A new year is dawning and with it comes uncertainty. What will the new U.S. administration bring? What will happen with the economy? Are we steering our families along the right course?

Believe it or not, these are not unprecedented times or unprecedented situations. Challenges far greater have faced our ancestors throughout the course of our history.

As I look ahead at the uncertain times awaiting me, I take some solace in my approach to my craft. Like you, I've taken a "skills first" approach to woodworking (and indeed to life itself), arming myself against future challenges with the skills and abilities to conquer anything life can throw at me.



The figures above are characters from the book "The Borrowers" by Mary Norton. My son Adam asked me to make him some figurines after we had read several of the books in the series to him at bedtime. Unfortunately for Adam, shop backorders apply to him as well and he had to wait, not always patiently, for close to 9 months.

I began making these figures as I would any other project. By researching the objects. This involved familiarizing myself with the characters, the illustrations in the book, and doll making in general. Then I made a series of sketches, noting of paint colors.

The wood work began at the lathe. I wasn't looking to fully develop the figures at the lathe, just certain portions of each. The tallest figure (Pod) is just under 6" tall. The lathe tools had to be razor sharp. I actually plugged the lathe in for this job

I used scraps of hard wood. Homily, the Mother figure, was Beech stock originally set aside for a planing stop on a new work bench. It was a beautifully quartered block perfect for the task. But it was also perfect for Homily and I don't short change one customer for another.

With the lathe work done, I set to work with my carving chisels. I've been practicing my carving often as I attempt to do more rococo work. While this isn't exactly acanthus leaves, it uses some of the same skills. Unlike mahogany, the hard maple beech and cherry I used wasn't easy to carve.

It would have been easy for me to get carried away with this sort of project, as is my general proclivity. I think I could have spent all day carving one figure. But I had to balance my sense of craftsmanship with the needs of my customer. In this case, I kept the carving loose and free to make it clear that these were hand made wooden items, not injection molded plastic things to which children are accustomed. I added details to some areas but left the faces simple, bright, and open. I used glossy enamel for a Santa's workshop feel. (These weren't Christmas presents). I wasn't trying to make tiny sculptures of real people. I was making toys for a child.

This was a simple project, made rewarding by the joy of the recipient. But to me it really speaks to the great diversity of products that we as artisans can make. With simple sharp tools, our design skills, our careful approach of understanding what we are making, and the skills we have in our hands, we are well equipped to handle anything life can throw at us.

Adam

When Colonial Wiilamsburg made saws for the Anthony Hay Cabinetshop they chose not to file any of them cross cut. The reason, says Master Cabinetmaker Mack Headley, is that there simply is no evidence of cross cut filed saws in Colonial America.

For those of us who work wood exclusively with hand tools, this pronouncement has serious repercussions. How could colonial craftsmen accuratly cross cut boards without back side blow out? How could craftsmen with such highly evolved tools, miss such a huge performance advantage? Are we to believe a guy who could make perfect sliding dt, and who could sharpen his plane irons on a rock if need be, lacked the skill to apply fleam to a hand saw?

Don McConnell shared with me an email exchange between he and Master Headley. As I recall, Don argued that 19th c sources included discussion of fleam. That fleam (the angle filed on to the front of a tooth that defines a tooth as “cross cut”) must have predated that documentary evidence and that a lack of documentary evidence doesn’t mean fleam didn’t exist.

Master Headley’s desire was to stick with the evidence available in hopes of learning something we don’t know today. I don’t think it’s fair to summarize his thoughts as “without smoking gun evidence of fleam, we have to stick with rip filings”. There is anecdotal evidence to consider. Some period inventories I have seen indicate a single tenon saw was present, not the fleet of specialty backsaws I have. Likewise, it doesn’t appear these craftsmen had a non-backed version either. And I find it difficult to believe that the lone long back saw would be filed cross cut.

CWF Journeyman Marcus Hanson told me, the use of the striking knife really helps or practically eliminates back side spelching. A close examination of the Hay shop saws revealed that generally speaking, smaller saws had finer teeth and finer teeth had increased amounts of rake. I surmised that the fine rake, combined with the fine teeth produced an acceptable, if slow, cross cut. I duplicated this in my shop but abandoned the idea in a fit of impatience. Once you’ve used a well filed cross cut saw, there’s no going back.

At last years “Woodworking in the 18th c” conference in Williamsburg, I asked 18th c tool expert Jane Rees specifically about the filings on the saws in the Seaton chest. Do any of them have fleam? Do they indicate evidence of having been refilled? According to Jane, no one has ever looked at the saws this closely. Could Master Headley’s smoking gun evidence be sitting in the Guildhall museum in Rochester England? It’s possible. But it would be difficult to distinguish between a saw filed in 1850 from a saw filed in 1800. So I asked Jane for her sense of the colonial cross cut saw controversy. Jane suggested that saw makers probably didn’t file fleam, leaving this extra step (it IS an extra step when making a saw) for the owner. Saws may have been custom filed for specific jobs by the user. Saw files certainly do appear in inventories as early as 1708.

My feeling is that a skilled craftsman can probably “get away’ without cross cut saws. But I suspect some craftsmen did indeed have them. Personally I prefer a dedicated cross cut back and long saw and find them invaluable additions to my tool kit. I don’t like cross cutting with a rip saw or ripping with a cross cut. And so far, I’ve not enjoyed using saws that are good at both. In my shop, that’s a false economy. But don’t let me talk you into or out of anything. Get a second opinion, and try it yourself.

I hope I’ve accurately represented the various views presented here. If Don or Mack or Jane are reading along and would like to correct me, please email me directly and I’ll correct the blog entry.

Adam

I'm thrilled Chris has printed a new copy of Moxon. And it couldn't have come at a better time. My old copy is in tatters. Take my advice and buy this new version asap. It won't be available forever. And eventually or sooner, your copy will look like mine.

But this is no ordinary reprint. Chris has removed the 17th c long s which makes the text easier to read. Additonally, he's added an analysis of each section, making the text even more relevant and more useful. Quality photos, typical of everybody's favorite ww magazine "Woodworking", are plentiful and helpful.

For those of you unfamiliar with Moxon, Joseph Moxon wrote the first woodworking how-to manual in the 1680's. Don't let the date put you off. Regardless of the sort of woodworking you do, you'll find helpful, basic woodworking information here. It's the stuff that should have gotten passed down and wasn't.

Moxon is a must have/must read for every woodworker and one of the few woodworking texts that truly transcends time.

Adam