Kegakigeji ケガキゲージ

Straightedges, rules, squares, sumitsubo, sashigane - those items we employ when 'putting the lines on the wood'
User avatar
Chris Hall
Site Admin
Contact:
Location: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:46 pm

Re: Kegakigeji ケガキゲージ

Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:45 am

Mathieu,

aw, I was just joking around with the self deprecation in my previous post. I wasn't actually feeling weak due to the prospect of buying the Mitsui gage, though maybe I should hold off on that assessment until I see what's left of my bank balance. :?

Good to hear your positive recommendation for the tool, as I just placed an order. I'd seen these tools a while back but had never paid them a lot of attention. I realize now how one of these kegaki gages could be a tool in frequent use in my shop, as I often use a the end of the combo square blade as a place to lay out lines along the grain of a timber, and occasionally cross-wise to it as well. Having a long and gap-free registration surface for the pencil will be decidedly advantageous. The groove along one side of the combo square - a place my pencil often wants to fall into and I'd rather it didn't do that - is something I have long found to be a bit of a fly in the ointment.

It's still handy to use the end of the combo square blade when it comes to laying out narrower surfaces like tenons, or in certain other confined spaces. There the width of the Mitsui tool might make it less suited to laying out narrower surfaces. Hmm, I wonder if they make a narrower version? I'll try it first and see before thinking about that further.

Inch scale has certain advantages , just like every measuring system has plusses and minuses.

If you'll forgive me Id like to expand on that a bit...

The usual argument one might hear is that metric is more 'rational' by virtue of being decimalized.

I'm not so sure about that argument.

First off, consider that inches which are divided can into tenths and twentieths, as they are on the sashigane I designed, gives a resolution as fine as 1/20 (0.05") of an inch. You can clearly see the 1/20" increment marks, and even interpolate between them, so one could say the tool gives a visual resolution to a max of 1/40" (0.025").

Regular inch-scale measuring tools, like tape measure, ruler, framing square, give a resolution by their usual divisions, indicated as 1/16" (0.0625"), 1/32" (0.03125") and so on. Measuring tapes stop at 1/32" resolution typically. With an etched division ruler, we can see 1/64th" (0.015625") ticks on the ruler - if you have reasonable eyesight. A 1/100" resolution, if you've got really sharp eyesight). Using a scratch awl to transfer marks against the etched line obtains the maximum level of physical marking out accuracy with a ruler.

Let's consider the metric-scale tool equivalents. In woodworking you would work with a naked eye resolution and measuring tools would be marked in 1/10cm divisions, correct?

1/10cm, 1 millimeter, is equal to 0.03937". The next division possible would be 1/100 cm, a tenth of a millimeter (0.003937"), but that is too fine a division to be seen by the naked eye, let alone used to mark out on the tool's surface. Not too useful as a measure for woodworking at all, unless you like to use a loupe with your ruler. Any 'seeing' at that resolution is more likely to be done with the aid of a caliper with 1/10 of a millimeter resolution or better. If not using such calipers in your woodworking, you limit of accuracy for measurement is given by a tool with millimeter markings.

That's a significant issue I think. Woodworking, throughout most of history has relied upon naked eyesight when it comes to setting measures. Rules and framing squares and tapes have a display using fractional increments, ticks along the edge we inspect when putting a number to something.

How fine are those divisions and what level of relative accuracy do they provide?

With a metric rule or square, the resolution the 1 millimeter increment on the tools provides 0.03937" accuracy.

With an inch-scale marked tool, the 1/32", and 1/64" divisions would be the ones used. Those divisions provide 0.03125" and 0.015625" refinement of accuracy. Both divisions are more accurate than 1mm divisions.

One could argue that it is possible to visually interpolate the spaces between the 1/10mm tick marks on the tool, to 1/20mm refinement. That equals 0.019685", two hundredths of an inch, which still not as good as the 0.015625", 1/32" accuracy you obtain with the usual inch-scale rule, framing square, etc., looked at with the naked eye.

And then there is what happens when you get into finer measurements yet. Let's say you obtain a metric caliper which measures to the next highest level of accuracy up from what is possible with the tape or ruler markings you see with your naked eye, to a display having a resolution of 0.01mm. Or you go even further, move one step up in accuracy and get a caliper with display measuring to 0.001mm.

Now, 1/100mm, 0.01mm, resolution equals 0.003937", about 4-thousandths of an inch, while the next step up in accuracy, 0.001mm equals 0.0003937".

