Philly pricebook exhibition

[johnjesseph]

The AMA is not a union.  Medical professional societies (of which the AMA is one of many) are prohibited from entering into economic negotiations on behalf of their
members.  As a professional society, they represent maybe fifteen or twenty percent of physicians.  I am not, and have never been, a member.

There has been talk of doctors forming unions, which has not gone anywhere.  There are a smattering of ineffective organizations that represent a handful of the 900,000 physicians in the U.S.  Seems like the effort to organize doctors is coming from the organized labor system, not the doctors themselves...

Carry on.

[mikemcgrail]

I have enjoyed reading along in this thread and would suggest that perhaps this subject might make a nice piece for a future issue of apf. I think Adam's apt description of the special skill set as perhaps "freakish", is the result of a desire to understand period construction and design, and that it extends to a desire to understand the people themselves, that designed, built, sold and bought the pieces. In any event, I think I would enjoy more on the subject. It takes a bit of thought to reproduce accurately, and I am sure I am not alone in enjoying the process of recreating in my shop the solution to a problem someone else solved so long ago.

[Adam Cherubini]

Mike,

As I guess you can tell, I join you in your excitement for this subject, all the more heightened in this case by Alexandra Kirtley's presence.

I was looking at an old chest on frame this morning at a friend's house, possibly a PA piece, maybe late 18th c.  It had full SYP dust boards.  The back of each dust board was quite a bit shy of the backer boards, maybe 4" or more.  And the back edge of each dust board had a bark-less live edge.  The top surfaces were well flattened and smoothened.  The bottom surfaces were clearly jack planed as the dadoes they ran in were narrower than the dust boards' thickness (the dust boards were rabbeted to fit the dadoes).  The boards were knotty and in one area, a knot was removed with deep hatchet cuts. 

I think all of us have planed knotty pine with jack planes.  It really isn't fun.  If you have a metal bottomed smoother, sometimes you can cut across a knot.  But a rank set, open mouthed wooden plane just doesn't do so well.  So I see these sorts of things and interpret them as someone moving quickly.  These are things that I've certainly done in haste, not knowing it was a common practice (and I'm not saying it was a common practice).  But there it is. 

I think, if nothing else, the price book offers us an alternative interpretation of what some might view as the sloppy work that can occasionally be seen on old furniture.  Such work wasn't necessarily reflective of a guy's inability to do a better job or the work of an apprentice versus a journeyman or master (as some have interpreted such work).  I see it as stuff they had to do to make money on a piece who's labor or sale price may have been fixed.  I also think it reflects the values of the customer.

Adam

[kirtley]

Adam,

Some of this is directly to the point, some of it is more about the issue of being able to evaluate wages, which clearly was not standard or uniform, even within one craft, in one city, in one year, even with a price book.  Like Mark, I have often brought up the analogy of MSRP when describing the (presumed) purpose of the price book.  Has anyone ever paid the MSRP for a car?  I know several lawyers and I know that, even with a stated “hourly rate”, legal bills at a certain level are always negotiated down.  I am certain that journeymen and masters battled it out too, despite the price book’s existence and despite which party was aware of its existence.   

The conventional source for currency valuation is John J. McCusker, “How Much is that In Real Money?: A Historical Commodity Price Index for use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States” (Second Edition) Worcester, Mass: The American Antiquarian Society, 2001.  Page 61: Values of colonial currencies were all different and, to trade inter-colonially, currencies were most easily calculated into London’s currency, whose exchange rates and commodity prices were published, and then recalculated.  Page 70: In 1772, to buy £100 sterling, it cost a Pennsylvanian 160.61 Pennsylvania pounds (£P) and a Virginian 129.75 Virginia pounds (£V).  Page 52: McCusker shows in a table that 1772 was a year of highly inflated commodity and wage prices.  After 1774, prices deflate. (This is a point echoed by all of the sources I read.)  One can expect high labor costs in such an economy.  (I have always thought that perhaps this why the price book was printed exactly at that moment…) The table shows that, in Pennsylvania in 1772, Anne Bezanson calculated that the commodity price of £100 cost £113; by 1774, it was again £100.  An 1860 CPI (Commodity Price Index) calculated for 1772 it was £110, and in 1774 it was £97.  The same spread, but you can see here (and certainly on the table) how much variation and disagreement there was/remains over such valuations.  That being said, many of these sources are long on which economist said what and when and who was over-inflating and who was undervaluing, etc.  A strong point McCusker (and all of the others…) makes is that specie was rare, printed money volatile, so valuating prices for goods and services was difficult then and even more so today. 

