QUESTION: Although I am not in the woodworking trades, my son is. And last year I offered to pay his tuition at Peter Follansbee's workshop in North Carolina on riven-oak wood boxes. I showed him all the purty pictures on Peter's blog chattering all the while about "how cool is this? Boards are split, not sawn, the wood is green, blah blah blah."

He looked at me like I had a third eye in the middle of my head and said, "Are you F!@#$%^ crazy? Why would anyone do all that with hand tools when power tools are available?" I muttered something lame about how learning traditional woodworking could help one in the power tool area, but he wasn't buying it at all.

So the question is: Why is traditional woodworking important?

ANSWER: Wow. This is going to require both a Scottish ale and a separate blog entry.

It's a valid question, inasmuch as I work in a shop with an embarrassing array of power tools and machinery. The stuff we have is expensive, accurate, well-made and all that. Yet I still find myself doing more and more by hand every year. Why?

Senior Editor Glen D. Huey and I have talked about this a lot. He considers himself a power-tool woodworker and posits that most power-tool woodworkers are interested in results (completed projects) whereas the hand-tool people are more interested in process (cutting everything by hand).

I don't disagree. Working by hand is a far more enjoyable process for me. I like every stage of building when it involves my hand tools.

But that doesn't capture it entirely for me. For me, I think the difference between machine and hand woodworking is the hunger for pure skill. Let me explain.

In the summers I drive a 1968 Volkswagen Karmann Ghia. Yes, it looks like a sports car, but underneath its steel skin is a flat-four 53-horsepower air-cooled pokey thing. I think that some grocery carts could outrun me on a track.

Yet, while driving that car I am difficult to pass on the interstate, and I regularly smoke Mustangs, Camaros and even a few Porsches (take that, Ferdinand). When driving in congested areas, it's not so much your engine, but understanding the road ahead. You must know your vehicle as intimately as your spouse. And you must look far ahead to see trouble and opportunity in the traffic patterns.

It took me years to become that sort of driver.

Same goes with hand tools. When building one-off projects, I'm not particularly slow compared to the power-tool people I work with. Hand tools let me take short cuts (no jigs or test cuts) that give me an edge (like a manual transmission, really). And hand work is different than power tool work. There is no "sanding stage" where you drop everything and spend a day refining all your surfaces.

With hand tools, if you've done things in the correct order, you're ready to finish as soon as you assemble. And that is very cool.

Most of all, I am proud of the skills I've had to develop to do this. And I'm amazed at how easy they come. The first few skills are a bear to acquire (sharpening, flattening a board, sawing to a line). But after that, the skills tend to feed on each other and you find that nothing – really, nothing – is outside your grasp.

And you don't need to buy a jig to do it. And you don't need to spend a week working up the courage to try making banding or grounding a carving. The next skill is just one little step away.

So are traditional skills important? Yes, to those who understand traditional skill. Because it competes with modern skills, it's a bit hard to demonstrate or explain to the unwashed public. Both traditionalists and modernists can build nice stuff that (to the public) looks about the same.

So for me it just comes down to my favorite quote of all time:

"The things I make may be for others, but how I make them is for me."

Reader Aaron Cashion writes:

"Watched your DVD about drawboring today after reading your 'Workbenches' book. Really enjoyed both. I had never heard of drawboring, and this will defintely be going into my arsenal. Where can I get a good eggbeater style hand drill? Are there new quality ones being made or should I go the eBay route and look for a vintage one? I prefer to buy quality and not some Asian import for $4.99."

Ah Aaron, I relish opening this can of oligochaetes.

I have yet to encounter a newly manufactured eggbeater drill that I like. That doesn't mean there aren't any. I've always been curious about this drill from Germany. However, I've never seen one boring in the wild.

Most of the eggbeaters – more properly called "hand drills" – that I've used have been from the venerable Millers Falls company. This company made a shocking quantity and variety of these drills, and you can learn all about the different models here at Old Tool Heaven.

In the Midwest and East, you can find these tools at almost any antique store, flea market or garage sale. I typically pick them up for $5 to $15 when they are in good working order. Look for a chuck that has jaws that open and close properly (they can be missing their springs). You want the gear train to move smoothly – through usually a little cleaning and lubrication can fix things up.

Typical hand drills will be missing their removable side handles, so snatch up any that of those that you stumble on.

These drills come up every darn day on eBay, though you cannot tell if the thing is clapped out. Here's a search script that will take you to a page of drills. However, I prefer to take my drills for a spin before spending my American dollars.

The other option is to spend a bit more and get a drill that is better than new.

Wiktor Kuc of New Mexico buys these old drills and rebuilds them so that they look and work better than when they came from the factory. I've had a few of Wiktor's drills pass through my hands, and all I can say is that the man charges far too little for the work he does. If drill restoration is an art form, Wiktor is the Leonardo.

You can purchase these drills from Wiktor at his web site wktools.com. You might have to wait a bit for one, but it's worth it.

— Christopher Schwarz

Woodworker Lévis Thériault of Fredericton, NB, sent these interesting photos of a leg vise he purchased in an antique shop.

The real head-scratcher here is the round post at the bottom of the chop. I haven't seen a parallel guide like this that wasn't threaded. Lévis questioned whether the woodworker perhaps used a block of wood at the bottom of the chop (aka a "pile block").

Could be. Here are two other crackpot theories (remember this is the Internet we're dealing with):

Theory 1: The chop is so thin and the guide is so short that it’s possible this vise was used to grasp only thin materials. That doesn't explain, however, the length of the screw.

Theory 2: Perhaps they used the round post like a holdfast? The post could have been in a hole that was fairly close in size to the post. Then they would jam the post in the hole (with their foot?) when securing the screw to wedge the bottom of the chop. It might be a bit of a pain to un-jam the post perhaps....

If anyone has any additional cockamamie theories, our lines are now open.

Question: I often see dovetail layout lines left showing on the exterior of pieces. As I'm in final cleanup up of a blanket chest (yes, the Union Village chest from your article) the layout lines are still visible after I've got the piece smooth.  However, the lines do not uniformly show on all edges.

What to do? Get rid of them all, re-establish lines consistently around the piece, or just leave it as is with faint lines of inconsistent depth around the piece? It doesn't look all that bad as it is.

— Rick Bowles

Non-answer: The question of leaving tool marks behind seems thorny at first. There are those who say that removing marks, such as your layout lines, is what a pre-industrial joiner or cabinet maker would consider "neat and workmanlike." And there are those who say that leaving tool marks is what separates you from the giant CNC mills that poop out almost-adequately sanded highboys every two minutes.

Here's how I approach it. My opinion is only that, but you asked for it.

Unless you roll a stump into your living room and call it a coffee table, every aspect of furniture is a tool mark. Sandpaper, for example, is a tool and leaves a distinctive surface. A router-cut moulding is almost always different than one cut with moulding planes.

So the question of tool marks is which ones you choose to leave behind. When I build a piece that is a reproduction or is in the spirit of a past style, then I try to get a feel for the marks that were typical.

So what is appropriate for a Union Village blanket chest? Let's take a look. The following shots were taken only to document this piece's construction details, so you'll have to forgive the photo quality. They were never intended to be published.

Let's start at the back of the case, near the lid. In this shot you can see that the baseline has been erased by the maker's plane (all the surfaces of this piece are planed). And this is a secondary surface that will likely be against the wall or a bed. Hmmm.