The former distance value (0.003937") would be useful perhaps in machinist's work, though one could see it useful for woodworking also. It provides roughly 0.004" of resolution, which is decent for sure. I think one can work to a higher level of resolution with powered or hand tools, if one chooses and/or is able.

Now, let's say you get a digital caliper in inch-scale, how would that, uh, measure up? A caliper measuring 1/10" would be pointless, as you can already make out 1/64" or 1/100" on the tool with the naked eye. We would therefore be looking for a tool giving better than 1/100" accuracy.

The next step up, the place for an inch-scale caliper would be a tool providing 1/1000" (0.001") accuracy. The effective level of resolution is 0.001" on the tool, though the readout on my Digimatic caliper has another place past the decimal, but it is not actually accurate to 0.0001"" but is 'only' +/- 0.0005" accurate. Plenty accurate for anything I might conceivably do in the wood shop or machine shop. I would argue that a tenon fit is noticeably different given a dimensional difference of plus or minus 0.002", in hard woods. In other words, there are physically detectable differences in the joinery at those levels of resolution. Whether level of difference that matters to you or not, or is something you care to attain, is another matter. How well fitted would you like a joint to be? Somewhere between sloppy and too tight I guess....

Here we see the inch-scale tool giving a greater level of resolution than is attainable with the corresponding metric-scale tool. The metric tool has a 0.01mm (0.003937") accuracy. The inch-scale tool you would use in its place measures to 0.001" reliably, and that is 4 times more accurate than the metric tool. It is inherently more accurate simply by the virtue what goes on when we divide the respective units up, and the useable tools we have at each step up in accuracy.

Now, let's say you have a metric caliper which can measure with 0.001 accuracy, a divide equal to 0.0003937". That is the place where we move from metal working and super-precision woodworking, to the realm of accuracy required for telescope building, gyroscopes, rockets, atomic physics, and the like. Only specialized machine shops in 'laboratory clean' conditions would be working to that level of accuracy.

For comparison, what's the next level up in accuracy for an inch-scale caliper?

Well, that would be a caliper measuring to 0.00005", a resolution 12 times more accurate than the metric equivalent tool having 0.001mm (0.0003937") resolution.

At every point of comparison, the inch-scale itself has an advantage in being a larger physical size than the centimeter. For old school work in a wood shop where we wouldn't be using digital calipers, relying instead upon divisions inked or notched into the edge of the tool. The inch scale provides divisions which allow for more accurate work than what you would obtain with the metric-scale tool equivalent. When you look at the next level of accuracy obtainable with either tool, using calipers of some sort, the inch-scale tool wins out both in useful and absolute accuracy at each jump in resolution.

Everyone will agree that working in a decimal-based manner, as you do in metric, makes a lot of sense.

You can work readily in decimal inches if you like with conventional layout tools though.

The more accurate you seek to work, the more you will work in decimals anyhow, and the less that other fractions are involved. When you want to get accurate, in either system, you start working in decimal inches.

It's very natural though to take a given measurement and, in the effort to mark finer and finer units upon it, we divide the initial distance in half, then divide each part in half again, and so on and so forth. That's one point in favor of divisions like 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32nd and so on. They are natural to us. Such fractions are an obvious and natural way of refining measurements, particularly when you are looking at people using the systems who lacked numeracy.

If you were working at the most primitive level, which task would you rather have - divide a distance into half, then half again, then half again..., or divide it into 10 parts? The former task, divided-divide-divide, and so on, is a natural task to undertake, while the latter, dividing a measure by 10 parts, requires some tricks to achieve. Picking 1/10 divisions is not the first solution you would come to in other words.

If we consider the tools we use by squinting at a mark along an edge, the most accurate we can be is decided by what we can discern by the naked eye.

If you stick with the standard divisions those tools have, comparing metric-scale and inch-scale, at each step along the road in accuracy, the inch-scale tools would appear to me to have advantages in useful accuracy at each stop along the line. These relative advantages leaves the 'decimalization advantage' of metric as being somewhat of a moot point. Any highly accurate inch-scale measuring we undertake is going to be in decimalized values, so the decimal advantage is only arguable relative to the measures we handle in the regular, naked-eye visible measures we use. The inch-scale tools are more natural in how the measures are divided, and are inherently more accurate in the refinement in space those divisions can provide, and with a variety of divisions available to use, are also more versatile. Metric provides only one division, by 10 each time, and this works out to be a disadvantage I would argue in a lot of cases.

