To sand or not to sand; that is the question

[NeilS]

Finishing without sanding has come up on another thread started by RSSR (Ern). Rather than hijacking that thread, titled American Rock Maple (http://www.woodworkforums.com/f8/american-rock-maple-151439/), in which Ern and others discuss finishing using a scraper, I thought maybe a dedicated thread on the aesthetics of not sanding and leaving residual tools marks on a piece might be worth a spin. It is not my intention to raise any techy talk about scrapers and the like in this thread; go to Ern’s thread above and its links for that.

Why sand? In my view this should be determined by the level of finish you aim for or accept. If you aim for a finish that allows you to look deep into wood grain, then in my experience some fine sanding will be required no matter how much time you spend fine scraping.

However, if you accept that the majority of the wood grain is revealed with fine well controlled finishing cuts, and that some fine residual tool marks are aesthetically acceptable, then that is all that is needed with some woods. So, why don’t we see more work finished like this?

IMO, it’s more a case of fashion than fundamental aesthetics. Those that dictate what’s acceptable (turning teachers, competition judges, gallery managers and mag editors) seem to be of the opinion that a fine finish without a trace of a tool mark, sanding abrasion or holding method is required for a piece to be aesthetically acceptable. Unlike work crafted from other materials (e.g. ceramics) there seems to be a ‘fetish’ for disguising how a piece of woodturning was created. Perhaps our arbiters of what is good woodturning have insufficient confidence in their own aesthetic judgement to break ranks on this. While on the other hand in my experience gallery patrons holds no such prejudices.

Having got on my high horse about the’ fetish’ that some have about disguising how a piece is turned I offer in support of an alternative view the following piece made by Robin Wood the British pole lathe turner. This bowl is straight off the tool showing every tool mark that created it. Not a skerrick of sandpaper (or for that matter scraper) has been anywhere near it. And, thank goodness, for much of the delight I get from this little bowl is the interplay between the wood grain and the tool marks left by a master turner.


206679...206680


Your opinions, please?

[Scott]

I can appreciate the aesthetics of a turned product that has residual (for want of a better word) tool marks however I consider those tool marks are appreciated by wood turners only. The tool marks tell a story of how the bowl was turned and alludes to the skill of the turner him/herself. If you were to sell that bowl though, then I'm sure the uninitiated would shun that bowl. Because sanding and polishing a bowl brings out the grain, the lustre of the grain, the deep shine and patina of the wood. How would that stunning piece of timber look un-sanded as opposed to sanded?

To sum it up, I'm going to sit in the fence and say the beauty of the turned product is in the eyes of the beholder.

[bookend]

The bowl is beautiful and your argument is fine as far as it goes. There are two points I raise further to yours.

The first is that finishes highlight the features in timber and unfortunately my access is limited when it comes to obtaining pieces as gloriously full of feature as the one displayed in the example bowl - read that as I've never had a piece of timber like that! That timber does not need help in catching the eye.The timber I have needs finishing.

The second is that finishing helps to protect the timber and I would personally see it as a crime for that bowl to crack and start to disintegrate.

It does look good at the moment though and I agree that the tool marks create their own interest! :rolleyes:

[bookend]

Taking Scott's comments and running with them- the bowl looks rustic.

In the eyes of punters, is the rustic look a look created by those who would have done a better job if they could have or is it a deliberate choice and a type of craftsmanship?

Is the bowl a thing of beauty or, with a couple of holes, a nice holder for a hanging plant?

[hughie]

well it might be a case of horses for courses. :U


But in my case I invariably sand and sand to a fine finish. Something akin to a museum finish, I tend use this as my yard stick.

There will times when a controlled roughing up of the surface is desired, but it would be for a portion only and not the whole surface.

[dr4g0nfly]

Although I agree the bowl has an agreeable look to it and I'm quite sure that a wonderful tactile feel I'd not use the term 'Rustic'.

If you like it and why not. And wish to keep it as it is, you can oil it to protect it.

There are enough turners in the world who do this deliberately to their work to give the effect and texture you've created, either as part of the turning or the whole thing as you have.

