You know what would be great? If someone did a project video using a story stick. You see plenty of direct transfer, like dados and dovetails, but I have yet to see a story stick in use. I think Jim Tolpin said the pyramids were built with nothing but a stick so it must have some value.
I once ran a Nicholson workbench class where all the measurements were made on a story stick that started with a mark indicating the individual’s wrist height from the floor. It was a lot of fun.
I see master handtool woodworker Paul Sellers in the U.K. use story sticks or similar often in his Master Woodworking series. He regularly uses measuring transfer methods.
I'm a subscriber but haven't watched one of his build videos in while. Thanks for the tip. It's one of those things that can be hard to adopt when you're raised on tape measures.
Great piece! I’ll add that the best way to learn this lesson that i know of is to work on boats- nothing is square to begin with, they shift n move over time n everything has to fit tight…
Sorry, Vic -- this is a false dichotomy. This reads to me like you've 'made a distinction that does not merit a difference' in order to generate some content.
Don't fall into the Schwarz-trap: it's all too easy to sell bullshit to beginners -- they don't know any better. I was hoping you did.
It seems like an important distinction to me. And others agree. Mike Pekovich makes similar comments.
You use the term “bullshit.” That suggests that you feel pretty strongly about the distinction between transferring measurements and using a ruler’s measurement. I don’t get your vehemence.
To give another example of the significance of Vic’s point, consider many of the Woodpeckers products and sales pitches. Woodpeckers is selling accurate measurement as the way to improve your woodworking. Their tools are expensive and red and apparently pull in a lot of revenue. But I doubt they improve furniture woodworking much.
So I’m selling bullshit to beginners? Just because you don’t see a difference between accuracy and precision doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
This is not a false dichotomy. In fact, it’s not a dichotomy at all. Nowhere did I suggest that terms were mutually exclusive or completely different. I fear you may have used the wrong word.
And I strive to be more like an author who has devoted so much time and effort to preserving the use of hand tools and woodworking.
Just an opinion but what I find to be some common ground for Vic and Chris is (1) both continually espouse that you don’t need every tool/gadget under the sun and tell/show us why, (2) both help people realize that yes, you too can build something and you should go do that! (3) both provide thoughtful posts that entertain us, teach us a thing or two, and to make us think. As a hobbiest aspiring to make better next time, I appreciate them both.
I agree with the general thrust here, but I would have preferred that you use terminology as done in more formal science and engineering contexts.
For example, in my personal experience, “precision” is generally a catch all term that is often formally quantified in terms of “accuracy”, “repeatability”, and “resolution”. In your piece, it feels like you are, for example, using “accuracy” instead of “resolution”.
I’m a fan of pointing out that “everything moves”, it’s just a matter of how much and how it needs to be accommodated. In the context of “non-manufactured”furniture, we can achieve very strong and aesthetic joinery through careful/proven and efficient and non-quantitative (and often trade/woodwork bespoke) “transfer” methods. In contrast, we can alternatively generate slop with readily available, quantitative, and often non-bespoke tools, esp. when their use tends to involve more opportunities for errors to accumulate.
I whole heartedly embrace traditional woodworking “transfer” tools and layout for non-manufactured projects. However, in my professional (engineering context) practice where things span many people and places and parts, quantitative requirements for accuracy, repeatability, and resolution are all actively discussed as needed on a feature-by-feature basis.
I made some built in shelves to fit inside three drywalled arches in a friend's basement. Not only were all three a different width, the interior sides where I needed to mount the shelves weren't perpendicular to the back of the arches or the walls in which they sat. I quickly regretted offering to take on the job as I became more angry at the carpenter who made the front of each opening narrower than the back and couldn't find 90 degrees on a Florida morning in August. To fit the shelves, I had to insert them at an angle and rotate them down to fit on the hidden brackets I installed inside the openings. And, to make it even more fun, the shelves were 42"-ish x 14" x 1 3/4" maple and each one weighed about a quarter of a metric ton.
Where am I going with this exasperated ramble and why does it relate to this?......I used a kitchen counter templating approach to size and cut the shelves without ever using a tape measure. So, yeah, make it fit don't measure often is the right answer.
The silver lining was that their standards for quality of fit were lower than mine and they loved the outcome much more than I did.
I suspect that everyone with high standards who has built, repaired or renovated things has ended up with some flaws that disappoint him or her but aren't even noticed by anyone else.
I really enjoyed this insight into careful woodworking!
I agree with some comments about how "accuracy" and "precision" are typically used in science. Generally speaking, in that context accuracy refers to correctness, and precision to resolution. Suppose a ball weighs exactly 1 kilogram. "About a kilogram" is accurate but imprecise, and "3.2038573 kg" is precise but inaccurate.
I find that these ideas often correspond to the different needs of a concept and its realization. Often the conceptual design for any artifact - a chair, a watercolor painting, a computer program - strives generally to accurately communicate the nature of the design, becoming precise where necessary. Creating the artifact means accurately following the plan, but requires precision, because the pieces must integrate. So the first brainstorm produces an accurate but imprecise plan ("A sculpture of an elephant with a banana wrapped in its trunk") while the result requires precision ("The banana must fit into the specific trunk we just built with enough friction to not fall out").
This maps perfectly to product building too. You can be incredibly precise about something nobody wants - beautiful execution, wrong target. Getting accurate first (am I solving the right problem?) saves more material than any caliper.
I’m not a woodworker, just a person who sometimes must make things that my family needs. I sure wish I could have read this before building my last project - a library nook with a window seat. The shelving cleats gave me fits! Measurements that should have been correct were frequently off, requiring adjustments. But in the end, I turned out a useable piece that looks good to those who don’t know or are too polite to see the mistakes. And it has become the most popular spot in our tiny house cabin.
Great coaching for beginners and good reminder even to those down the trail aways. Quibbling with the choice of words used to describe the paradigms (or would regime be the right word, maybe a regimen 🙂….how about just mindset?) aside, the lesson is clear. It was a game changer when I finally got that it’s not about exactly transferring the numbers from a plan one part at a time - it’s about making your piece fit square or aligned or at whatever “close-enough” angle the other leg is, etc. I’d add that when you can’t double up and cut parts at the same time, the stop block is your friend!
You know what would be great? If someone did a project video using a story stick. You see plenty of direct transfer, like dados and dovetails, but I have yet to see a story stick in use. I think Jim Tolpin said the pyramids were built with nothing but a stick so it must have some value.
I once ran a Nicholson workbench class where all the measurements were made on a story stick that started with a mark indicating the individual’s wrist height from the floor. It was a lot of fun.
I bet it was challenging too! Did you have to hide the tape measures?
In fact, I did! 😂
I see master handtool woodworker Paul Sellers in the U.K. use story sticks or similar often in his Master Woodworking series. He regularly uses measuring transfer methods.
Cheers.
Michael
I'm a subscriber but haven't watched one of his build videos in while. Thanks for the tip. It's one of those things that can be hard to adopt when you're raised on tape measures.
On his current cabinet build he uses transfer methods often. Same on his other builds. I now do the same. Works great.
Great piece! I’ll add that the best way to learn this lesson that i know of is to work on boats- nothing is square to begin with, they shift n move over time n everything has to fit tight…
Sorry, Vic -- this is a false dichotomy. This reads to me like you've 'made a distinction that does not merit a difference' in order to generate some content.
Don't fall into the Schwarz-trap: it's all too easy to sell bullshit to beginners -- they don't know any better. I was hoping you did.
What 'BS' have you identified from Schwarz?
I would be interested in seeing that too. ☝️
It seems like an important distinction to me. And others agree. Mike Pekovich makes similar comments.
You use the term “bullshit.” That suggests that you feel pretty strongly about the distinction between transferring measurements and using a ruler’s measurement. I don’t get your vehemence.
To give another example of the significance of Vic’s point, consider many of the Woodpeckers products and sales pitches. Woodpeckers is selling accurate measurement as the way to improve your woodworking. Their tools are expensive and red and apparently pull in a lot of revenue. But I doubt they improve furniture woodworking much.
So I’m selling bullshit to beginners? Just because you don’t see a difference between accuracy and precision doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
This is not a false dichotomy. In fact, it’s not a dichotomy at all. Nowhere did I suggest that terms were mutually exclusive or completely different. I fear you may have used the wrong word.
And I strive to be more like an author who has devoted so much time and effort to preserving the use of hand tools and woodworking.
A disappointing comment to say the least Walter.