Wrote more than I initially intended - excuse the long-windedness.
Mathieu
Triple 2
Triple 2
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:18 pm

Re: Kegakigeji ケガキゲージ

Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:19 am

Chris Hall wrote:
Inch scale has certain advantages - surprised you dislike it so much. Every measuring system has plusses and minuses. I would never choose to use a metric sashigane for instance, if I had another choice.
I am curious to hear what advantages those are? The greatest disadvantage of an inch scale (with the exception of a decimal inch scale which is not widely used or accepted) is that simple calculations are cumbersome. This is the main reason why I prefer not to use it and a significant one too I think. However I do use imperial often when working in the US since that is what people use and I happily adapt to my surroundings. I believe it is important to be able to adapt easily when working with other carpenters and contractors. Why would I impose an exotic/alien measure system on anyone around me? I was always taught that as a carpenter you should be able to adapt to whatever is thrown at you.

I like metric since I grew up with it and use it when I work in Europe to be able to communicate with others. On smale scale projects which I do myself I might use shaku for a specific reason.

For all I care we can set whatever standard, give it a name divide it in ten (please don't do twelve) and use it. That's what used to happen and it worked just fine.
Why do you dislike metric? Maybe you shouldn't tell me since I have not found many disadvantages to it and your opinion might ruin my preference.
...
User avatar
Chris Hall
Site Admin
Contact:
Location: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:46 pm

Re: Kegakigeji ケガキゲージ

Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:22 am

Mathieu,

I was in the midst of a significant expansion to my previous post when you replied to the initial post i made, so I suggest you take another look at it as I address much of what you wrote.
Mathieu
Triple 2
Triple 2
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 6:18 pm

Re: Kegakigeji ケガキゲージ

Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:56 am

Chris Hall wrote:Mathieu,

I was in the midst of a significant expansion to my previous post when you replied to the initial post i made, so I suggest you take another look at it as I address much of what you wrote.
I understand your point of view but it is based on rather exceptional situations. You start by considering using decimal inches which I think is unfair since I know of only one person who has your decimal inch square besides me. I would also like a tape, scribing gauge, Starret square or any other device I use in this measure would I choose to use it. It is all good when you are working by yourself but timberframes usually require larger crews to complete. So I am sorry but can not consider decimal inches an alternative since it is too obscure for most people I work with.

You point about a 10th of a mm and it not being marked is certainly viable but I honestly have always easily worked around it without any inconvenience. One of the ways of doing that is using the scribing gauge mentioned. Also you can actually see perfectly to 1/5mm by naked eye even without the lines being on your square. The same goes for Rin. You could argue it is a geustimate but I don't think so. With moderate experience very good accuracy is achievable.

The tolerances you are talking about are typical for machinist work and I think this is a bit overkill even if you are aiming for perfect fits in woodworking. You are talking about 0.001mm. Why would you need such an accuracy anyway? You can easily achieve different levels of tightness in a joint and perfect fits in a conscious and repeatable way without the need for that kind of accuracy. Also when working with compound angles etc. I am happy you don't set this as a standard since it could give someone the impression that this is mandatory to do accurate work.
To illustrate what I mean. You should be able to insert a tenon about 1/3 with some hand pressure, another 1/3 with moderate force and the last bit with some persuasion with a hammer or something. We don't need a device that will measure to 0.01mm to do so! Any sashigane would just be fine. Don't get me wrong I think good accuracy is a must but to me there is a point where I stop measuring since compressing the wood fibers will actually change your dimensions.
You mention 0.002" as a level of accuracy and I dare to say I wouldn't bother to go any further. For many applications you can achieve perfect fits even without the need for this accuracy or a device that measures to such a level. That is important to remember too. I like to think that obtaining the skills to achieve very accurate fits without the need for these devices are more valuable then anything else.
The point here is what level of accuracy do we choose to use for our woodworking? And is this level of accuracy appropriate for the situation at hand and the standards of the shop we are working in at that time? The answer varies depending on the situation...

