Rich,
The point of the text you quoted was to drive home the idea that although there are some variations in techniques that work well, there is often a technique or techniques that are most efficient and produce quality results. It wasn't specifically related to the size or weight of my workbench. In a specific sense, I guess you could say it was related to holding work steady while carving, but as I said in my previous post, you don't need a 1200 pound bench to keep your work steady.
I've taught many classes and I've seen techniques used that have been shown on this website. As I said, since builders are mostly self-taught, some of the techniques which develop are not the most efficient and and don't often produce great results. I have worked around and with builders who are accomplished and although there may be some variations in methods, I've found they often sort of converge. That's what I'm saying.
I know today, we love the idea that nothing is wrong and that every idea is good etc. but I don't think that is necessarily a good approach. I will repeat, there are methods that are best for a job or operation. Any particular operation may have a couple alternatives that work well, but there are a host of other approaches that are a bad choice.
As I said before, I think it is no coincidence that methods found to work best often mimic those that were used in the past. Time may have passed, but we're still people wood is still wood etc. The significanct thing to consider regarding period work is that it had to be done efficiently. This is very often overlooked, especially in hobby builders today.
Further, when I speak of gunbuilding methods and techniques of the past, I don't restrict my view to American work.
In regards to my work being more finely finshed or precise when compared to most American work, you are probably right. This speaks more toward my personality than anything else. This means that I spend extra time working a background of carving or work a metal surface down further with a finer file etc. It boils down to taking more time and care. If I were to try to mimic less refined work, my techniqes would not significantly change. I would work faster and perhaps stop with coarser tools. This doesn't mean I would choose to hold the work piece rather than clampling it in a vice, for example.
What I won't agree with you about is the idea that since the American longrifle is sometimes relatively coarsely finished that less than professional methods should be considered or advocated. Look at Mark Silver's work in recent times for example. He has chosen to produce work that is more coarsely finished and perhaps less precise than that from earlier in his career. He still works in a professional manner using commonly accepted techniques. Ask him whether these techniqes change significantly whether he is producing an American Longrifle or a finely finished English Fowling piece. The answer you will get is that more time is spent, more care (focus attention etc.) is given and surfaces are taken to a finer finish using tools appropriate to this task, but the basic techniques remain the same.
After all this writing, I surely hope you understand the point of my previous post. If your still not buying this let me know. I will keep trying to explain as I think it is a very important point to be made.
Jim
