Coyote Jim

Members
  • Content Count

    212
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Coyote Jim last won the day on June 26

Coyote Jim had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

208 Excellent

About Coyote Jim

  • Rank
    Journeyman Poster

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Arizona
  • Woodworking Interests
    I'm a beginner so I am interested in learning. Lots and lots of learning.
    I do seem to love hand tools the most though.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Coop, You ain't the only one AND I Ain't kidding Is it possible your wives are overestimating how much game you guys have? I kid! I kid!
  2. That IS a very neat trick Mick. According to google maps I am just over 7 hours drive from Santa Fe. That's very generous to open up your shop. That's good to know about the Felder sale.
  3. Due to tax purposes I find myself in a situation where I can buy a piece of equipment. I THINK what I want is a Jointer Planer in one. My end goal is to someday have a detached wood shop where I will pretty much be hand tools only....except for a jointer and a planer. The vision I see is one where the shop is not small, but not exactly big either. So footprint matters, which is why I would like a combo unit. My question for you guys is two fold. Fold One: Does getting a combo machine line up with my vision or is there something better out there I don't even know about? Fold Two: Assuming I am not completely out to lunch, if you had up to $5000 spend on a combo unit that would last you a couple/few decades, what tool maker would you choose? So far I have done very little research. I was hoping to get some direction from you guys before I get swayed too much by a really good marketing campaign from Jet or Grizzle or Hammer or Northfield. (Just kidding about Northfield. I wish I had that kind of money.)
  4. Guys, I think we are being trolled.
  5. Yes it will be a journal but it will be a bit before I get to this project. My hope is to start by the end of November. As for how long will the build take me? I have no idea, I tend to work at a pretty slow pace. The slow pace is a big part of the appeal of woodworking for me, I have young kids and I own my own business that has 16 employees, add those together and I have 18 kids. Life is a mile a minute for me, so the slow rhythms of hand tool woodworking keep me sane. I plan to use white oak. White oak is my favorite. I just had an old timey wood-gasm.
  6. What if I don't own a router? Still simple? Going to use mostly (if not completely) hand tools on this one, because I'm THAT guy. The idea of no metal is appealing, though that may need to wait till I am half as experienced as @derekcohen The book does not show but I believe it is one solid slab, at least that would be consistent with the Nakashima style. I'm not interested in that though so I am going to use a panel of boards. I also do not plan to use breadboards, I think they would take away from the look. I'm on the fence about a slight arch on the ends. Plenty of time to figure that out.
  7. Thank you for the correction. I would love to blame this on auto correct but it turns out the issue lies with the interface between the chair and the keyboard. That is a good point. I may even play with the idea of having them squared off and proud all Green and Green style. Not sure if this would add or subtract from the look.
  8. I am going to be building a dining table and after a bunch of searching I found a design that I am quite smitten with. Found a picture of the table I like in a book, so here is a picture of the picture. I love the table, not the chairs, I think the chairs are cool but I just don't want them. The table was designed by Mira Nakashima, apparently Mira and her father George are furniture designers of some renown (wink). As for re-creating this design, I'm not really concerned about the dimensions because I am just going to scale this to fit the room, I'm more interested in what you think the joinery should be. Here is what I think: For the "feet". Connecting the 2 cross members to the long beefy "floor runner" would be great as a half lap. Connecting the slanted vertical legs to that "floor runner" would be fine as a bridal joint. Connecting legs to that cross piece under the top I'm thinking a double mortise and tenon, maybe also a bridal joint. I could use your input on this one. The ribs on either end of the top would probably be best as a sliding dovetail but I was thinking of just using screws with slotted holes because a sliding dovetail that size intimidates me. Two questions for you good people: Do you see any red flags with my joinery plan here? How would you build this if you were going to build it? Thank you fine people for being such a great resource!
  9. I'm a bit late to this party but this is the thing I tell anyone who wants to use my shop. Explain that a table saw is most likely going to be the most dangerous tool they ever have the privilege of using. Tell them how badly a table saw wants to dismember them. Cutting off fingers is all a table saw dreams about when it is not in use. Remind them that all table saws want out of life is to spray human blood all over a workshop and every day that goes by that they don't spray blood makes them want to do it all the more.
  10. Here is the Bedrock Page from the 1914 catalog. This is the Bedrock Page from the 1934 catalog Pricing with inflation and Lie-Nielsen.
  11. A week ago I bought a Stanley No. 45. The one I bought was complete and in amazing condition. From what I can tell my "new" plane was made between 1905 and 1914. I am very excited to get this thing tuned up and working. I'm not sure why but I thought it would be interesting to look this tool up in the old Stanley Tool Catalog. I found a .pdf of the Stanley catalog that was published in 1914 which is the same year that WW1 started. Here is a picture of the page. Kind of cool right? Well here is where things get interesting. As you can see, in 1914 this super complex plane came with 21 different cutters, was packed in a "substantial box" and it cost $7.00 Taking into account inflation, $7.00 from 1914 is equivalent to $179.59 in 2019. $179.59 is a tough pill to swallow no matter what time you live in, that box better be pretty damn substantial. Well lets dig a bit deeper. Stanley published another catalog in 1934, just 5 years before WW2 started. By 1934 the #45 had gone through a few minor changes (like micro adjustment on the fence). Here is the page out of the 1934 catalog. As you can see here the plane now comes equipped with 23 cutters instead of 21 like it did in 1914. It still packed in a substantial box but now the substantial box is a "neat substantial box". The cost of the plane in 1934 is now $15.00. Adjust $15.00 for inflation and you get $287.19! Yikes! In just 20 years they