From: mfleet@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: rec.woodworking
Subject: Re: Re: Scraping versus Sanding
Date: 17 Dec 92 08:43:57 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1go3lsINNev8@usenet.pa.dec.com>, gringort@wsl.dec.com (Joel Gringorten) writes:
> In article <4320083@hpcc01.corp.hp.com>, gph@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (G. Paul Houtz) writes:
> |> In article <1992Nov5.102424@wsl.dec.com> gringort@wsl.dec.com (Joel Gringorten) writes:
> |> 
> |> >So, the question is then, is my scraper technique faulty, or are there indeed
> |> >situations where sanding is the only way to get a good finish.
> |> 
> |>    In spite of some of the almost laughable comments in this string, I still
> |>    insist that I get my best finishes with a scraper.   
> 
> Glad you were amused.  
> 
> |>    Of course, before I TOUCH that curly maple with my scraper, I have sanded
> |>    it down smooth with at LEAST a 200 grit sandpaper on an orbital sander.
> |>    Then, I take my scraper and hone a dead flat, straight edge, and 
> |>    touch it with the burnisher with just one or to complete strokes.
> |> 
> |>    This gives me a barely perceptible edge, and I use it on knotty or
> |>    intricate grain.  There is NO tearout, and the flat (as in texture, not
> |>    geometry) surface left by the sandpaper becomes reflective like glass
> |>    after a few strokes with the scraper.
> 
> Oh, ok.  I use a hand plane to rough out my work.  You use sandpaper.  Sounds
> like a preference issue to me.
> 
> 
> |>    If you don't know the basics of producing a good surface with sandpaper,
> |>    you might as well forget trying to use a scraper.   Master the sandpaper
> |>    first, then learn how to use a scraper.
> 
> No thanks.  My whole point is I'm trying to stay away from sandpaper.
> Purists rarely touch the stuff.  I never knew sandpaper was a prerequisite
> for proper scraper technique.  Have any references for this amazing fact?
> 
> |> 
> |>    Lately, I have been using my jointer for finishing surfaces.  It is faster,
> |>    and makes a nice face, like a planer, without any chance of sniping.  
> 
> I'll bet they look wonderful.  Kind of a cornrow patina, eh?
> 
> -joel
> 
> PS - If I ignore your patronizing, elitist tone, I actually glean a
> possible hint as to something that may make a difference.  You appear
> to put less of a hook on the scraper than I do.  Since a smaller hook 
> takes a shallower cut, it's likely to work better on troublesome wood.
> I'll have to try that.  However, I'm certain it has absolutely 
> nothing to do with your preparation with, ugh, sandpaper.


On a serious note...This question of scraper vs sandpaper will live forever.
In part, we are talking a difference in the SOCIAL aspects of work.  Go to 
a museum that has an extensive collection of decorative art objects, 
furniture and house fittings, produced by hand before, let's say, 1750.  
Admire the finish.  While admittedly the intervening years have given a
patina to the work, look beyond the patina and to see the original 
preparation of the surface.  In the period of history ending with the
industrial revolution, craftsmen had a different kind of pride in
their work.  A great many hours were spent in getting the piece just so.
Today, our work ethic has changed.  While we all try to take pride in
our work, whatever it may be, the person who purchases a chair, an
armoir, has doors made by had for their house, is concerned about the
cost of the object.  Not necessarily so 300 years ago.  The person
who could afford these things simply got them.  The poor man had to do
with rougher, cruder furniture, houses without elaborate crown moldings,
etc.  The craftsman had, in a way, more freedom to produce objects of 
much higher quality than today, but only for those who could afford it.

The criteria of finish preparation has also changed.  Look at those 
extremely fine pieces of wood working in the museum again.  Look
at the large surfaces closely.  They are not absolutely flat, as we 
insist on today.  They have a faint waviness to the surface.  It is
this "uneveness" which many in this discussion have tried to eliminate
with their surface preparation.  This type of surface accepts the patina
of time more readily, and has a glisten to it, caused by light reflected
from the surface at very slightly different angles, which imparts a
richness that is not often seen today.

Sandpaper was developed to make the job of finishing easier.  By the way,
Moxon, in Mechanik Excercises, c. 1740, mentions how to use crushed glass
to finish wood.  Sharkskin was used during this period for finishing.  Yes,
the skin of that dreaded denison of the deep!  Finishing techniques
included the use of pumice blocks, powdered pumice and rotten stone. 
All these are abrasives, rather than cutting edges, turned or unturned.

My point is that both these techniques have historical precedence.  By all
means continue the discussion, so that both these techniques can live
into the future, and be appreciated for what they are.  Which one should you
use?  Try them both, then decide.  Over your years of woodworking, continue
to try and use these and any other techniques.  Become acquained, at least,
with the way things were done in the past, so that you may appreciate the
modern methods.  When you use these modern methods, observe and appreciate
the old ways, and recognise they have a different beauty and cost.  Try
to enter the mind of a craftsman of 300 years ago, and appreciate the 
way he was able to work, although at a cost to his health, properity and
social circumstances.

I'm off my soapbox now!

Marrin Fleet
Computer Services, AD112
Memphis State University
Memphis, TN  38152
 

Newsgroups: rec.woodworking