Now let's look at the base of the chest, still at the rear and still on the same corner. Here you can see toolmarks everywhere. The baseline is there, as are marks from laying out the dovetails on the plinth (aka, the base).

OK, now let's look at the front of the chest. This chest features half-blind dovetails, and the tails are on the ends. Though the photo is a tad grainy, there are faint baselines up and down the end pieces.

My conclusion here is that this maker wasn't really concerned with the baselines. When they were removed (such as at the back), that was OK. When they were left behind, that was OK, too. Bottom line: The baselines on this walnut piece are not distracting.

So Rick, I think you are done. If the piece looks good to your eye and the toolmarks are neither sloppy nor distracting, then I think you can call it a day and start finishing the piece.

Milford Brown writes: Since you are interested in the older hand-powered woodworking, I wonder what, if anything, you know about the history of marking knife use?

I recently had occasion to dismantle an old pine blanket chest (because of extensive powderpost beetle damage in the sapwood edges of its top and bottom boards) that had been assembled with the later-style cut nails, and had hinges attached with screws that had no point, but with the top of the head showing circular machining marks, which from what I could find, dates it to somewhere after 1837.  

I found also that in places such as rabbets for corner joints and cuts to inset the hinges and the small inner compartment, the necessary lines had been cut rather deeply with a knife.  

The joiners that Joseph Moxon ("Mechanick Exercises") wrote about had pin-style marking gauges that followed an edge, but in either the original or your easy-to-read version, I didn't see anything about how other cuts were marked. According to the Wikipedia article on pencils, various writing sticks with graphite cores were available long before this chest, but its maker, as many now, preferred a knife. Web-searching for marking knives located a variety of modern products, such as the ones you wrote about, but I didn't find anything in the way of history. Did you?

Reader David Raeside writes: As always, I have found the Winter 2008 issue of Woodworking Magazine to be a fine piece of work.

One of the features of the magazine that I particularly enjoy is the Glossary. I have a suggestion for improving the connection of the Glossary with the texts of the articles ­ “flagging.” For example, the words “expressed joints” in the “Make Clean Through-mortises” article could be in italics to alert the reader that more on expressed joints is contained in the Glossary.

We discussed this at some length during a staff meeting. It was surprisingly heated. I have a definite opinion on the matter, but I can see both sides of the argument.

Those for the flagging said that it could help the beginning reader with some of the lexicon and encourage intermediate readers to visit the “Glossary” page for deeper information.

Those against the flagging said that it would clutter up what is a clean magazine design with unnecessary “pseudo-information.”

We decided in this instance to let the readers decide. Vote in our poll below before midnight on March 6 to let us know how you feel about this issue.

Thanks in advance,

– Christopher Schwarz

Reader James Carpenter is trying to put together a list of tools to purchase as a gift for his 6-year-old nephew. Man I wish I'd had an uncle like him. The best present I got from an uncle was a "Men at Work" LP.

In any case, James has been doing a lot of research and come up with this preliminary list. What do you think of his choices?

• 6" or 8" sweep Millers Falls 30 series brace with improved Barber chuck without ratchet.
• A nice complete set of auger bits appropriate to the bit brace.
• An auger bit file appropriate for sharpening the auger bits.
• Miller Falls No 2A Hand drill. (Maybe a new $20 Schroeder Hand Drill with ¼" chuck)
• Better quality small woodworker's vise (mounted into a child-sized workbench)
• Coping saw
• Well-made Ryoba or Dozuki Japanese pull saw.
• Appropriate small hammer (likely  a 225g Japanese Octagonal hammer)
• Small crow-foot for removing small nails. (I'll skip this is if the hammer has crow-foot)
• combination square
• tape measure
• Surform tool
• Assortment of slotted and Phillips screwdrivers
• Assortment of small pliers
• possibly a few books
• child safety glasses
• Nice set of appropriate portable toolboxes.  This will either be a smaller suitcase style toolbox(s) with wheels, or a few small hand carried toolboxes small enough for my nephew to carry.
• wood glue
• rubber bands for clamps

Roughly speaking, the items higher on the list are better candidates for a used purchase than a new purchase.

If you want to help James spend some money, leave a comment below. Also, check out this article on Charles Hayward's basic list.

— Christopher Schwarz

Reader Tim Williams writes: I have a number of old Stanley planes that I’ve spent a lot of hours cleaning and refurbishing. I’ve read multiple places about how when tuning up a plane, it’s a good idea to flatten the mating surfaces of the frog so the iron beds well, with lots of contact, to avoid chattering.

However, I find that whenever I take a flat iron and attach a chipbreaker to it, the tension of the chipbreaker on the iron puts a very gentle curve on the iron. So, when I attach the chipbreaker and iron to the frog, there’s a very slight gap under the middle of the iron (just enough to see light through if I hold it up to a light). I’ve tried loosening the bolt holding the chipbreaker and iron together to reduce the tension, but if I loosen it enough to remove the tension, the iron slides against chipbreaker.

 On one plane, I’m using a Hock chipbreaker. It mates more fully against the iron and doesn’t curve the iron, so it appears to bed better on the frog.  Finally, I’ve not really used these enough to notice much chattering.  Should I even be worrying about this?
 
What's happening here is that you have too much curvature in your chipbreaker. When you cinch down the iron, it bends to match the shape of the breaker. There are several solutions to this: You can remove some of the curvature in your chipbreaker. Place one end of the breaker in a vise and push against it gently. It will bend easily. Then try again.

Another solution is to replace the iron with a thicker aftermarket iron. This is always a good idea. The thicker iron will resist bending. Or you can replace both the iron and chipbreaker, which is what I like to do with vintage handplanes that I am going to use for high-tolerance planing (jointing or smoothing).

The bigger question is if the bending is even a problem. It depends. With some forms of planes (such as infill planes) the lever cap puts so much pressure on the iron and breaker right up by the mouth that it doesn't matter if the iron ouches the frog or not.

In Bailey-style planes, the more contact you get between the frog and iron the more stable the whole assembly will be and the less likely that bad things will happen, such chattering or the plane going out of adjustment while planing.

When I set up a Bailey plane, what I shoot for is a flat sandwich of frog, iron and breaker, as shown in the photo above. That works best.

— Christopher Schwarz

P.S. Our RSS feed has been bockety this week. If you like this post, you might also like my post earlier this week on how to understand the system of bench planes which is here.

If you haven't surmised it yet, one of the themes running through the Spring 2008 issue is the fact that accurate sawing has a lot more to do with accurate chisel work than anything else. When you cut a tenon shoulder, it's the chisel that cuts the part of the joint that shows – the saw just removes the waste below.

Several readers have picked up on this theme, and they've also pointed out (politely, I might add) what looks like a contradiction in my instructions about chiseling.

In the article on the Stickley Tabourets, I'm chiseling the joint line for the half-lap joint with the bevel of the chisel facing away from the waste (you can see this on page 10). A few pages later (page 19) I'm chiseling the shoulder for a tenon with the bevel of the chisel facing into the waste.

Have I finally taken one too many sips of La Fin Du Monde?

Perhaps, but I did have a good reason for what I did – I just didn't have the room in the issue to explain it. So here goes:

When you deepen a knife line by striking it with a chisel, there are two important things to consider. First is what shape the resulting knife line will be, and second is how much the chisel will shift when you rap its handle with a mallet.

