Mechanick Exercises, or, The Doctrine of Handy-works: Applied to the Arts of Smithing, Joinery, Carpentry, Turning, Bricklayery

[Tellurian]

I've seen this book mentioned often but never seen a copy of it until today when I went searching for it and was able to find various copies of it. There are some downloadable ones, this is pretty good and allows a full download: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015028306002&view=1up&seq=1
and I like the Internet Archive's version for online viewing.
There are several sections, including joinery, carpentry and turning.
It is interesting to search out the 'S' word to see how things were done back then, not a rounded bevel in sight.

One thing that confused me was the description of grinding gouges on page 183. I couldn't quite work out what was being described. Can anyone clarify it?

 

[AndyT]

It does rather look like he has watched several different styles of gouge being sharpened, then blended the steps together, though you wouldn't want all of them on one tool. He doesn't make it clear that different jobs would have needed different sorts of gouges, or at least, different edge shapes on the same basic tool.

So we get grinding of the unshaped tool to give what turners call a fingernail grind ("the two extream ends of this half round a little sloped off towards the middle of it").

We get the grinding of an internal bevel, using the corner of the grindstone, worn into the desired curve.

We get the honing of that curved edge, by rubbing on a shaped whetstone or by holding the tool and moving the stone.

But if a joiner is using a gouge to rough out long grain hollow mouldings, I'd expect an external bevel on a gouge with no fingernail grind.

I think this fits with the suggestion that he was more of a journalist talking to tradesmen, not a skilled tradesman himself.

Still an interesting book to read though!

 

[Tellurian]

It does rather look like he has watched several different styles of gouge being sharpened, then blended the steps together, though you wouldn't want all of them on one tool. He doesn't make it clear that different jobs would have needed different sorts of gouges, or at least, different edge shapes on the same basic tool.

So we get grinding of the unshaped tool to give what turners call a fingernail grind ("the two extream ends of this half round a little sloped off towards the middle of it").

I was thinking that, but looking at Plate 15 that gives drawings of the various tools, the gouges (those marked 'B') look a bit more spoon-shaped to me.
Is the description "The hollow edge is ground upon the Corner of a Grind stone -,which in short time wears the outside of that Corner to comply and form with the hollow of the Gouge." Saying that a shaped round bar is started with and that the hollow shown in the illustration is formed on the edge of the grindstone? I can't see any other reason for using the edge of the grinding wheel.

We get the grinding of an internal bevel, using the corner of the grindstone, worn into the desired curve.

We get the honing of that curved edge, by rubbing on a shaped whetstone or by holding the tool and moving the stone.

But if a joiner is using a gouge to rough out long grain hollow mouldings, I'd expect an external bevel on a gouge with no fingernail grind.

I think this fits with the suggestion that he was more of a journalist talking to tradesmen, not a skilled tradesman himself.

Still an interesting book to read though!

In the joinery section, he describes the chisel being rubbed against a whetstone that is held in the hand, I think here, he is describing the chisel being set upon the lathe rest and then the whetstone applied to it.
Is the bit where he says "It is afterwards set upon a round Whet-stone, that fits the hollow of the edge ,or is somewhat less ." Describing the honing of the inside of the gouge's hollow to create a bevel on the inside, not the outside as we do today?

The part where he describes Of Grinding and Whetting the Iron, and other Edge-Tools can be found here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015028306002&view=1up&seq=98 interestingly describing a hollow grind followed by honing on a flat stone.

 

[AndyT]

Just a very quick reply - I've not got time to look at this in much detail at the moment - but to make sure you're aware that:

a) Moxon "borrowed" some of the illustrations from other books (apparently he was a printer, so this may have been easy for him to do). Some have been identified as being from French author Felibien, but not all, and I don't think there's a definite source for his illustration in plate 15.

b) Chris Schwarz has studied Moxon in much more detail than me and has published his instalment on Joinery, with his own notes and observations. It's out of stock, but available as pdf here https://lostartpress.com/products/artofjoinery .

 

[AndyT]

I've just looked again and realised my error. Your extract is only concerned with gouges for turning, not anything else, not long grain hollow mouldings - sorry!

Bearing in mind that the context here (unless I've hastily misread again) is turning softwood on a treadle powered lathe, with tools made of simple steel (not HSS!) a cylindrically round whetstone would have been needed to remove the burr on the inside of the curved edge, left by the major work of sharpening having been done on the outside of the bevel. But if he really means that the inside curve was ground as well as honed, that does suggest at least some bevel on the inside. That's still the practice among many carvers and for all I know may well be perfectly sensible on a human powered lathe. Over to the green woodworkers on that one!

