# Traditional Drawer Construction (again!)



## jimi43 (23 Jul 2011)

Having read through the very emotive thread on drawers which had some very polarised views and opinions...I want to open up this discussion for those of us for whom traditional drawer construction is an option for a fine cabinet.

I am making a tool chest...just for me...ala Moore and Wright et al....in order to store some of my more valued efforts in toolmaking.

Key to the design is a beautiful drawer and I want to avoid just copying comb joints and opt instead for the traditional drawer construction...in minature.

To visually describe what I see as the most pleasing I am going to post below some pictures of a drawer that I think exemplifies my view of this design and invite comments on ways which you would improve on each element of this structure:

*The Front*

Blind dovetails with the sides mating into the front at right angles using hand cut dovetails:







*The Rear*

Hand-cut through dovetails....






*The Bottom*

Draw slips used...rounded top..rebate..squared bottom:











Bottom extending out back for alignment?






Well that's my view of how it should be done but remember...I have no experience in this area of cabinet making and I would assume these are very basic traditional techniques...

But what I want to know is...are there more elegant ways of construction?

Thanks!

Jim


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2011)

That's a classic and utterly conventional hand-made drawer construction, except for the slightly less common curved front. The two piece bottom would be an economy measure, using up offcuts instead of a wider and more expensive board.
But it is a light drawer, suitable for clothing etc. For a tool chest you might need something heavier/stronger - bigger dovetails (pinholes and tails approaching the same size), thicker sides and bottom. Perhaps a muntin to divide and strengthen the bottom.
NB you wouldn't design the drawer without reference to the carcase i.e. the runners, kickers, guides are all part of the design.
More elegant construction? Nothing springs to mind, though added decorative features are possible. If it was going to be used as a tray i.e. pulled right out, then you could spend more on the sides, and the back dovetails etc

PS just noticed you are doing it in miniature - then just scale everything down? Small drawer DTs might have just 2 or 3 pins instead of your 4 (1 or 2 DTs instead of your 3) and if only lightly loaded you could get away without slips and do cheapskate slots instead. Neater, but weaker.


----------



## jimi43 (23 Jul 2011)

Muntin!!

That was the word I was searching for! Thanks Jacob!

Yes...a muntin bottom divider/strengthener....was intended.

The tools in the drawer won't be that heavy actually...the draw sizes will be relatively small and I am going to try to be religious about keeping each drawer for the purpose it was originally intended.

In fact..I may even put physical silhouettes in each drawer. It's the only way I can keep relatively disciplined and tidy!

I tend to use ply IKEA storage drawers for commonplace stuff.

Regarding the carcase...that will be along next for discussion...I just want to decide how I want the drawers to be and apart from the muntins (!) I am fairly confident that the other elements (dimensions and proportions aside) are close to what I want.

Cheers for your input mate.

Jim


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2011)

Why not just copy a Moore and Wright? 
Plenty off them about, this one from Alf's site (is that OK Alf ?). Sturdy looking and simplified - through DTs, ply bottom clapped on and screwed, etc. Runners in the sides saves vertical space compared to a trad chest construction.
No need to re invent the wheel!


----------



## jimi43 (23 Jul 2011)

I have one like that for my metalworking junk...this is more of a display drawer cabinet that I'm aiming for....the vertical aspect is not an issue.

Jim


----------



## woodbloke (23 Jul 2011)

If Jacob is capable of reading, which frankly sometimes I doubt, Jimi stated that a traditionally made, top quality drawer was key to his wishes in this forthcoming project...not some commercial, mass produced, box jointed thing as shown in Alf's pic (no offense intended Alf)

I make all my drawers in the traditional, way as shown here:






Drawer fronts are 18mm, sides around 8mm (but no drawer slips although in many cases, especially if it's load bearing, they're desirable), back set lower than the sides and a CofL base ('cos it pongs lovely when you open the drawer  ) Mahogany was used here (as it was the late Alan Peter's preferred timber for drawer sides) though quarter sawn oak (or any equally hard timber) can be used. The handle in this case is appropriate for the piece of furniture it belongs to - Rob


----------



## Modernist (23 Jul 2011)

I prefer flat tops to the drawer slips, flush or slightly proud of the bottom. 
The screws holding the bottom should be in slots, the absence of which is probably why the existing bottom has parted along the joint.
I am never certain if it is a good idea using the edge of the bottom as a stop, if only because it will get progressively knocked back as the bottom shrinks with a witness on the front. I think it is safer and more precise to use stop blocks on the front rail. The only downside is that it puts strain on the front dovetails especially if the drawer is repeatedly slammed shut when heavy.


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2011)

woodbloke":125ekcvb said:


> If Jacob is capable of reading, which frankly sometimes I doubt, Jimi stated that a traditionally made, top quality drawer was key to his wishes in this forthcoming project...not some commercial, mass produced, box jointed thing as shown in Alf's pic (no offense intended Alf)
> 
> I make all my drawers in the traditional, way as shown here:
> 
> ...


He's very rude isn't he, our lycra man :lol: 
In point of fact Jim's example would have been commercial and multiple (if not mass) produced, albeit extensively by hand. This is utilitarian practical design of the period, the only extravagance being the mahogany and the curve.

Rob is keen on slots instead of slips, but these are only found in cheap (or light) work. A lot of people make this mistake. 
Robs DT pins are a bit thin (top and bottom) which is weak, both visually and structurally, but this is a modern fashion and won't go away it seems.
Otherwise a nice effort Rob - but I'm not sure about the handle. :shock:


----------



## jimi43 (23 Jul 2011)

Now this is getting interesting!

Ok Jacob...so if my little drawer on the original post would have been "commercial and multiple (if not mass) produced" for the period....what would have been the Rolls Royce example and what aspects would have rendered it so?

I think Rob that I prefer a leaner front...but that is just taste and has no bearing on how I will finally make it. It would be thicker than the sides but not that much.