Another very interesting point you make is the naturalness of dividing a measure into smaller parts. It suddenly dawned upon me that this is not how my brain works. What you say makes a lot of sense but being indoctrinated with a decimal measure from childhood has made my brain work exactly like that. I remember the challenge when I started working with fractions and it required effort and focus not to make mistakes.
If you stick with the standard divisions those tools have, comparing metric-scale and inch-scale, at each step along the road in accuracy, the inch-scale tools would appear to me to have advantages in useful accuracy at each stop along the line. These relative advantages leaves the 'decimalization advantage' of metric as being somewhat of a moot point. Any highly accurate inch-scale measuring we undertake is going to be in decimalized values, so the decimal advantage is only arguable relative to the measures we handle in the regular, naked-eye visible measures we use. The inch-scale tools are more natural in how the measures are divided, and are inherently more accurate in the refinement in space those divisions can provide, and with a variety of divisions available to use, are also more versatile. Metric provides only one division, by 10 each time, and this works out to be a disadvantage I would argue in a lot of cases.
Not sure wether I feel the same way. When in need for an accuracy higher then 1/2mm I will probably use an aid like a scribing gauge or caliper from where the level of accuracy is going to be sufficient anyway.
But again if I would happen to work with anyone who has the same standards or preferences as you describe I would be happy to adjust for the time being without any problem.

I am not trying to go against you here but only try to point out some nuances that seem to be overlooked. Thank you for expanding on the topic.
An interesting discussion but I have to hit the road now got a trail race to run tomorrow.
...
User avatar
Chris Hall
Site Admin
Contact:
Location: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:46 pm

Re: Kegakigeji ケガキゲージ

Fri Jul 31, 2015 12:46 pm

Hey Mathieu,

thanks for sharing. You asked me to enumerate any advantages that inch scale may have, and I did so. Of course, you will do the best generally with the system you are used to using.

Where I wrote about "You are talking about 0.001mm " was here:
"Now, let's say you have a metric caliper which can measure with 0.001 accuracy, a divide equal to 0.0003937". That is the place where we move from metal working and super-precision woodworking, to the realm of accuracy required for telescope building, gyroscopes, rockets, atomic physics, and the like. Only specialized machine shops in 'laboratory clean' conditions would be working to that level of accuracy."
And as for " Why would you need such an accuracy anyway?" - well, I certainly don't as part of my woodwork. The point was that it is outside the realm of woodwork and most metalworking, and was in service about making a larger point about inherent differences in those measuring systems - at any scale one chooses to look.

However, that said, the 'need' for accuracy, and the 'quest' for accuracy are two different things. I can aim for a given level of accuracy, and there is a certain reliability associating to certain measurements, plus/minus. Just like throwing darts at a board. One could be happy to hit the board at all, but generally one aims to put the dart in a certain number - and beyond, to a certain smaller portion of the number, the double or triple, if one wants to score well. Super-skilled players can put all three darts into the triple band of any number, and can hit the bullseye almost at will. They are working at a certain accuracy, but I would be willing to be that in order to become reliable at hitting that accuracy, they have to be seeking to hit higher accuracy in all their practice. This is the standard sort of thing in the acquisition of any physical skill. Practice to be at a level higher than that demanded of your sport, and most days you will perform well. If you don't practice at all, then your time on the field will likely have a wider range of outcomes.

I am sure if they weren't particular to strive for even higher accuracy, they would not be reliably good at the level they do achieve. If you want to be skilled at darts, you need to strive for that level of execution.

I could make a similar analogy with a lot of other activities, but it is the same in woodwork, a largely physical activity requiring practice. If you only aim for an accuracy of the thickness of your thumb, then you would be lucky to achieve that 1/10mm otherwise.

The same question, "why be so accurate?" is the really the exact same sort of question as:

"why make it so flat?"
"why make it so square?"
"why obtain such thin shavings?
"why obtain such a clean surface, free of tool marks?"

Why climb the mountain?

No matter what, at some level we have gaps in our joints - what level of gap do you wish to achieve? Let me guess the answer: the smallest one you can possibly make, correct? Or do you settle for something else? What size of gap then would you think acceptable?

All those similar questions revolve around one thing: what level do you settle for? If you wish to reach that level of accuracy/flatness, clean joint lines, etc., reliably, then one has to be able to able to execute beyond it. One has to strive to the next level, the receding horizon we will likely never reach. And if we did reach it, there is a level beyond - the important thing is to continue striving if you are to actually progress in the quality of your results. That is a quintessential aspect of Japanese craft practice, as I'm sure you would agree.

By striving to work to 0.002" or so accuracy, then I tend to be more reliably able to execute the work to a 0.01" level much more easily. So that is where a 'need' might be, at lest insofar as practical application.