The first part is easy to understand. Chisels are wedge-shaped. They have a flat face and a bevel. So when you knock the tool straight down into your work it makes a "V"-shaped cut that is a photocopy of this shape. One side of the V is straight up and down. The other side of the V is sloped.

The second part also has to do with the fact that chisels are wedges. When you drive a chisel with a mallet, it doesn't want to travel straight down in a line that's parallel to the flat face of the chisel. Instead, it wants to travel at an angle that is halfway between the bevel and the flat face. So if you have a 20° bevel on your chisel (as I do in the paring chisel shown in the articles), the chisel doesn't want to travel at 90° (straight down), it wants to move at 80°. (This assumes you have wood pushing back equally on the bevel and the face of the chisel.)

This is why when you are chiseling out your waste between dovetails that the chisel is always trying to move toward (and even cross) your baseline.

Whew. With all that on the table, I can now explain why I did what I did.

When chiseling a tenon shoulder, the shape of the line created by the chisel is critical. I want it perfectly square so it will close tight with the stile. So I chisel the joint with the bevel facing the waste. If this so happens to shrink the overall length of the tenoned part by 1/128", I can live with that. I want the joint to be tight more than I care about its final length.

When chiseling a half-lap joint, my considerations are different. This isn't a show joint, so I just want it to be tight and structural. The shoulder line isn't as critical. That's why I chisel with the bevel facing away from the waste. The chisel will then drift into the waste a tad. So when I saw the joint, the notch made by the chisel will encourage the saw to cut a half-lap that is just a tad tight. Then I can plane the piece's mate to get a perfect fit.

This might be a little fussy for you. If so, I apologize. A chisel seems so simple (it's a steel and wooden corndog!), but it actually is a subtle instrument (like a corndog with chorizo inside). Play around with the tool. Try it with the bevel out and then with the bevel in. And let us know what you discover.

— Christopher Schwarz

Reader Michael Holcomb writes: I'm writing to ask your advice about an old Pennsylvania cabinet maker's workbench I was lucky enough to buy a couple of years ago. It came from the shop of a Berks County, Penn., cabinet maker and has many of the features of the line drawing in Eric Sloane's book on early American tools. It's massive: The top is just shy of 9' and is made of two planks of 3" chestnut (I think). It has a leg vise on one end, an end vise on the other, and a board jack which slides the entire length of the front. I sent photos to a friend, Ernie Conover, who thought its construction techniques might date it to the 1830s. 

My question is, should I do anything to plane and resurface the top, which has the normal nicks, dings, holes and abrasions from almost two centuries of use? There is slight warpage on one end of one of the planks, but otherwise the surface is certainly usable, due mainly to its substantial construction and weight. Would I destroy its historical value by planing the surface? Or is it better just left alone?

Answer: It's a good question that deserves some consideration and debate.

Here's my take: If you are going to use the bench for hand work, then you don't have much of a choice. You should flatten the top. Otherwise, handplaning will be impossible. I find that once the top goes out of flat by .006" or so, then my work tends to spring on the top unacceptably.

I take flattening to be routine maintenance for a piece that is in service -- like waxing the top of a dining table that is in use in your home.

While I'm sure there are some workbenches that are truly "museum pieces" (such as the Dominy bench at Winterthur), most benches should be put to use in workshops so they avoid a worse fate -- being used as houseplant holders or decorative accents by sellers of antiques. Maybe someday there will be a "workbench museum" and I'll change my tune. Until then, do your best to bring this bench back to life.

— Christopher Schwarz

Mark L. Wells writes: I've read your book and the extra chapterr.  Both are great. You provide so much more detail than anything else I've read, and I almost feel guilty for not having to work it out myself. 

Anyway, I am going to rebuild my bench soon and I plan to put a leg vise on the front.   When attaching the top, I assumed I would have to use mortise-and-tenon joints because of the tremendous shearing force generated by the leg vise.  I'm concerned that the vise would just push the workbench top right off the legs.  However, when I saw the simple L-brackets in this chapter, I started wondering if those would  be sturdy enough to resist the force of the vise.  The L-brackets would certainly be a lot less work! 

Have you tried attaching the workbench top using L brackets when the bench has a leg vise? 

Answer: Good question. My gut says that two L-brackets on the leg with the leg vise would probably do the trick. However, just be safe, I would probably put one stout 1"- or 1-1/4"-diameter dowel in the top of that leg. That should provide all the protection against shear forces that you need.

Hope this helps, and good luck with your bench design.

— Christopher Schwarz

Reader Greg Peel writes: I'm glad to see that the latest issue of Woodworking Magazine is a great one like the others. I was wondering if there is color picture of the pumpkin pine samples that you did for the issue? It looks very intriguing to me. I've always used some version of golden oak for my pine pieces and I like their color very much, but I'm always interested to working with antique wood and achieving an aged finish on new wood.

By the way, I miss the sepia toned look of the previous issues that was so rich and beautiful.

Greg: Below is a link so you can download a color-correct image of the bucket – the image above has more brown in it than the real finish. Of course, if your monitor stinks, then it probably has too much baby-poo green in it, as well.

On your comment about the sepia color in the current issues: For the next issue we'll be back on the same paper, our old printing press and the same color set-up. So... wish granted.

PumpkinPineBucket.jpg (87.5 KB)

— Christopher Schwarz

Adrian Mariano writes: I just watched your DVD ("Forgotten Hand Tools" from Lie-Nielsen Toolworks) in which you advocate the use of nails and drawbores to overcome the flaws in the glue. And there were a couple things I was wondering about.

One is the question of glue longevity. If I glue together a tabletop with hide glue will it fall apart in 100 years? Two hundred? Or do glue joints only fail if they are stressed? (Presumably the side-grain-to-side-grain joint of a tabletop creates very little stress in the joint.) I haven't heard of people, say, putting together tabletops using sliding dovetails to ensure strength.

Answer: Any good glue joint can last centuries. Its life will be shortened by moisture, heat and stress. Moisture on a tabletop is a common factor. Heat can be. And tabletop joints are stressed at the ends by the migration of moisture through the end grain -- that's why antique tops split on the ends typically.

Breadboard ends and cross-battens are typical and historically correct methods of helping to keep a top together.

Question No. 2: Why are nails better than screws?  I haven't tried to use nails in cabinetry, but I've tried to use them in carpentry and my experience has led me to hate nails and to use screws instead whenever possible.  They bend over, they split the work (sometimes even with a pilot hold), and hammering them in can be very loud, and it subjects the work to stresses, possibly causing parts to move or shift. Maybe a screw head is harder to hide than a nail head. But is there some other reason to prefer nails?

Answer: Hmmm. I don't consider nails to be better than screws for all occasions. But there are some advantages to using nails at times. Nails will bend to accommodate wood movement. Screws won't bend. They'll split the work. Nails are smaller and can be used in places that screws would be ugly (nailing on face frames and moulding). They are inserted faster than screws (removing them sure is slower!). And they can be historically correct in pieces, which can be important to some woodworkers (such as myself).

Question No. 3: Another thing I was wondering about is that I saw an article a few months ago (which, alas, I have not been able to find again). This was an article by Bob Flexner on furniture repair and restoration in which he claims that the use of metal fasteners guarantees problems down the road, and I recall that he said pinning a mortise-and-tenon joint would cause it to split eventually.  He seems almost directly in opposition to the use of nails and the drawbore, and justifies his position based on the types of damage he sees in old furniture.  Do you have any thoughts on how to reconcile this with your claims in the DVD?

