We’ve added a special class and spaces are available now: Learn How to Make Woodcuts with Rudy Everts. The class is Sunday, Nov. 24 and Monday, Nov. 25. Rudy, who is visiting from Munich, will also be filming a video on making a stick chair using nothing but feral green woodworking techniques, from log to finished chair. (But not during the class, of course.)
Students will learn how to draw a design, transfer it to a woodblock, cut the block using edge tools, then print the woodblock by hand onto paper using printing ink.
Rudy has developed a woodcut style that draws inspiration from MC Escher, Wharton Esherick and Paul Landacre, and he has developed numerous shading techniques making woodcuts over several years. (You might know just some of Rudy’s work from the cover of “The Stick Chair Journal” and “The Stick Chair Book” – as well as various carvings he’s made for Chris over the years. Also, Rudy is one-third of the Chair Chat trio, so you know it’s going to be a fun class.)
Dimensions of a Swiss shaving horse. Legs are canted 12° lengthwise and 12° to the sides. Jaw overhang is 2″. The aft end of the work support overhang should be a few inches longer.
In 1978, Drew Langsner released his book “Country Woodcraft” to the world, and it sparked a movement – still expanding today – of hand-tool woodworkers who make things with mostly green wood.
The 304 pages of “Country Woodcraft” showed you how to split wood from the forest and shape into anything you might need, from a spoon to a bowl, from a hay rake fork to a milking stool, a pine whisk to a dining table.
After more than 40 years, Drew revisited this long-out-of-print and important book to revise and expand it to encompass what he has learned since “Country Woodcraft” was first released.
The result is “Country Woodcraft: Then & Now,” which has been expanded by nearly 100 pages and has been updated throughout to reflect what Drew has learned since 1978. Among many other additions, it includes greatly expanded sections on building shavehorses, carving spoons and making green-wood bowls.
The original book’s text is intact, and the old photos are in black and white. Throughout the book, Drew has added text, which we set in a slightly different font, to explain what he does differently now after 40 years of daily work on the North Carolina farm he shares with his wife, Louise.
In many ways, the book is a delightful conversation between the younger Drew, who is happy to chop down trees with a felling axe, and the older Drew, who now uses an electric chainsaw and band saw to break down stock to conserve energy (and likely aspirin). New illustrations and color photos throughout show how Drew works now.
During Country Workshops’ early years it seemed that we were always making shaving horses. We needed a herd for classes, and we offered courses in making them. These were mostly based on the design for Reudi Kohler’s shaving horse from the Swiss Alps. The Swiss-German name is a zug stuhl. In English, single-lever horses are sometimes called a dumb head.
At about that time, post-and-rung chairmaker Brian Boggs was experimenting with shaving horse possibilities derived from the British tradition where the mechanism consists of two pivoting levers that straddle the bench and work support. A cross-wise clamping bar connects the two levers at the upper working end. The foot pedal is another crosspiecethat holds the assembly together at the lower end. This type often has three legs – good for stability on a rough, uneven floor. The double-lever version is sometimes called a bodger’s horse. (I discuss the bodger myth in Chapter 12: A Spring-Pole Lathe.)
The distinctive feature of Brian’s shaving horse is a vertical ratchet system, for quickly adjusting the space between the work support and the jaw. The mechanism – sometimes called a wagon jack – was a breakthrough in shaving horse design. Brian also included a rotating jaw. This greatly improves clamping efficiency compared to the more common fixed cross-bar.
The immediately appreciated advantage of the ratchet is that it works quickly and easily. Less obvious is that the user now decides what height and angle is best for efficient tool use. The work support is lowered when working thicker stock. You select the height that your arms like, not the stock thickness. You always have optimal ergonomics. In contrast, with dumb-head shaving horses, the height of the jaw is adjusted for material thickness. With a thick chunk of wood you need to raise your arms to a position that often isn’t efficient body mechanics.
Also pre-Brian; the work support on twin-lever shaving horses usually pivots at the front of the bench. The work support is commonly adjusted with a wedge between the bench and lower surface of the work support. Consequently, the work support angle changes as the work support is adjusted for the stock thickness. With thin stock you need to pull upwards – uncomfortable and inefficient. And with thick stock you’re almost pulling the drawknife into your thighs.
A common disadvantage of traditional twin-lever horses is that the holes for the pivot bolt go through the bench – close to midpoint of the levers. The leverage ratio is inferior to the single-lever horses which have the pivot hole near the lever head. On dumb-head horses there is a further adjustment – additional bolt holes in the lever. On the bodger versions this adjustment is possible if the cross-bar can be moved up and down. When you do this, you need to adjust your arm height – possibly to an uncomfortable and inefficient working posture.
On most traditional bodger’s horses the cross-bar is fixed to the twin levers. The cross-bar doesn’t grab the work very well, due to a lack of bearing surface. Remember the poor leverage ratio caused by the low position of the pivot. This limitation can be overcome with a cross-bar that rotates. Now the cross-bar lies flat on the work.
A potential disadvantage of this feature is that the twin-lever unit isn’t as sturdy as it is with a fixed cross-bar. However, that can be overcome by stiffening the twin-lever unit at the lower foot end. With a rotating cross-bar, you gain so much holding friction that the poor location of the pivot becomes irrelevant.
Now we’ll look at design details with the single-lever dumb-head shaving horses. Because of the need to shave wood of various thickness there is no perfect shape for the lower bearing surface of the jaw. (This is the same problem as the fixed cross-bar in twin-lever horses.) This can be partly overcome by inserting something under the jaw or on top of the work support that increases grabbing strength. Reudi Kohler would use a piece of sandpaper, folded in half with the abrasive surfaces exposed.
A significant advantage found on most dumb-head shaving horses is the lateral foot treadle, rather than the foot cross-bar on bodger’s horses. The treadle eliminates the need to extend your legs nearly as far as with the cross-bar. Tall, leggy people don’t seem to understand this. I think the treadle is required.
One winter Carl Swensson decided to study shaving horses. (He wanted to design, make and use the best shaving horse possible.) Carl worked with the single-lever version, which is somewhat better for cooperage, which is what he was doing at the time.
I had always assumed that a shaving horse works because the head/ jaw comes down onto the workpiece, pinching it in place. Carl found that pinching doesn’t work very well. This is particularly true with dumb-head horses where there’s a compromise shape on the bottom of the jaw – it doesn’t lay flat on the workpiece.
Carl found that either type of shaving horse works much better when the jaw opening is adjusted so that there’s very little downward movement. The jaw moves in an arc, from about 12 o’clock to somewhere between 1 and 3 o’clock. When the jaw is adjusted to connect high in the arc, it’s moving at a low angle. Now it’s jamming, not pinching. You can’t pull the work loose, even with slight pressure at the foot treadle. It’s grabbing more like a wedge, not a connector like a clamp pad. An additional benefit of the close jaw opening is that there’s no need to press very far at the treadle, making life considerably easier. And work goes a bit quicker. The concept works equally well with dumb-head and bodger’s horses. It’s particularly effective when the bodger’s horse has a pivoting crosspiece. To increase friction with his dumb-head horse, Carl added a piece of semi-hard rubber on the bottom of the jaw.
Twin-lever horses win the efficiency contest because they can utilize a rotating crosspiece. On the dumb-head version the shape of the jaw is fixed, and is therefore never quite right.
An improvement that can be made with any dumb-head horse is to add more pivot bolt holes for adjusting the height of the jaw. The bolt holes should be spaced as close as possible. You can then adjust the height so that the jaw closes near the top of the arc, when it’s at a jamming angle.
This is Tom Donahey’s version of the ratchet work support. Further refinements are the extended aft work support, and the rectangular section pivoting cross-bar– with an off-center through-assembly bolt – for more adjustability. Tom substituted an extended treadle for the conventional foot cross bar, a major improvement.
One year, chairmaker Tom Donahey asked if I would be interested in selling shaving horses through our Country Workshops Store. “Sure” was the quick answer.
Tom’s version of a twin-lever horse utilizes the ratchet work support. His bench design and other details are considerably different than Brian’s version. In early discussions I promoted a lateral foot treadle, rather than the foot cross-bar found on most bodger’s horses.
As with Brian’s shaving horse, Tom decided to drop the traditional flat bench – with four legs – in favor of a stiff frame consisting of twin 2” rails on edge, and three legs. The space between the rails conveniently locates the single front leg, the vertical ratchet part of the work support, and the wooden flipper device that engages the ratchet teeth.
We also wanted a wide, comfortable seat. But where and how should the seat be attached to the frame? We decided to experiment with adjustable seat positions. A small keel was attached to the underside of the seat for the prototype horse. The keel fits neatly between the bench rails. It turns out that there’s no need to secure the seat in place. You are you! The seat doesn’t want to move when you advance the treadle. The seat with keel remains – and now Tom’s shaving horse seats are upholstered.
Over time, other refinements were incorporated into the design. The bolt holes for the crosspiece were moved from the center of the levers to a location close to the aft edge. Moving the cross-bar aft helps when you need to work close to the mechanism, as with short stock, like a spoon blank.
We decided to call Tom’s version a shaving mule since it combines elements from so many earlier breeds of shaving horses, plus our innovations. Tom has made well over 200, and the mules were used at Country Workshops classes for many years. We also produced a set of detailed plans for DIY makers. I don’t know how many plans we sold, but some years ago we decided to put a free pdf download file on the Country Workshops website. This is currently available in the CW Archive section of my website, DrewLangsner.com.
Tom Donahey’s Shaving Mule.
The Story Continues … During the Country Workshops years (1978 through 2017) I organized a series of international craft tours to Scandinavia, the U.K., Switzerland and Japan. In Japan I met Masashi Kutsuwa, a woodworker who teaches at Gifu Academy of Forest Science and Culture.
Masashi asked if I would be interested in teaching a post-and-rung chairmaking course. It would be run by the Japan Green Woodwork Association and take place at his school. Starting a chairmaking course isn’t easy. We would need tools and equipment, including 15 shaving horses. Masashi designed an easy-to-make twin-lever horse that can be quickly folded into a compact shape for storage. I loved teaching the class. But I didn’t like those shaving horses! (I won’t bother to discuss the problems with the design – trust me.) Something better would be needed for future classes. I promoted adopting Tom’s mules. Masashi countered that the design was too difficult for many woodworkers to construct. Also, he had to consider storage and transport – the Japan Green Woodworker group meets at different locations. But the real challenge with the Mule is making the precision ratchet mechanism. Tom’s design for attaching the rear legs also requires a compound-angled saw cut. It’s clever and works fine…if you can do it.
One day I received a booklet in the mail “Green Wood Work,” a Japanese primer for getting started with green woodworking. I could only understand the pictures – color photos and nice drawings. On page 25 my jaw dropped when I saw a new version of Masashi’s folding shaving horse. The significant innovation was that the work support was now two boards and two hinges that pivoted at opposite ends. The bench and work support make a “Z” configuration. The lower diagonal board raises and lowers the work support. The upper board’s hinge allows adjustments with the work support angle. Masashi’s new version also collapses into a compact bundle for storage and transport.
Masashi Kutsuwa’s Z work support shaving horse collapses and sets up in less than 30 seconds.
Here’s a way to easily set the work support at any height and at any angle. To keep things simple, the adjustments are made with loose wood blocks that act as wedges. I was also happy to see that the new folding horse used a lateral foot treadle, and a non-attached seat. The design still folds into a compact bundle for storage. My Japanese friends call it the Origami Horse.
I decided to make a Z-Mule that combines elements from Tom’s and Masashi’s versions, plus other elements. In this version, the diagonal of the Z is adjusted with a pivoting cam that stays in place better than a loose wedge. The holes in the cam look cool, but they’re really there to give you something to grab when adjusting the rotation. The diagonal and work support boards are attached with standard door hinges.
This is my Z-Mule. The frame and lever assembly borrow elements from all over the place.
Masashi also came up with a clever way to attach the foot treadle; it simply lifts from the lever assembly when you want to knock the mule down for storage. I’ve kept Tom’s sliding seat. In this variant the rear legs are rotated 90° and are secured to the bench rails by nesting into channels cut into the sides of the rails. Easy to do and sturdy. I’ve also incorporated a rotating cross-bar. One further refinement is that the cross-bar is rectangular in section, not square. This provides another potential adjustment in the spacing between the cross-bar and work support.
Masashi’s quick-detach foot treadle and the underside of Tom’s upholstered seat. Both on the Z-Mule.
I decided to incorporate a few style touches. The Z-Mule is not purely a form-follows-function design. It needs to look good. The front leg tapers narrower toward the floor, while the rear legs taper larger. This may seem odd, but I believe that it looks right. Also, I thickness-planed the diagonal and work-support boards to 1-1/4″. An odd dimension, but another visual tweak.
Of course you can design and make your own version of a shaving horse. Please borrow freely from what I’ve shared about these wonderful, fun workshop critters.
It’s Labor Day in the United States and Labour Day or Fête du Travail in Canada.
A celebration of the creative work accomplished by hand seems appropriate for today.
The hands making things and hands made by hand were made by:
No. 1 & 8: The right and left hands of “David” by Michelangelo Buonarroti, 1501-1504, Gallerie dall’Accademia, No. 2 & 7: Detail from the woodblock, “Women enacting the process of cutting and printing woodblocks for popular prints,” by Utagawa Kunisada, 1857, British Museum. No. 3: Snapping a line detail from “The Holy Family in the Carpenter’s Shop,” attributed to Jean Tassel, 1608-1667, photo via artnet. No. 4: Detail from “Builders n.1,” by Jacob Lawrence, 1974, Musei Vaticani. No. 5: Detail of a relief panel carved from gypsum alabaster, Neo-Assyrian from Nimrud, ca. 883-859 BCE, Met Museum. No. 6: Detail from “The Lacemaker,” by Johannes Vermeer, 1669-1670, The Louvre. No. 9: Detail of a relief panel carved from gypsum alabaster, Neo-Assyrian from Dur-Sharrukin, ca. 8th century BCE, The Louvre.
Happy Labor or Labour Day – Bonne Fête du Travail!
Our storefront will be open the public from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, November 23. We will be selling our full line of books and tools, of course. But we will be on hand to answer your questions, give demos and talk about woodworking. And to ply you with cookies. And to show you the clock if you ask (if you know, you know – but let’s just say you need to be 21 to see the clock, and it’s not naughty).
We will have a special, free, commemorative Lost Art Press…something…to give away – one to a visitor. It’s so special that we can’t yet reveal what is it. (We’re still workshopping ideas.) And we will also likely have blemished books and other LAP/Crucible items at 50 percent off. We might also have a few personal tools to sell – both Chris and I have some basement cleaning to do. (Blemished books and tools will be cash only). Our storefront is at 837 Willard St., Covington, Ky. 41011
So mark your calendars – we hope to see you in November!
The desk and bookcase was an essential piece of furniture for a minister because it housed his most important books.
The following is excerpted from “Hands Employed Aright: The Furniture Making of Jonathan Fisher (1768-1847),” by Joshua Klein. In this book, Klein (founder of Mortise & Tenon Magazine), examines what might be the most complete record of the life of an early 19th-century American craftsman. Using Fisher’s papers, his tools and the surviving furniture, Klein paints a picture of a man of remarkable mechanical genius, seemingly boundless energy and the deepest devotion. It is a portrait that is at times both familiar and completely alien to a modern reader – and one that will likely change your view of furniture making in the early days of the United States.
The Desk & Bookcase The value of a minister’s library was substantial and, therefore, the fact that Fisher invested time in the construction of a desk and bookcase is not surprising. One biographer calculated that Fisher owned approximately 300 books, describing it as “not an inconsiderable store for a poor minister in a small village.” That Fisher valued reading is even seen in the plans for his house in which one of only two items of furniture depicted was a bookcase in the kitchen.
Though Fisher’s desk and bookcase is not explicitly mentioned in the surviving journal entries, attribution can be confidently made based on provenance, numerous construction features and the homemade wooden lock on the door.
The desk is constructed of pine and was painted (although the current paint is modern). The desk has three drawers and downward-extending lopers that provide a slanted writing surface. At the top of the writing surface, there is a small secret compartment with a sliding-dovetail lid for valuables. The bookcase has both full-length shelves as well as small compartments for letters, etc. The panel doors lap with a beveled edge when closed, and a homemade wooden lock secures the minister’s library from tampering. Despite the fact that the lock operated with a key that is now missing, there is an identical lock on the door to his clock face that still functions, operating by turning a knob. Fisher made many wooden latches in his house, all of which are fascinating, but these locks are particularly delightful. They are easy to overlook by assuming that they are the same metal locks Fisher might have purchased from Mr. Witham’s store at the head of the bay, but they are clearly Fisher-made and completely made of wood. Their delicateness and smoothness of operation add a touch of sophistication to an otherwise unassuming piece of furniture.
It is understandable that Fisher’s work has been compared to that of the Shakers but there are differences, especially in ornamentation.