This lead me to think: was the purpose of the price book to encourage a cash (non-barter) system?  Cabinetmakers advertised that they accepted (and extended) credit, but (not unlike today) they offered better prices for cash.  Considering that specie and printed money was so rare even for wealthy merchants, exactly how did a master cabinetmaker plan to pay a journeyman who demanded cash for his cabinetmaking? 

Gary B. Nash’s essay “Artisans and Politics in 18th century Philadelphia” in The
Craftsman in Early America edited by Ian M. G. Quimby (Winterthur, 1984) cites the 5 s per day for “an artisan” (3 s for a laborer).  He does not footnote the date of that wage. [In a footnote on that page (65) he does quote Benjamin Rush from 1769: “The grand complaint with laborers among us is that we do not pay them sufficient prices for their work.  A plain reason may be assigned for this: we consume too little of their manufactures to keep them employed the whole year around” Interesting—I am not sure if that was germane to the cabinetmaker…] Page 82, Nash begins in 1770 talking about how artisans tried to persuade merchants from resuming trade after the repeal of the non-importation acts.  By 1772, the artisans were working to press the legislature “for laws that would benefit them.”  Again such observations about what was going on politically
and socially within Philadelphia in 1772 raise more questions about the goal of the price book in such a moment as 1772.   

Anne Bezanson’s Prices and Inflation during the American Revolution: Pennsylvania, 1770-1790 (Philadelphia: U Penn Press, 1951) is extremely rare in that she actually ventured into the subject of wages and even cites artisanal work.  Page 316: Thomas Evans, a dealer in leather work, paid unskilled workers up to 4 shillings a day for mowing.  Good discussion about how private arrangements in each craft [such as the furniture price book would be considered] was the real way the relationship between wages and prices was established.  Page 317: Labor and commodity prices were highest in early 1770s, deflated rapidly in 1774.  Page 29: March, 1776, a shoemaker advertised that he paid journeymen shoemakers 10 shillings per pair of shoes, a 33 % increase over his old rate of 7 sh, 6 p.  He asked his purchasers to pay 12 shillings per bound pair of shoes and 11 shillings per unbound pair of shoes.  1770s = volatility.  Page 166: Pa Council of Safety—Gunlock Makers Dec 1776m complaining about rising cost of journeymen’s wages.  Page 293: Samuel Wetherill complained that the journeymen spinners and weavers had doubled their wages.  There are several more examples of such complaints about journeymen’s wages and how the ball was in their court because of the scarcity of labor.  Thomas M. Doerflinger also discusses this in A Vigorous Spirit of Enterprise: Merchants and Economic Development in Revolutionary Philadelphia (Institute of Early American History and Culture: Wm & Mary/UNC, 1986).  Page 157: Primitive economy in colonial American as noted by high cost of labor and capital, competitive imports, fear of flooding export market and having manufactured wares devalued, scarcity of specie, volatility—that all lead to an economy where there was incredible potential for both adversity and opportunity.  Doerflinger also cites the assessed values of houses occupied by artisans in the 1770s (though he does not specifically mention cabinetmakers—in fact none of them do…) (pages 37-40).  In Philadelphia, for houses valued between £501 and £750, 28% were merchants and 72% were artisans.  That speaks well for Phila artisans!  Powel’s house was £2000.   

