Kevin Drake was a drummer turned computer programmer turned furniture-maker, and in the late 1990s he got so aggravated with his marking gauge that he threw it into the street.

The good news was that Kevin saw the solution to his problem in a book by Jim Kingshott, "Making and Modifying Woodworking Tools." Kingshott had a marking gauge in that book that you could micro-adjust, and Kevin wanted it.

The bad news was that you couldn't buy it. Kingshott's had been made by a metalworker.

So Kevin was aggravated.

Sometime after that he saw an ad in the newspaper for a guy who was selling woodworking machines. Kevin needed some machines because he had sold his when he moved out to Ft. Bragg, Calif., to attend the woodworking program at the College of the Redwoods under James Krenov.

He went and saw the guy with the machines; and though the guy didn't have any machines that Kevin was interested in, Kevin found out he was a metalworker. So Kevin brought him a copy of Kingshott's book.

"Can you make this?" Kevin asked. He could, and a few days later Kevin had a working version of the marking gauge he'd always wanted.

"I liked it for about an hour and a half," Kevin said. "Then I saw it had a major limitation. So I redesigned it (the gauge), and the guy made me one of those."

That was the first Tite-Mark gauge. Kevin liked it so much that he had the guy make him 30 more, which he sold to fellow students.

"Then I asked him to make me 100 more," Kevin said, "and he told me to get the hell out."

The metalworker put Kevin in touch with a student who did this sort of work, and the business Glen-Drake Toolworks was born. (By the way, "Glen" is Kevin's middle name.)

Now the parts are made on precision CNC equipment in Northern California for Kevin. Then Kevin tunes up the parts, assembles the tools and ships them out to customers. Since he invented the Tite-Mark, he's made and sold about 10,000 of them.

For those of you who have been ignoring my writing for the last 12 years, the Tite-Mark gauge is my favorite. No waffling. No equivocation. I knew it from the first moment I picked up the tool, and I feel just as strongly today.

And I know that at least one other person agrees with me (and I'd love to meet them someday). You see, I've only had two tools stolen from me in the last 12 years. One was a Wayne Anderson plane that someone snitched from a show at Ft. Washington, Pa. The other filched tool was my first Tite-Mark.

— Christopher Schwarz

As I consumed Jonathan Hale’s book “The Old Way of Seeing” about 11 years ago, I could feel the excitement and tension twisting in my gut. This was the book that finally was going to show me the secrets to designing well-proportioned furniture.

It was all there. All the famous formulas: The Golden Section (sometimes called the Golden Mean or the Golden Rectangle), the Hambridge Progression, the Fibonacci Series and even some discussion of the mysterious “column orders.”

Perhaps I should never have finished reading Hale’s book. Because somewhere in the second half, Hale makes a passionate argument that following these formulas will not make you a better designer. Instead, they likely will crowbar your work into unnatural forms that will appear forced or bogus.

Instead, we should design like the mechanics and builders of the 18th and early 19th century did (Hale contends that decent architecture ended about 1830). That is: We should be aware of these formulas, but not use them as tools. The formulas describe the patterns found in nature. So our designs will be better off if we draw and build things from nature and from our gut. Oh, and symmetry is overrated.

This week I’m in the shop building a pair of early 18th-century-style wall cupboards. The doors are based off a piece that came from historian Wallace Nutting’s furniture collection. The carcases and mouldings are based on pieces that I saw this fall at Winterthur. But the piece isn’t a copy. I’ve fiddled with it far too much. So whether the piece fails or not is really my fault.

As I was preparing to build the piece, I mocked up the elevation in Foamular insulating foam and made some significant changes, including beefing up the width of the face frame’s stiles to make room for the rattail hinges now lying on my bench.

They weren’t large alterations, but the piece sure looked different. I thought it might be a trick of the CAD drawing because the new mock-up looked great. But to be sure, I wanted to see if I’d made the horizontal dimension too expansive, even though I’d also increased the height to compensate.

So I checked the ratio of the old design vs. the new. And that’s when I got a little shock. The cupboard’s overall dimensions, 36-7/8” high x 23-1/8” wide, are a near perfect and spontaneous Golden Rectangle. It took 11 years, Mr. Hale, but I think I’m finally getting it.

— Christopher Schwarz

Another entry from my apprentice John who continues on the Trestle Table project when not on the road.

So I was in the check out at the market with a live lobster in a bag and a half gallon of gin.  I looked at the check out person and said "one of us isn't going to make it through the night". She gave me a look. Yesterday, I got the same look from my wife. I was looking at a plane iron with a magnifying glass talking to myself about 1,000 grit scratches when I noticed she was looking at me.

Let me explain. I was helping at a recent class being taught by Chris and Tom Lie-Nielsen at Marc Adams School of woodworking. Chris was talking about sharpening and said that sharpening is really about seeing. As he went through the various grit stones he was using he held the iron up to the light and moved it around to see the edge. He said he could still see some 1,000 grit scratches in it.

I thought about that and decided to really try to concentrate on seeing the edge as I sharpen. To help see the difference in the scratches I changed stroke direction when I changed grits. I tilted the edge to the light and I could really see coarse scratches left in the iron after using the 1,000 grit stone. It’s like I snatched the jewelers loop out of the Master’s hand and can now sharpen my own plane. These scratches needed to come out on the 4,000 grit stone before going to the 8,000 for polish. In the past I would not have taken the time to concentrate on the edge and would have switched grits sooner resulting in an inferior polish on the edge. It also causes sharpening to take longer since I would have been polishing 1,000 grit scratches instead of polishing 4,000 grit scratches, which is a lot easier to do.

The sequence to sharpening is to take the tool from a grinder to a 1,000 grit stone for edge shaping. Stay on the 1,000 as long as it takes to get a wire edge on the back side of the tool (the back side must also be flat and polished. That means going through the same sequence but you only need to do this once). Then to the 4,000 grit, which is used to remove the 1,000 grit scratches and then to polish on an 8,000. That is it. I am sharpening two tools for the first time today. It took four strokes to get a wire edge on the 1,000 grit, approx six strokes on the 4,000 and between 3 and 6 on the 8,000. Then turn the iron over and carefully slide the wire edge onto the 8,000 grit stone to remove the wire edge.

So if you want to make an impression try the lobster and gin trick, or grab a magnifying glass and see if you can see the scratches.

— John Hoffman