Answer: Bob is one of the people I highly respect in this business. He also comes at this problem from a restorer's viewpoint. It's more difficult for him to disassemble a joint pinned with a mechanical fastener, be it a wooden or metal one. His comment was aimed also at people who nail a loose joint instead of disassembling it and regluing. That is indeed bad practice.

I don't think a pinned joint guarantees joint failure at all. I have seen pinned joints that are 400 years old and are completely sound. Drawboring is a sound practice for certain kinds of applications where mechanical strength is key or you are working under unusual conditions (wet wood, long spans and no clamps) or you are striving for historical accuracy.

-- Christopher Schwarz

John Griffin-Wiesner writes: Thanks to your blog posting last week which alerted me to the closing of Auriou, I purchased my only three Auriou rasps. While explaining them to a non-woodworker friend on the phone he asked if rasps ever wear out or need sharpening.

Huh. I never thought of sharpening a rasp.

But rasps are metal, and all my other metal woodworking edges need replacing or sharpening at some point. I can't fathom the sharpening of a rasp. But my friend couldn't fathom the sharpening of a saw blade either -- which I know is not too big a deal. Will these fine rasps wear out one day, or need sharpening, or ... ?


Answer: There are (at least) two schools of thought on resharpening files and rasps.

1. Don't be a snapperhead. Use it and throw it away.

2. Send it to Boggs Tool & File Sharpening Co. in California. Boggs uses a "liquid honing process" to remove material from the back of the teeth, exposing a sharp edge. I've used rasps sharpened by Boggs and I can attest that they work better than the tool did when new. These were not Auriou products, however; they were Nicholson patternmaker's rasps. So I cannot say how the Aurious would do. It wouldn't hurt to give Boggs a call and ask. Last time I checked, resharpening a cabinet-sized rasp was less than $10.

— Christopher Schwarz

Reader Wendell Wilkerson is designing a workbench and has combined elements of the Roubo-style Workbench from Issue 4 and the Holtzapffel Workbench from Issue 8. I think it looks a lot like the Dominy workbench at Winterthur (if you took off the iron end vise). He has a couple good questions, which are below, but I also wanted to share his Google SketchUp drawing above and give you a link to a SketchUp drawing of the Holtzapffel. Plus, Wendell has graciously agreed to post his SketchUp drawing of the bench shown above:

roubzapffel.zip (691.62 KB)

Question: I always knew procrastination would pay off someday.  I never got around to building the Roubo bench.  If I had, I would've have been upset after seeing the Holtzapffel bench. I was always drawn to benches with twin-screw front vises, and the Holtzapffel bench finally clinched it for me. I ordered my wooden bench screws pretty much as soon as you posted Stephen Fee's e-mail on WoodCentral. Luckily for you, I used my tool allowance to buy them so WivesAgainstSchwarz won't be getting involved, this time!

Anyway I put together a Google SketchUp model of what I want to build. I am planning to use Southern yellow pine (SYP) for the whole bench so I married the Holtzapffel top and vises to the Roubo base. Assuming I get 1-1/4"-thick boards of the SYP construction lumber, the Roubo base dimensions looked easier to put together. I will freely admit that I wimped out and decided to add upper end stretchers to the base so I can screw the top to the base rather than mortise it. In putting the model together, I came up with some questions:

Question 1: My main concern is the vise I plan to use for the end vise.  I have a 7" Record vise that I bought when Lee Valley was closing them out. Do you think there would be any issue with using this vise instead of its larger sibling that you used? In my drawing, I worked out a chop size that would avoid the dog holes going over the legs, but using 3-3/8" spacing I couldn't avoid the upper end stretcher I added. Related question: Which do you like better – the wagon vise you added to the Roubo bench or the end vise on the Holtzapffel?
 
Answer: On the end vise, a smaller vise is fine. Just do everything you can to keep the line of dog holes in your top as close to the front edge as possible. About 4" is the maximum distance. Anywhere between 3" to 4" would be fine. I hope you can use a quick-release vise in that position because that is one place where a quick-release really shines.

As to the wagon vise v. iron vise question, I like the extra support provided by the wagon vise, but I like the quick and easy installation of the iron vise. Were I to build another bench (shudder), I'd use the iron vise in the tail position again.

Question 2: I am planning to make my bench 8' long, 2' longer than your Holtzapffel. With the added length, do think you think it would be useful to add the deadman back into the design? The nuts for the face vise block about one third of the distance between the front legs but there is about 38" from the right end of the face vise to the right leg.

Answer: With the extra length of your benchtop, I would add the deadman back in, just as you've done on your drawings. That will be an awesome setup.

3) How much extra thickness do you generally add when you're gluing up thinner stock to make your bench parts? I am particularly interested in your strategy for the top since reducing by hand is about the only option once it is glued up.

Answer: On the lamination question, I usually add about 1/4" to 3/8" extra in width to each board when laminating a top. That might be a little heavier than needed. But I'd rather end up with a slightly over-thick top. It will get thinner as the years progress.

— Christopher Schwarz

Question: When is your book on workbenches coming out? I read the    excerpts in your magazine this weekend and decided to purchase it before I attempt a bench of my own, I can’t wait. I have acquired some Southern Yellow Pine that I intend to use on my bench (it's fire-rated 2 x 12 x 8’). It has been in my climate-controlled garage for about three months. The last time I used construction grade (non-rated) SYP she moved all over the place once cut. What do you recommend?
 
— Andy Scott

Answer: Southern Yellow Pine moves a lot as it dries, but once it’s dry, it is quite stable. How stable? Download the pdf below that explains how to figure wood movement for a variety of species.

Here’s what I do when I use yellow pine in any project:

1. Crosscut and rip everything to close size. Moisture migrates through the end grain, so cutting it close to size will make it dry faster.

2. Use a moisture meter to check your progress. Some SYP comes nearly dry (9 percent moisture content (MC)). I’ve seen some boards at 17 percent MC. It usually takes a few months for things to equalize with big projects such as this. Patience pays.

3. Only surface the wood for one assembly at a time. Work rapidly. When you glue up the top, clear the day. Surface and rip all the stock and glue it that day. When you glue up the legs, use the same strategy. It takes more time, but it really pays off.

4. When you glue it up, let it sit in the clamps at least five hours. The resins in the wood prevent the water in yellow glue from pentrating as quickly – this tip is from the chemists at Titebond.

On a final note: With Southern Yellow Pine that has been in my shop for a year or so, I can deal with it just like I deal with hardwoods. So it really is about managing the moisture because waiting a year is not a reasonable solution for most woodworkers.

I'm sure there are other good tips that I'm forgetting. If you have one, please leave it in the Comments section below (click on Comments and you'll see how this works).

The book comes out Oct. 10. You can read more about it here.

— Christopher Schwarz

WoodMovement.pdf (272.5 KB)

Question: I'm watching your commentary on this one quite carefully: I'm planning to build a bench this year or next and have wondered about torsion boxes instead of slabs. Also, could you post a picture of the hinge at the bottom of that leg vise?

— Karl Rookey

It's not really a hinge at the bottom of the leg vise, but it does pivot. The piece of wood pierced with holes is called a parallel guide. It prevents the vise's jaw from twirling like a helicopter blade and acts as a pivot point for the vise.

To use the guide, you place the steel pin in one of the holes that matches (as close as possible) the thickness of the work you are securing. As you screw the vise closed, the pin butts against the leg (as shown above) and the top of the jaw pivots toward your work. It's remarkably efficient and strong.

