# What timber for front door?



## Geoff_S

I am going to make a new front door. It will consist of 2 glazed panels on top 2/3rds and 4 raised panels on the bottom. The size is 2.4 x 1.0 metres. The current door is 50mm thick Douglas Fir. But it's over 100 years old and not in good shape.

I am thinking Douglas Fir again because I want a smooth paint finish which I think is easier to achieve on a pine type wood rather than a hardwood.

However, after a chat with someone who knows, they suggested whatever the wood, don't use solid 50mm thick, rather take 25mm thick and glue them together to make the 50mm so as to avoid twist and bowing. That seems to make sense to me.

So, is Douglas Fir OK and is the laminating idea sound?

Cheers


----------



## sammy.se

Just fyi, a woodworker on YouTube called "New Yorkshire workshop" has videos on building a front door. Might be useful. 
He used pitch pine, and laminated the pieces as you mentioned. Finished with linseed oil paint

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## MikeG.

Douglas fir will be fine. Good choice. And if the wood is good and straight to start with (choose it really carefully), then you'll be fine making it out of 50mm timber.

Oh, and watch that video Sammy recommends...it's great.


----------



## Doug71

Accoya


----------



## Trevanion

Not a huge fan of Douglas Fir, Not very stable (Perhaps the older slow-grown stuff is better) and takes on mould like no other timber. I've seen work before where the Douglas Fir has taken on mould before it's painted and it bleeds through the microporous paint showing up as black dots on the face. I think it works best with some kind of oil-based paint or finishes rather than anything waterbased and microporous. As I said, it may not be the case with good quality douglas fir but the more recent stuff I've seen on the lorries has been absolutely atrocious. Are you sure the existing door is Douglas Fir and not the more common of the time Pitch Pine?

As Doug said, Accoya is a very good choice but the ever-constant pushing up of the price has made it rather expensive for what is essentially a treated softwood. 

I would personally choose either the Accoya, or a hardwood such as Sapele or Utile (Some suggest Iroko but the recent material I've seen is pretty poor with a lot of bad grain). I've never had much of a problem with a 55mm door in completely solid hardwood so long as the grain is well selected and the material is stable. In theory, the lamination should result in a stabler material to make the door from but I've also seen work where somebody's glued pieces together to make up thicker sections and after a few years it isn't pretty when it delaminates. In lamination, sometimes the twists and bows will counteract each other and the material will stay pretty stable, sometimes they will work in unison and create something far worse. I personally wouldn't do it myself.

Smooth painting is far easier to achieve on hardwood, in softwood the softer parts wear away far quicker when sanding and you end up with a wavy finish to the paint.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

I agree that the lamination idea is no guarantee of success - I wouldn't bother.

I've recently made some doors with sapele and it's beautiful straightgrained stuff to work with - and I'm delighted with the results - it's the closest thing to mahogany I'll ever buy in its raw state. However, I still have repeated pangs of guilt because I know the timber was cut in the rainforest of the DRC and it seems utterly unlikely to me that this is sustainable in any sense.

For my next (French) doors, I will try Accoya (I gather from their annual report that another Accoya processing facility is soon to come online in Hull, although I think that the US market will attract increasing focus from the producers, who own the IP, so any increase in supply may soon be spoken for, especially when we discover the need to snuggle up to Trump post-Brexit).

I disagree that Accoya is "simply treated softwood" - of course technically that's what it is - but it's radically different in terms of durability and dimensional stability from any 'conventional' kind of treated SW. I've just bought some Tricoya Extreme mdf for use as rain-cladding - and it's amazing stuff - albeit eyewateringly expensive - I will be both surprised (and financially disadvantaged!) if it doesn't outlast me.

That video of the Yorkshire guy making his front door is very good but his use of the spindle moulder with so little guarding makes me wince.

Cheers, W2S


----------



## Doug71

Trevanion":2tu2di10 said:


> I would personally choose either the Accoya, or a hardwood such as Sapele or Utile



I was going to suggest Accoya or Sapele but if you are making it all by youself Accoya is much lighter to handle, that is one big door at 2.4m high!

The main problem I have with Sapele is that people won't take my bags of woodshavings for their chickens and rabbits if it contains the dusty brown stuff #-o


----------



## Trevanion

Woody2Shoes":3uig89ze said:


> I disagree that Accoya is "simply treated softwood" - of course technically that's what it is - but it's radically different in terms of durability and dimensional stability from any 'conventional' kind of treated SW.



I don't disagree with that at all, All I was really trying to say is that they've taken the cheapest material on the market, played around with the mechanics of it and now they're charging more than the cost of prime grade Oak for the stuff which is essentially a treated softwood. It's an excellent material to use but it's seriously expensive for what it is. Especially since the quality has dropped off a cliff recently, had to send a whole batch back to where it came from as the whole pack was filled with splits and shakes throughout and was unusable, you couldn't see too much on the surface but if you cut a bit of the endgrain all you'd see is holes in the end where the cracks were and this was throughout all the length of the timbers, if you planed it up the material was seriously flaky. A1 grade my behind! :lol:

I think the demand is too high and they can't keep up with it so they've got everything on overdrive to push the stuff out, hence the more regular shakey material from being cooked too quickly.


----------



## deema

I like Douglas Fir for windows and doors, takes paint really well and is easy to find in good straight lengths. I never and I mean ever use water based paint on any external wood work. Just my opinion, but I find it all to be rubbish. A good trade oil paint last for years and years, and doesn’t when it’s time to repaint need scraping off. You can sand / burn off oil based paint. Not tried Linseed oil paint, but I’d be happy to try it.

The principles of selecting material (what ever you choose) for a door are the same, if the stuff is in twist, irrespective of how well you straighten it, it will twist again as soon it’s moisture changes....which means throughout the year. Not that big a deal if used to make the panels, but should not be used for the styles and rails. You also want all the stuff to be cut the same for the styles and rails, ie slab, turnip or quarter sawn. If you mix them up, then at the joins you will see a difference in thickness of the two pieces (different cuts) creating a slight ridge / place for water to get into the end grain and cause it to rot out. In a perfect world, the last check would be that the growth rings are a similar distance apart for slab or turnip cut styles and rails (not an issue for true Qtr sawn) It helps to reduce any differences in expansion and contraction. 

An extremely well made door, that hasn’t had the wood (stuff) chosen with care will show either twist, or the joints after a year or two will have all cracked and the tell tail staining at the joints highlights that it’s starting to rot. To minimise these issues, as it’s impossible for mass produced doors to have the stuff selected, I believe the practice of laminating has developed to create a far more consistent and stabler product. It’s not however, in my opinion the best solution, only a practice one if you have difficulty finding stuff that’s consistent.

When buying stuff, a good rule is to buy an extra style length. OK, costs a bit more, but, if when making the door you find a piece that suddenly moves a lot after it’s been planned up you have something ready to replace it with. The concept that ‘if it happens’ I will get some more never happens and most people compromise the build and use it! Having it ready stops that urge to get on with what you have.


----------



## dzj

sammy.se":2jb71ge0 said:


> Just fyi, a woodworker on YouTube called "New Yorkshire workshop" has videos on building a front door. Might be useful.
> He used pitch pine, and laminated the pieces as you mentioned. Finished with linseed oil paint
> 
> Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk



Yes, this video is OK (you can find shortcomings in anyone's work if you look hard enough).
One thing I would suggest though, is leaving horns on the stiles and cutting to length after the glue has dried.
I must admit, I winced a bit as he was wedging the top rail tenon.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Trevanion":10zsrmoj said:


> Woody2Shoes":10zsrmoj said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree that Accoya is "simply treated softwood" - of course technically that's what it is - but it's radically different in terms of durability and dimensional stability from any 'conventional' kind of treated SW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with that at all, All I was really trying to say is that they've taken the cheapest material on the market, played around with the mechanics of it and now they're charging more than the cost of prime grade Oak for the stuff which is essentially a treated softwood. It's an excellent material to use but it's seriously expensive for what it is. Especially since the quality has dropped off a cliff recently, had to send a whole batch back to where it came from as the whole pack was filled with splits and shakes throughout and was unusable, you couldn't see too much on the surface but if you cut a bit of the endgrain all you'd see is holes in the end where the cracks were and this was throughout all the length of the timbers, if you planed it up the material was seriously flaky. A1 grade my behind! :lol:
> 
> I think the demand is too high and they can't keep up with it so they've got everything on overdrive to push the stuff out, hence the more regular shakey material from being cooked too quickly.
Click to expand...


I agree with your point about quality - I think that they're finding it increasingly difficult to secure supplies of quality timber as the input to the process. I surmise that this is because the plantations in New Zealand - where I think a lot of this stuff grows - are running out of suitable stuff. The only way to (sustainably) increase stocks of X-year-old timber being to plant more trees and wait for X years! This would also perhaps explain why they're moving towards MDF-type products where the quality of the input material is far less important. I think that Accoya is a brilliant material but they need to be able to apply the process to different (more plentiful) species - it seems they haven't made that work yet, although you'd think tulip poplar might be a good substitute.

I can't understand why the company hasn't scaled up production already (they'd make money hand-over-fist [subject to your point about quality]) - perhaps supply constraints are part of the problem for them.

Cheers, W2S


----------



## Jacob

If you are painting it you need 'unsorted' grade redwood from a good yard - taken from the 'unsorted' stack as it comes and not selected. If selected the better pieces might already have been taken.
'Unsorted' is top grade - it used to be sorted into 1,2,3,4,5 etc but now 1,2,3, grades are not separated out.
No point or need in using better stuff if it's going to be painted.


> if the stuff is in twist, irrespective of how well you straighten it, it will twist again as soon it’s moisture changes.


Not necessarily. If it's in twist it means it's dried out a bit, so unless too twisted to use it could be better than straight freshly sawn stuff.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

sammy.se":2x176yil said:


> He used pitch pine ...



I bet it wasn't.


----------



## ColeyS1

Sapele 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk


----------



## Geoff_S

Thanks for all of the replies.

I have heard of Accoya but never really paid much attention. However, if nothing else, it looks interesting and all the stuff I read about it makes it look very promising.

But, the price :shock: Never mind, it's just as well it's only a door, so not too much timber.

So, Accoya it is and I may well still laminate it, belt & braces and all that.

Thanks again, this forum is so good for help and information


----------



## MikeG.

Why laminate Accoya? Its whole USP is that it is dimensionally stable.


----------



## Jacob

If you want to know how to make a door then have a look at some old doors. I've never seen a laminated one ever. Why re-invent the wheel?


----------



## RobinBHM

Geoff_S":lpan2qal said:


> Thanks for all of the replies.
> 
> I have heard of Accoya but never really paid much attention. However, if nothing else, it looks interesting and all the stuff I read about it makes it look very promising.
> 
> But, the price :shock: Never mind, it's just as well it's only a door, so not too much timber.
> 
> So, Accoya it is and I may well still laminate it, belt & braces and all that.
> 
> Thanks again, this forum is so good for help and information



Accoya is available in both solid and finger jointed laminated. I would choose the solid -there is no stability benefit from laminated.

Also note accoya come in more than one grade from memory A1 is best for joinery, lower grades have knots.

Dont laminate your own timber, -if you want to go down that route in solid, its possible to buy sapele, oak and softwood in engineered laminated

For stability laminated timber is made from 3 lams.

door stiles are available in 63 x 125 or 48 x 120 section


----------



## Trevanion

MikeG.":xsinyjbw said:


> Why laminate Accoya? Its whole USP is that it is dimensionally stable.



They recommend laminating it if you intend on using a clear finish stain so that you have the clean faced internal timber and not the black streaky marks that are on the surface. Other than that there’s no real point.

Also didn’t everyone here say that laminating is a bad idea anyway?


----------



## Geoff_S

Maybe I won't laminate it then, I didn't really won't the extra work anyway


----------



## Steve Maskery

If you are going to use Accoya, bear in mind that ordinary water-based glues like PVA do not work. They have changed the chemical nature of the wood which has resulted in the removal of some of the -OH groups, which bond to water. With them gone, water is repelled, which is why it doesn't rot. But it also means that PVA is repelled, too.
My bro is making a new door out of accoya. We glued up two pieces, clamped and left it overnight. Took the clamps off and the joint opened up as we looked at it, literally as we looked at it. I could pull the two pieces apart by hand. This was a hybrid D4 glue from Toolstation.
You do need PU.
Also, the Accoya was not that dimensionally stable, it bows just like any other wood.
I have made a few front doors in my time. A few, not lots. But the last two were redwood and I did laminate. It was a lot of work, but the results were excellent and I would not hesitate to do the same again.
On a different note, have you checked that what you are planning will be acceptable to your Building Control Officer? I think that front doors are now subject to BC regs. That may just be new builds, I don't know, but worth checking. The last thing you need is to hang your nice new door only to be told.....


----------



## Geoff_S

Steve Maskery":22365qgl said:


> If you are going to use Accoya, bear in mind that ordinary water-based glues like PVA do not work. They have changed the chemical nature of the wood which has resulted in the removal of some of the -OH groups, which bond to water. With them gone, water is repelled, which is why it doesn't rot. But it also means that PVA is repelled, too.
> My bro is making a new door out of accoya. We glued up two pieces, clamped and left it overnight. Took the clamps off and the joint opened up as we looked at it, literally as we looked at it. I could pull the two pieces apart by hand. This was a hybrid D4 glue from Toolstation.
> You do need PU.
> Also, the Accoya was not that dimensionally stable, it bows just like any other wood.
> I have made a few front doors in my time. A few, not lots. But the last two were redwood and I did laminate. It was a lot of work, but the results were excellent and I would not hesitate to do the same again.
> On a different note, have you checked that what you are planning will be acceptable to your Building Control Officer? I think that front doors are now subject to BC regs. That may just be new builds, I don't know, but worth checking. The last thing you need is to hang your nice new door only to be told.....



Don't use PVA? Wow, that would never have occurred to me. Thanks for that tip. A lot of effing & blinding would have occurred had I not known that!

Building control. I had better check, we have a very nosey neighbour round here with a hotline to the council.

Maybe I will laminate now


----------



## Geoff_S

So that's that bit sorted. Now for my next question.

Mortice & tenon or Domino joiner?

I've attached a picture


----------



## Jacob

Nice bit of old joinery - looks like a prime candidate for repair - replacing it a serious mistake. 
Much easier, much cheaper, preserve the original, etc. Might have to plant on a few bits to make it a better fit, fill holes etc but if done properly it will fit perfectly and nobody would know.
PS don't want to be rude but from what you've said so far you haven't much idea about how to make a door, still less to copy this nice period piece.
If you set about repairing it, possibly partial or whole dismantling on the bench, by the time you've got it back together again you will know how it's done. In fact repairing is the best possible way to learn this stuff.


----------



## Steve Maskery

MikeG.":2c3p87f9 said:


> Why laminate Accoya? Its whole USP is that it is dimensionally stable.


Except it is not. We had some that bent like a banana after being ripped.


----------



## Doug71

Steve Maskery":ft1xhuyd said:


> MikeG.":ft1xhuyd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why laminate Accoya? Its whole USP is that it is dimensionally stable.
> 
> 
> 
> Except it is not. We had some that bent like a banana after being ripped.
Click to expand...


The dimensionally stable thing does cause a bit of confusion, Accoya can bend like any other wood when you cut it down because of internal tension. The dimensionally stable bit only refers to it not moving when it gains or loses moisture.


----------



## MikeG.

Geoff_S":1k522n1o said:


> So that's that bit sorted. Now for my next question.
> 
> Mortice & tenon or Domino joiner?
> 
> I've attached a picture



Why on earth wouldn't you just repair that beautiful door?

How long do you think a door would last if you just dominoed it together? If you are going to go to all the trouble of making a new door (I don't think you should), then at least do it properly.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

MikeG.":2xvx46d7 said:


> Geoff_S":2xvx46d7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that's that bit sorted. Now for my next question.
> 
> Mortice & tenon or Domino joiner?
> 
> I've attached a picture
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why on earth wouldn't you just repair that beautiful door?
Click to expand...


+1 - It's definitely worthy of 'repair' rather than 'replace'


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Doug71":17oo941a said:


> Steve Maskery":17oo941a said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeG.":17oo941a said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why laminate Accoya? Its whole USP is that it is dimensionally stable.
> 
> 
> 
> Except it is not. We had some that bent like a banana after being ripped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dimensionally stable thing does cause a bit of confusion, Accoya can bend like any other wood when you cut it down because of internal tension. The dimensionally stable bit only refers to it not moving when it gains or loses moisture.
Click to expand...


I think this is consistent with the point I was making upthread - I think they're struggling to find good quality timber as input to the process.


----------



## Steve Maskery

Definitely repair it if you can.
if you decide to make new, the question of trad M&T or Domino? It depends.
if you have excellent hand skills like Mike, or excellent machine and jig setup like me, then go the trad route. But if you don't have those skills yet A Domino xl will help you to make a fine door. A well - made Domino door will be better than a poorly - made trad one.
Horses for courses and all that.


----------



## Jacob

Dominos wouldn't hold that design together. It's pushing it already - having narrow stiles, narrow top rail, heavy glazing. Which is why it's sagged - not enough glued area in the mortices and tenons - especially the lock and bottom rails.
Could do with pinning through the M&Ts if it was repaired and the tenons are strong enough. Draw-boring would perhaps break out but pinning after a good glue up and still cramped, would be OK.


----------



## Geoff_S

I thought about repair, but here are the challenges.

The top rail width is 95mm on the left, 105mm on the right and a big gap of 20mm to the top right of the door.

The bottom rail is 245mm on the left and 235mm on the right, so the opposite of the top rail. It is also made of 2 pieces 120mm wide approximately, glued together.

The left-hand stile is 2250mm the right-hand stile is 2235mm.

The left-hand and right-hand stiles are a consistent 105mm wide, but the right-hand stile is twisted running out 10mm from top to bottom.

The top centre stile has about 5mm of filler at the top.

The 3 joints down the left-hand side have about 10mm width of filler.

The glass is definitely period but looking at the amount of hacking that has been done to the door, I’m not so sure about the door itself being period. Bits of it might be.

A lot of things in this house over the 25 years that I have lived here clearly indicate to me that cowboys existed in Victorian times as well and in the decades following. It’s not a new thing.

I do understand that a lot of things are repairable but is this particular project worth the effort? All things die in the end.


----------



## Jacob

It looks 100% original and I'd repair/restore it without question, with a temporary door in place. Might involve a proportion of new material in there but you would be carefully copying existing and in the process make good all the badly fitting bits. At least you know that the M&Ts aren't firmly fixed and will probably come apart easily!
If the worst came to the worst you might end up replacing the whole thing but by copying it exactly on the bench, with corrections for where it doesn't fit


----------



## Steve Maskery

There is no difference at all in strength between a Domino joint and a "proper" M&T joint _*of the same dimensions*_. Just don't assume that one domino in those sections will be enough. But you can make the mortices longer and either double up the Doms, or cut you own floating tenons. And you can also cut double tenons easier than with conventional techniques.
On a door like that you could use the Domino machine to cut the mortices right through, by working from each side. Then square up with a chisel for a more authentic appearance.

FWIW, this is how I made a couple of very big doors, at least as big and heavy as yours.
post1067733.html#p1067733
I have to make half a dozen interior doors. If it were just one I do the proper M&T, but 6? I've bought a big Dom. Not used it yet, but I have no doubt that I shall end up with excellent doors that are made in half the time.

Domino is a tool, it's not a religion


----------



## Jacob

Steve Maskery":1alphgqn said:


> ....
> Domino is a tool, it's not a religion


Domino is a gadget and can never be as good as a proper M&T


----------



## Steve Maskery

Jacob":33zzc4wo said:


> Domino is a gadget and can never be as good as a proper M&T





Jacob":33zzc4wo said:


> A hollow-chisel mortiser is a gadget and can never be as good as chisel and mallet





Jacob":33zzc4wo said:


> An electric drill is a gadget and can never be as good as a proper brace and bit





Jacob":33zzc4wo said:


> A router is a gadget and can never be as good as a moulding plane





Jacob":33zzc4wo said:


> .....


----------



## Jacob

Point missed - they are labour saving devices but the domino doesn't produce a proper M&T. Especially not for a door like this one where you need as much glued surface as possible, full sized tenons going right through, and wedges to stop them being pulled out.
Domino OK for light work, but an expensive gadget nevertheless!


----------



## sammy.se

Here's a way I've seen a domino being used for a door.
Domino XL, custom large tenon (domino).


https://youtu.be/7DFmZ8dbk1k

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## dzj

Does anyone know the name of that mid-rail to stile joint?


----------



## AndyT

Picking up Steve's point about building regs... I'm not an expert by any stretch but I think I've read discussions on here about the need for a new front door to achieve a minimum U-value to be allowed. That _might _ mean that if you want to keep the glass you could repair the door (so the regs wouldn't apply.)
Otherwise, you'd need to do something clever enclosing the glass in a DG unit and having thicker panels.

But don't take my word for it, this is really just a prompt for someone who knows this stuff to chip in.


----------



## Jacob

dzj":16ofi40a said:


> Does anyone know the name of that mid-rail to stile joint?


It's a type of "gunstock" joint, designed to join the through moulding (bevel) on the lower parts of the stiles to the unmoulded upper part where the moulding is stopped instead. A bit fussy. Usually much more like a gun stock in shape where a wide stile is reduced to maximise glazing in the upper half, opposite way around to this one.
I wouldn't worry about building regs - repair of old door is fine even if it approaches 100% new bits.


----------



## Steve Maskery

Jacob":dn9ofs14 said:


> expensive


On that we can agree.
S


----------



## MikeG.

Steve Maskery":1etxasu7 said:


> There is no difference at all in strength between a Domino joint and a "proper" M&T joint _*of the same dimensions*_. Just don't assume that one domino in those sections will be enough. But you can make the mortices longer and either double up the Doms, or cut you own floating tenons. And you can also cut double tenons easier than with conventional techniques.
> On a door like that you could use the Domino machine to cut the mortices right through, by working from each side. Then square up with a chisel for a more authentic appearance.
> 
> FWIW, this is how I made a couple of very big doors, at least as big and heavy as yours.
> post1067733.html#p1067733
> I have to make half a dozen interior doors. If it were just one I do the proper M&T, but 6? I've bought a big Dom. Not used it yet, but I have no doubt that I shall end up with excellent doors that are made in half the time.
> 
> Domino is a tool, it's not a religion



The thing that a M&T resists better than a domino is twist. It fixes the relationship of the two pieces of timber far more securely against twist than a domino ever could, especially if pegged. The fundamental structural design consideration, in my view, of all traditional British joinery and carpentry back to early mediaeval and possibly beyond, was resisting twist.......and without a properly designed and constructed M&T your door would be vulnerable to this force.


----------



## Trevanion

The glasswork on the original door is really nice (in my opinion), if you were going to make a new door would you try and salvage it somehow? It would be a shame to throw it out since you can't get glass like that anymore without spending *serious* amounts of cash.

You could repair the door, but patching in and doing a decent job of it is very difficult, perhaps more difficult than actually making a new door. I've seen plenty of doors that have been "repaired" and after a year or so all the patching and filling begins to show after the patch timber moves with the humidity irrespective to the original timber and the joints pop and crack open, making the door look a shambles. There's perhaps one person I know that could actually do a good job of repairing a door and making it last, everyone else's work including mine would just be a ticking time bomb until it's back to where it was before it was repaired, which usually isn't long.

Now, Steve Maskery rightfully mentioned that you can't use PVA or anything waterbased with Accoya, which I kind of forgot when I mentioned that Accoya would be a good choice that there's quite a few little niggles #-o. For gluing Accoya you need to use a foaming polyurethane glue such as Soudal 45P, Lumberjack PU, Wurth PU, Reca slow set PU, etc... It's a really rapidly setting glue and not particularly suited to a beginner really as it might go off before you can actually get the door together, you might have a chance with a really slow setting version. Another consideration with Accoya is fitments and fixings, It eats iron for breakfast, literally and figuratively. The timber contains a high concentration of acetic acid (which is completely harmless to humans) which corrodes regular steel fixings in a matter of days which isn't an understatement, I put in some temporary passivated steel screws into some hinges on an Accoya door and replaced them in 3 days and the passivation on the screws had disappeared and the screw thread in the timber was orange with rust. 316 Marine grade stainless steel must be used otherwise you'll be replacing hardware often, and 316 is not cheap. Another thing to consider with Accoya which hasn't been mentioned I think is how soft and brittle it is, it's an excellent timber to work with machines but hand working it is a nightmare unless you have absolutely razor-sharp tools with lower than usual angles as the end grain tends to chip out rather than cut shavings, the same goes for the long grain as it's very difficult to hand plane from experience. Accoya seems to respond best to rotary cutting such as spindle moulders, planers and circular saws and leaves a lovely finish when cut this way. It dents very easily on the early grain and it also sands away far quicker on the early grain which can create a bit of a wavy finish to the paint surface. As has been already mentioned, the timber isn't the greatest quality at the moment and there seems to be a lot of tension in the boards from over-cooking. Just today, I was ripping some 8" x 2 1/2" down the middle to make door stiles and the two pieces bowed at least a half an inch each after the tension was released, after being straightened and planed 4-square they were mortices and rebated, the rebate took away material which resulted in the timber bowing once again, fortunately this matters not so much with a 3-rail door such as yours but for a 2-rail pattern 10 style door this isn't a great attribute. So it's best to buy the material in the sizes you need such as 4" x 2 1/2" stiles and top rail with 8" x 2 1/2" mid and bottom rails, rather than buying bigger planks and getting smaller sizes from it, the smaller pieces which have already been cut to a certain size won't bow as much because you won't be releasing as much tension as ripping a large plank down the middle. Other than those niggles, it's a great material as you never have to go back to a job because "My doors swollen up can you please plane it for me" or "All the T+G boards have shrunk and I can see my neighbour staring at me through the gaps" :lol:

If you do make a new door from Accoya, the construction admittedly doesn't _need_ to be as bulletproof as any other timber since it doesn't move massive amounts which would stress the joints in a normal door. I through mortice and tenon all my work since that's what is set up and it takes no time at all because everything is set up for the job, does it make for a better and more stable door in regular softwood and hardwoods? It certainly does. In Accoya, I'm not so sure if it's that critical comparatively, the construction needs to be strong as the timber itself is weak but I don't think you need to go as over the top like a traditional door with through wedged M+T joints, I think good amount of well-sized dominos and good PU glue would hold very well since the wood is basically like a sponge and absorbs glue like no other and the modern glues hold very well.

I would recommend George Ellis' "Modern Practical Joinery" as a bit of reference material, it may be over 100 years old but it's a gud'un!


----------



## thetyreman

having now seen the door, I'm not sure I'd want to replace it either, it has a lot of character and looks well made, a repair really would have be tastefully done from very well seasoned/acclimated wood which as trevanion points out really isn't an easy job.


----------



## Steve Maskery

I'm pretty sure that if you could get the glass panels out intact, you could get them incorporated into a modern Double Glazed unit.
Well worth doing if you can.
S


----------



## Trevanion

Steve Maskery":29e64560 said:


> I'm pretty sure that if you could get the glass panels out intact, you could get them incorporated into a modern Double Glazed unit.
> Well worth doing if you can.
> S



It would be certainly interesting to find out if you could, I'm not sure if you could do it with the old glass exposed externally in any way though as I can almost guarantee the leadwork won't be 100% leak-proof when it comes to gas and will let condensation in.


----------



## MikeG.

Whilst you can do that, I really wouldn't. It will always look very different from the panels either side, and there is a real falseness about the result. It's not quite as bad a stuck-on fake leadwork, or stone cladding, but it's heading in that direction.


----------



## Trevanion

MikeG.":yt9sdwuw said:


> It's not quite as bad a stuck-on fake leadwork, or stone cladding, but it's heading in that direction.



Ever noticed how plastic doors are always trying to look like "wood grain effect" doors and painted wooden doors are always trying to look "as smooth as plastic"?

Weird :lol:


----------



## Rich C

Trevanion":mm53re3t said:


> I would recommend George Ellis' "Modern Practical Joinery" as a bit of reference material, it may be over 100 years old but it's a gud'un!


I would echo this recommendation, it's an excellent book, covers almost everything you need to know.


----------



## Steve Maskery

I think we all agree that the best solution is to fix the original.
2nd best is to re-make the original using traditional techniques.

The question therefore is what to do if these two options are not viable.

I'm simply suggesting that a well-made domino door is better than a poorly-made traditional door.

Mike, that is a good point about twist. It is usually dealt with by a haunch, is it not? It would be a little bit more work, but I'm sure it would be quite straightforward to incorporate a haunch into a Domino joint.

I'm not trying to flog the Domino here, I'm just trying to put its strengths and weaknesses into perspective. TBH I'd much rather people build and use the Ultimate Tablesaw / Bandsaw (delete as appropriate) Tenon Jig.


----------



## deema

I’m the diverse opinion here! The door is poorly made, the dimensions of the styles and rails is not IMO adequate for the job they are being asked to do. The styles should have gun stock tenons to allow for larger lights whilst enabling sufficient thickness and proper proportions for the panelled area. Jacob has highlighted that the top rail is far too thin. The doors are warped and twisted and with those dimensions have probably been hacked to death to try and keep it true / correct for the sagging. I’d leave it where it is whilst I made a new one.

The middle rail really needs a gun stock tenon, this will maintain the thin styles for the lights and to do this you really need Use traditional mortice and Tenon joints. If your using them for the middle rail, you might as well use them for all of the rails!

The trickiest bit will be getting those lights out of the existing door. I would do this as an early job and replace them with either timber or cheap single glazing. 

IMO there would be far more work and effort in trying to mend that door than there would be in making a new one. I feel that any restoration will only create a door that will inevitably and quickly fail again.


----------



## Trevanion

deema":3hycpga4 said:


> I’m the diverse opinion here! The door is poorly made, the dimensions of the styles and rails is not IMO adequate for the job they are being asked to do.



I thought 105mm stiles and top rail was fairly substantial, my standard ones are 95mm :?. Any bigger and the wood overpowers everything else.

Diminished stile doors are nice and all but they're a right pain in the neck to make even for someone with a lot of experience, it would blow a beginner's mind :lol:.


----------



## Jacob

deema":3hxfysvp said:


> I’m the diverse opinion here! The door is poorly made,


Well it's lasted 100 years or so. Poorly maintained more like it


> ....
> The trickiest bit will be getting those lights out of the existing door. I would do this as an early job and replace them with either timber or cheap single glazing.


The glass is the best bit and well worth conserving. To lose it would be architectural vandalism


> IMO there would be far more work and effort in trying to mend that door than there would be in making a new one. .....


Only if the new one was modern rubbish.


----------



## Jacob

Steve Maskery":312ve8m6 said:


> ....
> I'm not trying to flog the Domino here, I'm just trying to put its strengths and weaknesses into perspective. TBH I'd much rather people build and use the Ultimate Tablesaw / Bandsaw (delete as appropriate) Tenon Jig.


Price of a Domino you could buy a proper grown-up mortice machine! Why F about?


----------



## Steve Maskery

Jacob":y70f7guf said:


> Price of a Domino you could buy a proper grown-up mortice machine! Why F about?


I agree, Jacob (sorry I just need to lie down for a moment...)
And that is the main problem with the Domino, it is very pricey.
But it is quick and, within its limitations, it does a superb job (you'll just have to take my word on that as you have never actually used one) and it does it quickly. It also takes up a lot less space than a dedicated mortiser, which matters a lot to many a home woodie.
As I say, I don't have an axe to grind here, I'm just trying to put the pros and cons.


----------



## deema

Jacob, firstly my bad, I meant remove the lights first from the existing door to save for the new door, and replace them with either wood or cheap grazing.

The door may be 100 years old, but age is definitely no defence or reason why it wasn’t made with poor aesthetics.

You could only repair that door shoddily faster than you could make a new one properly. However I accept that not everyone is as quick at making things properly! So you may have a point!


----------



## Jacob

Steve Maskery":2k38qrt7 said:


> ..... (you'll just have to take my word on that as you have never actually used one) ....


I have actually. I bought one in the hopes that it would replace a morticer but it wouldn't and I didn't think it would pay its keep so I sold it on.


----------



## Steve Maskery

In that case I am presumptuous and I apologise.
I can only imagine that you were expecting too much from it. You have to compare like with like. If you expect a little domino to replace a big mortiser, you are likely to be disappointed.


----------



## Geoff_S

I just thought I would put peoples minds at rest about the glass.

There is absolutely no way that the glass is going to be damaged/destroyed. It is the original Victorian glass. There is some debate as to the manufacturer as we are only about 3 miles from a place called Merton Abbey Mills Where William Morris had his textile factory. Now much of the glass is in the style of William Morris, a trip to The Red House in Bexleyheath where William Morris lived confirmed such. It’s not confirmed to actually be William Morris, but it’s a nice story.

Interestingly, there has been much talk about trades and the lack/difficulty of finding good ones. Not so with stained glass. What they do is astonishing.

The glass is easily removed and re-installed. We’ve done it where necessary. The idea of putting the glass into a double glazed unit is something I have investigated. It’s called encapsulation. I decided not to go ahead with this because finding someone to do it is the same old trades problem, it does detract from the look of the glass and the area of glass is not so great as to make any real energy savings.

Anyway, I hope that puts people's minds at rest regarding the glass.


----------



## Jacob

Looking at the photo - just a thought - can't quite tell - is that a bit of brass or something on the right hand side of the lock rail, where the spindle for the original door knobs and rim latch would have gone? If so it's possible that someone tried to fit a mortice latch instead and chopped through the M&Ts weakening one of the two most important joints and causing the door to sag? I've seen it done.
In which case you might need to make a complete new lock rail. Easy peasy just copy the old one!


----------



## Geoff_S

Jacob":5gmtgzui said:


> Looking at the photo - just a thought - can't quite tell - is that a bit of brass or something on the right hand side of the lock rail, where the spindle for the original door knobs and rim latch would have gone? If so it's possible that someone tried to fit a mortice latch instead and chopped through the M&Ts weakening one of the two most important joints and causing the door to sag? I've seen it done.
> In which case you might need to make a complete new lock rail. Easy peasy just copy the old one!



No, it's just a simple bolt that holds a static door knob on the front.


----------



## Trevanion

Ah, since the glass comes out easily I would definitely make a new door, you’d just be wasting your time trying to repair it because you’ll be in exactly the same position in a couple of years time. The door itself isn’t of any real historical significance and can be replicated very easily with rudimentary equipment to a high standard, the glass is priceless and irreplaceable.

Make a completely new door or bodge the existing one for about the same amount of work? I know which one I would choose every time.


----------



## Noel

Trevanion":2fqovbf8 said:


> Ah, since the glass comes out easily I would definitely make a new door, you’d just be wasting your time trying to repair it because you’ll be in exactly the same position in a couple of years time. The door itself isn’t of any real historical significance and can be replicated very easily with rudimentary equipment to a high standard, the glass is priceless and irreplaceable.
> 
> Make a completely new door or bodge the existing one for about the same amount of work? I know which one I would choose every time.



What would the hours (or I guess also the cost if I'm not being too nosey) be T from start to finish to build a similar door? Or similar to the New Yorkshire Workshop video door?


----------



## Trevanion

Noel":171l0coc said:


> What would the hours (or I guess also the cost if I'm not being too nosey) be T from start to finish to build a similar door? Or similar to the New Yorkshire Workshop video door?



Without seeing what the outside looks like and without all the pissing about with a gunstock rail, and without taking profiles and etc into account? I reckon with the equipment I use you could have the door complete (to the standard set up) in around 8-10 hours without paint, it’s the painting and the niggles afterwards that takes a lot of time the actual manufacturing is quite rapid comparatively.

Off the top of my head... Just for the raw door with no finish would be around £200ish for the labour and then £150-200 or so in material so say all in all it’s £400 for the door itself. Of course, making the door like for like with gunstock, the exact same mouldings and scribes etc would cost much more, at least twice as much.


----------



## sammy.se

£400 for a Victorian style wooden door seems like great value to me. I'd be lucky to find those prices in London.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jacob

sammy.se":3g82tm5q said:


> £400 for a Victorian style wooden door seems like great value to me. I'd be lucky to find those prices in London.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


If you have a simpler design to hand and the timber then you could do it, supplied not fitted.
If you wanted to copy that one perfectly and finish the job - £2k or more.
You've got to get there and survey it. Take it away, supply fit temporary door. Make new door, possibly need to make some spindle cutters too. Have the glass serviced by a pro glass man (they can do a lot to bring it back into good condition). Bring it back - fit door, source supply and fit hardware. Paint with primer.
Could be same sort of price to restore it - more to it than just repair.
PS add £500 for contingencies - who knows what else may need sorting. Though most clients would accept that part of the risk, quite sensibly.
PPS thorough restoration wouldn't involve filler and similar except for minor blemishes. You'd expect to scarf in with new wood or completely replace whole components.
US baltic redwood throughout, which is almost certainly what the original is.


----------



## sammy.se

That's more like the price I was expecting :-D

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jacob

Geoff_S":16grjtgl said:


> Jacob":16grjtgl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at the photo - just a thought - can't quite tell - is that a bit of brass or something on the right hand side of the lock rail, where the spindle for the original door knobs and rim latch would have gone? If so it's possible that someone tried to fit a mortice latch instead and chopped through the M&Ts weakening one of the two most important joints and causing the door to sag? I've seen it done.
> In which case you might need to make a complete new lock rail. Easy peasy just copy the old one!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's just a simple bolt that holds a static door knob on the front.
Click to expand...

Is it the original knob? I'd expect knobs in same position but with a rim latch, not morticed.


----------



## deema

Trevanion":fwlg5pin said:


> deema":fwlg5pin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m the diverse opinion here! The door is poorly made, the dimensions of the styles and rails is not IMO adequate for the job they are being asked to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought 105mm stiles and top rail was fairly substantial, my standard ones are 95mm :?. Any bigger and the wood overpowers everything else.
> 
> Diminished stile doors are nice and all but they're a right pain in the neck to make even for someone with a lot of experience, it would blow a beginner's mind :lol:.
Click to expand...


I’m not sure you have noticed that the door is 1 metre wide or in my money a little over 3’3”. I would definitely use as a minimum styles that are at least 5” or 125mm wide. The door looks out of balance and is warping because it’s too heavy / too much leverage on the short thin tenons and the sections are too thin. It would also be better made from 2 1/4” or 58mm thick rather than the present 50mm.

It’s also nearly 8’ tall, it’s a big door for its design!


----------



## deema

For the size of door you need to use something a little better than redwood which will be too soft to hold it square IMO. DF would be my preferred choice. 

I’m not a Domino owner, however, for the leverage that the joints will experience you will I believe need fully haunched double tenons on the bottom and middle rail possibly twin double tenons if you thicken up the door. The muntins will also need to be properly Tenoned into the bottom and middle rails. 

To achieve the holding the styles need to be wider at the bottom of the door, hence the use of diminishing styles and a gun stock tenon. 

It would be interesting to see the design of the outside of the door, it’s probably got planted on mouldings around the panels and possibly around the lights.


----------



## Dibs-h

deema":13tj5xla said:


> DF would be my preferred choice.



Sorry if it's a dumb question  - what's DF?

Cheers

Dibs


----------



## MikeG.

Dibs-h":10sxwpz1 said:


> deema":10sxwpz1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> DF would be my preferred choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry if it's a dumb question  - what's DF?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dibs
Click to expand...


Douglas Fir


----------



## Dibs-h

Cheers Mike!


