Ahem. Could I just apologise quickly for the lousy spelling in yesterday’s post. It took a long time to do, and it was tea time just as I thought I’d finished. But I hadn’t run the spell checker, then forgot about it. Doh!
If it’s broke – don’t fix it.
We are used to seeing ‘perfect’ objects these days. It wasn’t always thus, ‘good enough’ was once perfection. I’m not trying to argue for sloppy work, but I just want to say how much I like work that shows a hand-made it rather than a machine (not that the latter always achieves perfection! Just take out a hand lens or microscope and it will soon become clear that ‘smooth’ surfaces don’t exist but we can get close to smooth, or smooth to the touch.)
I am coming from a similar angle to that in “The Unknown Craftsman” where imperfection is valued for various reason
Let’s apply this to the Windsor chairs that have recently taken up residence in our cottage.
This turning was clearly not done by a copy lathe!
The beads and the foot of this leg have small flats arising from the stock not bein quite big enough to get the complete diameter. But back in the day you wouldn’t want to waste a whole leg just for that little imperfection. The leg is just used at the rear of the chair where it is less obvious.
Let’s turn one over:
This is the seat underside, fairly obviously pit sawn from the differing angles of saw cut. There are also two larger holes in this picture, which I think may have been made by dogs to hold the seat still while it was being bottomed and fettled (shaped) in that typical comfortable saddle-shaped seat. There are nine of these holes in this seat, and they are squarish in section deeper in the hole. Why would you finish a wooden surface that was never going to be seen in everyday use?
It was supposed to be the turning which was being judged:
And you may have seen this one before:
So, don’t worry be happy:
Whoa! Steady there, we can’t take the Christmas decs down yet – must be down by sundown tomorrow though or bad luck is sure to follow.