Some details: The parallel guide is slightly smaller (11/16" thick) than the mortise through the leg (3/4"). The closer the fit, the smoother the action. The parallel guide is secured to the vise jaw with a wedged through-tenon. The countersunk holes in the guide are 3/8" in diameter and are on 1" centers. Each row of holes is offset by ½", so you essentially get a hole every ½". The hole positioned between the two rows is ½" from the vise jaw.

The pin is 3/8" in diameter, 6" long and steel. It has a rubber O-ring on it that has a 5/16" interior dimension (the 3/8" I.D. O-rings will slip off your pin).

The leg vise is a remarkable piece of engineering that I enjoy working with. It's inexpensive, easy to make and grippy as all get-out.

— Christopher Schwarz

Question: A couple of questions regards to my Roubo bench project:
 
1. Regarding laminating the top: I'm not the best laminator in the world. I
have about a dozen small cracks on both top and bottom of the Southern
yellow pine top. Tried filling them first with Titebond III, then Hot Stuff
Special T (sold at Lee Valley), and the Veritas cabinetmaker's glue. Mixed
results from all three products. Most common result is a crack that's mostly
filled with small "swiss cheese" type holes in the dried glue. Can you
recommend anything for this dilemma that looks good once planed down?
 
2. Phil Koontz holdfast diameters: Just ordered the large holdfasts from
Phil Koontz and his (Jake) the Russian buddy. According to your article,
these work best in a 11/16" diameter hole. According to one of Phil's galoot
bulletin board messages, he recommends the large holdfasts go in a 3/4"
hole, and the regular-sized holdfast in a 11/16" hole. Before drilling, I
called Phil. His bottom line is that hole size doesn't matter; that if I use
a 11/16" hole, I'll wind up knocking the holdfast around a bit, till the wear
and tear of the hole loosens it up a bit. What say you?
 
Thanks again for your helpful advice, and the tremendous work you and your
team do at Woodworking Magazine! I'll be in Afghanistan for the next year
(starting in January – I'm an Army Colonel –trying to get this project
completed!), and won't be able to do much woodworking, but know that your
magazine will keep me informed and entertained.

Mark in La Crosse, Wisconsin

Answer: On my first workbench I had an area where the top either delaminated or I didn't fit the parts well. I filled the area with epoxy (you can buy it in a variety of viscosities). Once the epoxy dries, you can plane it flush with a block plane.

Here are some other strategies:

If the crack is too serious for epoxy, I'd glue a wedge in there. Or, if the crack is irregular, I'd run a handsaw in the split and then glue a wedge in there.

If the crack is too serious for a wedge, I saw the top apart at the lamination, dress the two edges and glue them back together.

Or (final option) accept the crack as a lesson learned on a workbench instead of a lesson learned it on a highboy. Every time you see the crack, you'll be reminded to do better.

On Phil's holdfasts: You need a tight hole on a thick workbench or one with softwood. If your bench is a la Roubo (4" thick), then use the tight hole. If your benchtop is more ... uh... modern in thickness (2-3/4" or so and made from beech) then 3/4" will work.

Here's my best advice on that: Make a sample hole in a sample chunk that matches your benchtop in species and thickness. Clamp the chunk in a vise and try out the holdfasts.

But don't worry too much. Phil's holdfasts work great in almost any conditions.

Good luck overseas!

— Christopher Schwarz

Question: I've noted that you've recently mentioned that you've been looking into scrapers, so I thought that maybe you could answer a question that I have about scraper-plane blades.
 
Recently I acquired a Stanley #12 scraper plane and the three Lie-Nielsen scraper planes (modern versions of the Stanley #112, #85, and #212).  I am in the process of preparing and using these scraper planes to smooth the surfaces of the blanket chest that I made at Chris Gochnour's Marc Adams School of Woodworking course.  I intend to thereby avoid sanding.
 
I intend to paint the chest (which is made of poplar) following the methods given in the painting article in the recent issue of Woodworking Magazine.
 
I am preparing the scraper-plane blades just as I would plane blades: both back and bevel, five DMT plates of grits from 120 to 1,200 followed by four Shapton water stones of grits from 2,000 to 16,0000.  The burnishing of the 45° bevels to produce a burr is being done with a Glen-Drake burnisher following the method of David Charlesworth (which is similar to the method given by Garrett Hack).
 
It is my understanding that when a scraper plane ceases to proceed shavings and starts to produce "sawdust" that I must go back to honing and redo the burnishing to produce a new burr.
 
Here is my question: How far back must I go in the honing sequence?
 
Certainly I need not go back to the DMT plates.  But, do I need to go back to the 2,000 grit Shapton water stone?  And, can I get away with only re-honing the bevel, or must I re-hone both the back and the bevel?
 
If you are able to help me understand how to do the refurbishing of defunct scraper-plane burrs I would greatly appreciate it.
  
— Dave Raeside

Answer: I have indeed been doing a lot of work on their care and feeding this year. In brief, they are like any other edge tool. All the same rules apply. The burr is strongest when it is turned from the intersection of two highly polished planes.

And so resharpening of scrapers involves exactly the same regimen as it would for a plane or chisel.

1. If the edge is only slightly degraded, I'll begin with a polishing stone (8,000) and then turn the burr.

2. If the edge is mostly used up but still unchipped, I'll begin with the 1,000, then polish, then turn the burr.

3. If the edge is chipped or otherwise damaged, I drop back to the diamond stones, grinder or other grinding abrasives. Then the 1,000, 8,000 and burnisher.

What I don't do much of, is to try to resharpen with burnishing alone. My results have always been inconsistent. Occasionally it works. Usually I get a burr that is OK in some places and weak in others. Other times I get nothing but a trip back to the grinder.

I hope this helps more than it muddles....

— Christopher Schwarz

Regarding benchtops, how flat is flat enough?  When I use winding sticks on my top, they line up, but it cups down its length by about 1/16" at its center.  How anal should I be with this?  

— Jason Myre

Benchtop flatness seems more important for hand work than for machine work. If you work mostly with power tools, I'd say a 1/16" cup down the middle is fine. Your machines (a planer and a jointer) will help ensure your wood is flat. You'll mostly be clamping your work to your bench to rout it, biscuit it and so forth.

In handwork, the benchtop is more of a reference surface, so I'd get it as flat as your skills allow.

It's not difficult with a No. 7 handplane, commonly called a jointer plane. Set the iron to take a decent bite – you want shavings that are as thick as two sheets of typing paper. Work directly across the grain of the top to bring the high edges of the top down to the valley in the middle. Then work diagonally with the plane – work 45° one way and then the 45° other. Then finish up with strokes with the grain.

It's quick work.

What is interesting to me about this question is that benchtop flatness doesn't get discussed much in the early texts. I wonder sometimes if we make too much of it (like we do with plane sole flatness and the like). Or perhaps benchtop flatness was so important that it was unspoken. There is indirect evidence that a flat surface was key. George Ellis's "Modern Practical Joinery" gives plans for a "panel board" on page 38. It is essentially a workshop jig that sits on top of your benchtop and holds panels and thin work for planing. Ellis notes that it is useful for providing a "clearer and truer surface than is provided by the ordinary bench top."

My personal habit is to flatten my benchtop once a year or so. Not only does a flat benchtop make my handplaning more predictable, but it also clears off the stains and gunk that accumulate on it, which reduces the chance that the gunk will get on a piece of pristine work.