----------



## Trevanion

deema":7vt7npr8 said:


> I’m not sure you have noticed that the door is 1 metre wide or in my money a little over 3’3”. I would definitely use as a minimum styles that are at least 5” or 125mm wide. The door looks out of balance and is warping because it’s too heavy / too much leverage on the short thin tenons and the sections are too thin. It would also be better made from 2 1/4” or 58mm thick rather than the present 50mm.
> 
> It’s also nearly 8’ tall, it’s a big door for its design!



I did notice the size measurements, it is a big girl :wink:. I can see exactly where you're coming from regarding having larger stiles to compensate for sag because really, that's what should be the case in an ideal world for both strength and aesthetics. I don't think I've ever actually seen any house doors with stiles that were any more than around 4" though, definitely seen some doors like gothic style ones for churches and the like that were a bit more substantial. 

This one on the bench is an Accoya door, 3' 2" x 6' 8". 95mm stiles and top rail, 200mm lock and bottom rails, 55mm thick. Double skinned with 20mm boards with insulation in-between so it's whompingly heavy (Guesstimate of around 60-70KGs . And to add insult to injury the lock rail has been morticed away which is a cardinal sin to the hardcore traditionalists :lol:. 







I've never had any similar ones fail, with modern glues and strong, traditional construction, it's not going to keep me up at night. But who knows, in a few years I might be eating my hat. :wink: I wonder if Geoff's door failed because there wasn't any glue (or very poor glue) on the joints and were only held in place with wedges like many of the era?


----------



## deema

Nice doors, are the panels floating or actually structural? 
Here a pair of French doors with lights above that I made that are 33” wide and 6’6” tall. The styles are 5” wide. The bottom rail is 9” and the middle is 7”. They are made from European oak.










The original door in question at 100 years old would have I believe relied purely on the wedges as glue options were rather minimal.


----------



## simuk

Made this one door and frame a few year ago out of Sapele using traditional M&T,s.


----------



## Jacob

deema":2bg6vufs said:


> ....
> The original door in question at 100 years old would have I believe relied purely on the wedges as glue options were rather minimal.


If water doesn't get to it animal glue lasts for 100s of years. Spent half my life sorting out old and very old joinery!


----------



## Trevanion

deema":3kwwcpw8 said:


> Nice doors, are the panels floating or actually structural?
> Here a pair of French doors with lights above that I made that are 33” wide and 6’6” tall. The styles are 5” wide. The bottom rail is 9” and the middle is 7”. They are made from European oak.



The external boards ones are kind of structural in that they're laid into a rebate which goes from the top rail to the bottom rail passing over the lock rail, spaced evenly with silicone in the grooves and then stuck and nailed to the rebate and the lock rail. The internal boards are floating and are laid into the cavity behind the external boards with a sheet of foil bubble insulation shiny side facing in which goes in between the external and internal boards, the internal boards are then dovetail nailed to the external ones. I have done doors with flush boards on both sides to allow a 25mm celotex sheet inbetween but that is a bit overkill to be honest and doesn't look as nice in my opinion.

That's a very nice pair of french doors, was that prime grade oak? Very few knots from what I can see. I wish I had a photo of a door that's similar to the door in my previous photo but in joinery grade European oak, looked stunning with the pippy knots and it's held up pretty well as I was a little concerned the timber would move quite a bit going from early dry summer to really wet autumn, but I made my best effort to get the best stability-wise pieces of timber out of what I had to make it. That one was *seriously* heavy. :lol:


----------



## Sgian Dubh

Geoff_S":3rm4bhyy said:


> This is the door I am replacing. It's dropped badly as you can see, the frame is perfect 90 degrees. The lock rail is packed with filler to the left.


Maybe it's because I'm a furniture man rather than a joiner, but the intersection between the lock rail and the stile looks visually strange to me. Can someone help me out with what's going on? Here's what I see, so please correct any errors I make.

Visually, it seems to me that the stile isn't truly diminishing at the lock rail point and, from this view anyway, it has an angled shoulder line going from the glazed top side of the rail to the bottom panelled side. But visually this makes the upper part of the stile appear wider than the lower part, although I don't think that's actually the case, and further, to my eyes, this makes the stile look uncomfortably top heavy. 

I've only made a very few architectural doors over all my years bashing wood, and probably only one or two with diminished stiles (gunstock), and in each case the diminishment of the stiles went from wider at the bottom to narrower above the lock rail. Similarly, that's always been the way they've been made in every instance of diminished stile doors I've come across.

My question regarding this door with what I think isn't a diminished stile anyway is: is this, to my eyes what is a visually uncomfortable angling of the lock rail shoulder lines a common standard joinery technique? Slainte.


----------



## Doug71

It's because the door stile is square above the lock rail but chamfered below it. If the shoulder on lock rail tenon was just square down it would have caused problems between the intersection of the chamfer on stile and bottom edge of lock rail (which I think from memory was just square). It's a bit of a mix of stopped chamfers and continuous ones, should have stuck to one or the other.

I agree it looks wrong, I guess when it was made and freshly painted you would not see it but now it really stands out.

I would make a new door.


----------



## Jacob

Sgian Dubh":zhgbu1a1 said:


> .....
> Maybe it's because I'm a furniture man rather than a joiner, but the intersection between the lock rail and the stile looks visually strange to me. Can someone help me out with what's going on? Here's what I see, so please correct any errors I make.
> 
> Visually, it seems to me that the stile isn't truly diminishing at the lock rail point


It isn't literally, you are right, but the angle shoulder line performs the same function as the more usual gunstock stile; bringing different details into alignment. So it looks a bit like a gunstock stile. Could have avoided it by instead repeating those stopped chamfers seen above the rail, or doing a masons mitre.
I don't think it looks wrong at all - it's just a little stylistic flourish, somebody showing off a bit of skill.
In fact it's a very nice piece of classy joinery, designed and made at a time when joinery skills were at an all time high, before the end of "the age of wood".


----------



## Sgian Dubh

Thanks for your thoughts, both Doug71 and Jacob. When I looked at the picture I came to the conclusion that probably what was going on was what you've both described, i.e., essentially it was a means to bring together edge mouldings or treatments that either didn't match, or edge mouldings that ran only part way along a member's length, e.g., the inside edge of the stile, where there's a stopped chamfer above the lock rail, but a through chamfer below it (which is stopped above the bottom rail).

It all just seemed odd to me, and unlike Jacob, I don't think it's an attractive "little stylistic flourish ... showing off a bit of skill", rather the opposite, it being unattractive. But on that front, i.e., aesthetic attractiveness, there's nothing to to say my taste or preference is right and Jacob's is wrong.

In reality, what most struck me when I looked at that photograph of the door in page 2 of this thread, was how similar the lock rail/stile intersection was in appearance to a similar exercise undertaken by bench joinery apprentices in their college based training. Over the last couple of years I've done some part-time teaching on both citb and C&G validated bench joinery courses at local colleges. In both cases the apprentices had to put together miniature architectural doors with what I could only describe as 'false diminished stile doors'. Again, the main reason seemed to be to make discordant edge mouldings or treatments, plus glass rebates come together. It all seemed a bit artificial to me, in the sense that I couldn't imagine anyone would really set out to make a door that gave a superficial appearance of being a diminished stile type, but actually wasn't. 

In addition, it was all more difficult to execute than doing a real diminished stile door. I know that because for a bit of fun I had a go at doing both forms of joint in a miniature form, i.e., the citb false diminished stile, and a true diminishing stile ... the latter form was easier, and in my opinion, visually more attractive. In addition, made for a full architectural door, it would have increased the glazed area to let in more light, which I strongly suspect is the main reason for such a door pattern. 

Anyway, I appreciate the thoughts of you both. Thanks. Slainte.


----------



## Trevanion

Sgian Dubh":1nupnxiy said:


> In reality, what most struck me when I looked at that photograph of the door in page 2 of this thread, was how similar the lock rail/stile intersection was in appearance to a similar exercise undertaken by bench joinery apprentices in their college based training. Over the last couple of years I've done some part-time teaching on both citb and C&G validated bench joinery courses at local colleges. In both cases the apprentices had to put together miniature architectural doors with what I could only describe as 'false diminished stile doors'. Again, the main reason seemed to be to make discordant edge mouldings or treatments, plus glass rebates come together. It all seemed a bit artificial to me, in the sense that I couldn't imagine anyone would really set out to make a door that gave a superficial appearance of being a diminished stile type, but actually wasn't.



It wasn't so long ago I did my C&G training so I had to do this exercise. I think the main reason for the gunstock was the transition between grooved panel and glass rebate (Which if I recall was a 10mm rebate) since it was all square with no mouldings, the other face of the door had mitres where the rail met the stile. It was a right PITA to get spot on because both faces of the door were completely different which made it difficult to lay out everything properly and get all the cuts perfect. As you say, you'd never actually encounter that style of joint anymore in an actual work setting. It was probably the most difficult thing to do in the 3-year course, including the minature gothic style door with the little piddly bars :lol:.



Jacob":1nupnxiy said:


> I don't think it looks wrong at all - it's just a little stylistic flourish, somebody showing off a bit of skill.
> In fact it's a very nice piece of classy joinery, designed and made at a time when joinery skills were at an all time high, before the end of "the age of wood".



Joinery skills are still at an all-time high with the people at the top of their game, they've just changed in techniques somewhat and things are produced faster and to a better standard than ever before (Sometimes not to a better standard in some cases). You could call it "the new, mechanized age of wood". I don't see how it could be a stylistic flourish when it was supposed to be hidden behind paint :lol:


----------



## Sgian Dubh

Trevanion":1wfpix86 said:


> It wasn't so long ago I did my C&G training so I had to do this exercise.


Interesting that you remember it pretty much as I recall that door making joinery exercise. I recall asking the person that lead the course why such an oddball exercise in a (seemingly) non-standard door joinery form was sanctioned by the awarding body for that bench joinery qualification. His response was along the lines that it was probably judged to be too difficult for the joinery apprentices to cut the diminishment in the stile from the section below the lock rail to the section above it. He did say the exercise had been like that for many years, and never updated.

That was a bit of a head scratcher for me. I, perhaps wrongly, came to the conclusion that the exercise was designed in CAD by someone that didn't understand joinery, and the awarding body were too embarrassed to admit their mistake, or couldn't/wouldn't change it for some other reason. It was either that in my mind, or they just wanted to set a particularly difficult challenge for the joinery apprentices, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## Jacob

Trevanion":3j4vc8yv said:


> ... As you say, you'd never actually encounter that style of joint anymore in an actual work setting.....


You would if the actual work setting is in period replacement/repair/restoration, of which there is a lot going on. I did little else and hardly touched any modern stuff at all.


Sgian Dubh":3j4vc8yv said:


> ....
> That was a bit of a head scratcher for me. I, perhaps wrongly, came to the conclusion that the exercise was designed in CAD by someone that didn't understand joinery, ...


Quite the opposite. It's been in the C&G curriculum from the start, put there by people who did understand joinery, long before CAD was even thought of. People had to do things the graphic/geometric way and the skill is still amazingly useful and crops up all the time.


----------



## Trevanion

Absolute nightmare to produce, especially when you haven't actually got a lecturer that's originally trained in bench joinery but rather rough carpentry and brickwork so asking for advice was hopeless #-o.


----------



## deema

The joint is very useful if you don’t have a spindle moulder for any door with lights in which the panels sit in a groove rather than having beading / planted on mouldings to keep them in place. Before modern glues, sitting the panels in a groove produced a stronger door. Most of my doors don’t have diminishing styles, but I do sit the lower panels in grooves and I overcome the transition issue by running the scribing to halfway within the middle rail with the spindle. I couldn’t do this easily by hand.....but it can be done. I sit the panels in grooves even if it has planted in mouldings. When the beading for the glass is in place the styles should (if they aren’t diminishing) look once again straight and of consistent width. 

I do make that very joint when making a design of gate out of oak. In this case it’s not to resolve a difference between a rebate and a groove, it’s to blend a groove into a straight style. I’m not sure why it’s considered difficult to make, it’s not IMO any more complex than cutting a standard tenon by hand.


----------



## Sgian Dubh

Thanks for all the information everybody. From what you all say the arrangement is apparently not as unusual as I was thinking it might be. I put that down to, as I said in my first post here, me being primarily a furniture maker rather than a joiner, and not really in the past having a regular need to deal with issues of this nature.

So, as I understand it, the need to cut an angled shoulder on one face of a lock rail occurs, for example, when the profile on the inside bottom edge of the lock rail and the inside edge of the stile is square, and something like an ovolo profile on the outside face of these two parts where, between, there's a groove to carry a panel. And on the upper side of the lock rail and the continuance of the stile above the lock rail on the inside of the door is a rebate to carry glass. 

I'm assuming that all exterior doors normally have some sort of profile worked on the outer edge of rails and stiles, e.g., an ovolo, to help throw water off. On the interior face, the edge of these parts can be either square of profiled all depending on what's specified, and perhaps what equipment is available. For example, my house doors with two panels at the bottom, and glazed above above the lock rail, has ovolo mouldings on both the front and back face: those ovolo mouldings holding the glass in are nailed. In this case the shoulder of the lock rail is square both front and back, and the mouldings where the stile and bottom edge of the lock rail are scribed, as they are elsewhere in the door where mouldings meet, including the door's top rail that also incorporates a long and short shouldered M&T.

All interesting to me because it educates me about how different woodworkers tackle their problems and challenges. Slainte.


----------