I have some English oak which I am jointing at the moment...kindly ripped down by Douglas on his meat and two veg blade... 8) and I have mahogany and cherry...the sides I want cherry...though thinking further...it would be a nice contrast to have mahogany sides and cherry backs...mmmm

Cedar of Lebanon for bottoms sounds really lovely....probably a bit of an overkill...mmm thinks... :-k 

I have some Bermuda Cedar (don't ask how).....but not enough for the bottoms...maybe the slips and muntins...that smells out of this world!

Jim


----------



## Modernist (23 Jul 2011)

jimi43":2w5mqegw said:


> I think Rob that I prefer a leaner front...but that is just taste and has no bearing on how I will finally make it. It would be thicker than the sides but not that much.
> Jim



I'd go thinner not thicker, then make it up with slips - much more elegant.


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2011)

jimi43":2lndi8sr said:


> ..
> Ok Jacob...so if my little drawer on the original post would have been "commercial and multiple (if not mass) produced" for the period....what would have been the Rolls Royce example and what aspects would have rendered it so?


Same but finer finishing, finer wood, added decoration - cock beads, veneers, inlays etc then after that anything goes in the way of adding stuff to increase the cost, see Chippendale and others.
Going the other way it'd be the same in principle but all softwood and cruder finishing - more overcut saw marks, plane scoops, visible. Cheapest stuff would have no slips but slots instead, which wear out very quickly due to less bearing surface and also being so thin at the most loaded part of the drawer. Bad practice. Are you listening Rob? :lol:


----------



## woodbloke (23 Jul 2011)

Modernist":2pemowgk said:


> jimi43":2pemowgk said:
> 
> 
> > I think Rob that I prefer a leaner front...but that is just taste and has no bearing on how I will finally make it. It would be thicker than the sides but not that much.
> ...


The thickness of the front is usually determined by the 'rule of thirds' for the jointing. So if you have an 18mm front (which is pretty standard) that means that the tails occupy around 12mm or so (no hard and fast rule). Making the front thinner means that there's less material in front of the tail...or if you still stick the 'rule of thirds' the length of the tail is correspondingly shorter, not forgetting of course that the drawer base is slotted in a groove in the front, hidden in the sides as it passes through the lowest tail. 
Dovetail slope ought to be around 1:8, though if you make cruder dovetails a slope of 1:6 can be used (generally reserved for softwoods). This means that if you have around 2mm at the top of pin (which is what I prefer, not aka Cosmanesque) it means that at the bottom there's enough room to get in a 3mm dovetail chisel...that's if you keep the length of the tail to around 12mm... 
...and Jacob, even though you seem to be able to read the Queen's English, you appear to have extreme difficultly in understanding it. ](*,) I said the handle on the drawer was appropriate for the piece of furniture that the drawer is used in and I also said that slips were a good idea, especially in a more heavily loaded drawer. Suggest you get down the doc's Jacob and get your ears cleaned out or go to Specsavers for a sight test...preferably both - Rob


----------



## jimi43 (23 Jul 2011)

I too am a bit lost here Brian....

You mean you have examples where the drawer front is thinner than the sides? Did I read that correctly?

Do you have any pictures?....I'm intrigued.

I may decorate the fronts...just simple inlay strings with dark wood but that would be about it...probably some hand-cut beading scratched in now I know how!

I am also looking at the idea of a "secret" lock. A mechanism that locks all drawers in place but isn't readily obvious and has a cunning mechanism for release. I would prefer this to the traditional framed flipping front with a lock.

I intend to use cabinet pulls...like THESE rather than knobs...the rings in a brass recess thingies..not sure what they are called. I want antique hardware and am going to have a go at making some of those elements in brass.

Jim


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2011)

woodbloke":17ux5ma6 said:


> .........
> Dovetail slope ought to be around 1:8, though if you make cruder dovetails a slope of 1:6 can be used (generally reserved for softwoods). This means that if you have around 2mm at the top of pin (which is what I prefer, not aka Cosmanesque) it means that at the bottom there's enough room to get in a 3mm dovetail chisel...that's if you keep the length of the tail to around 12mm...


If you look at old furniture good and bad (it seems many woodworkers don't :roll: ) you will find every slope from about flat (as per box joint) to steep as 1 in 2 (rare). Most were freehand and could be different on each side of the pin. Looking at Jim's snap the look to be flatter than 1 in 10 but not identical. This is normal. Rob's 1in 6 or 8 is an often repeated rule which non of the old furniture makers seem to have been aware of. The pointy end of the pin hole is usually a single saw kerf wide, as this is the easiest way to make them. Aiming at 2mm would be very fiddly and pointless (no pun intended!). They have to be bigger for sturdier constructions however


> ...and Jacob, even though you seem to be able to read the Queen's English, you appear to have extreme difficultly in understanding it. ](*,) I said the handle on the drawer was appropriate for the piece of furniture that the drawer is used in and I also said that slips were a good idea, especially in a more heavily loaded drawer. Suggest you get down the doc's Jacob and get your ears cleaned out or go to Specsavers for a sight test...preferably both - Rob


Must have been an ugly bit of furniture then! And stop being so offensive, Lycra man. :lol:
I see you getting the idea about slips. Better late than never. I agree that slots do look neat and logical, but when you encounter a lot of drawers worn out because of not having slips, you start to see things differently.

PS and the runners wear twice as fast too, having half the bearing area presented.


----------



## Modernist (23 Jul 2011)

jimi43":178wvcsy said:


> I too am a bit lost here Brian....
> 
> You mean you have examples where the drawer front is thinner than the sides? Did I read that correctly?
> 
> Jim



Sorry Jim, I misread your post thinking you were proposing thicker sides than WB and they already look a bit too chunky for me, as does the front.

FWIW this is my take on the same problem but as the top drawer in my bench it has seen a bit of work since it was made and is not pristine by any means.






These are the flat top slips






I omitted to make the backs lower and tried routing a relief on the inside of the drawer front as an experiment to make it appear lighter and preserve it from tool bashes. I'm not sure it was a success.

Ideally I think hardwood sides should be 6mm plus slips for fine cabinet work.


----------



## jimi43 (23 Jul 2011)

I know this is going to sound strange but I like uneven, hand-cut and estimated dovetails...as per my original first picture.

I think it is a bit like Tudor architecture....it simply doesn't look right _unless_ it's wonky!

Ah Brian...yes I am on your wavelength...the sides will be about 7.5mm simply because that's what the stock is and it is a tad under 8mm which I consider the most elegant. I think the fronts should therefore be about 12mm or a bit more but not much more.

Much though I love and admire pristine accurate dovetails with no gaps and absolute symmetry....I think there is a certain charm where they are not quite equal...it sort of reinforces the "handmade" look.

Jim


----------



## woodbloke (23 Jul 2011)

Modernist":1tx2o69m said:


> Ideally I think hardwood sides should be 6mm plus slips for fine cabinet work.



The nuances of drawer construction can be discussed '_ad infinitum_' till the cows come home, but this is what Joyce has to say on the matter, including his views on slips (just for Jacob here, hoping he reads and understands it)... and I quote:

_"Fig 247.14 is the old method of attaching the bottom, where a quadrant drawer slip is glued and pinned to the drawer side thereby increasing the wearing surface...with 247.10A the modern method of grooving into the [drawer] sides"_ 
He further says: 
_"In old work the bottom was solid timber...and the drawer sides kept as fine as possible (8mm) but modern sides can be up to 12.5mm. Drawer fronts are usually standardized at 19mm; they can be thicker (22mm) but should not be under 19mm for good work. Drawer sides should be in hard, good-wearing timber with oak the favourite, but teak and prime quality mahogany are good. Soft hardwood...should not be used, whilst common pine wears quickly (unless it is very resinous) as old examples show. Backs are usually 6 or 8mm and can be in any common timber, although here again oak is used for the best work. Solid bottoms can be English cedar or oak"_ 

From the makers bible, 'The Techniques of Furniture Making' - Rob


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2011)

woodbloke":2t80p7ff said:


> ...
> The nuances of drawer construction can be discussed '_ad infinitum_' till the cows come home, but this is what Joyce has to say on the matter, including his views on slips


Joyce is good - but non of them are as good as the old chaps who made the stuff. Luckily you can still see what they did, and learn from it.


> _"Fig 247.14 is the old method of attaching the bottom, where a quadrant drawer slip is glued and pinned to the drawer side thereby increasing the wearing surface...with 247.10A the modern method of grooving into the [drawer] sides"_
> He further says:
> _"In old work the bottom was solid timber...and the drawer sides kept as fine as possible (8mm) but modern sides can be up to 12.5mm. Drawer fronts are usually standardized at 19mm; they can be thicker (22mm) but should not be under 19mm for good work. Drawer sides should be in hard, good-wearing timber with oak the favourite, but teak and prime quality mahogany are good. Soft hardwood...should not be used, whilst common pine wears quickly (unless it is very resinous) as old examples show. Backs are usually 6 or 8mm and can be in any common timber, although here again oak is used for the best work. Solid bottoms can be English cedar or oak"_
> 
> From the makers bible, 'The Techniques of Furniture Making' - Rob


Shouldn't be taken as gospel! Easy to forget that Joyce was writer first and his stuff is based on research, not experience. Basically you can ignore the above (or believe it if you want to).

PS I expect Lycra-man can read this but I don't suppose he'll understand it.
PPS did you see Cadel Evans today? Farkynell, so that's what Lycra can do for you! Talk about dung off a shovel!


----------



## Benchwayze (23 Jul 2011)

As far as I recall, slips were used in drawers that were light in construction; thinner linings. The principle was to provide a wider bearing surface to spread and minimise wear.
I might be wrong though. Wouldn't be the first time. (hammer) 

John


----------



## Modernist (23 Jul 2011)

Benchwayze":3fczq89v said:


> As far as I recall, slips were used in drawers that were light in construction; thinner linings. The principle was to provide a wider bearing surface to spread and minimise wear.
> I might be wrong though. Wouldn't be the first time. (hammer)
> 
> John



That's quite right. Barnsley used 1/4" oak, qtr sawn for some drawer sides in Arts and Crafts work. I cannot imagine a scenario where this would fail in domestic use. Clearly for workshop drawers and heavy contents you might need a bit more, but not a lot. 

The slips not only provide a wider wearing surface but reinforce the side in the area where it is in compression to prevent bowing outwards when a loaded drawer is open. The top edge is always in tension and will not therefore deflect.


----------



## Jacob (23 Jul 2011)

Benchwayze":1spq46k4 said:


> As far as I recall, slips were used in drawers that were light in construction; thinner linings. The principle was to provide a wider bearing surface to spread and minimise wear.
> I might be wrong though. Wouldn't be the first time. (hammer)
> 
> John


I'm sure you are right. A slip saves a lot of timber. Trad design is about optimising the outcome - more from less. The fact that modernists hit on this and think its their own idea tends to obscure that trad vernacular design got there first, in fact never left. Modernism is ancient.


----------



## Modernist (23 Jul 2011)

I think you are right about saving timber/cost. It also makes the joints quicker to cut.

Nevertheless thin sides make a more attractive drawer, much as thin glazing bars do a window.


----------



## Benchwayze (23 Jul 2011)

Modernist":1fzvt0p8 said:


> I think you are right about saving timber/cost. It also makes the joints quicker to cut.
> 
> Nevertheless thin sides make a more attractive drawer, much as thin glazing bars do a window.