One of my best sources comes from our friend Franklin and his work during the French and Indian War (aka Seven Years War, 1756-1763).  In another text, The Economy of Early America: The Revolutionary Period, 1763-1790 (edited by Hoffman, McCusker, Menard, and Albert), Doerflinger (page 192/193) cites the wage Franklin paid to an unskilled laborer during the War at 15 shillings per day. The unskilled laborer was a wagoner who offered his services and his wagon to the war cause.  Renting one’s horse (just the horse, no person/handler) was paid at 2 shillings a day.  The attractive 15 sh wage for an unskilled wagoner drove farmers to abandon farming and take up wagoning—by 1779, the price of grain was high again, and wagoners returned to farming. 

T. H. Breen writes in The Marketplace of Revolution: How Consumer Politics Shaped American Independence (Oxford, 2004) that in Philadelphia, dry goods merchants sold as much as 90% of their goods on credit. (page 136)  He then of course cites Franklin’s adage for the ages “Time is Money”  Page 187-191: The interest in producing paper money began in the 1740s and hoped to encourage consumerism.  In Boston, “too little specie, not enough paper” (page 188) lead to the development of “Shop Notes” that permitted the bearer to demand goods at a later date—like a bond. There were numerous problems related to this practice (such as devaluing the notes once they were redeemed) but it is illustrative of the lack of masters being able to actually even pay wages to journeymen. 

There is no shortage of tangential information for you on the subject of wealth of artisans and comparative currency values in the colonial period.  Alice Hanson Jones wrote in Wealth of a Nation To Be (Columbia, 1980) about income and wealth of colonial Americans in 1774—very geographical comprehensive but tough because there is little on artisans and 1774 is a deflation year in comparison to 1772.  See Table B2 and page 147.  McCusker also co-authored another standard text with Russell E. Menard, The Economy of British North America.  In Studies on Money in Early America, McCusker wrote an informative article entitled “Colonial Paper Money” where he further discusses the effect of printing money in a barter and specie-poor economy.  In 1774, Maryland printed a 6 dollar bill where it is printed on the face of the dollar (yes, dollar) that one dollar = 4 sh 6 d British, which equaled £2 5s old money…

I recognize that my estimate of 15 to 25 shillings per 12-hour day is high and is broad, but it was assessed with the understanding that 1772 was a “high” year and that this was for a barter economy where cash payment is difficult to measure (was it specie or printed money?—two different valuations!! NB: the method of payment is always noted in cabinetmaker’s and other artisan’s receipt books…) For 1772, we see account books, receipt books, invoices, etc with charges for furniture and payments to journeymen, carvers, etc but little in the way of costs per day’s work for the skilled journeyman.  With the information at hand four years ago, I stand by what I wrote.  I am pleased to see the discussion and hope we can all gain a better understanding, improve upon my estimate and narrow it. 

By the way, your query about my sentences on page 15 about the fines being imposed—that refers to the 1790s price books.  Again, that is an entirely different set of bibliographic citations and I recommended to you that Montgomery wrote well on it.       

Alexandra Kirtley

[mikemcgrail]

Things I like to think about,
"A strong point McCusker (and all of the others…) makes is that specie was rare, printed money volatile, so valuating prices for goods and services was difficult then and even more so today." Maybe a journeyman of 1772 would have preferred barter. There is another quote that I also like, I am afraid I cannot remember or cite accurately the source, but it is roughly "The primary value of money is the importance placed on it by others". I have always liked this quote, even more so now, as this scarcity of currency traced back to the 18th century implies lets me wonder about how variable this value is in time and space. I prefer to imagine, as I believe Mrs. Kirtley suggests, that this book is just an attempt to quanitify the value of some work at a particular instant in time and place.
There is some concern in this thread about the advantage one group of persons might be taking over another group that this might represent. As a boy, I once asked my father if perhaps we were taking advantage of our customers in my family's business. His reply was that in fact, everyone takes advantage of everyone else, to some extent. Since then, I have tried to see value in the advantage that everyone of us has in one way or another. So if, on occasion, I build a piece for someone, I like to think they are taking advantage of some freakish(I like Adam's adjective) skills I might possess, usually for the importance that I have placed on some money. Just some miscellaneous ramblings.

