Anyone who reads this thread will recognize that David Rase is a fine craftsman. He may approach his work differently than do some of us. But his workmanship is excellent. No one has suggested anything to the contrary.
I understand that there are certain discussions on here that some people may get tired of. But it’s a forum. You can skip stuff if you don’t want to read it. The vast majority of what gets posted is respectful and cooperative. That’s what we all like to see.
I think most of us understand this sort of discussion perfectly well. Some of us are traditionalists. Others are innovators. The traditionalists hold the antiques up as an ideal, including fit and finish, and perhaps even the tool set used in the process. The innovators keep the form of the antiques, but constantly experiment and combine new techniques and processes with old, seeking to improve on areas they consider weak in the work of the old masters. And that can include adopting continental standards that many of us do not consider to have been common in the colonies. (In reality, most of us are a healthy mix, and as Acer suggests, we certainly all have our own concept of “ideal”.)
But here’s an important point: Both perspectives take the antiques as their starting point. And for that reason, many threads will invariably turn to discussions of antiques and ideals based on antiques, including fit, finish, tools, standards, etc. It is inevitable.
I don’t think it is necessary to interpret such discussions as criticism or argument. I think they are an essential part of the equilibrium—the balance. Similar discussions (and even good natured debates) are part of the banter of all craftsmen involved in traditional trades. I suspect that they are an inherent part of any effort to keep old and new alive simultaneously.