Another point is that the higher an accuracy one seeks to achieve, then the more one comes in tune with those factors which get in the way of it. At a +/-1mm level of accuracy, you might not notice that the planing beam isn't flat, or that the planer cutterhead is out of parallel with the support table, that your try square is not square, etc.. Those factors come larger and larger, relatively, when you aim for higher precision, and solving those problems is how you obtain such things as 10 micron plane shavings. You contacted me a few months back in regards to your own interest - not a need - in getting thinner shavings, mentioning wanting to go sub 10-micron, so I would understand by that that you have interests in the direction of a certain amount of precision. Curiously enough, when seeking to achieve that level of thinness in shavings, all those factors you could otherwise ignore with 'regular planing' come into play - the flatness of the planing beam, the ambient humidity, your breathing, your stamina, the flatness of the stock, the flatness and planarity of the dai sole in critical areas, the straightness of the edge, the closeness of the fit, the tension in the metal of blade and sub-blade, etc..

Whether one chooses to define the fit of a joint by feel or by measurement is up to the person I would say. Neither is more valid an approach than the other. Regardless of whether you intellectualize a joint dimension as a set measurement, at the end of the day you are left with the physical encounter of fitting up, so there would always be a connection from the head (a dimension you set and tried to achieve) to the hand (what you can actually achieve in cutting). One would know both a number and have a sense of the feel in that approach. On the other side, if you only knew the fit by feel, of course you can fit things together just fine, but the intellectual aspect is reduced. That's about all it boils down to.

One approach is therefore to work the connection by rougher aim as certain set dimensions, followed by trial and error to achieve a certain quality of fit, while the other approach seeks a closer target in the cut out such that a lot of trial and fit is unnecessary. And if one aims at a number, and missed the mark, then one is left with the same amount of trial and error as with the first method, so nothing is lost in the process, it seems to me.
User avatar
Chris Hall
Site Admin
Contact:
Location: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:46 pm

Re: Kegakigeji ケガキゲージ

Fri Jul 31, 2015 1:03 pm

I understand your point of view but it is based on rather exceptional situations. You start by considering using decimal inches which I think is unfair since I know of only one person who has your decimal inch square besides me. I would also like a tape, scribing gauge, Starret square or any other device I use in this measure would I choose to use it. It is all good when you are working by yourself but timberframes usually require larger crews to complete. So I am sorry but can not consider decimal inches an alternative since it is too obscure for most people I work with.
I've heard that argument before, and while it is certainly a fair point looked at simply, one can make the exact same case (i.e., involving larger crews) about using any other measuring system. It has to be understood by all involved.

As for 'exceptional situations' a good portion of my earlier post was dealing with those regular old measurements in the realm of what is visible to the naked eye as that is most of what we are dealing with. Nothing exceptions about comparing 1 millimeter increments with 1/16", 1/32", 1/64" and 1/100" measures.

While we focus on the visible, there are however differences not visible to the naked eye which can add up to less accurate outcomes in the work, that is for sure.

I work for myself most of the time as you probably know. I transition back and forth from tool to tool so that fact that my other tools are not in 10ths and 20ths of an inch is no issue to me. Once you become familiar with the decimal equivalents of most of the fractions, this issue becomes even less relevant. If I needed to layout 121.7", then I know that the mark is somewhere between 121-11/16" (121.6875") and 121-3/4" (121.750"), a bit closer to the 11/16" tick on the rule. At bigger sizes of things, like buildings, this level of accuracy is sufficient, is it not?

If I had to work with others, I would adjust any layout in a manner that is going to lead to the minimum level of misunderstanding between layout and cut out. That's a communication issue.

At smaller sizes, when I want to be really accurate, I am using a caliper, in either metric or inches.

The framing square is most useful for laying out slopes, though it sure can do a lot of other things. I would reach first for a shaku-scale sashigane if all i wanted was to lay out a particular slope.
User avatar
Chris Hall
Site Admin
Contact:
Location: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:46 pm

Re: Kegakigeji ケガキゲージ

Sat Aug 01, 2015 5:58 am

I was thinking that a difference in perception in terms of what sort of accuracy is required in woodworking comes about partly from the materials with which we are used to working with and with which we have experience.

It seems to me, Mathieu, from what I have seen of your work, that it revolves mostly around architectural timber work in softwoods. I come from a similar background.

In that arena, I have seen a wide variety in terms of what folks thought was an acceptable tolerance for working. 15 years ago, when I worked for Daizen Log Tech, a Japanese-owned company at that time based on Vancouver Island, it seemed like a tenon which was 1/8" (3mm) loose in its mortise was perfectly acceptable. I'm not saying I agree with that, just noting one case. If you work with chainsaws predominantly, then you will have certain ideas about what a 'close fit' is....