If it pleases the eye of the maker, what should he care about what others think.

To return to the term Rustic; Turners of Yore would not be best please to think that the work they produced looked anything like that. Modern day Pole Turners (bodgers) don't leave work looking like that.

Robin Wood (http://www.robin-wood.co.uk/index.htm) is a person who make his living producing green wood bowls on a pole lathe and has rediscovered the art of making 'Nested Bowls' on a Pole Lathe.

[NeilS]

Scot, Graeme and Hughie - enjoyed your comments.

Dragonfly - that bowl has been oiled... I understand from Robin that he uses linseed oil on his bowls. And, yes, it does have a great tactile feel in the hand. Thanks for adding the link to Robin's website.

[_fly_]

Its like the difference between a potters wheel clay spun pot and a hand made pot. They both have appeal.

[Paul39]

I read the title and thought, of course you sand. I look at the bowl and it is just fine the way it is.

[dai sensei]

Me, I sand and sand and sand, but it is all about personal taste.

[hughie]

Me, I sand and sand and sand, but it is all about personal taste


.....not supposed to eat the stuff :no:

[Sturdee]

Your opinions, please?

I'm reluctant to criticize this as I'm only a beginner at turning and still have my P plates on.

However in critiquing I look whether it's meant to be functional, in this case like a salad or fruit bowl, or as art.

If it's meant to be as art to me it looks unfinished and fails the wow factor. These kind of tool marks may be okay as a feature but the whole bowl like that IMO look amateurish.

If it's meant to be functional the bowl lacks the ability to be easily cleaned. If I made one like that my wife would give it back to me and tell me it's useless and go and do it properly and make it smooth. So again it fails to meet a proper purpose.

Now my views may not be the same as an artist would have but IMO it need a total refinish to attract me.

My 2 cents worth.


Peter.

[Skewturn]

Me, I sand and sand and sand, but it is all about personal taste.

I would sand as well but being a beginner i can sometimes over do it.
Cheers keep turning

[NeilS]

Bookend, Fly, Paul39, Dai Sensei and Sturdee - thanks for your considered views.

On Sturdee's deliberations on fitness-for-purpose of bowls finished exactly like that I might defer to a higher authority. In the Foreward written by Richard Raffan to Robin Wood's book, The Wooden Bowl, Raffan wrote:

"We all have ritual objects in our daily lives, tools and possessions we like to keep for our exclusive use. Amongst mine is a bowl turned by Robin Wood on his pole lathe. I use this bowl at least once a day, always for breakfast and occasionally as a serving dish... I have no doubt that I will use this bowl for the rest of my life."

I wouldn't mind an endorsement like that from Raffan...:D

[robo hippy]

On the outside, I like the look. On the inside, I would have to be positive that there is no tear out. Main reason is that I do not want to leave any spots for nasty little bugs to breed and cause the wood to go sour, or create any dangerous germs. I haven't gotten close enough to that to be comfortable with not sanding them.

robo hippy

[jimbur]

I know nothing about pole-lathe turning so my comments have to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, I assume that the finish is a deliberate statement and that a different finish could have been obtained "off the tool".
It reminds me of a story I heard many years ago about a couple who were very taken with adze-trimmed exposed beams in houses and wanted one in their's.They found an old craftsman to trim one for them and were very disappointed when there was little difference between his adze finished job and a machine dressed beam.
The story goes that rather than upset him they hired someone else to rough it up to their specifications.
I like the look of the bowl but wouldn't want more than one on display or in use.
Cheers,
Jim

[Sturdee]

I wouldn't mind an endorsement like that from Raffan...:D

I would be happy too, but I have to defer to an even higher authority in my life and that is my dear wife. If she couldn't clean a bowl used for holding food then it would not be acceptable notwithstanding what any wood turner or artist might say. It would fail her test on serviceability.

I think most end users being concerned with the cleaning of those kind of bowls would agree with her.


Peter.

[mick59wests]

not sanding sounds good to me. My bowls would look rough but be finished in half the time! Actually, even after sanding, my bowls look rough:D
Mick

[dr4g0nfly]

It reminds me of a story I heard many years ago about a couple who were very taken with adze-trimmed exposed beams in houses and wanted one in their's.They found an old craftsman to trim one for them and were very disappointed when there was little difference between his adze finished job and a machine dressed beam.
The story goes that rather than upset him they hired someone else to rough it up to their specifications.


Good story, I can quite believe it but it gave me a good laugh.

Thanks

[NeilS]

OK, we have mixed views on how well Robin Wood's bowl works straight off the tool; both functionally and aesthetically.

How about a finer finish using the scraper then finished without sanding?

The following is an example of a 14" jacaranda bowl that has been completed like that.

207010

Without inspecting it closely the bowl looks like any other of my bowls. It was a keeper, so I get to hear what people say about it. The bowl attracts a lot of positive attention, particularly the area of remnant bark. I cannot recall anyone ever commenting over the years on the fact that the bowl also retains remnant of the scraping tool marks through the wax finish.

Here are some close up details:

207011

207013

207014

It functions OK as a fruit or display bowl. What's the verdict on its aesthetics?

[michael_m]

It functions OK as a fruit or display bowl. What's the verdict on its aesthetics?

For me, it enhances the aesthetics as it adds to its authenticity as an individual, unique creation.

The remnant toolmarks give context to its creation and show that it was created, not manufactured. I sometimes wonder at our tendency (and I have it in spades) to try and hide all traces of the creation process, as though we are ashamed of how we made it.

[tea lady]

On the outside, I like the look. On the inside, I would have to be positive that there is no tear out. Main reason is that I do not want to leave any spots for nasty little bugs to breed and cause the wood to go sour, or create any dangerous germs. I haven't gotten close enough to that to be comfortable with not sanding them.

robo hippyI have held a Robin Wood bowl. It was obviously green turned, and it had wonderfully "ovalated" (Sorry. Running joke:D ) and the turning marks had even rippled in the drying. A wonderful effect. It paradocsically looked rougher than it felt. And I think green turned things are specially turned with NO TEAR OUT. That is what makes it fit for no sanding and also fit for use. The inside surface that holds the food is smooth. Perhaps not every wood could have this treatment.

I think a fixation on "gallery finish" actually covers a defisite in design ability. The first task is a beautiful form and design. And cannot be made up for in making it shiny. Or using the "80 grit gouge" to make up for lack of tool control.

So there! :p

[NeilS]

I think a fixation on "gallery finish" actually covers a defisite in design ability. The first task is a beautiful form and design. And cannot be made up for in making it shiny. Or using the "80 grit gouge" to make up for lack of tool control.

So there! :p

You say 'there' and I say here, here....:D

[powderpost]

I do sand to a fine finish, but I guess that is a "trade" issue. The old English bodgers produced functional table ware that was used daily. Not to sure if they had access to abrasive materials. The stuff I saw in England and Scotland had obviously been used and I don't think too many people died of bugs etc. that were hiding in the wood.

To sand or not, I think, is a function of the type of turning and its function, and the attitude and goals of the craftsman.

Jim

[Scott]

It functions OK as a fruit or display bowl. What's the verdict on its aesthetics?

You could break down the aesthetics into various categories. The timber itself with the bark inclusion, the shape, the form or the finish itself. But when I examine the photographs the tools marks don't detract from the overall appearance one iota. It would be unfair to critique the bowl itself based upon the individual parts because the sum of the parts make the bowl itself exceptional.

[Skewturn]

Nice bowl it has a nice finish so I think it works:2tsup:Cheers

[rsser]

Beaut bowl Neil. Aesthetic fineness is more than just one part of a piece as Scott has posted.

The RW bowl works for me cause the spalting provides counterbalancing lines to the toolmarks'. Without those black lines, I'd be repelled frankly.

There's one application where sometimes I don't aim to sand: the inside of a hollow form, where sanding is tricky and/or tedious. Have had publicly acceptable results there just doing 'corduroy' with a toothpick scraper.

Links oddly to Raffan doing a bowl demo at a wood show a while back; he was doing stacked beads on a bowl outside and said that it didn't need sanding.

[Jim Carroll]

Ok forget about woodturners etc opinions look at who actually buys the item.

Generally not a woody but the boss of the household who is looking for a gift for someone special, family or friend.

They have no woodturning knowledge but a keen eye for detail and fingers that feel.

My analagy is this.
Watch a woman in a clothes shop where there is racks of clothes, they see one they like the look of and the touch the garment. If they like the feel of the item they will take it of the rack for a closer look and if pleased will buy the item.

It is the same for our items if it feels good then there is a better chance it will get closer inspection and possibly a sale. If it feels like carp then they walk away and no sale.

Just my 2c worth but I will sand to get that better finish and sale.


Granted there is a lot of items out there that get purchased which are of lower quality which some think that is all they have to do, but their price usually reflects this.

Who really knows the real answer.

Keep your own standards and hopefully improve, it gives you more pleasure than just pumping out so so goods.

[tea lady]

They have no woodturning knowledge but a keen eye for detail and fingers that feel.

My analagy is this.
Watch a woman in a clothes shop where there is racks of clothes, they see one they like the look of and the touch the garment. If they like the feel of the item they will take it of the rack for a closer look and if pleased will buy the item.

It is the same for our items if it feels good then there is a better chance it will get closer inspection and possibly a sale. If it feels like carp then they walk away and no sale.


:2tsup: True. And not just the finish. The form gets judged this way too. So look with your eyes shut. :U

[oldiephred]

I fail to understand why a bowl turned on a pole lathe should not receive the same critique as one turned on a modern powered lathe. I enjoy going to working museums where the old tools are demonstrated because it gives one an appreciation for the craftsmanship required to complete the tasks such as shingles, lumber, barrels,etc., however I don't think many people would pay higher prices for items just because they were made "the hard way". As has been already mentioned, most people don't even recognize that a bowl is rough because of the machine it was made on, they simply buy it because they happen to like it, rough, smooth, shiny,dull,etc.
Anyway, I won't ramble on forever.

[NeilS]

Granted there is a lot of items out there that get purchased which are of lower quality which some think that is all they have to do, but their price usually reflects this.

Who really knows the real answer.



:2tsup: True. And not just the finish. The form gets judged this way too. So look with your eyes shut. :U

Yes, Jim, I agree there is woodturning that is sold which is of "lower quality" and some of that is due to the finish, but to my eye it's the form more often than not that lets that work down. Pieces that have been polished to an humpteenth of their life but on poorly executed or conceived forms. And, if the form fails to satisfy the eye then invariably it will also fail to pass TL's "eyes shut" inspection.

I agree that finish is a factor in buying decisions, but in my experience form is the primary attraction, followed by display, followed by function, followed by price, followed by the competition, followed by finish... that is the order in which a decision is made to buy. An unacceptable finish (to the buyer) may fail in the end to attract a sale, but my current thinking is it sits lower in the buyers priorities than most turners appreciate, although I'm yet to fully test that out.

Of course, what people are prepared to buy and what turners are satisfied to make and sell are different yet related considerations; that is, if they are to keep buying and we are to keep making.

Then there is the life of the piece after the sale. Richard Raffan makes a good point again in support of form over finish... "I focus my attention on form and tactile qualities. Eventually they will be all that’s left, and if these aspects are found wanting no one will bother to keep the bowl. If you reach beyond the gloss of attractive grain and a polished profile, there’s a good chance that your bowls will not only feel good and function well, but grace the eye when not in use.”

But, as Jim says, who knows the answer, but the question is still worth kicking around.

Thanks also to Robo Hippy, Jimbur, Mick, Michael_M, Powderpost, Scott, Skewturn, Ern and Oldiephred for your thoughtful input.

[rsser]

You're sig says it all Neil.

There's turning for ourselves, for recipients of a gift, or for a market.

Re the first, I learned bowl turning from a guy who went down to #2500 with wet sanding with burnishing oil. Then microcrystalline wax and lambswool buffing. Too much bother for me. Some timbers get a polish off abrasives alone way below that.

Raffan is sensible. I like his writing about rejuvenating a functional piece. A recessed foot makes this easy.