This letter also prompted me to go out and check my benchtop with a straightedge. I also am developing a cup down the middle. My cup is the thickness of two sheets of paper. I might be due for a quick flattening session/mild aerobic workout.

— Christopher Schwarz

What kind of sprayer do you recommend for applying a lacquer finish: gravity or siphon feed? Could you use the same sprayer for applying a stain? Thanks for your time and keep up the outstanding work on the Woodworking Magazine and blog.

I use a siphon-feed cup-gun sprayer, which has the material cup below the trigger. However, it seems that the world prefers the gravity-feed guns, which have the cup on top of the spray gun. Gravity guns are supposed to be more efficient because you don't need to use air to pressurize the cup below (gravity does all the work). And some people say they are more balanced.

I, however, find them personally awkward. I think they are top-heavy when fully loaded and I seem to ram the cup into everything as I maneuver around the workpiece.

My favorite set-up is what we called a "pressure pot," which is where the material is stored in a remote pressurized drum. Our Binks-brand pressure pot used to hold two gallons, which was really nice for big jobs. Plus the gun could go into really tight spaces because you didn't have any cup to swing around.

Of course, the seals on that pressure pot were kinda bad – it would lose pressure on occasion. We gave up the pressure pot when we moved into our new offices a few years ago and got rid of our spray booth.

And you can apply stain using a spray gun, as long as it's pretty thin (dyes spray quite well). It takes practice and you need to wipe things down pretty quickly after spraying. Perhaps that's why I've stuck with applying color by hand.

— Christopher Schwarz

Louis Bois is a lucky guy. Recently he purchased the beautiful carver's vise shown above, which was made by the French firm Forge Royale. He's been looking for background information on the vise and the manufacturer and has come up empty-handed.

But there's hope.

Back in 1981, The Mid-West Tool Collectors Association reprinted a translated version of the catalog (circa 1927-1930) "At the Royal Forge" that will answer most of our questions about this beautiful piece of work. Thanks to St. Louis tool collector (and dealer) Mike "Rat" Urness, a copy of the reprint will be in my hands next week and I'll post some more information about the Forge Royale, and maybe some other tidbits about French tools.

If you know anything additional about Forge Royale, please send me a note or post a comment below.



But until we shake loose that information, Louis has provided some drawings of the vise that you absolutely must check out. It is how I think woodworking magazines should deliver content in the future. Louis is a mechanical draughtsman by trade with 20 years of experience and has produced two documents that I encourage you to download and view.

The first is a pdf of the mechanical drawings for the vise. The drawings include several sheets that detail the individual components and their dimensions. Scaled drawings of the plates are provided, as are additional (color) photos of the vise.

Carver's Chops.pdf (1.21 MB)

The second document is what's called a "live model" – it's a 3D color model of the vise that you can rotate and take apart. You'll be able to see how all the parts relate to one another (and the program will put it back together for you once you take it apart).

The file below has a player enclosed that will work with Windows machines.

Carver's Chops Assembly Without Fastneners.zip (2.65 MB)

Macintosh users can download a free player from SolidWorks called eDrawings that will allow you to view and manipulate the file. Below is a link to a zipped SolidWorks file without the Windows player embedded.

Carver's Chops Assembly Without Fastneners.EASM.zip (671.59 KB)

We've been playing with these files in the office all day and have had a blast. I think you'll immediately see the utility of this format. Check it out.

— Christopher Schwarz

Robert Giovannetti of Crystal Lake, Ill., built a Roubo-style workbench like the one featured in the Autumn 2005 issue. He wasn't completely satisfied with its workholding properties and sold the bench to an eager buyer.

Then this week he sent me photos of his latest workbench, which incorporates details from many workbenches. He likes to call it the Rob-O, which Rob says is a "Japanese cabinetmaker's bench modified for western work methods." The bench, which is designed for a workshop that blends hand and power tools, has some interesting features that are worth discussing. Let's take a look.

First, the raw stats: The top is 4" x 31-1/2" x 94-1/2" total, which includes the two slabs and a 10-1/2" w. sliding tray between. The base is a trestle design with all members being 3-1/2" x 4". The bench tips the scales at about 400 pounds.

Workholding details: The Veritas Twin-Screw face vise is 31-1/2" wide (wow) with the vise screws on 24" centers. Rob says this vise is ideal for both dovetailing and edge jointing. He says he can secure a 7'-long piece of stuff for edging. So the fact that the face vise's rear jaw is proud of the top is no big deal, Rob says. If he needs to edge a big door, he can clamp a spacer block to the front edge of the top for additional support. In my book, this is the only weakness of this design – I've worked on benches like this and I much prefer having the legs and top and vise all in the same plane. But that's just me.

Rob's planing stops are cool. They slide into dados in the top. Rob says he has multiple sizes of stops for planing different thicknesses. I think this setup is more versatile than my single planing stop. I've been learning to skew my planes to keep the stock under control against the single planing stop. This system is more like my old planing stop system on a previous workbench, which is easier to use, if not demonstrably better.

For planing doors, panels, frames and drawers (which can involving planing across the width), Rob has devised an ingenious wedging system that I hope he'll send us photos of so I can post them. Essentially, you place the front part of the work against the planing stops. The tail end of the work is wedged between a wedge-shaped bench hook (which drops into a bench dog hole) and another wedge-shaped piece of stock. I think I'm describing it correctly, but Rob will let us know if I'm not.



Another great feature is the removable sliding tool tray in the center of the bench. The centered tool tray is a lot like the Veritas-style workbench. The fact that the tray slides away for clamping on the top is a lot like David Charlesworth's bench, which has been featured in Lon Schleining's "The Workbench Book." The features is also found on the Lie-Nielsen workbenches, which I worked on last week at the Marc Adams School of Woodworking. To true the top of his bench, Rob can remove the two slabs and run them through a drum sander or planer.

All in all, a very interesting bench.

— Christopher Schwarz

I am just now starting to acquire the tools necessary to do some woodworking, but the money is very tight right now; so I've started looking some local flea markets. I was recently one of the largest local flea markets and there was a vendor that had several old planes. And I have some questions about looking at vintage woodworking equipment.

First let's start with the wooden planes. There were two wooden ones that looked like they had seen better days. From what I remember both had several cracks in the main block. I think these would be almost worthless except that the wooden frogs looked like they were still in good shape and could be used in another block. What would be your thoughts on this? Is a cracked wooden plane useless or is there a good way to mend it?

The same vendor also had several old metal planes that were just labeled with Stanley and their price. I didn't have the time to examine them too closely, but my guess is that one is a Stanley No. 4 and I think the other was a No. 6. Both were showing signs of rust. The question I have on these is how can I tell if the sole is as flat as it needs to be? The one that I think is a No. 4 was listed for $35 while the No. 6 was $50. These sound like a good deal to me, but would hate to spend the money and find out that there are some serious flaws in them. Any advice you have would be greatly appreciated.

I want to thank you for taking the time to read this and hopefully answer these questions. I really enjoy reading the articles on using hand tools, especially since most seem to be very affordable even when you have a tight budget. Keep up the good work.

—Reese Yontz

Reese,

Buying and tuning vintage planes is a valuable and worthwhile experience. When I started woodworking I had a lot more time than money, and so that’s the route I went down. I learned a lot about plane mechanics, which has served me well in this job.