jacked the price up from $179.59 to $287.19 which is a 60% increase for basically the same product. How "neat" could one box be?!?! But how about we go a little deeper? Stanley published a catalog in 1958 (24 years later, the Korean War had just ended), lets have a look at that one shall we? The plane still comes with 23 cutters but there is no mention of the substantial box (neat or otherwise). And here in 1958 the plane costs $47.45. Lets adjust 1954 money to 2019 money and we are at $418.57! What?!?! That is 46% higher than 1934 price and a 133% increase from 1914 price. Keep in mind that there have been only very minor changes to the plane over the course of 44 years. Let's compare these prices to a modern day equivalent. Veritas makes a combination plane that is similar to the Stanley #45. The Veritas combination plane comes with only one cutter (many other cutters are available though) and it retails for $399.00. (Each additional cutter is ~$16.00, so $16.00 x 20 cutters = $320.00 in additional cutters.) That is within 10% of Stanley at their most expensive. So why the huge increase is the price of this plane over the course of the first half of the 20th century? I have no idea. I do have a theory though. My theory is based off of zero research, zero facts and only 100% my gut and should not be taken as anything else other than one person who had a difficult time paying attention in school's opinion. Theory: 1914 was pre-labor laws. The 40 hour work week did not exist. There was no such thing as "over time". There was no such thing as "minimum wage". You could also have 10 year old boys working in factories. The cost of labor was possibly the cheapest part of making this plane back in 1914. So my guess (and this truly is just a guess) is labor costs. If anyone has any idea for this price increase that is based on facts or actual knowledge and is not just a guess like I did can you please fill us in? For funsies, I also checked out the price of some other planes over the years. The below chart shows those prices. The planes listed are: #45 which I have already described. #5 which is possibly the most common plane in existence. #8 which is the largest plane that Stanley made. #55 which is a combination plane that is WAY more complex than the #45 and came with 55 cutters! There were an additional 41 cutters this plane could use. The 55 was called "The King of All Planes". #71 which is a router plane. I also added the price of modern Veritas and/or Lie-Nielsen planes just to be extra fancy. Couple notes from the chart. 1)The Veritas #45 equivalent only has 1 cutter like I mentioned above. 2) Veritas does not make a #8, the price listed there is for a #7. 3) Lie-Nielsen tools are hella expensive but it is my understanding that they are worth every penny. Thank you for reading, I hope you found all this as interesting as I did and if any of you have any insights then let me know.
  12. That is a bold man. It's glue that I did not notice before I finished it. You can only see it if your eyes are open though. My blind friend is none the wiser about it.
  13. I finally got a chance to take some glamour shots. What do you think.
  14. This is the way I do it also. This video was a very big help to me. The concept for surfacing is simple: Find the high spots and bring them down. In practice this is very hard for a beginner. I am far from a veteran at surfacing by hand but I like to think I have graduated beyond beginner. So I'll add my 2 cents. One thing that helped me a lot was going slow, using a scrub plane, then a #5 and using LOTS of chalk (a fat pencil will also work). Hog off the obvious high spots with the scrub plane. Things like the high sides of a cup (like you mentioned) or maybe even the high corners of a very twisted board, anything that sticks out like a sore thumb. It's easy to go overboard with a scrub plane so take your time. I know Paul Sellers and other people you see are taking shavings very fast, but you're not there yet, slow it down. Once all the obvious high spots are knocked down (notice I said "knocked down" not "flat") you can switch to a #5 (a #4 could work if set for a heavy cut, also a #6 could work here too, I just prefer a #5). Using your strait edge find the high spots. Mark those high spots with chalk (I like to use scribbles). Plane away just the area with chalk on it until most of (if not all) the chalk is done. Should only take a pass or two. Check with the strait edge to see if the high spot is still high. If it is still high, mark it again and plane it again. And then again. And then again. Taking it super slow. This is also how to treat twist. What you are looking for with this step is "very flat", but still a little bit of light leaking under your strait edge, but no spots that are real high or real low. I wish I knew how to define "real high" or "real low" without showing you but I can't. You should know it when you see it though. Then (and only then) is it time to break out the #7. A plane this size is not used for spot fixes. I suppose spot fixes can be done but this plane is not good at it. Now what you want to do is use your strait edge to find any LOW spots. Mark the low spots with your chalk. Time to start making full length passes working from one side of the board to the other with just a bit of overlap. What should be happening is that the chalk is being removed a little by little with each pass as the level of the surface gets worked down to those low spots. Do not be scared to take an aggressive shaving here, unless you are getting tear out of course. Once all the chalk from the low spots are gone stop and check with your strait edge and winding sticks. At this point you should be so damn close, if not perfect. Now you stop. Do not use the #4 to smooth it. Smoothing comes at the end of the project, or at least just before glue up. At this point a nice smooth surface is of no value, the only thing that matters at the beginning of the project is flatness. Hope that helps. Oh, one more thing: I know it's super frustrating (I have for sure been there more than once) but don't get too caught up on that piece of oak that you may be "ruining". Nice pieces of wood come and go, you will see hundreds of fancy boards over the years. Remember it's just a piece of a dead tree. But the skills you are learning will last the rest of your life. You will get so good at this that you can do it in your sleep. There is a day in the future that surfacing a board will take you 5 minutes. You're not there yet, so don't expect to be. You have my permission to go buy yourself another piece of oak. You've earned it.
  15. Not done yet. I still need finish prep and finish. So I'll be softening all the edges and the smoothing plane will remove all the pencils. One of the goals on this was no power tools and no sand paper. I did use the thickness planer but that's all.