAPFM!!

Adam is right about that beer.

Cheers,
David

[Ed Griner]

 The saga continues,first,I think all information about "Period Furniture"is welcome here.The contributing non-member posts are an example of the  open door policy,we have here.This is a great site for everybody interested in period furniture.The academics, that share information with "us"(plumbers,electricians,milkmen,etc) are greatly appreciated.As far as the direction of the site,so far it's been pretty good.If others would like to have more to say,about the site policy,a good first step,might be to become paying members.Everybody knows the old saying about the "Cow"!
                                                                             
                                                         Ed

[jaltemus]

This conversation has been almost beaten to death in past forums, but the discussion is good.  I was the one to make the comment about an "eletist" attitude be some members a while back, in response to the use of traditional hide glue vs. other glues.  Guess I survived, and speaking as a member of the EC, I don't feel SAPFM does any disservice to any member.

Let me put some thing is perspective, hopefully about using only traditional 18th century hand tools to make "a period piece of furniture".  I somethimes think the purists (who can do what they want, and good for them!) often forget that the furniture we see in museums, etc. came from shops with apprentices, journemen, etc who did a lot of the scut and routine work, and there were specialty carvers, turners, etc. who all worked on or contributed pieces.  I doubt any one 18th century cabinetmaker working alone could produce enought to feed a family.

I can attest to this when working with early 19th century tools at my shop at Genesee Country Village.  It is a tedious process to prepare rough stock and do all the joinery, etc. myself (granted I do talk to guests also which slows the process down).  I really feel the old time cabinetmakers would have bought any "power" tool available if it saved them time.  In a sense, the apprentices were the power tools of the day.  I do rough preparation of stock in my nice heated shop in the winter, and do the real finish work at the village, so I can complete a piece in one season.  I do not in any way feel I am being dishonest by doing this.

Enough rambling.  I feel SAPFM is doing a service to members by examining the older pieces, disseninating information about techiques, but also education about how to work in the 21st century.

I think Gene Landon, Jeff Headly, or other cartuche winners would agree.

Jim

[dkeller_nc]

CBWW  Your post was along the lines of what I was trying to say - many of us are interested in the techniques, tools and materials used to produce those coveted antiques in the museums, but that is not the only way to produce a representation of what an 18th century piece should look like. 

Since many of the SAPFM members (like yourself) are professionals that make their living making representations of 18th and early 19th century pieces, and using all hand tools and period finishes doesn't pay the bills, it should not be a surprise that many of the techniques discussed on the forum and found in Period American Furniture contain many modern methods of generating close facsimiles to the originals.

A related topic to this thread is what, exactly, is "close enough" to be considered an "authentic" reproduction?  The answer, of course, would vary depending on whom you ask.  In my case, I would not consider making any piece with plywood in any location, nor modern fasteners such as phillips head screws, but that's because my definition of "authentic" is that it should not be immediately obvious to the casual observer that the piece is modern. 

Others, however, might have a very different idea of what's acceptable.  Norm's 2005 show on building a 18th Century Connecticut Highboy comes to mind.

[Don Boettler]

If I am working as a historical interpreter building a piece of 18th century furniture then I would follow the historically correct processes of the original builder to show how it was done, the purpose  to educate and to record the event for future references.  But if I’m building the piece for a client or my own use then I would take liberties to speed up the building processes by incorporating modern tools.
It’s not as if there is a disservice being committed by SAPFM.   For SAPFM goal is to pull together those that are interested in American Period Furniture... But I believe that the most important aspect of SAPFM is that it is collecting a treasure chest of knowledge for future generations.
My suggestion to those that criticize SAPFM, become a member, make a difference, it’s easy to sit back and criticize.

Don Boettler
MRV Chapter
 

[Adam Cherubini]

Hi Jim,

apprentices were the power tools of the day

I keep hearing this here.  No evidence exists to suggest this is the case.  Anecdotal evidence suggests the contrary.  We don't know for sure because they never told.  But there's just no reason to believe this commonly held belief is accurate.

apprentices, journemen, etc who did a lot of the scut and routine work

I believe this to be true, though probably not as intended.  I think apprentices were given routine jobs, but they were whole jobs like coffins, hat boxes, etc, not subprocesses like surfacing stock for someone else.

I doubt any one 18th century cabinetmaker working alone could produce enough to feed a family.

This is probbaly the easiest to refute.  Journeymen cabinetmakers in 18th Philadelphia earned approx 5s/day for the first three quarters of the century.  This was more than enough to feed a family.  It was a good middle class living at the time.  We have no reason to believe these men needed or had slave labor or indentured labor to help them earn their 5s/day or to execute their work.

Some places, like Philadelphia did indeed have professional carvers distinct from other trades.  But this was not common to all colonies.  And the furniture produced in these different regions shows it.  In fact, this is used to distinguish between pieces from different regions.  New York for example, did not have great carvers.  Philadelphia had many many.  I think I heard up to 10 operating at one time in a city with at least 20 active cabinetshops.  But of course carvers carved more than furniture.  

Coincidentally, records from the PMoA show Philly carvers like Martin Jugiez earning up to 10s/day.  Master Thomas Nevell, the Philly carpenter who built Mount Pleasant in 1760, billed 8s/day for his time.  Carpenters like Nevell probably did have more cooperative shops, where the average project (build a house) really couldn't be accomplished by a single man efficiently.

Adam
P.S.  Please don't read anything into the above or try to place into the context of this thread.  Its just information for you to consider and nothing more.

[dkeller_nc]

"Some places, like Philadelphia did indeed have professional carvers distinct from other trades.  But this was not common to all colonies."

Adam - this is not strictly true.  While it may indeed be possible to find a specific example of a (smaller) colonial city that had few, if any, specialized carvers, this was not the usual situation.  As an example, Samuel McIntire did a great deal of bespoke work as a carver in Salem, Massachusetts, which was not exactly a huge city.

Probate records from a number of colonial cities indicate specialized carvers - Charleston comes to mind.