One thing about softwoods and joinery in larger sections is that there is more room for tolerance range. Large tenons and mortises can have an interference fit of, say, 1/32" ~ 1/16" (0.5~1.0mm) and still be persuaded together. If a timber is slightly out of wind, or is bowed a hair, then parts can still be persuaded together and will conform more or less to the situation. Of course the Japanese have specific ways of placing bowed timbers in a structure so as to cancel out a lot of the distortion stresses, but this is another topic.

The tolerances of fits of parts, like doors and windows in their frames, has to suit the environmental conditions and movement characteristics of the woods you are employing, obviously.

So, for that sort of work, in larger timbers, in softwoods predominantly, one could readily conclude that working to the nearest 0.5mm is perfectly fine, and I would agree.

However, if you find yourself working with hard dense and inelastic woods, as I have over the past 10 years or so, then your ideas about suitable tolerances are going to change.

Try taking ebony or cocobolo and fitting it together with any significant degree of interference and you will invariably crack the mortise. And a hair too loose and the fit is spoiled. That's where I was talking about a tolerance of +/- 0.002" being noticeable. If the timber is slightly bowed or twisted, the wood is so stiff that frames assembled will not go together properly.

It is out of my experiences working with such materials that I have had to up my game in terms of accuracy of layout and cut out, and why I have adopted a caliper for a lot of measuring work - besides my aging eyes that is.

With these materials to which I have become accustomed to working, at a higher accuracy, I have also had to become fussier about stock preparation, tool and machine set up and adjustment as a consequence. If i hadn't, joinery wouldn't have fitted well.

Obviously, if I had gotten into making pianos or violins, I would have learned different ways of approaching and relating to the materials used there, and would have perhaps another set of ideas about suitable tolerances.

There is one place where I'm sure you would agree from your own experience, that for wood, tolerances tighter than 0.5mm are mandatory: the fitting of the plane blade to the dai. There, whether you choose to not think about the actual tolerances involved and go only off of feel, you are controlling the wooden surface to an accuracy of at least 0.01mm

Finally, even for the woodworker, there is the intersection with the tools and machines we use, and an occasional need to repair and adjust this equipment - which often involves actual measuring, and woodworking tolerances are an order of magnitude too coarse for these devices. Rebuilding an older machine brings one face to face with these sorts of issues. So one cannot confine oneself strictly to a certain tolerance level associating to just the material we work.

The level of tolerance for a good fit varies with what we are working with. I will note however, that the lessons learned in achieving higher tolerances are no detriment whatsoever to doing work to sloppier tolerances. The same cannot be said the other way around.
User avatar
Brian
Deshi
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Kegakigeji ケガキゲージ

Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:31 am

I feel that high tolerance is actually very necessary, especially for cabinet work and furniture building. We're only as good as what we're compared to, and in the current age we're often compared to work done with CNC machines.

Clients, if they purchase other furniture to pair with Studio furniture, they are likely buying the highest quality of manufactured furniture. One example would be PP Mobler, they create parts on CNC machines but finish the assembled pieces by hand. To the consumer it is 'handmade' and still they see absolutely seemless joinery. One could then apply the reasoning that if this level of fit is achievable at all then it would be achievable in the highest level of furniture which is studio made furniture.

At least this has been a challenge for me when putting some manufactured pieces with the furniture I have made for myself.
User avatar
Chris Hall
Site Admin
Contact:
Location: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:46 pm

Re: Kegakigeji ケガキゲージ

Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:43 am

Brian,

I couldn't agree more. The cool thing is that in woodworking, even hand tools can give extraordinarily precise results if tuned and used with care.

And you raise a topic - studio furniture making in an age of CNC - which has been on my mind a lot lately as I have been spending time to revise/refine the design of the bubinga sideboard. I was going to do a blog post on that topic in the near future actually, and I would rather leave of digging into that topic any further on this thread.
User avatar
Chris Hall
Site Admin
Contact:
Location: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:46 pm

Re: Kegakigeji ケガキゲージ

Sat Aug 01, 2015 8:45 am

I had to google PP Mobler to remember what they are about. They are the company producing the Hans Wegner chairs. And yeah, a lot of their work is by CNC these days, work which in the past was done I'm sure using large templates and pin routers, etc.

Return to “Marking and Layout Tools”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests