On 13 Mar 2007 10:28:26 -0700, wrote:

He had painstakingly
duplicated the poor workmanship of the original, corners
weren't square, joinery was inconsistent and so on.

I make medieval to pre Civil War (mid 17th century) English work in oak.
I also study and measure a lot of original pieces.

You really have to distinguish _why_ something appears crude. You're
probably looking at (if it survived at all) a very high end piece, made
by skilled craftsmen who'd spent a long apprenticeship learning a small
number of highly-developed skills. They were also working in a world
without power tools, where every cut and flat surface meant real effort,
with limited tools, and with almost no measuring instruments.

So their individual skill is even higher than today. After all, they
didn't do much _except_ these pieces, they didn't waste time studying
paint, glue or routers 8-) They were also "lazy". You might surface
both sides if there's a machine doing it, but not when it's your own
sweat. Most obviously though, they didn't measure stuff. Asymmetry is a
way of life, especially in the earlier pieces. Making the width of two
sides of a cabinet equal widths just wasn't on their radar. If a piece
involves turnery (and many do), then this was particularly free-formed.

They weren't careless or sloppy though. Within the limits of how that
type of saw can cut that type of joint, they'd use it well and
repeatedly. They certainly didn't break pins or cut gaps, because that's
the sign of the _unskilled_ worker, not the rushed or poorly-equipped
worker.


When you get to the 18th century, the work is incomparably better than
today's. You just can't get craftsman of that quality, and employ them
for that much effort, for something that sells as cheaply as high-end
furniture does.