Fisher’s work has been sometimes compared to that of the Shakers because of its simplicity and conscious restraint. While the overall association stands, it is significant to point out that the primary difference between Fisher and the Shakers is their view of ornamentation. While classic Shaker work has little to no moulding, Fisher relished elaborate profiles. The cornice of this desk (as well as that of his wardrobe) sat like a crown over Fisher as he studied. His artistic vision of furniture design, though similar to the Shakers’ in its modesty, was less inhibited. Even as a young child, his mother, Katherine, taught him to value artistic expression. Katherine, whose drawings look so much like her son’s, saw a world in which chastity and artistic beauty were not mutually exclusive. Fisher was not afraid of flourish. His work fits much more squarely in the Federal vernacular classification than that of the Shakers.
The cornice on the desk and bookcase sets it apart from Shaker work.
The floral drawings Fisher’s mother, Katherine, drew in her notebooks are reminiscent of her son’s. Katherine Avery Fisher, untitled hand-bound booklet, 1778; paper, string, ink, pencil, 6-1/8″ x 3-5/8″; collection of Historic Deerfield, HD 56.296. – Courtesy of Historic Deerfield, Photo by Penny Leveritt.
The desk carcase is interesting in that it is constructed like a six-board chest, with the sides extending to the floor with bootjack feet. The dados are a scant 3⁄4″ wide, matching his surviving dado plane. The backboards are unplaned, rough-sawn boards nailed into rabbets in the sides. The drawers (with the exception of the bottom one, which is a replacement) are of conventional dovetail construction – half-blind dovetails at the front, and through-dovetails at the back. The drawers’ bottoms are beveled and fitted into grooves in the sides and front, and are nailed to the drawer backs
Rather than rely on measurements from a ruler, Fisher relied on simple whole-number proportions used in classical architecture.
The overall composition of this piece illustrates the minister’s education. Even this simple desk was designed with classical proportions from his architectural training. Fisher’s fluency in this geometric layout is obvious from his college geometry notebooks in the archives. These notebooks are full of compass exercises to lay out complex patterns. Designing a desk was easy compared to the drawings he usually did. This “artisan’s design language” (as George Walker has called it) [6] must have been intuitive in Fisher’s cosmos of order and mathematical rationality.
The lock is made of wood, with the exception of the metal pins. This is exactly the kind of detail work Fisher seemed to enjoy.
The top panel was beveled on all four sides to fit in the groove, but the bottom panel was thin enough to fit without beveling. This board must have been thin before planing because rough-sawn fibers can still be seen in places.
The panels in the doors are interesting in their irregularity. Their flat sides face out in the Federal style and are beveled only where needed on the inside. The insides of the panels have heavy scalloping from the fore plane, even leaving behind evidence of a nick in the iron of the plane. This tendency to continue to use a nicked iron without regrinding the bevel is consistent throughout his work and concurs with the notion of pre-industrial indifference toward secondary surface condition. For the bottom two panels, he seems to have run short on material because the panels are only barely as thick as the 5⁄16″ groove and, even at that, both retain minor, rough-sawn texture. It appears he was scraping the bottom of the barrel to get those doors finished.
Willard wrote his name all over the house. His father’s bookcase door was no exception.
The insides of the doors have several inscriptions. “Willard” is written in red ink on one door, and “Josiah F” on the other. There are also compass-scribed circles on the inside of both doors whose randomness appears to have no significance beyond doodling. Even more perplexing, however, is the recording of “1 gallon of vinegar” on the inside of the door. This pattern of documenting purchases (and then crossing them off when paid) as well as notable life events is seen in several other pieces throughout the house. Jonathan seemed to have started the habit but Willard definitely took it far beyond his father. Willard’s name, agricultural notes and weather reports appear all over the house and his son, Fred, seems to have continued the tradition.
The Standing Desk
The standing desk was once painted blue and never had a drawer pull. It is said to have been used by Fisher for preparing sermons.
The standing desk is said to have been used by Fisher and is attributed to him. There are remnants of the light blue paint Fisher used extensively in his furniture, but there is no mention in the journals of his building the desk at all. Fisher did describe building a “high writing table” but this would be a surprising description for such a recognizable form as a desk on frame. Furthermore, Fisher was described as “below medium height.” Because the average height of a Civil War soldier was 5’7″, it seems reasonable to surmise Fisher was certainly no taller than 5’5″. If this were his desk, it would have been uncomfortably tall for him without a stool to stand on. Perhaps, though, the “standing stool” Fisher built soon after moving into his house was intended for that purpose.
6. Walker, Geo. R, and Tolpin, Jim, “By Hand & Eye,” Lost Art Press, 2013.
The hands making things and hands made by hand were made by:
