“It’s not bodge… it’s character!” – an old geriatric work mate used to say to me. And I felt this come to mind as I built my tool chest last weekend. I knew it would be nothing fancy since it was pretty much built as the hand tool equivalent of banging some boards straight through the thicknesser and nail gunning them together. But it still stand’s as a statement to show how you really don’t need to go to too much fuss with your hand tools to create something unique. Just imagine if I had gone the thicknesser / nail gun route; it would have certainly been a bland old box and I would have had to think of few extra details if I wanted it to look at least half decent. Now don’t think I’m getting all soppy and emotional but I do feel that the hand tools give that sense that the item is being brought to life.
The tooling marks on this chest are extreme but even when I’m building something really fine I never aim to smooth it all right back to create a perfect flat surface. I’ve just always loved the finish from leaving some hint of the tool. These are the marks of the maker and a sign of the labour that’s gone in to the piece; why would we want to disguise that? Through studying old furniture I’ve come to see the tool marks as the evidence of the method and technique and so personally I find it a big shame for them all to be erased.
We’ll tend to look to machines for speeding things up but I feel there’s a huge advantage that hand work has here. You can’t just leave in snipe off the planer and call it character or look at burn marks on a moulding and call it a beauty spot! In some regards machine work can require a more varied range of skills in the sense that these imperfections will need to be removed.
I’d say that if you built this chest following our plans then, despite it having the same design, yours would definitely have its own distinct signature which belongs to you – like a finger print. Your particular approach to a technique and use of your tools will all add to the story of the piece and I’m sure if it could be examined by the equivalent of a forensic scientist then there would be quirks of the maker to be identified.
Anyway, if YouTube starts behaving then we should be having our next video up to watch over the weekend.
![Simple Work Holding For Ploughing Grooves [Without a Tail Vice]](https://www.theenglishwoodworker.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/workholding-without-tail-vice-copy.jpg)
Hi Richard, great post. I have always said, why build something using hand tools, if it ends up looking like something you would buy made from MDF. Yes leave something of your self in every pice you make, Including some nice character. 😉
Agree with you Ken. Even re-using old timber gives a work piece immediate ‘history’, and ‘hand tooling’ gives it even more. Barry
Good point Barry, I love using old timber and when I can’t I’m always eager for a piece to start showings signs of age.
Just my thinking Ken, why go to such lengths to replicate MDF!
Agree guys, using old timbers is great. I think its harder and or more expensive to find these days though.
Yuppers ,,, there IS a differance between a finger print and a foot print,,,
Hi Howard, I’m not surprised by your thinking here!
As I said in the post this chest is a very extreme case of leaving in the tool marks but then this was an excerise in showing clinching – I had to complete in a few hours and wanted the nails to dictate the feel. Of course I wouldn’t normally leave show faces quite this textured but for what is technically unfinished in the usual sense I feel it shows how the tool marks can still add a lot to the character.
Thanks for the yeply,,, My point being is that each piece has first it’s pupose or function then it’s all arbitrary,,, a stump will keep one’s bottom up off the floor,,,and actualy be very atractive in some settings,,,it is still only a stump, it works it has form and economics in design,, The intent is clear,,, Your chest is to me is the same and that isn’t a jibe it brings me back to the very basics function, time and econmics of design,,, form and function is sometimes lost in todays cleverness we miss the point,,, there is great beauti to be found in simple solutions,,, like the forthought to nail from the inside out and to clich the nails outside the case is wise as clinching the other way would expose the tools to a lot of metal and potential snagging and scratches etc,,, which would defeat the purpose or function of the chest which is to keep the tools safe in transport,,,I get it,,, The other half of the comment is concerning the honesty of the referance,,, Tool tracks and makers marks to my thinking are essential in tactile appeal of real wood crafted pieces no matter how sophisicated and refined they show intent and process and skill level,,, a hand planed surface can be finer then any sanded surface, that shows skill even when you can see the extreme ripples of the “sharp” plan tracks that is a finger print or a rough surface of a “dull” plane that would be a foot print not character and would look and feel like a foot print and shows poor craftmanship,,, This piece has clean clear defined tool marks the painted surface shows that well and the clinched nails add first econmic function and interest and intent the bonus is added texture that i purpose is the very definition of character,,, IT WORKS and works well ,,, that would be my definition of beauti,,,
I especially like the shallow camber grooves left off the jack plane on the first picture, also the irregular chamfers and facets, a country furniture adze or axe hewn texture. Its almost a Japanese “spear plane” effect. A few days ago I planed up a circular top for a cricket table, and I had the same thing off the jack plane, very shallow rippling grooves, not quite regularly parallel or perfectly spaced. I suddenly thought why not just keep that instead of make it like glass with a fine smoothing plane? Old Mike Dunbar was a great believer in retaining tool marks on his chairs. I personally like and value those hand made aspects of a piece of furniture. P Follansbee has that approach too. The good thing about the paint (nice job on yours!) is that it draws attention away from “the grain” of the wood and instead makes the eye focus on those textures and the overall form of the piece.
cheers Jonathan
Thanks Jonathan, I love your descriptions! You’re absolutely right about the paint on the chest – without creating this flat colour the combination of heavy tooling textures with knots and grain would all have been too much for the eye. As with anything it’s good to think about balancing thing out.
“Yes leave something of your self in every pice you make, Including some nice character. ;)”
When do we stop excusing the mistakes for character? Most furniture or cabinets I see that are handmade could never be mistaken for an MDF alternative and usually the person who made them found a nice way of leaving their mark on it, there is something to be said for just getting into the workshop and just making something however we seem to do best when we refine something, I think that is the human is us all.
Hi Kris, You make some good points here which make a nice expansion on the discussion.
With any project we build we’ll decide upon the level of finish and refinement that’s suitable and this isn’t always going to be the same. Sometimes it’s matter of necessity; building something fit for purpose but as quick as possibile. Many other times we will build something to cherish, to be proud of and to put all of our skills to the test. Then there’s everything in between.
I don’t feel it matters what level you are building to I personally find the relevance of leaving evidence of the tool marks to be the same. In the finest of work I’ll still not take things glass smooth even though the surfaces are finished with a well tuned smoothing plane – the marks will be very subtle but when the light hits at just the right angle they will be there. Of course tastes differ, but for me I would much sooner see this than a surface which has been sanded flat.
I study 100’s and 100’s of photos of primitive, vernacular and country furniture. It is astonishing in some cases just how “rough” in some cases was the timber stock that the joiner used, maybe in some cases taken directly out of a firewood pile?-and notwithstanding the effects of 2 or 3 hundred years of weather, wear and tear-and these are the pieces that have survived to the present. Its also intriguing how they often used a mix of woods in one piece, I suppose a painted finish was a way to bring the whole thing together. I think for strong forms with bags of character the Welsh 3 legged chairs are hard to beat!
Great blog Richard. Entertaining and educational.
You’ve posted quite a lot about your newly partitioned hand tool shop. Could you do one some time about layout and in particular how you store/organise things. It’s very important and easy to waste lots of time with inefficient tool storage.
Was interested in the wall racking you had for your chisels.
Thanks again
Rod
Richard,
this whole subject is fascinating to me. I inherited a tiny stool from my parents that is no more than a few rough boards hammered together, it could be a handy mans stool it could be a rough form of milking stool although not the three legged variety.
If i had a house load of the worlds finest cabinet makers pieces I’d still be heartbroken if i lost that stool before any of the others….i don’t want to think deeply about it, some work in wood just feels right, its not a mental exercise, its about sight and touch and maybe having something to own that reminds us of where we came from and that anyone could make with just the bare basic tools, maybe just an Axe and no planes at all.
I think anyone who knows James Krenovs work and his own hand made tools in the form of his hand planes and marking knives will know what i mean, it just leaps out at you as loved and well used, like a favorite old jumper or a pair of old leather gloves…….Ok maybe I’m mad but i guess all woodworkers have a n element of the romantic in them over and above at times the perfection of a glass like smoothing planed board.