[Adam Cherubini]

This is awesome stuff and I really appreciate Mrs. Kirtley's response.  Thanks for taking the time to share this with us, Alexandra.  To be perfectly frank, I think the economics here are a bit beyond my comprehension.  I can imagine your sources using published commodity prices etc etc.  And I'm sure their view (and yours) accurately reflects the period.

Here's my take, which I hope will be helpful:

The Nevell account lists wages billed to his customer (MacPherson) for carpentry/joinery work.  The wage for a journeyman is listed at 5s/day.  The work was done at the end of the 1760's.  In 1729, plasterer Thomas Pearse charged John Head £0-5-0 for "one day's work".  Materials were billed separately.  I suspect wages were fairly stable through at least the first 3 quarters of the 18th century.  Philly wages seem higher than London wages. Robert Campbell offered wages for a joiner were 2s-6/day in 1747.  I think Mack Headley has wages for Williamsburg laborers in this price range.

I'm thinking that if wages were stable, furniture prices would be as well.  John Head's account book shows no inflation over his 35 year career 1718-1753.  Chests he built and sold for £3-0-0 in the early 1720's, he continued to sell for £3-0-0 in the late 40's.

Now what I'm taking away from Alexandra is that wage prices spiked in 1772.  If so, I would expect to see an increase in furniture prices.  Comparing prices from multiple sources is tricky.  But I'm going to do it with this caveat.  Who knows if this is a fair comparison?   Not I!

1727 John Head account  "Squar [clock] case" £3-0-0.  This was probably walnut.
1772 Price Book "Clock Cases with square head and corners" £4-0-0 (this is the walnut price)

1730 John Head account "Walnut Dask" £5-10-0
1772 Price Book "Desk without a prospect an straight brackets [feet] £7-0-0  These later desks were probably a bit different from the earlier desks of Head's day. But even the most expensive Walnut Desk in teh Price Bookis only £10, less than double the price 40 years prior. 

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  The prices in Head seem comparable or maybe a bit lower.  Of course, Head's furniture was probably a bit simpler.  I find turned legs are not only easier to make than "crooked" legs, but they make the structure simpler as well.

How about furniture prices after 1772?  If prices were high in 1772, one would think they would come down after.  Though this wouldn't appear in the Price Book, we should see the volatility mentioned in Mrs. Kirtley's sources. 

1774 David Evans day book "Mahogany Sofa" £5-0-0
1772 Price Book Mahogany sofa's range from £4-10-0 to £10-10-0

1788 David Evans Day Book "Mahogany Dining table, claw feet" £5-10-0
1772 Price Book "Dining Table" (mahogany, price varied with length, prices have been adjusted for claw feet £4-5-0 to £9-0-0) A 4' long table would have been £5-10-0

1799 David Evans Day Book "Mahogany Bureau Table" £7-10-0
1772 Price Book "Bureau Table" £7-10-0
 
IF wages were 5s before 1772 and jumped to 15-25s, I don't see that increase reflected in the Price Book.  It could very well be that the price book prices were recorded before the inflation occurred.  As wages rose and fell, craftsmen could have simply scaled the sale prices in the book.  This combined with my experience making furniture tells me the 15-25s/day figure, though very possibly accurate, may not correspond to the sale prices in the Price Book.  With nothing else to go on, I would have to say the 5s number would be closer to the journeymen's wage in the Price Book.  But I wouldn't put money on it!!!

Adam

[chamfer]

Alexandra, I really appreciate your making the effort to post about the information upon which you have based your estimate of journeymen cabinetmaker's wages in 1772 Philadelphia. If I can find some of those resources locally, I intend to check them out. Meanwhile, I think we may be able to conduct a little independent reality check.

To begin, let's look at the 1772 piece rate wages for the "Breakfast Table, Plain" in the context of the 15 to 25 shilling per day wages you have estimated. At 12s 6d, the piece rate wages would amount to approximately 83% of a days wages at 15s per day and approximately 50% of a day's wages at 25s per day. If we assume an eleven hour day, this would translate to a range of a little over 9 hours at the 15s rate and 5 1/2 hours at the 25s rate. If we assume a 12 hour day, the calculated time would be slightly less than 10 hours and 6 hours, respectively.

The question is whether this seems realistic. Luckily, we don't have to rely on our own impressions concerning this. In addition to containing piece-rate wages for various pieces of furniture,_The Philadelphia Cabinet and Chair Makers' Union Book of Prices for Manufacturing Cabinet Work_ of 1828, also includes a figure of $1.33 1/3 as a minimum to be paid a journeyman when hiring him by the day. In other words, this work has it's own "key" by which to ascertain the nominal times in which pieces might have been constructed. Fortunately, one of those pieces is "A Plain Breakfast Table."

These Pembroke tables were something of a staple piece throughout this period, and I doubt that the basic construction details and times changed all that much from 1772 to 1828. In the 1828 Price Book, the piece-rate wage to be paid for this item was $ 2.37 1/2. Based on an eleven hour work day, as also given in the book, this translates to  a little more than 19 1/2 hours. A far cry from the 5 1/2 to 10 hours calculated from the estimated  1772 daily wages of 15s to 25s.

As an additional check, both sources also detail the amount to be paid the journeyman for adding a drawer to this form. So, even if there is some doubt about the similarity of the tables, themselves, over this period, it seems to me unlikely that the drawer construction & times changed all that much. The 1772 entry adds 2 shillings of wages for the drawer, while the 1828 entry adds 37 1/2 cents. Based on the 1772 estimated range of 15 to 25s per day and assuming either an eleven or twelve hour day, this extra 2 shillings results in a time range from slightly less than 2 hours to somewhat less than an hour. On the other hand, the 1828 figure calculates to about 5 minutes more than three hours.

In fact, I think this latter figure can be used to suggest a range of 1772 wages which would calculate to times more in keeping with the 1828 figures. Since the 37 1/2 cents is approximately 28% of the given 1828 daily wage, one approach would be to infer that the added 2 shillings for the drawer in 1772 could also be roughly equal to 28% of a nominal daily wage. That works out to 7s 2d, assuming an eleven hour day. If they were working twelve hour days in 1772, then the daily wage would figure out closer to 8s, using this approach.

There are a lot of details about this which could, and may, be discussed. But, unless we are to assume drastically different work methods and times between 1772 and 1828, I think this has some merit as a rough reality check.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR

[Adam Cherubini]

Don,

While I agree with your conclusion, I can think of a couple reasons why someone in Mrs. Kirtley's position wouldn't feel comfortable using 19th c data.  In fact, reading between the lines, I don't think she was comfortable using 1769 data.  Looks to me to be the case that the reason she published what she did is because she was looking for data from 1772, very likely because she believed that times changed often and quickly thru the latter portion of the 18th c.

The problem with using 19th c sources is that craft life, workshop processes, and furniture forms may have been significantly different from their 18th c counterparts.

It's very possible that the workmen in Philadelphia's shops in 1828 had never served apprenticeships.  They may not have been substantively different from modern day factory workers. There may have been guys who did nothing but make drawers.   I think they used a lot more jigs, standardized dimensions to make all this happen, and happen quickly.  According to Charles Montgomery,  The Empire stye marked the end of regionalism in American furniture.  As far as I know (using your example) Pembroke tables made in New York looked essentially the same as those made in Baltimore or Boston.  This points to a real change in the shop, away from the artisanal family run shops of 18th c Philadelphia, to small factories.

Not many people believe me (I'm hoping you are one of the few) but the presence of a table saw to roughyour lumber as they may have done in 1828, makes a big difference in how you approach doing a job quickly and who can do it.  It's use enabled them to "break up" furniture into chunks that could be handed over to unskilled laborers (which is exactly what did happen later). 

For example: In my shop, I've found the only way for me to prep stock quickly is to forgive the requirement to 4-square every board (6-square is actually more typical). But I can only do that because I'm intimately familiar with where each board is going and what it's requirements for the joinery are.   Not every board needs to be 4 squared to work in a piece of furniture.  And this is precisely what I see in piece after piece of 18th c furniture.  I don't see this in 19th c furniture.

Furniture also got a lot simpler to build in the 19th c.  Gone were the really complex pieces, as well as most of the sculpture.  You don't even really need to do a  great job on carcase dovetails or sliders if you are covering the entire piece in veneer.

I get that folks think snobbery alone explains Nutting's famous quote "Nothing built after 1830 is worth reproducing".  Giving Nutting the benefit of the doubt, there are objective differences in the furniture style and structure, the methods of manufacture (tho obviously not in every instance), that are different enough to warrant exclusion.

Not to put words in your mouth my friend, but I want to make sure I say clearly- I think Alexandra Kirtley has done us all a great service.  I think Mrs Kirtley is all too familiar with the information both you (Don) and I have offered here and chose not to use it because she sought a higher level of accuracy and authenticity.  I'm especially grateful to read her thoughts precisely because it does provide a glimpse into the museum/furniture scholarship world where higher and higher levels of fidelity are being sought.  This gives me more to shoot for in my scholarship and craftsmanship.  In my opinion, encouraging people to learn more and do more is the highest achievement of any museum or museum worker.  Thanks Alexandra.

Adam

[john previti]

Here is another thread to add to this tapestry of comments.   A current furniture maker who has an employee or 2 can be said to be roughly in the same position as back then (1775 approx)  You are busting your butt to get the job done and get paid.  Anything that is not immediately seen or nescessary to compleating the piece is eliminated or substituted for.  In order to get the job done faster.  One reason for the wage structure may have been to solve the problem that exists now and the recent past (last 50yrs) I am thinking.  Once a journeyman is competent enough, they are thinking why endure this job when I can go somewhere else and get another position for higher pay or start my own business.  This after the owner of the business has trained the person for several years.  Those wage scales may have been a way of reducing the cutthroat part of the business of retaining workers.

[CBWW]

A few questions and random thoughts on this all. The Philly price book is for journeymen wages right?  So if the journeyman is in a shop there is a master and appprentice right?  So I would assume the apprentice would be doing the dimensioning of rough lumber and the journeymen would most likely do the joinery or a little of both?  Would the master then do the final clean up?  Was it typical to have the journeyman do the entire piece start to finish?

If there is a large number of furniture makers in one area and not that many wealthy buying customers, could the price book have been set up by the masters to limit the income of the journey man and reduce the number of "masters" thus preserving their jobs?

I may be wrong but it seems some of the numbers quoted by other contirbutors may be master rates.  Right?  If so, these numbers really cant be used as a general comparison to other makers.  We can research all we want about about regional economic comparisons, and that is great, but the wages do not take into account the economics of the individual maker.  Maybe his work flow was down, bills were due, and he needed to make sure he got work so he "underpriced" it just to get it,  the lower rate was then recorded.  Oposite of that, maybe the client drove him nuts and he raised the price in hopes of driving them away and he got the job....Been in both these situations.... You just dont know. 

All very interesting comments and thank you to Mrs. Kirtley.

[dkeller_nc]

"Not many people believe me (I'm hoping you are one of the few) but the presence of a table saw to roughyour lumber as they may have done in 1828, makes a big difference in how you approach doing a job quickly and who can do it.  It's use enabled them to "break up" furniture into chunks that could be handed over to unskilled laborers (which is exactly what did happen later)."

Adam - While I certainly don't disagree with your overall premise in this post (that specialization allowed a semi-factory atmosphere by the late 1820's), it's worth noting that table saws did not exist during this period of time.  Even the power planer wasn't around, though it would be less than 20 years before the first rudimetary circular-motion planers wer first put together in France.  One of the reasons for this is that the boiler-fired steam engine necessary to run a circular saw was not available until later in the century.  Water-powered mills, of course, have been in American since the 1600's, and I'd certainly believe that "rough stock" was probably available as cut by a water-powered mill in the larger cities like Philadelphia, but it does appear from the archeological evidence in Williamsburg and other locations that pit-sawing was standard practice until at least the 1840's.

