Regarding the turner from the Stent panel. We have seen the entire panel earlier; (see https://pfollansbee.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/seventeenth-century-joiners-bench/ ) and I posted these pictures earlier, but had no time for any notes. So, now for a couple of details.
Here is the turner, using his pole lathe to turn a large pillar for a cupboard, or perhaps a baluster for a table leg. Instead of a pair of uprights with two timbers forming the lathe bed, this example has a slab pierced with a slot in which the poppets are inserted. Note also the tool rest’s support, presumable wedged into this slot.
Robin Fawcett, a pole-lathe turner from the UK wondered if the cord should pass through the lathe instead of outside it. I mentioned that Jan Van Vliet’s turner uses the same configuration as this example.
Two things Robin – first, that cord is repaired on the panel, it fell off the wall during World War II. So the section between the lathe bed and the treadle is replaced. BUT, I think the cord is going where it belongs. See Van Vliet’s turner, the Dutch engraving 1635. It too runs the cord outside the lathe. This is what I have done for everything except bowls on my lathe. Works fine.
Alexander points out that Moxon describes this very arrangement as well:
“And Note, that the farther the Fore-end of the Treddle reaches out beond the Fore-side of the Lathe, the greater will the sweep of the Fore-end of the Treddle be, and consequently it will draw the more String down; and the more String comes down at one Tread, the more Revolutions of the Work is made at one Tread, and therefore it makes the greater riddance of theWork.”
Here’s the Van Vliet engraving again:
here is a closer view of the tools hanging on the wall; a compass (period term is the clunky phrase “pair of compasses”, thanks JA) and two chisels and a gouge. One of the chisels has a flared cutting end. So does the gouge for that matter. A tool like this chages size over repeated sharpenings, getting progressively narrower…