Thread: The tamed skew

Excellent F&E!!

I think you have answered a few questions very well.

Now for the continuing stand offf between the traditionalists and the progressives!

I'm in F&E!
pm sent
Cheers

I'll give one a go!
Great research F&E.
Pm Sent

Thanks guys, the tools are on their way.

Artme, it looks like the traditionalists have put it in the too hard basket....
There is an objective point in their favour, though: people who have invested a lot of time in learning how to master the skew have either achieved it, which means that they have no interest in trying something else, or feel close to achieving it and do not want to throw away their investment.Only beginners who do not yet have a "tradition" have an interest in trying new approaches.

I've been tempted to comment but my Mum told me "if you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all".


No disrespect intended at all, it looks like a very useful tool, but for me not a replacement for a skew. At best a bedan. A cutting tool, but too narrow to replace a skew.
Please don't take offence I haven't used it or even seen it close up, so I may be misunderstanding its intended use.

Best wishes,

Steve

Originally Posted by stuffy

I've been tempted to comment but my Mum told me "if you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all".


No disrespect intended at all, it looks like a very useful tool, but for me not a replacement for a skew. At best a bedan. A cutting tool, but too narrow to replace a skew.
Please don't take offence I haven't used it or even seen it close up, so I may be misunderstanding its intended use.

Best wishes,

Steve

Exactly what he said. Just to add, that something that "blunt" at the tip will not give a sharp edge at the base of a bead.

Well, at least it's a start. What does "a sharp edge at the base of the bead" mean? If you are referring to the V cut being necessarily wider, I have already said that. If you mean a well defined line where the bead ends and the base cylinder starts or a smooth transition between a bead and a cove, the statement is demonstrably incorrect.

Is any of the statements I have made in my document demonstrably incorrect? Always happy to stand corrected. "I don't understand its intended use but I don't like it" is not really an argument, is it?

Studying it.

Thanks, much appreciated. Sincerely.

"In rolling a bead, the starting V cut is done with the long point and the rolling with the short point. In both cases, the blunt side of the tool touches the wood before the sharp edge does. Looking at the side of the skew (figure 3) with a magnifying glass makes it evident that this is like hitting the wood with a hammer. "

When rolling a bead the only blunt side of the tool to touch the wood should be the bevel and that should be behind the cutting edge. Its that rubbing that guides the cutting edge and gives the control and superior finish of any cutting tool. Hardly like hitting the wood with a hammer.

Frank you are right (with respect to me, anyway) when you say "Only beginners who do not yet have a "tradition" have an interest in trying new approaches."

Besides this, I don't want to invest significant sums in sharpening equipment, time in developing tool sharpening skills, downtime to do the sharpening etc, all in my advancing years while starting out in this hobby. I just want the easiest and least expensive way to get started with the best chance of not becoming frustrated with tools that become incapable of producing reasonable results after relatively short periods of time. I hope yours is the answer for me!
Cheers

Before biting too hard on this one, readers please note: I own quite a few (6?) carbide insert tools. I use them all the time too.

But I can't agree with all that Frank has said. For example:

"It is a well known fact that a bowl gouge produces a more undulated curve (rippled surface) while a scraper produces a smoother curve but more tear out, which generally requires more sanding."

I have some problems with this one. Just saying that it "is a well known fact" doesn't make it so.


A well presented gouge – either bowl or spindle – can produce an even finish (almost certainly better than a skew on cranky grained wood) without rippling. Also, a scraper used correctly will produce LESS tear out and thus less sanding than any other tool. That said, the scraper will produce more rippling, but that is easily sanded away.

Anyway, that's just for starters. See what the troops think.

Originally Posted by stuffy

"In rolling a bead, the starting V cut is done with the long point and the rolling with the short point. In both cases, the blunt side of the tool touches the wood before the sharp edge does. Looking at the side of the skew (figure 3) with a magnifying glass makes it evident that this is like hitting the wood with a hammer. "

When rolling a bead the only blunt side of the tool to touch the wood should be the bevel and that should be behind the cutting edge. Its that rubbing that guides the cutting edge and gives the control and superior finish of any cutting tool. Hardly like hitting the wood with a hammer.

Sorry, Stuffy, that is factually incorrect, as any magnified photography can prove. Don't believe me, believe Mike Darlow (as quoted). I agree that if your statement were correct all my analysis would not be.

Originally Posted by jefferson

Before biting too hard on this one, readers please note: I own quite a few (6?) carbide insert tools. I use them all the time too.

But I can't agree with all that Frank has said. For example:

"It is a well known fact that a bowl gouge produces a more undulated curve (rippled surface) while a scraper produces a smoother curve but more tear out, which generally requires more sanding."

I have some problems with this one. Just saying that it "is a well known fact" doesn't make it so.

A well presented gouge – either bowl or spindle – can produce an even finish (almost certainly better than a skew on cranky grained wood) without rippling. Also, a scraper used correctly will produce LESS tear out and thus less sanding than any other tool. That said, the scraper will produce more rippling, but that is easily sanded away.

Anyway, that's just for starters. See what the troops think.

Point taken, Jeff, just saying that it "is a well known fact" doesn't make it so. The problem I have is that referencing every point to the relevant literature makes for a very heavy going document, especially when the statement is about generalities to which there are always exceptions. Would you disagree that it is impossible to define absolutely any tool behaviour due to the large number of variables in any given situation?

As regards this specific statement, Tim Skilton said it in as many words at a recent demonstration I attended, but I do not have it in a document I can quote. Mike Darlow does not say it in one quotable sentence, I can only say that his discussion of cutting and scraping in chapter 4 of the quoted book seems to me consistent with it.

This said, I am happy to delete "it is a well known fact" and replace it with a less sweeping statement, I do not think it would negatively affect my analysis.