Just an opinion but what I find to be some common ground for Vic and Chris is (1) both continually espouse that you don’t need every tool/gadget under the sun and tell/show us why, (2) both help people realize that yes, you too can build something and you should go do that! (3) both provide thoughtful posts that entertain us, teach us a thing or two, and to make us think. As a hobbiest aspiring to make better next time, I appreciate them both.
Thanks Ken!
I agree with the general thrust here, but I would have preferred that you use terminology as done in more formal science and engineering contexts.
For example, in my personal experience, “precision” is generally a catch all term that is often formally quantified in terms of “accuracy”, “repeatability”, and “resolution”. In your piece, it feels like you are, for example, using “accuracy” instead of “resolution”.
I’m a fan of pointing out that “everything moves”, it’s just a matter of how much and how it needs to be accommodated. In the context of “non-manufactured”furniture, we can achieve very strong and aesthetic joinery through careful/proven and efficient and non-quantitative (and often trade/woodwork bespoke) “transfer” methods. In contrast, we can alternatively generate slop with readily available, quantitative, and often non-bespoke tools, esp. when their use tends to involve more opportunities for errors to accumulate.
I whole heartedly embrace traditional woodworking “transfer” tools and layout for non-manufactured projects. However, in my professional (engineering context) practice where things span many people and places and parts, quantitative requirements for accuracy, repeatability, and resolution are all actively discussed as needed on a feature-by-feature basis.
Unfortunately I’m neither a scientist nor an engineer. 😅
I made some built in shelves to fit inside three drywalled arches in a friend's basement. Not only were all three a different width, the interior sides where I needed to mount the shelves weren't perpendicular to the back of the arches or the walls in which they sat. I quickly regretted offering to take on the job as I became more angry at the carpenter who made the front of each opening narrower than the back and couldn't find 90 degrees on a Florida morning in August. To fit the shelves, I had to insert them at an angle and rotate them down to fit on the hidden brackets I installed inside the openings. And, to make it even more fun, the shelves were 42"-ish x 14" x 1 3/4" maple and each one weighed about a quarter of a metric ton.
Where am I going with this exasperated ramble and why does it relate to this?......I used a kitchen counter templating approach to size and cut the shelves without ever using a tape measure. So, yeah, make it fit don't measure often is the right answer.
The silver lining was that their standards for quality of fit were lower than mine and they loved the outcome much more than I did.
I was getting more upset the further I read your comment. 😅 That must have been frustrating but I’m glad the client was happy.
I suspect that everyone with high standards who has built, repaired or renovated things has ended up with some flaws that disappoint him or her but aren't even noticed by anyone else.
I really enjoyed this insight into careful woodworking!
I agree with some comments about how "accuracy" and "precision" are typically used in science. Generally speaking, in that context accuracy refers to correctness, and precision to resolution. Suppose a ball weighs exactly 1 kilogram. "About a kilogram" is accurate but imprecise, and "3.2038573 kg" is precise but inaccurate.
I find that these ideas often correspond to the different needs of a concept and its realization. Often the conceptual design for any artifact - a chair, a watercolor painting, a computer program - strives generally to accurately communicate the nature of the design, becoming precise where necessary. Creating the artifact means accurately following the plan, but requires precision, because the pieces must integrate. So the first brainstorm produces an accurate but imprecise plan ("A sculpture of an elephant with a banana wrapped in its trunk") while the result requires precision ("The banana must fit into the specific trunk we just built with enough friction to not fall out").
This maps perfectly to product building too. You can be incredibly precise about something nobody wants - beautiful execution, wrong target. Getting accurate first (am I solving the right problem?) saves more material than any caliper.
I’m not a woodworker, just a person who sometimes must make things that my family needs. I sure wish I could have read this before building my last project - a library nook with a window seat. The shelving cleats gave me fits! Measurements that should have been correct were frequently off, requiring adjustments. But in the end, I turned out a useable piece that looks good to those who don’t know or are too polite to see the mistakes. And it has become the most popular spot in our tiny house cabin.
I’m glad it turned out for the best!
Thank you!
Great coaching for beginners and good reminder even to those down the trail aways. Quibbling with the choice of words used to describe the paradigms (or would regime be the right word, maybe a regimen 🙂….how about just mindset?) aside, the lesson is clear. It was a game changer when I finally got that it’s not about exactly transferring the numbers from a plan one part at a time - it’s about making your piece fit square or aligned or at whatever “close-enough” angle the other leg is, etc. I’d add that when you can’t double up and cut parts at the same time, the stop block is your friend!