There is a lot to learn when it comes to buying vintage planes. My best advice is as follows: First pick a style of plane that appeals to you, either wooden-bodied planes or metal-bodied planes. Both work great, but learning about both is a Herculean task at the outset. I think metal planes are easier for beginners to pick up, but I think that’s my bias because that’s how I began.

Then I’d read everything you can get your hands on about buying, sharpening and tuning this style of plane. Focus on buying only four planes at first: a smoothing plane, jointer plane, jack plane and block plane. Don’t buy four smoothers or six blocks (a common mistake). Don’t rush into the decision to purchase; the only way to save money when buying old tools is to make certain each purchase is exactly what you need. And the only way to determine if it’s exactly what you need is to read, read, read. And then try, try, try.

I can help with the reading part. While there are excellent books out there that can help you, I think the best place to begin is on the internet, specifically, the Hand Tool KnowledgeBase, a “link farm” of the best articles on hand tools, all organized to make them easy to browse.

Here’s the link to the section on hand planes.

Also, I recommend you spend a few enjoyable hours reading Patrick Leach’s “Blood and Gore” website.

Leach’s description of every Stanley plane ever made are immensely enjoyable (though I don’t agree with every word of it; I really like No. 6 planes). And his prose will help sensitize you about what to look for when buying old tools.

Good luck. Welcome to the fold.

— Christopher Schwarz

Question: I've been using sawhorses and an old door for a few years and curse every time I start a project that I need a real bench. So I've been mulling over my options for some time and have decided that I needed to build my own bench because I thought ready made benches were too expensive, had spindly legs and weren't as massive as I'd like. This fall I was starting the process of gathering varying designs to see what I liked and didn't like and make a combination of sorts that I thought would be the ultimate bench. Then I saw your magazine with the Roubo on the cover and knew it was the one. It's everything I was looking for – relatively inexpensive, fairly easy to build, didn't have an apron, didn't have spindly legs and (although I could really use the storage) I'd opted for nothing more than a shelf as well.

I'm planning on making my top out of maple and the legs out of poplar. Was even thinking of using some bloodwood for the row of dog holes but we'll have to see how much that adds to the cost.

Anyway, I've been looking at a few other designs and was thinking of making a change but wanted your opinion first. In a bench design I saw in another magazine built by Ian Kirby, he used a bridle-jointed stretcher between the front and back (short sides) legs at their tops. Then he lag screwed through these stretchers to attach the top. Seems to me this might be an easier way to put the whole thing together but I realize it might take away some of the strength gained by having the top shrink on the tenons, thus creating the A-frame in the original design. Based on your experiences do you think this is an acceptable modification?

— John S. Szalkai

Answer: I've given your plan some thought. It will work, but I think you'll need another modification to make it work long-term. What you propose seems simple on its face, but it would actually transfer the strength of the bench from the top and into the base. That's how most benches are made today, and it is more like a dining room table than this French thing.

If I lag bolted the base to the top, I would want to make the long stretchers considerably wider – I'd say 7" wide would do. Otherwise, I fear the narrow stretchers below would not survive the racking forces being transferred from the top to the floor.

This would especially be an issue if you are going to do hand planing on this bench. If it's mostly going to be a big assembly bench, like a modern bench, then you could get away with 5"-wide stretchers or so.

The Kirby bench is a nice one – quick to assemble and simple to build. So it's a good source for bench ideas. But I'd consider this change carefully. Mortising the base into the top is really a cinch, if you need some encouragement on that front.

— Christopher Schwarz

I'm getting about a letter a day from people interested in building (or taking me to task) for the Roubo-style workbench shown in Issue 4. Reader Dan Chaffin, a furniture maker in Louisville, Ky., had three good questions about the base, then bench stop and the holdfasts that have come up a few times with other readers, so I thought I'd publish his letter here and my responses. So here we go:

First Question: When the top of the bench contracts as it dries, how much wracking of the base actually occurs (roughly)? I am not concerned about joint separation, but I like the fact that the legs are flush with front edge of the bench top, and I was wondering if the wracking would affect this flatness in any significant way.

First Answer: After five months, the bench is at full equilibrium with our shop. Our moisture meter reports that the top and legs are all about 11 percent moisture content, which is consistent with the other pieces of Southern yellow pine that have been in our shop for five years or more. So the top has finished shrinking. Now all that will occur is the seasonal expansion and contraction, which I’ve calculated will be about 1/8" per year.

The initial shrinkage of the top did indeed wrack the base into an A-frame configuration as I reported in Issue 4. A Starrett framing square shows that it wracked about 1/16" at the front edge of the bench (this was with the 22-1/4"-long section of the square running down the leg). I haven’t found that the wracking affects the functionality at all. The front surface of the bench is still a wide and consistent clamping surface.

Second Question: The 2" bench stop in your bench plan sits back a bit from the front edge of the top. Is there any reason that it cannot or should not be moved closer to the front edge so that when planing narrow stock you wouldn't have to lean over as much.

Second Answer: The bench stop could be moved toward the edge or toward the end (I’ve seen some people who do this to get the extra capacity). I initially considered it but decided to go with a configuration that looked like Roubo’s to see if I could figure out why it is where it is.

I don’t have a firm answer yet, though I’m glad my bench stop is not more towards the end of the bench for two reasons: One, I never run into my leg vise or crochet as I’m planing. And two, the space beyond it is a natural resting place for the tools that aren’t in use but must be handy while I’m working, mostly my mallet, plane-adjusting hammer and the oily rag I use to lubricate my plane’s soles. I also have a swing-arm lamp that drops into my bench dog holes that lives in that space beyond my planing stop.

I'm also glad the bench stop is not closer to the front edge for two reasons: One, narrow stock has not presented a problem yet. In fact, I even plane boards on edge up against the stop. And two: The bench stop is positioned so it will be centered on a 12"-wide board. Our jointer is a 12" model, so it works with that tool's maximum capacity.

Third Question: The article on holdfasts suggested that the Phil Koontz version would not seat well in tops thicker than 3" if the holes were 3/4". In the workbench article you show these holdfasts as well as the Veritas holdfast (which I thought only worked in 3/4" holes) being used. Did you drill different diameter holes for the top and the sides? Or will the Veritas also work in the slightly smaller hole used for the Koontz holdfast? I would love to know before I purchase either.

Third Answer: You have a sharp eye. The holes in the top are 11/16". The holes in the legs are ¾". Phil’s holdfasts work only in the top; the Veritas holddowns work only in the legs. I wish I had one holdfast that worked everywhere, but I don’t.

— Christopher Schwarz

Question: I am a beginner woodworker, so I don't have a workbench yet. I've been looking and wondering if I should make my own bench or buy a starter one. Then I read your article and found that doesn't seem to be too hard to actually build one. I need a table saw, a jointer and a planer and hand tools.

But then again I noticed through your pictures that you are building Roubo's workbench on top of a previous workbench. That makes me wonder again if your first bench should be bought, what do you think about that?

Second, let's say that I figured out to get a surface to work on, and I still want to make this bench, can you send me a more detailed picture or instructions about the leg vise's parallel guide? Do you think that the Veritas Twin-screw Vise would work in the same way? (I mean placed vertically and without the parallel guide.)

When attaching the crochet, did you attach it using only bolts, or did you glue it, too? And when working towards the crochet it looks like you are using considerable pressure on your work piece towards the crochet. How do you prevent the crochet from marking your piece?