But I've another question - you cite several references from cabinetmaker's account books - where were these gentlemen located?  I would think they would have to have been located in Philadelphia or a larger US city to make the comparisons valid.  In particular, I would think prices would be somewhat higher in the country than in a city, where there were a lot of competitors to push the cost of goods down.

[Adam Cherubini]

Yeah, I'm quoting Philadelphians only.

Adam

[chamfer]

I'm really mystified by some of the responses to my posting about the 1828 Philadelphia price book.

How in the world do you infer a "factory type" operation from a book of piece-rate wages for building individual pieces of furniture? The only way such a piece-rate system would work is if individual journeymen were responsible for building individual pieces. Much as they were still doing in 1850 in London, according to Mayhew. A most interesting description, by the way.

It does appear that the shortage of skilled labor in the U.S. contributed to the earlier and more thorough-going introduction of machinery into the woodworking trades than in the U.K. But, again, there is no hint of this in the 1828 publication. In addition to the "prices" for individual pieces of furniture, there are a number of "tables" (charts) for specific operations in this price list. It might be tempting to see these as the origins of a more factory-type approach, but I seriously doubt it. Virtually all of them are presented as add-ons or deductions from already "priced" pieces of furniture.

There are a couple of these "tables", though, which are very basic woodworking operations and I believe can shed light on the question of hand vs. machine work.

Table No. 9 is "Of Thickening up Stuff." In other words, basic surfacing and thicknessing of stock. And for this table to make any sense, I believe the only interpretation is that of something very nominal, like starting with 4/4 stuff, "gotten out" to approximate size, then surfaced and thicknessed, probably to 7/8". To take just one example, to thickness a piece of timber 1 to 2 feet long and 8 to 12 inches wide, the piece-rate wage is six cents. Based on the figures I discussed previously, this translates to about 1/2 hour. Even if this time includes getting the stuff out to approximate width and length, I contend that it would be ridiculous to assume that it would take 1/2 hour if using a thickness planer.

Another is Table No. 32, "Of Sawing out Stuff, Straight Cut." This refers to ripping out stuff thicker than 4/4, and the prices given are for "each cut." Again, to take just one example, the price for one rip cut in 2 1/2" thick stuff, "Two feet long or under," is 2 cents. This translates to approximately ten minutes. Even if this time includes cursory lay-out, etc., does it make any sense to assume this refers to a table saw operation? These folks were working entirely by hand, much as they had been some fifty years earlier. I stand by the comparison to the 1772 price book as a valid reality check.

As I've already touched on, it does appear that machinery was introduced more quickly in the U.S. than in the U.K. And, yes, the introduction of machinery did change things. But this didn't happen all at once, nor does it mean that all oral and written knowledge (and practice) of traditional hand tool trade techniques was suddenly and irrevocably lost. As we read later texts we do have to be aware of the ways in which the introduction of machinery impacted the oral tradition of this trade lore, but to summarily reject them all as throughly corrupted is facile and vacuous.

Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR

[Adam Cherubini]

Don,

Sorry you missed my point, my friend.  I don't always do a great job explaining myself (unlike you).  I didn't mean to dismiss what you wrote.  All I'm saying is I can see why Mrs. Kirtley might not have considered 1828 Cabinetmaker's Union Book of Prices relevant.   I think 1830 is different enough from 1772, and she's already said her sources told her the economy was volatile.  I think you did a good job of relating your source, using it to suggest a trend etc.  And I agree with your sense for this here.  But I can see why that might not fly in the museum world.  I think that's the point here.  She was looking for 1772 data.  I'm offering her 1730 and you're offering 1830.  That's all well and good for we armchair historians!  But I think it's a big no-no in the museum world.

That said, one can learn a lot from an armchair historian, especially one like you who's done the stuff he researches.  I hope Alexandra sticks around these parts because I think she'll find useful and stimulating posts from you and others as I have. 

Sorry for the miscommunication, Don

Adam

[Jerome Bias]

Where might I find a copy of the 1828 philadelphia price book?  I can't seem to find it listed anywhere.

Thank you,

Jerome Bias