Which is why I kept some solid 6mm quartered oak, salvaged from the top of a 'Utility wardrobe' from the 40s. Lovely stuff on top of what was essentially a plywood box!
The drawer sides were equally nice... and it all finds its way under our benches. Well under mine at least! 

John


----------



## Modernist (23 Jul 2011)

Take a look at the drawer sides on the last pic circa 1900

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ANTIQUE-ARTS-AND- ... 0779064023


----------



## woodbloke (23 Jul 2011)

Modernist":3p12adqk said:


> Take a look at the drawer sides on the last pic circa 1900
> 
> http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ANTIQUE-ARTS-AND- ... 0779064023


...and then take a look at the dovetails in one of the next pics :shock: - Rob


----------



## Modernist (23 Jul 2011)

woodbloke":29vpji0b said:


> Modernist":29vpji0b said:
> 
> 
> > Take a look at the drawer sides on the last pic circa 1900
> ...



Your point being?


----------



## Benchwayze (24 Jul 2011)

jimi43":c4awqvfv said:


> I know this is going to sound strange but I like uneven, hand-cut and estimated dovetails...as per my original first picture.
> 
> I think it is a bit like Tudor architecture....it simply doesn't look right _unless_ it's wonky!
> 
> ...



You'd like my dovetails then Jim... Well, my woodwork overall! (hammer) :mrgreen: 

John


----------



## woodbloke (24 Jul 2011)

Modernist":1ffjcmtm said:


> Your point being?


Thin drawer sides...and these look to be around 6-8mm , together with a supposedly quite pleasant A&C piece don't necessarily mean that the jointwork is up to the same standard as the rest of the piece - Rob


----------



## Modernist (24 Jul 2011)

woodbloke":3jdtvolh said:


> Modernist":3jdtvolh said:
> 
> 
> > Your point being?
> ...



The piece does nothing for me either but it is a typical example of the genre and many were made to the highest standards of craftsmanship especially in the following 40-50 years from Waals, Barnsley's etc, producing such luminaries as Alan Peters in the process.


----------



## AndyT (24 Jul 2011)

While quite enjoying the discussion about full size chests of drawers, let's not lose sight of the point that Jimi wants to make something "in miniature" and so what works full size will risk being too flimsy, if scaled down, or too clumsy if not scaled down!

I do think it's worth thinking about the runners. The sort of drawers in Jimi's opening photos would normally rest on runners which are joined across the front of the case. (Not sure what to call those bits; let's call them stretchers for now.) The stretchers define a rectangular hole for each drawer, and part of trad drawer making is to fit each drawer into its own hole.

If you slim down the runners to (say) 9mm, which would look ok on something the size of an engineer's chest, you get the problem of stub tenoning the stretchers into them. Possible, and I'm sure Jimi will have some nice hardwood to make them of, but significantly fiddly.

A solution to the problem is to eliminate the stretchers - as has been said already. Without stretchers you must hide the runners, which you can do by using runners in rebates - as in the picture Jacob showed - or by making the drawer fronts overlap them - as in Modernist's drawers.

I think what might help for more inspiration where small scale construction meets fine hand tool techniques would be to look at museum or collector's display cabinets. Pop into the coins and medals department, and you'll probably find more of interest in the cabinets than in the contents.

There's a good illustration of the sort of thing I mean in Ellis's Modern Practical Joinery on page 256.


----------



## Alf (24 Jul 2011)

woodbloke":13ltmsj6 said:


> If Jacob is capable of reading, which frankly sometimes I doubt, Jimi stated that a traditionally made, top quality drawer was key to his wishes in this forthcoming project...not some commercial, mass produced, box jointed thing as shown in Alf's pic (no offense intended Alf)


None taken; hadn't a clue what you were talking about until I realised it was in Jacob's (blocked) post. The old Moore & Wright? Not a thing of aesthetic beauty, but an object lesson in getting the maximum amount of tool storage in the smallest space.


----------



## AndyT (29 Jul 2011)

Jimi - you said:



> I am also looking at the idea of a "secret" lock. A mechanism that locks all drawers in place but isn't readily obvious and has a cunning mechanism for release. I would prefer this to the traditional framed flipping front with a lock.



I was just browsing through "Modern Cabinet Work" by Wells and Hooper (4th edition, 1924) when I came across this, which might help. It describes a locking mechanism for a multi-drawer cabinet.

A bevelled edge at the back of one drawer (which has a normal drawer lock fitted) controls a metal bar at the back of the cabinet which is lifted up and down when this drawer is pulled in and out. Fitted onto this bar are latches for each of all the other drawers. Probably clearer in the original, but I had to read it several times. 












I hope this helps!


----------



## jimi43 (29 Jul 2011)

Cheers Andy...that looks fun!!!

These sort of things have fascinated me since I were a small boy....secret compartments...cunning locks...all that sort of stuff.

It helps a lot

Cheers mate

Jim


----------



## woodbloke (29 Jul 2011)

jimi43":434f2ip5 said:


> Cheers Andy...that looks fun!!!
> 
> These sort of things have fascinated me since I were a small boy....secret compartments...cunning locks...all that sort of stuff.
> 
> ...


Apparently there's an article on the same in the next issue of F&C (not written by me I hasten to add)...should be interesting - Rob


----------



## Jacob (31 Jul 2011)

AndyT":2mmkvxzq said:


> ...... look at museum or collector's display cabinets. Pop into the coins and medals department, and you'll probably find more of interest in the cabinets than in the contents....


Absolutely agree. You can't beat looking at things - and copying, if you find what you want. No point in trying to reinvent the wheel - all the best solutions have been found already.
One posh detail is to make the slips and sides in one piece i.e. start with say 18mm sides and rebate down to 9mm just leaving the slips at 18mm. You could radius the slip to side internal angle whilst you are at it. 
Top of slips (and muntins) can be flush with the bottom if the panel is rebated on top (or top and bottom) leaving a tongue to fit the slip slot. Normal flush panel door construction in fact.


----------



## Sgian Dubh (31 Jul 2011)

jimi43":1lpsl0qa said:


> ...are there more elegant ways of construction? Jim


There are different ways certainly Jim. There follows some images of typical drawers using quadrant style slips.

1. An underside view of a typical slipped drawer construction with bottom partially inserted.





2. Looking down into a front right corner.





3. A low level view into the front left hand corner of a slipped drawer. Note the tenon on the end of the slip to ensure the grooves of the slip and the drawer front line up.





4. Low level view of left rear corner of a drawer showing how the slip is notched at the rear end to fit under the drawer back.





5. Sketch of typical quadrant slip.





6. Sketch of typical quadrant slipped construction viewed towards the rear right corner of a drawer from the outside.





7. An under drawer low level overview of a slip fitted to a drawer.





8. A further sketch of the rear end of a quadrant slip and drawer corner showing typical construction. The top edge of the drawer back is normally set a little lower than the drawer sides, and frequently rounded over. This, I was taught, is supposed to allow air trapped at the back as the drawer closes, and therefore become compressed and preventing easy closure, to escape over the back top edge and pass towards the front of the drawer and out of the cabinet. (I'm not fully convinced the reasoning for this 'premium' configuration taught to me always hold water, because surely it depends on the configuration of the cabinet and the configuration of the runners and kickers, ie, where else could trapped air escape to?) 





*A better quality slip form?*

The sketches below are for an alternative flush style slip-- this is where the top face of the drawer bottom sits flush with the top edge of the slip. Many consider this to be superior because of the flush appearance on the inside of the drawer, but you do lose a little storage space because of the thicker drawer bottom required. Unfortunately, I don't have an example to hand to photograph, and I didn't photograph the construction of the last drawer I made with this configuration. But hopefully you'll be able to get the general idea from these sketches.

A. With the flush slip the drawer bottom is thicker. With the quadrant slip illustrated above you would use, for eaxmple, a 6 mm thick bottom, in this case you'd use a bottom about 12 mm thick. A tongue is worked on the bottom face of the drawer bottom at either end where they fit into the slip grooves. At the front edge, the tongue is worked into the top face of the drawer bottom, and this tongue fit into the groove worked into the back face of the drawer front. The idea here is that if there's any shrinkage in the width (front to back) of a solid wood bottom it doesn't show as a gap (when viewed from the inside) on the back face of the drawer front.





B. Finally, here is a sketch of the rear view of a drawer constructed to set the top face of the drawer bottom flush with the top edge of the slip. The little bead and quirk detail on the top inside corner of the slip is just one decorative option to disguise the intersection between slip and drawer bottom. Slainte.


----------



## Jacob (31 Jul 2011)

Spot on. I like the bead detail. You could repeat that on a muntin if you had one.


----------



## jimi43 (31 Jul 2011)

Jacob":36d5icje said:


> Spot on. I like the bead detail. You could repeat that on a muntin if you had one.



+1000!

Brilliant! =D> 

Now if I could just get this chisel sharp..... :mrgreen: :wink: 

Jim


----------



## Sgian Dubh (31 Jul 2011)

jimi43":kzvmgev5 said:


> Now if I could just get this chisel sharp..... Jim


Easy. Just slop the damn thing up and down the length of a bench stone a few times-- don't forget to work the back face a bit on the stone, and strop the newly sharpened bit on the palm of your hand, ha, ha. Slainte.


----------



## jimi43 (31 Jul 2011)

Sgian Dubh":2ciw7jh0 said:


> jimi43":2ciw7jh0 said:
> 
> 
> > Now if I could just get this chisel sharp..... Jim
> ...




What! No jig! I paid good money for those jigs...now I can do it freehand thanks to Jacob and now look what's happened....wasted all that money! I just knew it would lead to no good!

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## Jacob (1 Aug 2011)

Sgian Dubh":wspdl8c3 said:


> jimi43":wspdl8c3 said:
> 
> 
> > Now if I could just get this chisel sharp..... Jim
> ...


Shh don't tell them how easy it is. All that fiddling about gives them something to do and keeps them off the streets!

I see Chris Schwarz is getting back to basics - but how the buzz is he going to do a 2/3º back bevel?


----------



## jimi43 (1 Aug 2011)

You'd be really proud of me Jacob...I took the Stanley jig to the bootfair this morning and tried to sell it...no takers...like I said...I blame you totally! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :wink: 

Jim


----------



## Jacob (1 Aug 2011)

jimi43":25s98pli said:


> You'd be really proud of me Jacob...I took the Stanley jig to the bootfair this morning and tried to sell it...no takers...like I said...I blame you totally! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :wink:
> 
> Jim


Too late I'm afraid. The bottom has dropped right out :roll: . You should have sold about a year ago and bought natural oil stones instead.
Tip: WD40 and old rags are going to go up. :shock:


----------



## LuptonM (1 Aug 2011)

How are the slips joined to the sides?


----------



## Peter Sefton (1 Aug 2011)

Just glued with the bare faced tenon into the drawer front and butted up under the drawer back. Use paper fold back clips as cramps (bulldog clips) http://www.maplin.co.uk/bulldog-clips-4 ... 9&t=module
I make my slips .25mm over depth and then plane them down flush to the drawer sides.

Cheers Peter


----------



## jimi43 (1 Aug 2011)

Peter Sefton":288hirkd said:


> Just glued with the bare faced tenon into the drawer front and butted up under the drawer back. Use paper fold back clips as cramps (bulldog clips) http://www.maplin.co.uk/bulldog-clips-4 ... 9&t=module
> I make my slips .25mm over depth and then plane them down flush to the drawer sides.
> 
> Cheers Peter



These are fantastic tips...you simply don't get in books...(well most books!)

Thanks Peter

Jim


----------



## woodbloke (1 Aug 2011)

Sgian Dubh":3vbbipzo said:


> *A better quality slip form?*
> 
> The sketches below are for an alternative flush style slip-- this is where the top face of the drawer bottom sits flush with the top edge of the slip. Many consider this to be superior because of the flush appearance on the inside of the drawer, but you do lose a little storage space because of the thicker drawer bottom required. Unfortunately, I don't have an example to hand to photograph, and I didn't photograph the construction of the last drawer I made with this configuration. But hopefully you'll be able to get the general idea from these sketches.
> 
> ...


...as shown here, when I can be faffed to do them :mrgreen: Making the slip with the bead moulding cutter in the scratch stock:






so that when built into the drawer they look like this. The outside corner (*illustrative example only*)






...the inside corner:






...and the underside:






The front section isn't shown where it's tenoned into the front groove - Rob


----------



## jimi43 (1 Aug 2011)

WOW...we are really getting into the anatomy of drawers now...

Thanks Rob! =D> =D> 

Jim


----------



## Jacob (1 Aug 2011)

woodbloke":1iw3hbve said:


> ...and the underside:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK except the screw - if there is any load at the back of the drawer the screw will bind instead of sliding, if no load then the screw is redundant. No screws or pins of any sort. The bottom glued into the front slot.
It's not obvious but a drawer is basically a board (the bottom) which must be stiff enough for the load. The sides, back, and front, are add-ons which turn it into a more functional tray.

Another less obvious feature is that the term "dovetail" can be deceptive, as the principle features, functionally and visually, are the pins and the pin holes. The DTs are just the bits left between.
Forget DTs, think "pin" and "pinhole".


----------



## Peter Sefton (1 Aug 2011)

OK except the screw - if there is any load at the back of the drawer the screw will bind instead of sliding, if no load then the screw is redundant. No screws or pins of any sort. The bottom glued into the front slot.
It's not obvious but a drawer is basically a board (the bottom) which must be stiff enough for the load. The sides, back, and front, are add-ons which turn it into a more functional tray.


Jacob, do I dare ask what else you suggest if no traditional screw?

Cheers Peter


----------



## Jacob (1 Aug 2011)

Peter Sefton":sbbaw3fs said:


> ...
> Jacob, do I dare ask what else you suggest if no traditional screw?
> 
> Cheers Peter


Nothing. 
If it needs a screw then the bottom is too thin, perhaps in need of a muntin for strength.

PS or if screwed (or pinned/glued) at the back then the bottom needs to be loose in the _front_ slot to allow for movement, as you might do with a wide drawer to save having to put in muntins.


----------



## Modernist (1 Aug 2011)

In the case of a centre muntin how is that attached to the back? A screw?


----------



## Jacob (2 Aug 2011)

Modernist":1dkp9gz3 said:


> In the case of a centre muntin how is that attached to the back? A screw?


Screws I think - TBH I've never actually pulled apart a drawer with muntin. The muntin grain goes the other way to the bottom and so doesn't move.
I've seen drawers where the bottom is fixed to the back with pins, glue or screws, so the movement has to be within the front slot - sometimes not deep enough in which case the bottom comes adrift.


----------



## Peter Sefton (2 Aug 2011)

The muntin is the same profile of the slip but 30 to 50mm wide this again has a bare faced tenon on the front end glued into the back of the drawer front filling in the already ploughed groove. Some tradition drawers have a dovetail at the front and are then glued and screwed not my preferred method of construction. The muntin is then fixed to the back by 1 or 2 screws. 

Drawer bottoms should be glued to the drawer front to give the drawer rigidity they are used to pull and hold the drawer into the shape of the carcass, I would use screws in slots as shown by Rob to stop the drawer bottom from sagging and then rubbing on the drawer stops which should be morticed into the bottom drawer rail in quality work.

Some traditional drawer bottoms were glued and pinned into the drawer back but as the drawer bottom shrinks they fall out of the front groove, if this was done with a mulleted bottom they would become loose in the groove and ultimately fail. As for making the drawer bottoms thicker we could apply this concept to all furniture making but having bigger sections is not fine furniture making  .

Cheers Peter


----------



## Jacob (2 Aug 2011)

Peter Sefton":1laofy7d said:


> The muntin is the same profile of the slip but 30 to 50mm wide this again has a bare faced tenon on the front end glued into the back of the drawer front filling in the already ploughed groove. Some tradition drawers have a dovetail at the front and are then glued and screwed not my preferred method of construction. The muntin is then fixed to the back by 1 or 2 screws.
> 
> Drawer bottoms should be glued to the drawer front to give the drawer rigidity they are used to pull and hold the drawer into the shape of the carcass, I would use screws in slots as shown by Rob to stop the drawer bottom from sagging and then rubbing on the drawer stops which should be morticed into the bottom drawer rail in quality work.
> 
> ...


Just had a quick ruffle through our drawers, all old, 100+ years.

Chest of Drawers 1, good quality hardwood and veneers:
Muntins fixed as Peter says but held crudely but adequately at the back with 2 nails from below and one nail into the end through the back. I say "adequately" as these are well used drawers in a 100+ year old piece.
The bottom boards are nailed and glued to the back but are lose in the front slot - without any gaps opening in spite of being in a very dry condition.

Chest of Drawers 2. cheapo softwood:
Bottoms again nailed at the back and loose on the slot, with no problem apparent. No muntins even in the full width drawers but the bottoms are thicker. No slips and worn out sides (originally) but the decrepit sides are all repaired by me with slips added.

Chest of Drawers 3. cheapo softwood:
Thick bottoms not fixed at the back at all, but glued to front slots. All working fine.

Posh Georgian davenport, chinoiserie, stained fruitwood, ebony veneers, birds eye maple linings etc:
Drawers classic examples of perfection. No fixing at the back at all, but no wide drawers either hence no muntins.