– Pedro Massabié, Oakville, Ontario

Answer: You don't need a bench to build a bench. I built the Roubo bench on sawhorses. The Shop Box system from the same issue of Woodworking Magazine would also be a good place to start. We use those boxes every day in the shop for something.

As to the vise and the parallel guide, there’s a photo showing it close up above, which might help explain its structure a bit more. I don’t think you would need to use the Veritas Twin-Screw Vise in the manner you suggest. If I were going to drop the coin on that vise, I’d want to use it like a tail vise on the end of the bench or as a face vise, but oriented horizontally shown by the manufacturer. I have this vise on my bench at home and it is quite nice.

As to the crochet, it is not glued to the bench (good question). It simply is bolted. This will allow me to remove it if I ever get tired of it (not bloody likely). And the crochet – when shaped the way we show it – does not mar the work. Not even softwoods. The design, which came from Adam Cherubini, is perfect.

— Christopher Schwarz

Question: I just read your article in the new Woodworking Magazine on Shaker end tables and am going to make a pair. I have one question:

I like the idea of treating the wood with a couple of coats of boiled linseed oil, but I'd like to finish with a satin clear polyurethane. Will this be compatible? I figure that the boiled linseed oil needs 24 hours between applications and planned on 48 between the last oil coat and the polyurethane.

Your help with this is greatly appreciated. I'm just finishing my first big furniture project (a Shaker table made out of Cherry) and it's looking pretty good, I'd hate to screw it up at this point.

– Sean Clarke, Apple Valley, Minnesota

Answer: There’s no compatibility issues with your finishing schedule – polyurethane can be applied over linseed oil once it is fully cured. The linseed oil will add some nice color. In fact, to add more color, you might want to consider putting on the oil and leaving the tables in strong sunlight for a day. That seems to help things along (look for more on this in a coming issue). I've experimented with this a bit over the years and have found that one day seems to do the trick. More than that doesn't seem to produce much (if any) color change.

However, I’d allow at least a week or more for the oil to cure before you apply the topcoat.

In general, I avoid adding any stain or dye to cherry whenever possible. Cherry tends to blotch because the grain soaks up the color unevenly. In some kinds of cherry, such as curly cherry, this is desirable. But in most cases, it looks pretty bad.

— Christopher Schwarz

Question: I am building the Shaker Side Table (Issue #2). I built the cabinet from the first issue (I used cherry and spalted maple - it came out pretty nice).

The table calls out for two 3/16" x 3/4" x 11" spacers. I have looked and looked and can not find a reference to these spacers anywhere in the article.

— Dale Burley

Answer: The spacers are glued to the inside face of the aprons, just above the lower drawer guides. They fill in the space between the apron and drawer side and make for smoother-moving drawer. It might seem counter-intuitive, but drawers are easier to open if there's less space between the drawer and its cabinet. That's because there's less chance for the drawer to wrack in its opening when you pull it out.

You can see the spacers in place on page 24 of that issue, though the author of that piece called them "drawer guides."

— Christopher Schwarz

Question: I am now re-working my workbench. I purchased and read "The Workbench Book" and have researched through four woodworking magazines for the last three years, without an answer to my question.

When installing a metal vise on the left side of a workbench, should the renewable wood rear jaw of a metal woodworking vise be flush with the bench or protruding? I see metal woodworking vises with their attached wood jaw protruding by the thickness of the rear jaw, whereas the wood vises with all wood parts have a rear jaw flush with the front vertical surface of the workbench.

My usage: I hand plane the edges of boards and hold drawers in the vise plus use the vise to hold the base of a metalworking vise mounted on another board.

— Paul Fallert

Answer: Definitely make the rear jaw flush with the front edge with your benchtop. It's a critical feature for planing the edges of long boards because the boards are secured at one end in the face vise and at the other end by a sliding leg jack or a simple clamp.

By keeping the rear jaw flush with the front edge of the top, the boards that you secure in this manner will be much more stable and easier to work.

I know it's extra work to let in the jaw into your top, but it is well worth the effort.

— Christopher Schwarz

Question: Hi, quick question. I recently finished smoothing a table top with my #4 smoothing plane and if the light hits the top right, I can see lots of planing lines. I tried to camber the blade before smoothing the top, but I still have the plane marks. Any suggestions on getting the top mark free without affecting the nice appearance of the planed wood?

— Chris Sundstrom

Answer: This is very hard to teach remotely, I'm afraid. But it's very easy to show in person. Here are the questions you have to ask yourself and the things you must check to get good results.

• Is your blade indeed cambered? By how much? And is the camber in the dead center of the cutting edge?
• Is the cambered section of the iron in the middle of the mouth of the plane?
• How thick a shaving are you taking?
• Are the mouth and sole of the tool free of metallic burrs that could be marring your wood?

When your tool is working right and producing a perfect surface, here are the setup characteristics.

• The iron should have a camber that is about .002" at each corner and in the dead center of the cutting edge.
• You should have the iron adjusted laterally in the mouth of the tool so the camber is in the middle. Use a small scrap of wood to confirm where the iron is cutting. Run the scrap of wood over the mouth. It should not cut at the corners and cut only in the middle of the mouth – where the camber is.
• You should be making a shaving that is .001" to .0015" thick at the center and tapering to nothing at the edges.
• Your sole and the back of the mouth should be completely smooth and free of burrs.
• When you use the plane, your strokes should be regular and overlap each other slightly.

Try these things — it takes practice. When you can set up your plane to those parameters, it will leave a nice clean surface. Until you get there, don't be ashamed to scrape or hand sand out the plane tracks.

— Christopher Schwarz

Question: Why doesn't your article recommend pinned mortise and tenon, at least for the back three pieces? Instead you show pocket screws.

— Pam Niedermayer

Short answer: Because that would be a tricky or weak solution to the problem we faced.

Long answer: The original Gustav Stickley #79 magazine stand was available in a few different configurations, but most of the ones Bob Lang and I have viewed (in person or through photos) are characterized by the top and bottom shelf being attached to the sides using a twin through-tenon that is pinned at both the front and back. Racking forces are kept in check by the two lower stretchers.

How the middle shelves and lower stretchers were attached is unclear. There is no evidence of dados (stopped or through) or tenoning (in the case of the lower stretchers). We suspect dowels, which would make sense from a manufacturing standpoint.

The originals do not have the shelf supports that we added at the back and pocket screwed in place.

The idea behind our adaptation was to simplify and strengthen the case and try to keep as much of the original grace as possible. To simplify, we substituted stopped dadoes for the twin tenon. To strengthen, we added the shelf supports.

We settled on pocket screws because they are simple and mechanical. Tenoning the shelf supports into the sides wouldn't be much of an improvement over pocket screws because the tenon would have to be very short — 5/8" long at most. A short tenon like that alone wouldn't give you a lot of face-grain gluing surface.

And because the tenon is so short, it would be tricky to pin it, especially for beginners, which is who the article is aimed at. The pin would have to be small in diameter to work. And because the tenon is so short, there is the risk of it ruining the tenon when the case was subjected to racking — essentially popping out the bit of end grain on the end of the tenon.

Pocket screws seemed the best solution because you can precisely fit the supports after assembly (unlike with dowels).

If I were building this for myself, I would have used the twin t hrough-tenons at the top and bottom and again screwed in the shelf supports. Despite my aversion to pocket screws in general, this seems a good use for them.

— Christopher Schwarz