 

[Tellurian]

Just a very quick reply - I've not got time to look at this in much detail at the moment - but to make sure you're aware that:

a) Moxon "borrowed" some of the illustrations from other books (apparently he was a printer, so this may have been easy for him to do). Some have been identified as being from French author Felibien, but not all, and I don't think there's a definite source for his illustration in plate 15.

b) Chris Schwarz has studied Moxon in much more detail than me and has published his instalment on Joinery, with his own notes and observations. It's out of stock, but available as pdf here https://lostartpress.com/products/artofjoinery .

Ooh thanks for that. I'll have a look at that tomorrow.

 

[Tellurian]

I've just looked again and realised my error. Your extract is only concerned with gouges for turning, not anything else, not long grain hollow mouldings - sorry!

Bearing in mind that the context here (unless I've hastily misread again) is turning softwood on a treadle powered lathe, with tools made of simple steel (not HSS!) a cylindrically round whetstone would have been needed to remove the burr on the inside of the curved edge, left by the major work of sharpening having been done on the outside of the bevel. But if he really means that the inside curve was ground as well as honed, that does suggest at least some bevel on the inside. That's still the practice among many carvers and for all I know may well be perfectly sensible on a human powered lathe. Over to the green woodworkers on that one!

I find the subject fascinating. There is a lot that make massive assumptions about how things were done traditionally and that thinks were always so until recent times.
With the gouges, I was wondering if the bevel was only on the inside, as with carving as you point out. From the joinery and turning sections, it seems to be saying that the tools would be ground first and then taken to the whetstone to remove the coarser grind marks.
Over all it's very interesting and I shall have to have a dig around for some other texts. Any suggestions would be very welcome.

 

[Tellurian]

I've just looked again and realised my error. Your extract is only concerned with gouges for turning, not anything else, not long grain hollow mouldings - sorry!

Bearing in mind that the context here (unless I've hastily misread again) is turning softwood on a treadle powered lathe, with tools made of simple steel (not HSS!) a cylindrically round whetstone would have been needed to remove the burr on the inside of the curved edge, left by the major work of sharpening having been done on the outside of the bevel. But if he really means that the inside curve was ground as well as honed, that does suggest at least some bevel on the inside. That's still the practice among many carvers and for all I know may well be perfectly sensible on a human powered lathe. Over to the green woodworkers on that one!

The section following the turning section is "Of turning Hard Wood, and Ivory".

So I wonder if they had the same definitions for hard and softwoods as we do. If we go back to the 17th century, were the woodlands that the bodgers were setting up in softwood or hardwood as we would understand them?

Chris Schwarz's analysis that you linked me to is very interesting. I see he notes the way that honing after grinding was done or at least observed. It does make me wonder why this would be preferred to placing the stone on a flat surface and allowing two hands to be available for holding the chisel. Or, did he mis-understand a description or maybe the craftsmen were winding him up. Is there any evidence that this was normal in the past?

I'm going to have to go on a hunt for some discussion about the turning section. There must be something out there and I'm keen to discover other's thoughts.

 

[CStanford]

There are only a few books about woodworking from that era. The logical fallacy to avoid, which most people unfortunately don't, is to impute absolute and unerring accuracy to what is being said therein. Things were done differently in different shops and not all shops built the same things. Take anything in Moxon, et al. with a huge grain of salt. People will cry "but it's all we've got" which just reinforces the logical fallacy that it is. If the only religious text in the world that survived some catastrophic event was the Quran, would everybody in the world eventually become a Muslim? Maybe. Probably. But that still wouldn't make it right.

Some forumites on the different boards have become experts at putting their own spin on Moxon, reading between the lines, and reading into the text things that just aren't there and this makes it even worse. The most egregious of these insist on doctrinal purity and adherence but can't provide very many substantive examples of things they've built as a result of the orthodoxy they insist is THE WAY. When they do, it is for all intents and purposes, Shaker - a rectilinear planing and joinery exercise, it's never a Georgian or other 18th century masterpiece of stunning delicacy and lightness.

And yes, I mostly admire furniture that I am unable to build. But in a strange way it feels right.

 

[Tellurian]

Absolutely, I agree with you whole-heartedly. It is very dangerous to assume that just because it is documented in one book, that this was thus some sort of universal truth. I have noticed that a lot of people have this tendency and it is dangerous to try to build an entire theory upon single data points. However, can we say that what was written is totally wrong? I agree that it is quite possible that an author that isn't a craftsman could make mistakes in transcriptions. With Moxon's description of sharpening, I find it hard to imagine this being a general method. I think it is one of two things, that the person Moxon was talking to and asking about how to keep a keen edge was an odd one that had his own unique method of sharpening, or, as they were talking, he simply picked up his stone to show it to Moxon and then 'indicated' how the edge would be achieved, but that in reality, he would place it flat on bench to use, and hold the tool with two hands. There are many interpretations of the paragraph and I think all we can really get from it is that a grindstone was used initially and then this was followed with a whetstone of some sort to achieve a good edge.