The only pieces with slotted screws are made by me, before I realised the error of this way!

Could take some photos but this could be an all day job and Mrs G is objecting to my drawer rufflings.


----------



## woodbloke (2 Aug 2011)

Peter Sefton":1nw9mymk said:


> OK except the screw - if there is any load at the back of the drawer the screw will bind instead of sliding, if no load then the screw is redundant. No screws or pins of any sort. The bottom glued into the front slot.
> It's not obvious but a drawer is basically a board (the bottom) which must be stiff enough for the load. The sides, back, and front, are add-ons which turn it into a more functional tray.
> 
> 
> ...


Jacob, I disagree. I've always fitted my drawer bottoms dry, no glue at the front groove. If at any time in the future the drawer bottom needs to be replaced, you're a bit fubar'd if it's been glued in. Thus far, I've never had any issues with a brass c/s screw moving in a slot and it is the recommended way to secure the drawer bottom - Rob


----------



## Jacob (2 Aug 2011)

woodbloke":13xfov7l said:


> ..... If at any time in the future the drawer bottom needs to be replaced, you're a bit fubar'd if it's been glued in.


Does anybody ever need to replace drawer bottoms? Even if you did it wouldn't be impossible. NB I take the glue for granted (not having actually seen it) in that in my "perfect" drawers with no fixings the bottom can't be pulled out, and I'm not going to wreck the thing by trying.


> Thus far, I've never had any issues with a brass c/s screw moving in a slot


Nobody has a problem without the screws either.


> and it is the recommended way to secure the drawer bottom - Rob


Recommended by whom? St Jim K? :lol: 
Obviously nobody told a very large number of highly skilled woodworkers of the past, that this is a good idea. It's a miracle that so much stuff survives to this day!


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Aug 2011)

Jacob":1eeiy2hy said:


> Does anybody ever need to replace drawer bottoms?


 
Yes, frequently. In my experience, many people ill-treat drawers by loading them with stuff that is far heavier than the drawers were designed to take. Even if the bottoms don't break, they will often sag with this ill-treatment, making them difficult to open - then they get forced, causing more damage, and so on.......

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## woodbloke (2 Aug 2011)

Paul Chapman":2ejwgcrj said:


> Jacob":2ejwgcrj said:
> 
> 
> > Does anybody ever need to replace drawer bottoms?
> ...


Spot on again Paul. Without having Joyce's tombe in front of me, I'm fairly certain that a swift delve in the TofFM will reveal that this is the correct way to secure a drawer bottom...could you confirm Paul and quote if necessary? - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Aug 2011)

woodbloke":53bhek4i said:


> ...could you confirm Paul and quote if necessary?



Just off out but I'll have a look when I get back.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Benchwayze (2 Aug 2011)

Are we over-thinking through the problem here? 

A drawer is a drawer, is a drawer. They tend to get loaded up. Drawers from IKEA et al, get saggy-bottom syndrome, because they are thrown together from inadequate material. Most of us on the forum work better than that. so we should make drawers to withstand the abuse. 

I know there are limits, but that's up to the person who uses them. 

As for my own furniture, I don't overload drawers. SWIMBO does, but I go around afterwards and redistribute! As long as I tell her, she accepts the wisdom of not stuffing the drawers full of springy woolens etc! Then promptly does it again next wash! :roll: 

John


----------



## Peter Sefton (2 Aug 2011)

Jacob, I disagree. I've always fitted my drawer bottoms dry, no glue at the front groove. If at any time in the future the drawer bottom needs to be replaced, you're a bit fubar'd if it's been glued in. Thus far, I've never had any issues with a brass c/s screw moving in a slot and it is the recommended way to secure the drawer bottom - Rob

_________________
Dont' sweat the small stuff...

The Blokeblog


If you don't glue your drawer bottoms at the front, I am interested to know why you have slots for movement in the screws at the back of the drawer?

Cheers Peter


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Aug 2011)

OK, I'm back  Joyce says: "The grain of solid bottoms must, of course, run from side to side or shrinkage will pull them out of the side grooves; they *can* (my bold and underlining) be glued to the front groove and should override the back by 1/4" to which they are open slot screwed."

Assuming that Joyce used his words deliberately and carefully, I would say that use of the word "can" implies that he meant gluing was optional - otherwise he would have used the word "should".

My own view is that furniture design and construction should anticipate the future and the likelihood that it might need to be repaired. With this in mind I would never glue the bottom in a traditional-style drawer. Next time I see John Lloyd, the furniture restorer, at a show, I'll ask him for his view. He must have repaired quite a few.......

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (2 Aug 2011)

Paul Chapman":2zp0mdn3 said:


> OK, I'm back  Joyce says: "The grain of solid bottoms must, of course, run from side to side or shrinkage will pull them out of the side grooves; they *can* (my bold and underlining) be glued to the front groove and should override the back by 1/4" to which they are open slot screwed."
> 
> Assuming that Joyce used his words deliberately and carefully, I would say that use of the word "can" implies that he meant gluing was optional - otherwise he would have used the word "should".
> 
> ...


That's useful to know - Joyce getting it wrong again. 
As Peter pointed out - if screwed (even if slotted) at the back but not fixed at the front, then all movement would be at the front. This is in fact exactly what happens, as I pointed out earlier re bottoms nailed to backs. Not necessarily a problem if the slot is deep enough.
Joyce is useful and interesting but the first port of call for info on old furniture is old furniture itself. If you want to know how to make something which will last a 100 years then_ look_ at something which has lasted a hundred years. Have a look at your own household stuff. Paul should do this too even though his drawer bottoms must be made of hardboard! It's a learning process either way.


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Aug 2011)

Jacob":3poxprfu said:


> Paul should do this too even though his drawer bottoms must be made of hardboard!



Actually, if you glue together three sheets of hardboard, it makes an incredibly strong board which is entirely suitable for some drawer bottoms (I'm not talking best quality furniture here).

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Jacob (2 Aug 2011)

Paul Chapman":x6mddqv1 said:


> Jacob":x6mddqv1 said:
> 
> 
> > Paul should do this too even though his drawer bottoms must be made of hardboard!
> ...


Good idea. Make your own mdf kinda thing?


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Aug 2011)

Jacob":3hwwo20i said:


> Paul Chapman":3hwwo20i said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":3hwwo20i said:
> ...



Yes, sort of. Years ago I needed to make some drawers and boxes to go in the garage. Nothing special. I didn't have much money at the time but had lots of reclaimed hardboard. Tried gluing it together to make thicker boards and it really worked well. I'm still using a box that I made from the stuff - must be 30 years old and still going strong.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Peter Sefton (2 Aug 2011)

Paul Chapman":2tktdou6 said:


> OK, I'm back  Joyce says: "The grain of solid bottoms must, of course, run from side to side or shrinkage will pull them out of the side grooves; they *can* (my bold and underlining) be glued to the front groove and should override the back by 1/4" to which they are open slot screwed."
> 
> Assuming that Joyce used his words deliberately and carefully, I would say that use of the word "can" implies that he meant gluing was optional - otherwise he would have used the word "should".
> 
> ...



Looking at how antiques are made and constructed is a great way to learn but they used air dried timber in damp houses and they lasted very well. Much of the restoration that takes place is as a result of the change in our living environment.

We tend to live and work in buildings with much lower humidity’s and we need to construct furniture with this in mind. With good timber selection and using dry stock we should be able to predict how the timber will fair over time. I do hope my finest handmade drawers will not end up in a garage or damp shed if so my drawers may not last as that was not there intended use.
TTOFM by Joyce is an excellent sounding board but I don't believe every word to be correct how can it be there are over 500 pages. As with all the things we post about on here there are lots of ways of doing each job and we are all talking of specific applications that we have in our own minds and personal experience of that’s what makes it so interesting  

Cheers Peter


----------



## jimi43 (2 Aug 2011)

Not that I was naive enough not to expect a lively debate...even I am astounded by the depth and passion expended on this thread on the humble drawer! :mrgreen: 

This is wonderful....keep it up because it all makes perfect sense to me and at the end of it...my tool chest is going to be built to the very highest standard...as gleened from these in-depth debate. 8) 

Thanks for the examples Jacob...I think you ought to stop now though lest your missus objects to further rummaging in her drawers!  :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## AndyT (18 Aug 2011)

Jimi

I'm bumping up this old thread again because I'm wondering how your planning is going for your extra special tool chest and to offer you some more inspiration.
Have you come across "The Toolbox Book" by Jim Tolpin? It covers a wide variety of tool boxes (yes, really!) including quite a few which are special chests of drawers. If you want to have a look before shelling out and buying the book, or ordering it from your library, find it on Amazonand use their 'search inside' feature. Search on "Bennet" to go to pages 53-55 or thereabouts for some fine looking tool chests of drawers made at the Bennet Street school in Boston.


----------



## jimi43 (18 Aug 2011)

Hey Andy..that looks like a "present for me for being a good boy" book!

BUT...I just bought the Handplane Book (Garratt Hack)....as demonstrated to me by our dear friend Douglas today so....mmmm

Ok...I can think up an excuse by 7pm when Annie gets back...and in any case...ordering is 9/10ths of the law isn't it...?  

Oops! She just came in...gotta hide! :mrgreen: 

Thanks for the link...I have to have that book now ya know...just have to! :mrgreen: 

See...if I hadn't been oggling your beautiful saw handle I would have it by now! Darn! 8) 

Jim


----------



## AndyT (18 Aug 2011)

You can always send it back if you don't like it.
You need some holiday reading.
You like to support independent publishers in the age of the ebook.
You can read it and sell it afterwards.
You worked all day on Sunday and deserve a treat.
Your finger slipped on the 'one-click' ordering button.
It's a bargain!


----------



## jimi43 (18 Aug 2011)

AndyT":3u9xal6v said:


> You can always send it back if you don't like it.
> You need some holiday reading.
> You like to support independent publishers in the age of the ebook.
> You can read it and sell it afterwards.
> ...



Shall I try them all at once or one at a time until I hit mother lode? 
:mrgreen:


Jim


----------



## jimi43 (18 Aug 2011)

Whilst browsing FleaBay...I chanced upon the same book - new at £14.38 incl delivery and well...one has to go for the Buy-It-Now in case someone else buys it....and I *think* I got away with it! :mrgreen: 

Jim


----------



## AndyT (18 Aug 2011)

Ok one more excuse - Andy made you do it!

Thanks for the nice comments about my saw handle btw!


----------



## jimi43 (18 Aug 2011)

AndyT":24uhvygx said:


> Ok one more excuse - Andy made you do it!
> 
> Thanks for the nice comments about my saw handle btw!



Nah! I don't rat on me mates! :mrgreen: 

Re your saw handle..it's a pleasure mate...you have done a superb job...I bet you find yourself at bootfairs looking for saws with broken handles and even but blunt teeth this weekend...am I right? :wink: 

Jim


----------



## AndyT (18 Aug 2011)

Not quite time for a bootfair yet ... you see I have a few old saws 'in stock' - somewhere under a layer of old planes - and useful bits of wood!

When all the tools are sharpened and re-handled, then I'll have to get around to making something with them! :lol:


----------



## jimi43 (18 Aug 2011)

AndyT":2p3mq2ki said:


> ........When all the tools are sharpened and re-handled, then I'll have to get around to making something with them! :lol:



Nah...just become a toolmaker and let everyone else make bookcases!

:mrgreen: 

Jim


----------

