# Hand cut dovetails in sapele



## B3nder (1 Jul 2017)

Howdy,

I want to improve my dovetails. So am trying to refine
mtb dovetails. I had a load of sapele which I was using 
to practice on, however all isn't rosy. 

Marking out I get and cutting tails goes well. 
Using a pair of dividers and sliding bevel.

I cut on the waste side of the lines and complete using a
Fret saw and chisel.

I then transfer to the other piece using a knife. I then cut again
on the waste side. Using Fret saw anxiety chisel again.

When I try to make the joint they are mega tight and end up 
splitting the tails or pins.

I've chamfered the joints facilitate making the joints. I thought
the more I did the better images would become. 

Angel this for fettl8 get to get a good fit or adjustments in my 
Process.

I guess if anything gets its better to adjust the pins to for. 

Cheers.


----------



## rafezetter (1 Jul 2017)

I'm sure others will be along with a more detailed analysis but what I've learned from previous advice on this topic is it's unlikely you'll be able to get a perfect match of pins to tails (and no voids) without a great deal of practise, so you'll have to pare away one or t'other until they fit, just as mortice and tenons.

Apparently a good practise method is to do 1 set per day for a week or two with scrap - preferably hardwood to eliminate the problems adherent with softwood dovetails - and you'll get a better understanding of how YOUR particular tools are performing; and to use the SAME ones each time.

There can be issues as small as the flats on the backs of your chisels are not utterly flat, or that you have too large a backbevel so the sharp edge of the chisel is just a hair above the flat of the back, do that both sides and voila; too tight a fit even though it LOOKS spot on.

Or using a marking knife with a central bevel rather than one where the cutting surface has a FLAT back when transferring, so you end up with the same situation as the chisel but in reverse, an invisible difference, but enough to make the joint loose.

Of all the joints I've read about in the years on this forum, dovetails seem to be the ones that take the most practise to get to fit "off the saw" because of the variables of so many mating faces.


----------



## mikefab (1 Jul 2017)

If they are always too tight across all the tails and pins, and you are cutting to your knife lines that you have transferred, then perhaps you need to change the alignment just slightly when you transfer from the tails to the pin board.

I did a box making course a few years ago in Devon. The method taught on that was as follows:
- lay a bench plane flat on its side on the bench just in from the vice.
- fix the pin board in the vice so the top is flush with the side of the plane.
-move the plane in a bit and balance the tail board between the top of the pin board and the plane
- place a piece of white paper on the bench between the plane and the vice (I.e. in the gap underneath the tail board)

- shine an anglepoise lamp onto the piece of paper. 

-Adjust the position of the tail board until a tiny line of light is *just* visible at the base of the tails.

-transfer the marks using a knife.

I suppose that little bit of light shining through means that the board are just slightly offset, and this is the allowance you need to make it fit.

You also need yo be meticulous in checking that everything is cut square and to the lines prior to assembly. Sapele will not be tolerant of being bashed together if the fit isn't right, as you have discovered. Pine is much more forgiving in the this regard!

Hope this is of some help.

Mike


----------



## deema (1 Jul 2017)

I would like to suggest that there are three possible causes.
1. The rails are not cut at 90 degrees and th sides slope. When you transfer to the pins the slope causes the pins to be tight. Try testing the sides with a small square, or alternatively gang up two boards and cut two sets of tails at once. This helps to get everything square as the wider width exaggerates any deviations.

2. Your cutting away from the knife line on the pins. Try chiselling out a small knife wall to start the Saw exactly where it should be.

3. The pins are not cut square. Although you can't gang up the boards, you can use a piece of waste to clamped to the back of the board to help elongated the cut and emphasis any out of true.

An old test is to scribe loads of vertical lines on a Board and star put cutting each one until you can do after a a few hours practice not only will you be able to do it with your eyes shut, but also without any marks to guide you.

Stick with it.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (2 Jul 2017)

Dovetails that fit off the saw require that you ..

1. saw the tails square ( as in my case, since I go tails first). Whether you mark them first or just saw without lines is not important. Your saw cuts must be square.

This does take practice, but the squareness can be achieved by deeply knifing the lines across the top of the tail board, and using these to guide the saw. These are the most important saw cuts of all - they must be square, and the future fit depends on them. Forget about sawing "in the waste" at this stage. That is irrelevant. Saw on the lines.

2. Transfer the tail board to the pin board accurately. Any deviation here and the joint will not fit. 

You need a vise set up that holds everything steady. This is where the Moxon dovetail vise has the advantage.

Always transfer with a knife, never a pencil. The pencil is not clear enough. 

If your eyesight is like mine ... old eyes ... and lines blur without reading glasses, then ensure you have good lighting. I go a step further, and several years ago developed a method where transfer is done using blue tape. Not only does this make it easy to see the lines, but it feels like you are cutting against a fence. I get at least 95% success rate with dovetails straight off the saw. Links below to articles on blue tape use.

3. Saw the pin board to the very edge if the line (on the waste side, of course). Do not leave any waste for paring away with a chisel. This requires a go-for--it attitude. Go for it! 

4. Chisel the baseline before removing the waste. A chisel line will prevent it being pushed back. You can chop away the waste or remove it with a fretsaw first. It still requires that the baseline is saved. 

5. Chamfer inside and underneath the tails before pushing them together. If you have done the above to the line, you will have a tight fit. Hide glue will lubricate the parts and they will go together seamlessly.

Articles on blue tape: 

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/ ... eTape.html

http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/ ... ails3.html

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Ttrees (2 Jul 2017)

Hello
Have you seen the way Cosman lays out his work recently ?
He uses a marking guage and takes a measurement of the saw plate and off sets the work before marking 
the tails out.
Look in this video at 13.30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87vbqCQUigE
I think there might be a clearer example on his channel but I can't remember where it is explained.
Good luck
Tom


----------



## G S Haydon (2 Jul 2017)

Morning

You're halfway there, mainly due to the fact your practicing. To me it sounds like you're leaving too much of the line in. Try and split the line if you can. It's hard to describe, but by repetition, you should work out how much of the line (gauge, pencil or knife lines) you need to leave in. This will transfer to all other types of joint making, and once understood, will move you along very well.

Derek mentions using a knife, that is appropriate and a good tip. However a sharp pencil is also effective. It's horses for courses really, on occasion a knife can work well, other times a pencil is more effective.


----------



## B3nder (2 Jul 2017)

Thanks for the info. I'll keep trying.


----------



## Jacob (2 Jul 2017)

You need a knife for the shoulder line but for everything else I find a scribe point much easier to manage. Actually it's an old dart (without flights). Or a sharp pencil.
Cutting tails (i.e. pin holes) is the easiest step as even if it's wrong you are going to transfer marks to the pins so it'll fit anyway. Just a DT saw cut - with a bit of practice you can do it freehand without marks - no need to "cut on the waste side of the lines and complete using a Fret saw and chisel" just saw as near as you can get and leave it at that.
Always slightly over cut with the saw i.e. up to the shoulder line and just a gnat's over. Then you don't need to fiddle about cleaning out corners between pins or tail.


----------



## custard (2 Jul 2017)

Good for you, you're knuckling down and giving it a go, where as most aspiring woodworkers run scared from hand dovetailing. So, item one is respect for your grit and determination!

=D> 

Here's my 2p's worth on dovetailing.

1. A dovetail is unlike virtually any other woodworking joint in that it doesn't have to be a superb fit in order to be strong and serviceable. So relax! Your drawers and cabinets won't collapse if there are a few gaps here and there in your dovetails. In that respect dovetails are way easier to cut than for example mortice and tenon or housing joints. Someone once photographed all the dovetails on masses of antiques. Measured against modern standards most of them looked dog rough, but it hadn't prevented those pieces of furniture from lasting hundreds of years.

2. I've met and worked alongside hundreds of furniture makers, including some of the best known and most highly respected names in the business. I've never met two who cut dovetails in _exactly_ the same manner. However, they all manage to produce superb dovetails despite going about in slightly different ways. So don't think there's some magic technique out there that will automatically lead to Guild Mark quality dovetails, at the end of the day there's no substitute for practise and finding a way to make your particular method work for you.

3. Derek Cohen gave you some useful tips. In particular points one and two on his list are vital. If the first tail board cuts aren't at precisely 90 degrees then no matter what you subsequently do you're stuffed. There are ways to deal with that, you can use a magnetic jig (like David Barron's jig or the Veritas version), you can gang up several tail boards and cut them all at once (which means the workpiece is effectively wider which in turn makes it easier to cut at 90 degrees), you can use a small square to run the saw against for the first stroke (which will give you a reference groove to set you up accurately), or you can just keep practising (which in the long term is generally the best approach!). 

4. Derek's second point is equally valid. It's the transfer that's at the heart of top quality dovetailing, but the mechanics of the transfer (where you _transfer_ the tail layout to the pins or vice versa) rarely gets the attention it deserves. Furthermore, your problems with over thick tails suggest it's the transfer that you need to focus on. The blue tape method is cheap and effective, but for professional makers it's too slow which is why it rarely gets mentioned by the more famous makers. The off-set method is equally effective, but it's complex and may require additional and specialist tools. It may help to think about it this way, if you knife the transfer then unless some tiny trace of the knife line remains on the pin you're doomed to have a gappy dovetail, but if the _entire_ knife line is still visible on the finished pin then the fit will be too tight. That doesn't give you a lot of tolerance. The professional maker with time pressures has to get it right every time straight from the saw, but the hobbyist can cut on the waste side and pare to the line at his or her leisure. There's a little trick that many makers use which is to tap the tailboard towards you during the transfer, so it's overhanging by 0.5-1mm on a through dovetail, or across the line by 0.5-1mm on a half lap dovetail. You can then fully remove the knife line and still have a snug fit.

5. Personally I prefer a pencil as it's all too easy for the saw to drop into the knife line resulting in a gappy job. But the fact is that a pencil simply won't fit into the very narrow "London pattern" dovetails, so if you want to consolidate on one single method then a knife is your only option.

Good luck!


----------



## CStanford (2 Jul 2017)

Saw the tails square as has been mentioned using deeply knifed lines (end and long grain lines) as your guide. Put the saw in the deeply knifed lines and saw.

When marking the pins, nudge the tail board ever so slightly past the end of the pin board - around a 32nd (this is a visual, it is not measured) is a good place to start when practicing. Knife deeply on both the end and long grain of the pin board. Saw *on the knifed lines* of the pin board (don't worry about sawing in the waste). They'll either be a perfect fit, or slightly loose which in that case you nudge the tail board a little farther the next time. Work it out on scrap first. The harder the species the less you have to nudge the tail board past the end of the pin board but in using this method you always have to nudge it past by some amount. The deeply knifed lines on the pin board provide a trough for the saw to run in and make it easier to start the cut as well. In using this method you are using deeply knifed lines on both boards in order to help guide the saw and help with diagnosing unacceptable efforts.

Though slightly non-traditional (?) it's worth a try if nothing else is working for you. If this doesn't result in a pretty close fit the first time you try it, you should be able to tell where your sawing went awry by examining the knifed lines vs. the saw cuts. If the cuts were bang on in the knifed lines then all you need to do the next time is adjust the projection of the tail board past the end of the pin board -- less if joint was too tight, more if joint was too loose.

Relax your hands and wrists a little. Don't put a death grip on the saw.

I'd lose the fret saw; they almost inevitably bruise the arris of at least a few pins or tails. There are ways to avoid this, but it adds time and tedium to the process. Cutting joints isn't where you make up time on a project, but it shouldn't take a day and half to dovetail a drawer either.

All my lousy two cents' worth.


----------



## custard (2 Jul 2017)

CStanford":3bfdsrfy said:


> When marking the pins, nudge the tail board ever so slightly past the end of the pin board - around a 32nd (this is a visual, it is not measured) is a good place to start when practicing. Knife deeply on both the end and long grain of the pin board. Saw *on the knifed lines* of the pin board (don't worry about sawing in the waste). They'll either be a perfect fit, or slightly loose which in that case you nudge the tail board a little farther the next time. Work it out on scrap first. The harder the species the less you have to nudge the tail board past the end of the pin board but in using this method you always have to nudge it past by some amount. The deeply knifed lines on the pin board provide a trough for the saw to run in and make it easier to start the cut as well. In using this method you are using deeply knifed lines on both boards in order to help guide the saw and help with diagnosing unacceptable efforts.
> 
> Though slightly non-traditional (?) it's worth a try if nothing else is working for you. If this doesn't result in a pretty close fit the first time you try it, you should be able to tell where your sawing went awry by examining the knifed lines vs. the saw cuts. If the cuts were bang on in the knifed lines then all you need to do the next time is adjust the projection of the tail board past the end of the pin board -- less if joint was too tight, more if joint was too loose.



That's pretty much the same method I referred to in my post, your 1/32" is my 0.5-1.0mm!

This is getting into PHD level dovetailing rather than the simple method the OP is looking for, but there's a really elegant technique to achieve this, in the UK it's sometimes called "the merest glimmer of light method". 

Basically you place a bright light beneath the joint during the transfer and tap the tail board forward until the light is just about, but not quite, extinguished. What's lovely about this technique is that it automatically adjusts the overhang to take account of the relative densities of the timbers used in the drawer front and drawer sides. So Sycamore drawer sides will give a tighter fit, which is okay as it's easily compressed, where as Oak or Ebony drawer sides will be a fraction looser, which is appropriate to prevent these harder timbers splitting.

If I can remember I'll photograph the process next time I use it and post the results. I don't use this technique every time, but when I have a job that I absolutely, categorically have to get right, then it's how I go about the job.

For example, this drawer front is one of three from a laminated and curved section that already represents about 50 or 60 hours of work just for the drawer fronts. Furthermore I wanted needle point or London pattern dovetails despite this being a curved drawer. Screwing this up would really have spoilt my day, which is when the "merest glimmer of light" method comes in useful,


----------



## monkeybiter (2 Jul 2017)

Here's a piccy I took today of some vintage drawers from some old Italian furniture. They are, by definition, professionally made.
Can you do better?


----------



## B3nder (2 Jul 2017)

Blimey loads of great advice thanks to one and all.

I will try the 0.5mm overhang and stick with the knife for marking. 
Although a dart is a great alternative. 

Something I didn't think to do was, to check for square on the cuts as suggested above.
It getting better, just not close enough. I'm going to keep trying with the saw fit rather than
Adjusting with a chisel. Worst case I'll have lots of fire wood!

I will tr6 to sort some pics over the next day or so.


----------



## CStanford (2 Jul 2017)

custard":3s4495ul said:


> CStanford":3s4495ul said:
> 
> 
> > When marking the pins, nudge the tail board ever so slightly past the end of the pin board - around a 32nd (this is a visual, it is not measured) is a good place to start when practicing. Knife deeply on both the end and long grain of the pin board. Saw *on the knifed lines* of the pin board (don't worry about sawing in the waste). They'll either be a perfect fit, or slightly loose which in that case you nudge the tail board a little farther the next time. Work it out on scrap first. The harder the species the less you have to nudge the tail board past the end of the pin board but in using this method you always have to nudge it past by some amount. The deeply knifed lines on the pin board provide a trough for the saw to run in and make it easier to start the cut as well. In using this method you are using deeply knifed lines on both boards in order to help guide the saw and help with diagnosing unacceptable efforts.
> ...



I ran across this method mentioned in a book by George Buchanan, I think, several years ago. Works for me. Faster in most instances too, though clearly with the breathtaking work in your photos one would take more time to get things just right.


----------



## Eric The Viking (3 Jul 2017)

monkeybiter":13e30plo said:


> Here's a piccy I took today of some vintage drawers from some old Italian furniture. They are, by definition, professionally made.



That is the most encouraging post I've seen for years! I might even do better than that, one day


----------



## Jacob (3 Jul 2017)

Back in the day when hand cut dovetails were the normal way to make stuff they weren't half as bothered as we are nowadays. It's only latterly that DTs have become this venerated technique with endless discussions of how to do them, and the DTs becoming the most salient feature of a design.
If you look at even good quality old furniture you could be surprised; a lot done freehand and slightly irregular, very variable angles (non of this 1/6, 1/8, nonsense!) nearly all obviously over-cut and so on. NB the so called "London" pattern is the most common on light domestic furniture drawers - not because it's stylish but because it's the easiest to do. I doubt it was called the "London" pattern back then.
Different world.

PS and I doubt they used coping saws to remove the waste - a very fiddly and slow technique. I'm sure they would have just whacked it out with chisels - with a few quick vertical saw cuts to help.


----------



## woodbrains (3 Jul 2017)

Hello,

Have you tried cutting the pins first when doing half blinds? For some reason this seems a less common method but makes sense to me. It is MUCH easier to mark the tails through the wide tail sockets, in fact I use a pencil so my poor old eyes can see the marks. It is also easier to cut the tail sockets, true up any inaccuracies and generally clean out the corners when you aren't concerned with needing them to fit the tails yet. When the pins are looking perfect, it is easier to cut the tails to fit, there is less work to do and the cuts are simpler, so less chance on going wrong. 

Mike.


----------



## Andy Kev. (3 Jul 2017)

Jacob":yib1xwm7 said:


> Back in the day when hand cut dovetails were the normal way to make stuff they weren't half as bothered as we are nowadays. It's only latterly that DTs have become this venerated technique with endless discussions of how to do them, and the DTs becoming the most salient feature of a design.
> If you look at even good quality old furniture you could be surprised; a lot done freehand and slightly irregular, very variable angles (non of this 1/6, 1/8, nonsense!) nearly all obviously over-cut and so on. NB the so called "London" pattern is the most common on light domestic furniture drawers - not because it's stylish but because it's the easiest to do. I doubt it was called the "London" pattern back then.
> Different world.
> 
> PS and I doubt they used coping saws to remove the waste - a very fiddly and slow technique. I'm sure they would have just whacked it out with chisels - with a few quick vertical saw cuts to help.


I would imagine that the chosen angle of the dovetail is a matter for nobody but the maker or perhaps in the case of a pro, the client so IMO you're right to describe the prescriptive approach to angles as nonsense. It seems to me that the rest of it is about the pursuit of consistently producing clean, crisp joints of which one can be proud and that is something which can seem extremely daunting to the beginner while being second nature to the seasoned practitioner - hence the perennial questions/debates.


----------



## custard (3 Jul 2017)

woodbrains":1pxdiwzq said:


> Hello,
> 
> Have you tried cutting the pins first when doing half blinds? For some reason this seems a less common method but makes sense to me.



Interesting, I use the pins first method for cutting secret mitred dovetails because that's the only way to do it. And I've met several accomplished craftsmen who _always_ cut pins first. I agree that once you've built the simple fixtures and jigs necessary for a pins first approach the transfer _does_ become easier. I suspect the reason is that a tails first transfer demands that you preserve the majority of the knife line for a snug fit, where as with a pin first transfer the knife line has to be completely removed which makes life easier. Even though personally I'm more comfortable with a tails first approach due to force of habit, like you I recognise the advantages of pins first and I'm puzzled why it isn't more commonly used.


----------



## custard (3 Jul 2017)

While we're talking about dovetails there's a twist regarding the dovetails you use at the _back_ of the drawer. I'm conscious this all gets a bit "angels dancing on the head of the pin", so if you're more of a pragmatic furniture maker then you should probably skip this post!

Here's the issue. On a traditional English drawer, built with drawer slips, the bottom pin at the back _has_ to have it's lower edge flat rather than angled in order to allow the drawer bottom to slide in. So the question then is, do you have the top pin as the mirror image in order to balance it out (that's what I do), or do you stick to the normal shape?

Here's a photo showing a typical back on one of my drawers,







Personally I've never given this a great deal of thought, especially as it's unlikely to be ever seen by a client, I prefer the symmetry so that's the way I cut my dovetails at the back. 

However once I was exhibiting some of my furniture, and during the course of the show two fairly eminent makers wandered up and pulled out a drawer. The first tapped the "balanced" dovetail layout and gave a silently approving thumbs up. The second angrily jabbed at it and muttered that it was self indulgent and unnecessary. 

I guess you can't please all the people all the time!


----------



## woodbrains (3 Jul 2017)

custard":2a54yp4x said:


> While we're talking about dovetails there's a twist regarding the dovetails you use at the _back_ of the drawer. I'm conscious this all gets a bit "angels dancing on the head of the pin", so if you're more of a pragmatic furniture maker then you should probably skip this post!
> 
> Here's the issue. On a traditional English drawer, built with drawer slips, the bottom pin at the back _has_ to have it's lower edge flat rather than angled in order to allow the drawer bottom to slide in. So the question then is, do you have the top pin as the mirror image in order to balance it out (that's what I do), or do you stick to the normal shape?
> 
> ...



Hello,

It wouldn't take any extra work to make the top tail match the bottom one, not a bit, so how could it be self indulgent? Surely it is noticing the details that makes for fine work. I think the craftsman that was irked by the detail was actually secretly annoyed that he hadn't done it himself!

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (3 Jul 2017)

custard":3icbdw9s said:


> While we're talking about dovetails there's a twist regarding the dovetails you use at the _back_ of the drawer. I'm conscious this all gets a bit "angels dancing on the head of the pin", so if you're more of a pragmatic furniture maker then you should probably skip this post!
> 
> Here's the issue. On a traditional English drawer, built with drawer slips, the bottom pin at the back _has_ to have it's lower edge flat rather than angled in order to allow the drawer bottom to slide in. So the question then is, do you have the top pin as the mirror image in order to balance it out (that's what I do), or do you stick to the normal shape?
> 
> ...


Backs of (trad) drawers are thinner than yours - which means the DT pins have to be fatter to give them enough strength. 
Custard I see you are following the strictly modern and completely redundant fashion of having a slot + screw! You don't need anything with a thick bottom like that and anyway that screw detail doesn't work. I think it was invented by Wearing. You will never ever find it on old work.
Thin bottoms sometimes pinned and shrinkage takes place in and out of the front slot, which isn't good.


----------



## woodbrains (3 Jul 2017)

Jacob":ht7s955x said:


> Backs of (trad) drawers are thinner than yours - which means the DT pins have to be fatter to give them enough strength.
> Custard I see you are following the strictly modern and completely redundant fashion of having a slot + screw! You don't need anything with a thick bottom like that and anyway that screw detail doesn't work. I think it was invented by Wearing. You will never ever find it on old work.
> Thin bottoms sometimes pinned and shrinkage takes place in and out of the front slot, which isn't good.



Hello,

You were warned to skip that post if you didn't like the content!

I don't want to write out of turn, it is Custard's post, after all but, I think you'll find that drawers is a relatively small one. I would guess the back is no more that 5/16 in thick which is no thicker than traditional drawers of that size. 

If it is not, in your opinion, good to pin the drawer bottom to the back and let seasonal movement take place in the front, but you don't like the idea of a slot and screw, then what exactly do we do? On one hand you say the trad way is the best way, then go and pick a fault with it, when it suits, but not allow a modern approach to answer the problem. If there are no trad examples which work in this case, how can doing something non traditional be faulted? It is about time that you realised that doing things the old way isn't always efficacious. There are lots of antiques with split case sides and table tops because no allowance was made for central heating. Do we change the way we work, or stick to the traditional and hope.

Mike.


----------



## monkeybiter (3 Jul 2017)

Surely 'trad' is only important if you're restoring? 
If it's new then don't you just want 'best'?


----------



## MusicMan (4 Jul 2017)

On the Georgian bureau that I restored recently (see separate thread) the drawers were pretty big and the bases about 1/2 - 5/8" thick (chamfered at the edges to 1/4" so the slots were narrower), with grain running left to right. The backs of the drawers were indeed thoroughly nailed in, with quite substantial wrought-iron square nails. And yes, the shrinkage had left a gap at the front of some of the drawers. I couldn't remove the nails (into oak, so really locked in) without wrecking the base. So I put up with the gaps, except on the very deep lowest drawer which would be expected to take a lot of weight, and also had the biggest gap. I did a rather complicated infill of the empty slot. I glued up two pieces the thickness of the drawer edge, overlapping them. The upper part could be manoeuvred into the slot and the piece underneath was glued to the underside of the drawer. A wedge arrangement during glueing (see pic) pulled the insert just a little out of the slot and pressed it against the edge of the board, thus still leaving a little space for expansion if humidity increased in the future.






I am sure Custard's furniture will be a candidate for restoration a few hundred years from now, and a simple non-corroding screw to retain the drawer base will make the restorer's life a lot easier!

Keith


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2017)

MusicMan":1p4o9t4x said:


> On the Georgian bureau that I restored recently (see separate thread) the drawers were pretty big and the bases about 1/2 - 5/8" thick (chamfered at the edges to 1/4" so the slots were narrower), with grain running left to right. The backs of the drawers were indeed thoroughly nailed in, with quite substantial wrought-iron square nails.


This fairly common but I've got a feeling that it was done later; at some point in the drawers life and enthusiastic amateur woodworker noticed the absence of any fixings and decided it was time to use his new hammer! Perhaps when the base had come adrift and was in need of fixing.
I've pulled out nails in similar situations and pushed the base back into the front slot with a dab of glue to keep it there. By way of confirmation I've also seen plenty of examples of good quality furniture done that way from new (no nails, nothing). A base 1/2 to 5/8" thick doesn't need holding up at the back it's plenty stiff enough for normal use.
The single screw (Wearing's, or perhaps Barnsley - they were always trying to improve things , not necessarily successfully) is doomed to fail - any load on the base and the tiny bearing surface of screw against wood would press in and jam tight - any movement in the base would be more likely to cause a split rather than allow a smooth movement of any sort - though I haven't actually seen this I'm just guessing - the screw in a slot is not at all common - just recent work done under the influence of Wearing (or some other hack woodwork journalist!)



monkeybiter":1p4o9t4x said:


> Surely 'trad' is only important if you're restoring?
> If it's new then don't you just want 'best'?


If you are using hand tools then trad is usually best. There was a huge industry making stuff very efficiently by hand - everything from huge ships, coaches, boats, buildings, millions of other artifacts; they really knew what they were doing.


woodbrains":1p4o9t4x said:


> ........ but not allow a modern approach to answer the problem. .....


What problem? A lot of modern woodworking seems to involve solutions to non existent problems. :lol:


----------



## B3nder (4 Jul 2017)

I'm looking for a functional joint that isn't too gappy 
I'd love to have a joint that also looks great, but firth ando
Foremost I'm looking for function.

So I tired another set yesterday instead of sawing out the waste
I chiseled it out. Also really slowed down. End result being fit
From saw, more importantly no splitting . Although gappy. 

Progress being made and getting better.

Once I can't drive a bus through the gap on a couple of the gaps I'll
Post pics of my first once and latest one.


----------



## MusicMan (4 Jul 2017)

Jacob, you may be right that it was done later, but it certainly doesn't look like it to me in this instance. The boards are very wide (110 cm) and do definitely sag under "drawer load" if not supported. The nails are identical to the ones used in other structural places such as the drawer runners and fixing the back, and are of the square "rose" head, tapered pyramid type that went out of fashion in around 1800 when cut nails were introduced. They are also very neatly done, quite precise nailing in fact. Bear in mind that this was a country piece not a fashionable metro bureau.

I'd have loved to repair as you suggest, but with iron in oak after over 200 years (and damp at some point) they really were locked in by rust. I could get the nailed back off, but that was a straight push (with heavy hammer and wooden drift); a straight push on the drawer base would of course split the wood at the grooves.


----------



## Jacob (4 Jul 2017)

MusicMan":3fffkjez said:


> Jacob, you may be right that it was done later, but it certainly doesn't look like it to me in this instance. The boards are very wide (110 cm) and do definitely sag under "drawer load" if not supported. The nails are identical to the ones used in other structural places such as the drawer runners and fixing the back, and are of the square "rose" head, tapered pyramid type that went out of fashion in around 1800 when cut nails were introduced. They are also very neatly done, quite precise nailing in fact. Bear in mind that this was a country piece not a fashionable metro bureau.
> 
> I'd have loved to repair as you suggest, but with iron in oak after over 200 years (and damp at some point) they really were locked in by rust. I could get the nailed back off, but that was a straight push (with heavy hammer and wooden drift); a straight push on the drawer base would of course split the wood at the grooves.


I'm sure you are right if the drawers are that wide. They wouldn't have anticipated modern dry conditions to shrink the bottom out of the front slot. 
A better class of work would have a muntin dividing the bottom into two pieces, needing less support.


----------



## MusicMan (4 Jul 2017)

Agreed re the muntin, but not sure they had come in by 1755, at least out in the provinces. They had only just started putting the drawer grain left to right rather than front to back. And for sure no central heating to worry about.

The shrinkage was enormous. The sides had shrunk so much that the drawers stuck out at the front. I had to remove the back and remount it about 1 cm further out!

I guess one could say that the wood wasn't seasoned enough, but our woodworking experience normally lasts a few decades rather than 250 years. I don't think that our accepted norms actually work over this time scale. For example, my bureau was stored in a shed, not damp but essentially at the local outdoor humidity, for 20 years. And I suspect it was in a shed for a while before, judging by the damp damage and rot at the base. Conventional wisdom would say that it would humidify and move back to its original air-dried thickness. But it didn't. After some period, gradual shrinkage may become irreversible. There's research to do in this field.


----------



## custard (5 Jul 2017)

MusicMan":2r2d27i0 said:


> Agreed re the muntin, but not sure they had come in by 1755, at least out in the provinces. They had only just started putting the drawer grain left to right rather than front to back.



You're absolutely right, and it was this switch, from having the grain on drawer bottoms running front to back, to having it running side to side, that completely changed the method of drawer construction. The classical English method of drawer construction, that I follow today, had been fully worked out on high end furniture in all its mechanical details by about 1800. I suspect, but don't know this for a fact, that it was actually developed forty or fifty years earlier on continental furniture.

Regarding muntins, the general convention today is to include muntins on drawers wider than about 24". Personally I think they look so good that I'll sometimes include them on drawers from about 18" or 20" wide. Another little design detail is that once I get up to drawers that are about 28" wide I'll often use a double muntin, but rather than have the three sections of drawer bottom at equal width I'll make the central section slightly wider and the two outside sections slightly narrower. I think that looks very pleasing.

Another little design courtesy is to ensure that where you have two or more drawers side by side, then the grain on the drawer bottoms runs in an unbroken line right across _all_ the drawers. It'll hardly ever be seen once the drawers are filled, but top end furniture making is all about incorporating beautiful little details that will surprise and delight even if it takes many years for them to be discovered.

On the subject of little details, here's an Oak muntin that I made,






I'd previously been unhappy with the bead that I normally run on the edges of drawer slips and muntins, in that the quirk was so narrow that if I wiped away any glue squeeze out with a damp cloth the quirk might close up and become less visible. So I asked Phil of Philly Planes to make me a moulding plane with a slightly fatter quirk to compensate, which you can see in this photo.

Here's this later muntin shown against the type of muntin that I used to make,






You can also see in this photo what I mean by having an unbroken grain progression on the drawer bottom, but where there are multiple drawers side by side I follow this harmonious detail right across all the drawers.


----------



## MusicMan (5 Jul 2017)

Custard

Thanks for the post - I love all those design details that you incorporate.

Keith


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2017)

custard":15ytmhhi said:


> ...... The classical English method of drawer construction, that I follow today, had been fully worked out on high end furniture in all its mechanical details by about 1800. I suspect, but don't know this for a fact, that it was actually developed forty or fifty years earlier on continental furniture.


Sounds very likely to me - except for the screw in the slot which I think is a very modern and rather clumsy afterthought.
NB low end furniture was done much the same but with less care, more speed, less finishing. Only very small or very cheap drawers would have slots in the sides instead of slips.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2017)

If you do decide to put a screw in the slot of a drawer bottom then the bottom should be no thicker than the length of the un-threaded portion of the screw under the head. Use a round head solid brass screw and washer, and don't snug it up too tight. Drill a pilot hole. If the bottom does start moving and ends up engaging the threaded portion of the screw then the technique stands a good chance of being no longer useful for its intended purpose. Wax the washer and the unthreaded shank of the screw. You can leave the washer off if you wish. The drawer bottom must have something smooth to move against -- the unthreaded shank, and not against the screw's threads. If the slot is substantially wider than the screw's shank, then do use the washer, as you'll need it to actually fasten the bottom to the back. The tendency in this instance is to screw the whole thing down too tight, which will make the bottom split when it starts to move, the slot being not effective at all. Never use a screw that's threaded all the way to the head - carpentry screws basically.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (5 Jul 2017)

The other way is to plough a deep groove at the rear of the drawer front. The rear of the drawer bottom is then fixed, and expansion takes place into the front groove. A neater solution, but only possible if the drawer front is thick enough.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2017)

The bottom is always inserted into a groove in the front, is it not? Except perhaps for very small drawers. Expansion and contraction take place in the front groove and via the slot in the back. You can't really force a board to move in only one direction. If you fix it hard at the back, socked down tight with no slot or socked down really tight with a slot, it will split eventually. Maybe if it were a rattle-around fit in the front groove this would work, but even then I tend to doubt it.

This is why it is always advised to be careful gluing up a door with a floating panel -- even a little squeeze out can lock it in on one side and cause a split later.

One occasionally hears of putting a dab of glue in the middle of a panel and slot arrangement, middle of a breadboard run, etc., under the assumption the panel can still expand and contract fully in its width (or length depending on grain orientation). Well, it will move and when it does that little spot of glue will give way - probably in the first full cycle of the seasons. It's a waste of time.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2017)

CStanford":ox7y711n said:


> The bottom is always inserted into a groove in the front, is it not? Except perhaps for very small drawers. Expansion and contraction take place in the front groove and via the slot in the back.
> 
> 
> > Unless you glue it into the front slot - then it'll move at the unscrewed un nailed back edge.
> ...


You can - if you fix one edge then the other will move


> .....
> This is why it is always advised to be careful gluing up a door with a floating panel -- even a little squeeze out can lock it in on one side and cause a split later.


There is a handy wheeze here which is to glut it with a dab in the slots just dead centre top and bottom. Then the edges can move freely but equally, without pulling right out of one slot.


----------



## katellwood (5 Jul 2017)

My method

When using the slotted screw technique in drawer bottoms and to ensure any movement is at the back of the drawer follow the directions given by cstanford to facilitate movement but secure the drawer bottom to the drawer front with a small glue block on the underside. put it in the centre so as not to interfere with any drawer stops in the opening

This ensures no unsightly gap will appear and is easily removable by cutting the block out without terminal damage should the bottom need to be removed.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2017)

Jacob, see my revised post -- I don't think the spot of glue will hold. I don't do many repairs, but I've done a few and I've seen the remnants of a spot of glue - hide glue. Maybe this would work with Elmer's white PVA -- something flexible. It won't work with hide glue or anything else that sets up hard and brittle.


----------



## custard (5 Jul 2017)

Pity, I've just made up a couple of drawers and I could have done a WIP. Hardly a month goes by without making a drawer so if I think on I'll do one next time. Here's the underside of one of my nearly completed drawers.







In a decent quality drawer the drawer stop is almost always morticed into the front rail, so you need a free space of about 1/8" or 3/16" (or 3 or 4mm) _between_ the drawer bottom and bottom of the drawer slips/drawer sides to accomodate the drawer stop. That gives a hard dimensional parameter for any drawer design. Because the grain of the drawer bottom runs side to side you also need to allow for initial shrinkage and seasonal movement that will run front to back, that's another key parameter of drawer design.






The brass screw at the back allows for this movement. You drill a pilot hole into the drawer back, and a corresponding clearance hole in the drawer bottom. You use a countersink bit to allow the head of the screw to sit below the surface, you saw out a slot, then use a chisel to extend the angles of the countersink hole as chamfers to the back of the drawer bottom. That takes all of about five minutes, in other words it's no big deal.






This is where it becomes a bit of brain twister (and as so often in cabinet making, I find myself full of admiration for the ingenuity and intellectual horse power of the craftsmen who dreamt all this up two hundred years ago). The drawer bottom runs in a groove in the drawer slips, and it also engages in a groove in the back of the drawer front. But here's the thing, those grooves _don't_ line up! You can just make this out in the above photo. So the way you form the the drawer bottom is you work a rebate half the thickness of the drawer bottom at the sides, but you work the same rebate on the front of the drawer bottom from the _opposite_ face. As I said, this is a bit of a mental juggling act, but it's this that allows you to have drawer slips that are completely flush with the drawer bottom, which in turn means any papers in your drawer won't get rucked up at the edges...plus it just looks about a thousand times cooler than those nasty, proud quadrant drawer slips!






Flip the drawer right way up and this is what the back end looks like.

This basic mechanical structure that I use for drawers is very similar to that of nearly every other custom furniture maker I've met in the UK (and as far as I can see it's increasingly common amongst makers right across the English speaking world). I know for a fact it was taught as the top end cabinetmaker's default method throughout the twentieth century, and I've seen examples on antiques back to the very early Victorian period that are the same in all relevant details. As Keith pointed out, once drawer bottoms had the grain running from side to side (from about 1800 onwards) then a new method was needed to allow for front to back expansion and contraction, so it's hardly surprising that so many makers quickly consolidated around this basic design.

Sure, there are some makers who plough a different furrow. Either radically different such as Wales & Wales who have abandoned dovetailing altogether, or in subtle details such as incorporating Rosewood as laminated strips on the drawer runners to reduce friction and wear. But this basic mechanical design for premium quality drawer construction is probably more consistent and accepted than most other aspects of furniture making. Practical experience has demonstrated that these style of drawers can last well over hundred years before needing remedial work, they can carry extraordinarily heavy loads while still being easy to open and close, and with a bit of care you can build them to fit with incredibly tight tolerances.


----------



## custard (5 Jul 2017)

If by the way the OP hasn't given up and run away screaming, I'd say absolutely none of this is required for a newcomer's first foray into dovetailing. These are more the high end techniques you need to justify the massive premium that hand work will inevitably have to ask over production line furniture!


----------



## memzey (5 Jul 2017)

Thanks for that insight Custard. I'm afraid it's left me more confused than before though. I don't understand what practical advantage is gained by reversing the rebate orientation at the fron of the drawer and thereby necessitating offset grooves. Can you clarify that for me please?


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2017)

CStanford":1fqfsroc said:


> Jacob, see my revised post -- I don't think the spot of glue will hold. I don't do many repairs, but I've done a few and I've seen the remnants of a spot of glue - hide glue. Maybe this would work with Elmer's white PVA -- something flexible. It won't work with hide glue or anything else that sets up hard and brittle.


It works until it fails, by which time the panel may well be settled centrally and not prone to move. In fact they usually get jammed in tightish, due to warping etc.


----------



## MusicMan (5 Jul 2017)

Interesting, Custard. In my bureau the slots were indeed lined up all round, and the drawer bottoms chamfered from beneath, at quite a shallow chamfer, to about half thickness. Looks like it was an early transitional from front/back to left/right grain. Also, it was a country piece meant for routine hard work, not a piece of exquisite Town furniture.

For those interested, there is a good display in the V&A museum furniture floor (where I went to research bureau construction). It shows a cutaway full-size replica of a typical Georgian chest construction, showing the details of all the joints. As Custard says, they were incredibly well thought out.

Getting back to dovetails, it's not been mentioned that the "london" pattern, which came in mostly during Victorian times, has another advantage, of screening out as much end grain as possible from the front of the drawer. Thus making it less susceptible to changes with humidity changes. This may have been a significant part of the reason why pins got narrower as time went on.

Keith 

Keith


----------



## custard (5 Jul 2017)

memzey":212wa3u6 said:


> Thanks for that insight Custard. I'm afraid it's left me more confused than before though. I don't understand what practical advantage is gained by reversing the rebate orientation at the fron of the drawer and thereby necessitating offset grooves. Can you clarify that for me please?



Here's the explanation.






The sketch shows the drawer side, the drawer slip, and the drawer bottom. You can see the groove (normally about 4mm x 4mm) worked centrally in the drawer slip, and the rebate (again about 4mm x 4mm) worked into the top edge of the 8mm thick drawer bottom. You can see how the top of the drawer bottom is nice and flush with the top of the drawer slip, and how the drawer slip allows an elegant thin drawer side while also increasing the bearing surface on the drawer runners thereby reducing wear. 

But here's the catch, the groove in the drawer front has to sit _entirely_ within the lower pin mortice (so it gets filled with the corresponding dovetail on the drawer side), otherwise the groove would be visible on the side of the drawer and it would look like sh*t. But if the drawer front groove was in the _same_ position as on the drawer slip then it wouldn't leave you enough space for a nicely executed dovetail. 

Like I said it's a bit of a brain twister when you first try to envisage it all, but that's basically why it's done this way.


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2017)

memzey":31pnpg9v said:


> Thanks for that insight Custard. I'm afraid it's left me more confused than before though. I don't understand what practical advantage is gained by reversing the rebate orientation at the fron of the drawer and thereby necessitating offset grooves. Can you clarify that for me please?


Custard's detail keeps (top of) the bottom and the top edges of the slips flush in one plane but has the front housing flush with the top (of the bottom) i.e. no visible gap - if you can follow that! as in the right hand drawing below
It's a lot of bother for a neat joint and a more common detail is a lot less trouble and fundamentally more durable - the under edges of the bottom board are chamfered and fit into slots in the front board and in the slips all in one plane, which means the slip top edges are higher than the bottom board as in the drawing in the middle


----------



## custard (5 Jul 2017)

The method "A" that Jacob illustrates is perfectly serviceable and widely used. But it is "second quality", let me emphasise that's not the same as "bad quality" (and I'd far rather see method A than see jig cut dovetails and Blum runners), but for top quality work there's no substitute for method "B". Here's why,

-the quadrant moulding on top of the slip in method A means you can't fully utilise the internal space within the drawer, a box or a book for example can't be tucked up flush against the drawer side.
-the quadrant slip moulding also brings another disadvantage, imagine you stored a sheef of papers in your drawer, then they'd be bent up on one edge where they sat on the quadrant and would retain that deformity once they were removed. Far neater to have a flat, flush slip as in method B.
-the slips in Jacob's illustration aren't quite correct, the method A slip has to be rectangular in section as shown in order to free up enough space below the chamfered drawer bottom for the drawer stop. But the slip in method B can be square in section (as I showed on my sketch) and still allow clearance for the drawer stop, so this frees up a little more useable storage space inside the drawer.
-with case furniture of any size there's sure to be at least one drawer that requires a muntin. Jacob's drawing doesn't show a muntin, but if you follow the general layout of method "A" you'd have the muntin standing proud of the drawer bottom, and that really does start to look nasty. Where as forming the muntins according to the principles of method "B" allows them to be completely flush (if you look at the photos I previously posted of some of my drawers you can what this looks like).


----------



## Jacob (5 Jul 2017)

True - they are all a compromise e.g. if you look at the two alternatives B has lost a little drawer depth. If you drop it lower the bottom edge of the slip starts being a bit on the thin side which makes it weaker - made worse if there is any wear after years of use!
There's lots of variations and in-between solutions


----------



## memzey (5 Jul 2017)

Thanks guys, I think I get it now. To be honest I had made an erroneous mental connection between what Custard was describing in the way of slips and somehow ensuring seasonal movement was expressed in the front or back of the drawer, as this was the topic being discussed immediately before. Took a bit of mental gymnastics and two very well set out explanations but I think I'm there now!


----------



## MusicMan (5 Jul 2017)

Quite a learning experience. My old bureau does not have slips on the drawers at all. I imagine this was because it is relatively simple/crude construction compared to those Custard and Jacob are talking about. The grooves are directly in the drawer sides, and the drawer bottoms are the upper runners. And the disadvantage after 250 years is clear. The relatively thin drawer sides had worn badly and each one needed a slip gluing to make it the original depth. And the (pine) fixed runners had also worn very badly, all needed resurfacing and the top ones had to be made from scratch. The much wider bearing surfaces given by slips is a real advantage. 

Anyone know when slips were introduced? Mine is not the only bureau/chest I have seen without drawer slips.


----------



## CStanford (5 Jul 2017)

Rectangular slips are used in desk drawers, flush, quarter round, or otherwise moulded slips are used in drawers that will hold textiles -- to prevent snagging.

A flush centre muntin is not necessarily desirable in a large desk drawer (for example the central 'pencil' drawer), and as long as it's moulded doesn't matter all that much if it's proud in a drawer that will hold clothing or other textiles.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jul 2017)

I've got a lot of old junk furniture and one or two good bits. My favourite drawer is probably 100 ish years old in a crude Pembroke type table. It's solid oak - the four sides are nailed to each other at each corner and the bottom is nailed to them full width so the bottom actually bears on the runners. Then there's a false front nailed on with a turned knob. Seems to work perfectly well and should last another 100!
TBH on the whole I'm more interested in 'ordinary' stuff rather than so-called 'high end'. Anything is possible if no expense spared, but stuff made under pressure has to be practical and everything done efficiently, without going to great lengths to cover the tracks. The techniques are not necessarily different, they are just done more freehandly - quicker but less tidily. This makes it more interesting as you can _see_ what and how they worked much better than with highly finished items. Over-cuts, plane/pencil/gauge marks, unfinished surfaces out of sight including pit saw rip marks on the backs of backs etc. Intelligent use of inferior timber to present the best face. And you get a sense of the speed they worked from the slightly erratic DT angles etc.
The people making this stuff were very likely perfectly capable of 'high end' , but were working to a price, under pressure.
Even in all hand-work shops there would have been a production line with components made in large batches. Non of this fiddling about with time consuming bespoke one offs!


----------



## CStanford (6 Jul 2017)

I think the Seddon firm had over 400 employees at its peak in the late 1700s. They surely must have had the work segregated and departmentalized.


----------



## woodbrains (6 Jul 2017)

CStanford":2wjgybw5 said:


> I think the Seddon firm had over 400 employees at its peak in the late 1700s. They surely must have had the work segregated and departmentalized.



Hello,

Absolutely, they and many others. A compelling reason not to produce work as they did!

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (6 Jul 2017)

woodbrains":e1ld7rmq said:


> CStanford":e1ld7rmq said:
> 
> 
> > I think the Seddon firm had over 400 employees at its peak in the late 1700s. They surely must have had the work segregated and departmentalized.
> ...


Chippendale was a mass producer too. In fact he'd make anything including coffins - even painted pine furniture!
The bespoke one-off artist was a bit of a romantic fantasy, coming from the arts n crafts movement and other sources.


----------



## CStanford (7 Jul 2017)

Yes it is! Made me revive a somewhat dormant talent for the geometry of roof framing... and in my old age to boot.


----------



## woodbrains (7 Jul 2017)

Jacob":1uuse4p1 said:


> woodbrains":1uuse4p1 said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":1uuse4p1 said:
> ...



Hello,

We all aspire to be like the Dickensian piece worker, what a lovely life of stimulating and enriching work! Why make something to the best of our ability, when the expedient is always less challenging intellectually and skillfully; quicker and perfunctory. No need for better than just about good enough, (or just a little worse, let us not over reach). It must make the craftsman leap out of bed each morning with incandescent enthusiasm! 

What is a lone craftsman to do; stop making fine things, employ a dozen semi-skilled jobbers and make coffins, or just get on with making fine stuff that people aspire to. In the history of the human race, never until the Arts and Crafts movement, did any one dare make something 'fine', it just wasn't heard of? Or you might just be talking out of a different orifice to everyone else.

Mike.


----------



## iNewbie (7 Jul 2017)

You know what Einstein once said, Mike: Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds


----------



## Jacob (7 Jul 2017)

woodbrains":27bs52r1 said:


> ....
> What is a lone craftsman to do; stop making fine things, employ a dozen semi-skilled jobbers and make coffins, or just get on with making fine stuff that people aspire to. ...


If a thing is worth making why not make ten of them? You can be sure that the quality will improve radically as you turn them out and all the little problems of prototypes will be resolved, one by one.
You can do this as a one man band it doesn't require a team of slaves. And believe it or not it is strangely satisfying - particularly after marking everything up and you are working on autopilot on hundreds of components - all the mortices in one go, all the rebates, etc. etc. all piling up in neat stacks around the workshop.
The big bonus is that the actual cost per item will be hugely reduced and profit hugely increased. Or to look at it another way - rationalising production frees you to make a better product at the same cost.
In the real world very little is, or was ever, made bespoke, item by item. Even flint knapping was organised in a production line!

PS it makes so much sense in so many ways - e.g. it means you can buy a bigger stock of materials at lower prices but more importantly - you can pick and choose better from a bigger stock, to optimise the way you use the wood. This can only result in improved quality overall.

PPS some of the main proponents of the artist/craftsmen model actually earn a living by teaching or journalism, if anything. Some well known names spring to mind who seem to make nothing at all!


----------



## Jacob (7 Jul 2017)

iNewbie":19s1umjz said:


> You know what Einstein once said, Mike: Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds


It's OK don't worry about me I'm used to violent opposition!


----------



## cowfoot (7 Jul 2017)

This thread has taken a few interesting twists and turns!

For what it's worth, Kirkham's "London Furniture Trade 1700-1870" points out that individual makers were on the absolute bottom rung of production, making items from substandard materials and having to hawk them around for a very low price. Georgian furniture of high quality, it seems, was a collaborative effort involving at least some degree of specialisation.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jul 2017)

cowfoot":fueuq1ln said:


> This thread has taken a few interesting twists and turns!
> 
> For what it's worth, Kirkham's "London Furniture Trade 1700-1870" points out that individual makers were on the absolute bottom rung of production, making items from substandard materials and having to hawk them around for a very low price. Georgian furniture of high quality, it seems, was a collaborative effort involving at least some degree of specialisation.


it's pretty obvious really. Having designed the stuff and printed the directory you aren't going to sit around staring at a piece of wood waiting for orders! There'd be some finished stock of best sellers and for display, and a great deal of material in various stages of preparation, perhaps ready to be adapted to different design options.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Jul 2017)

The coming of the railways in the 1850s and '60s changed furnituremaking a lot, by making distribution easier. Prior to that, furniture tended to be built and repaired close to where it was used, often using timber sourced locally.

There was scope for some specialisation and batch production in larger towns, especially London, which was by some margin the biggest market in the country. It can't necessarily be assumed that London practices of the 18th and early 19th century were typical, however; in a small market town away from London and the major ports, the local carpenter would have dealt with all manner of wood work; house and commercial carpentry, undertaking, wagon repair and furniture making, along with just about anything else wooden needed in the area. There wouldn't have been much sense in batch production for such businesses, since just about every job would be a one-off. Worth reading 'The Village Carpenter' by Walter Rose for a flavour of such a business.

That would reflect in techniques used. Country furniture tended to carry on using techniques long after they were superceded in fashionable London work. We've already heard about nailed drawer bottoms, but the same applies to other features as well.


----------



## CStanford (7 Jul 2017)

Alan Peters, in Cabinetmaking, the Professional Approach, refers in several passages to certain items being 'best sellers' and other words to that effect. Once you've put people on the payroll they need to be doing something and that something usually means building for least a little bit of salable inventory. Perhaps they didn't build until they had an actual order in hand, but it's clear he sold the same or essentially the same designs repeatedly, though clearly along with special one-off orders too.


----------



## woodbrains (7 Jul 2017)

CStanford":2hgo0clj said:


> Alan Peters, in Cabinetmaking, the Professional Approach, refers in several passages to certain items being 'best sellers' and other words to that effect. Once you've put people on the payroll they need to be doing something and that something usually means building for least a little bit of salable inventory. Perhaps they didn't build until they had an actual order in hand, but it's clear he sold the same or essentially the same designs repeatedly, though clearly along with special one-off orders too.



Hello,

Yes, this is true and even one man outfits will have items repeated in a batch production. But the quality would be maintained. Alan Peters made English piston fit drawers with slips and fine dovetails (sometimes mortice and tenon at the back) in much the same as Custard has illustrated here. No nailed in drawer bottoms, overcut dovetails or any sloppiness anywhere. High standards remained, batch produced or bespoke.

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (7 Jul 2017)

No doubt, but within a certain range of production quality and consistency improve rather than decline.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jul 2017)

Cheshirechappie":1xn40esp said:


> ..... Country furniture tended to carry on using techniques long after they were superceded in fashionable London work. ....


Couldn't be wronger. Innovation came from the 'country' and ended up in London (maybe). Chippendale, Hepplewhite, Sheraton were all form oop north.
The main driving force for innovation would be ship building - a massive industry with many spin offs.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (7 Jul 2017)

Most 'cabinetmaking' techniques (as opposed to 'joinery') were developed in continental Europe, and brought to England by continental craftsmen. They went were the fashionable market was - London - and the techniques they brought (veneering, inlay, marquetry, Boulle work, French polishing etc) filtered out to the provinces over many decades.

I know you like to provoke an argument by posting any old bull, but even by your standards the claim that shipbuilding drove furniture design is pretty laughable.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jul 2017)

Cheshirechappie":3csfvh80 said:


> Most 'cabinetmaking' techniques (as opposed to 'joinery') were developed in continental Europe, and brought to England by continental craftsmen. They went were the fashionable market was - London - and the techniques they brought (veneering, inlay, marquetry, Boulle work, French polishing etc) filtered out to the provinces over many decades.
> 
> I know you like to provoke an argument by posting any old bull, but even by your standards the claim that shipbuilding drove furniture design is pretty laughable.


Ship building drove timber technology and developed woodworking skills. The skills would have filtered back into building architecture and furniture making. You can still see the influence in shop fronts and buildings in coastal towns with a ship building tradition.







In their day ships were the biggest and most complex wooden artefacts ever made, compared to which the decorative fiddlings about of cabinet makers was trivial stuff. 

Coincidence - but in many ways the last vestiges of the great tradition of British woodworking was local to me in the carriage and wagon works of British Rail in Derby.


----------



## woodbrains (7 Jul 2017)

Jacob":2dhy49qs said:


> Cheshirechappie":2dhy49qs said:
> 
> 
> > ..... Country furniture tended to carry on using techniques long after they were superceded in fashionable London work. ....
> ...



Hello,

There is a paradox here, that cannot be explained, except by the fact your statement is beyond stupid. If innovation came from the country, what exactly is 'country vernacular furniture?' 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jul 2017)

woodbrains":3h7h9z5r said:


> Jacob":3h7h9z5r said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":3h7h9z5r said:
> ...


Good question. Vernacular furniture is by definition 'local'. Not sure if there is a London vernacular - they generally borrowed everything from the regions. If you want to know about it have a look at https://regionalfurnituresociety.org/
If you want to understand a bit more about furniture design have a look at some of the books about regional styles - Richard Bebb, Claudia Kinmonth etc. Good place to start!

NB London had little influence on 'vernacular' styles - it was the other way around. As i said Chippendale, Hepplewhite, Sheraton were all regional, not to mention Mackintosh, and so on. The London-centric tendency is very strong but quite ill informed.

Hope that helps. :lol:

PS the Beatles came from Liverpool - I bet you didn't know that!


----------



## woodbrains (7 Jul 2017)

Hello,

Wow, Jacob do you even know what a rhetorical question is? 

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (7 Jul 2017)

woodbrains":1nouvteu said:


> Hello,
> 
> Wow, Jacob do you even know what a rhetorical question is?
> 
> Mike.


If it was rhetorical you'd have to explain what you meant by your term 'country vernacular' as it doesn't quite mean anything to me.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jul 2017)

Another great driving force of craft and design innovation was of course the church (and the chapel). Not just the buildings but right down to the details of furniture, music, art etc. We can still see this in surviving buildings which some might be surprised to find aren't all in London.
In fact if you bother to look you find that that things were being made/built all over the place including the colonies, with creativity and originality wherever the opportunity arose.


----------



## AndyT (8 Jul 2017)

When looking at exterior paint and judging how well it has lasted, I find it's important to consider the aspect. 
For instance, the front of our house is in shadow most of the time. The original woodwork and the paint last very well. Before I take all the credit for it, I need to compare it with the back of the house, which gets full sun plus wind and rain. The work I have done there doesn't last nearly so well. Probably the paint maker's fault.


----------



## Jacob (8 Jul 2017)

Try linseed oil paint on the south side. It's extremely durable, though colours will fade faster than modern paints.
I've been doing a ten year test on a very exposed south facing shed door. Ledge braced and battened hence not ideal for paint. So far it has not lost the tiniest flake of linseed oil paint, but the previous 'properly done' paint job was lifting off really badly after two years.
Hope that helps!


----------



## AndyT (8 Jul 2017)

Woops, I seem to have replied to the wrong hobby horse.
I hope I won't upset anyone by doing so.


----------



## cowfoot (8 Jul 2017)

Jacob":1hej8v5v said:


> Cheshirechappie":1hej8v5v said:
> 
> 
> > ..... Country furniture tended to carry on using techniques long after they were superceded in fashionable London work. ....
> ...



Even if you accept that innovation came from the country (a proposition that contradicts pretty much all economic and social history), the transmission and adoption of that innovation would have been impossible outside of urban areas. Cities are the seedbed of technology, ever since Ur.
You should read some Adam Smith, or perhaps Pepys if you're interested in how a Londoner can influence shipbuilding!


----------



## Jacob (8 Jul 2017)

cowfoot":3c33yt43 said:


> Jacob":3c33yt43 said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":3c33yt43 said:
> ...


That's a bit obscure. If the transmission would be impossible how would it find it's way out of the cities to influence the country bumpkins?
My point is that creative talent was at work everywhere there was human activity. Much of it would drift to the cities as that is where the money is to be made.
Historically the biggest 'seedbeds of technology' in Britain were water powered early mills and the iron and coal fields - all of which got going in rural areas nowhere near cities. I happen to live not far from Arkwright's Cromford/Matlock mills - arguably the first 'factories' in the world, and not associated with any city. The early ironwork used here came from Telford and Coalbrookdale, also nowhere near a city. Not only did innovation travel widely - so did the product; massive cast iron beams cross country horse drawn on rough roads.
Another local innovator/designer was a gardener at Chatsworth (Paxton) who came up with some greenhouse designs which eventually lead to the Crystal Palace - a major step in the development of modern architecture.
This was just up the road from me and built before the Crystal Palace and nowhere near any city:


----------



## Terry - Somerset (9 Jul 2017)

Whilst there are many examples of major advances made independently, the generally accepted wisdom is that cities foster innovation due to the diversity of knowledge, reduced communication barriers (pre-internet), and wider range of skills locally.

Speculating on the pace of industrialisation pre (say) 1900. Sending people or drawings to set things up or resolve queries could easily take months - no telephone, fax, email, aircraft. A lack of associated infrastructure (if you build a steam engine you also need glass for gauges, brass for controls and valves, ability to machine castings etc. Raw materials if not available locally would make almost anything logistically difficult in a mostly sail pre-container age. 

It may only be the happy adjacency of coal and iron ore + canals which allowed the industrial revolution to start at all, and specialist suppliers all locally located or on canal networks to provide the diversity of materials and components needed.


----------



## Jacob (9 Jul 2017)

Terry - Somerset":18kvgy80 said:


> .... Sending people or drawings to set things up or resolve queries could easily take months - .....


Days, not months. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_coach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagecoach


----------



## Cheshirechappie (9 Jul 2017)

I'm not sure that it's a valid comparison between furniture and industrial products. Before the coming of the canals to some places, and later the railways pretty well everywhere, the latter, by their nature, tended to be close to the source of the raw materials needed for their making; thus, for example, iron where ironstone and wood for charcoal was abundant (hence the Black Country supplying iron to the early makers of Birmingham, the Forest of Dean shipping bar iron and finished products out on the River Severn). Transport, other than by sea and navigable river, was slow and expensive, so bulk raw materials were not moved great distances. 

Furniture might be better compared to the other staples of daily life such as bread, brewing and basic tailoring; bakers, brewers and tailors existed pretty well everywhere. The finest tailors were in London, because that's where the great and the good (and the rich) gathered to do business, not least the governance of the realm. Thus, the finest cabinetmakers were in London because that's were those with money (in the 18th century that was the landed classes) spent their wealth. Out in the provinces, furniture was made as needed by local general wood craftsmen, and the sparser the population, the more general and varied their business. 

The coming of canals to some extent, but especially railways changed all that, by making the movement of bulk raw materials for industry much easier, and by making the distribution of finished products nationally (and by sea internationally) possible. Thus, mass production became possible because products could be moved cheaply. The Buckinghamshire area would not have become a centre for chair making without an easy and cheap way to move them to buyers across the country.

That reflected in furniture design. The best craftsmanship and latest designs tended to be in London because that's where the market for fine furniture was. Those new ideas spread across the country, but only slowly; country furniture used local timbers and techniques long after they were regarded as out-of-date in London work. The finest imported timber tended to go to the port of London too, because that's where the best price could be had for it.

Thus, I think it's wrong to suggest that furniture fashion and development of techniques came from the country, even if some of the characters grew up there. Chippendale could not have grown his reputation had he stayed in Yorkshire, because the market for fine fashionable furniture didn't exist there. He had to move to London, where the market was - and the rest is history, as they say.

)The same is still true to some extent. The 'big money' still tends to be in London and the Home Counties, so that's where most of the modern Designer-Makers tend to be. )


----------



## G S Haydon (9 Jul 2017)

I agree with Jacob on a great deal but I don't share his perspective on furniture design this time. Chippendale was indeed from the North, a Grammar School lad and was a trained joiner. But he moved to London with practical skills and an entrepreneur's mind. Collaboration with Robert Adam, patrons such as Edwin Lascelles and the concept of a Sales Book had nothing to do with vernacular work. Nor was the rise of Neoclassical or Rocco styles or Chinese style work from rural England. 
You can see similar things happen with royalty changing over time and the influence of religion.
The Arts & Crafts used a romantic view of what was often a brutal existence, applied methods that created individual works of unique furniture that could only be purchased by the well off. I personally really like so many pieces of Arts and Crafts work but I find the rubbish surrounding it full of guff. William Morris, guff. . Arts and Crafts at work https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNmy5sQYQP4


----------



## Jacob (9 Jul 2017)

What I'm saying is that creativity and good design came from all over the place. Classical world, China, the colonies, AND the 'undeveloped' parts of the country and the world. 
The arts n crafts movement were dismissive of the 'vernacular' and harked back to a mythical golden age. In many ways they were responsible for the idea that good design is the property of gentry - hence the concept of 'polite architecture'. In turn they blinded us to the design qualities of the vernacular. The modernists recognised this and put 'primitivism' back centre stage. 
Of course it's a truism that London fashions predominated in London, then as now, but not everybody would agree that this is by definition the best.
But what I'm saying more than anything - is that anybody who starts looking at 'vernacular' stuff for the first time is in for a surprise due to the often brilliance exuberance and originality of what is there - free of the dead hand of classical or gothic revivalism, the gentrified fashions of the times or obedience to notions of the 'correct' ways of doing things. St Fagans is a good place to start. You find yourself looking at farm implements, cottage and chapel furniture, not chinoiserie, boulle work or boudoir extravagances.


----------



## cowfoot (9 Jul 2017)

Jacob":37msrxs9 said:


> The arts n crafts movement were dismissive of the 'vernacular' and harked back to a mythical golden age. In many ways they were responsible for the idea that good design is the property of gentry - hence the concept of 'polite architecture'. In turn they blinded us to the design qualities of the vernacular. The modernists recognised this and put 'primitivism' back centre stage.



You've got everything back to front there.
Ruskin, Pugin, Morris et al promoted the vernacular as a counterpoint to mass production.
Modernism promoted the machine age, not primitivism; are you perhaps getting confused with cubism?


----------



## G S Haydon (9 Jul 2017)

I think I know where you're coming from Jacob. One thing I like about vernacular styles is they are not "over worked". The best pieces feel direct but well made.


----------



## Jacob (9 Jul 2017)

cowfoot":1a7dqt7l said:


> Jacob":1a7dqt7l said:
> 
> 
> > The arts n crafts movement were dismissive of the 'vernacular' and harked back to a mythical golden age. In many ways they were responsible for the idea that good design is the property of gentry - hence the concept of 'polite architecture'. In turn they blinded us to the design qualities of the vernacular. The modernists recognised this and put 'primitivism' back centre stage.
> ...


Ruskin, Pugin, Morris promoted their romantic version of the vernacular which gave birth to the bespoke, artist-craftsman, one-off brigade. 
In the meantime there was a strong tradition of 'vernacular' production which would involve mass (or batch) production wherever possible - which is how most stuff was/is always made - it's easily lost sight of - it's a bit like imagining a master baker would only make one loaf at a time.
Modernism in the Bauhaus at least tried to amalgamate at all levels, individual one-off artists, architects, designers and mechanised makers, without discrimination - and it was a brilliant success and still with us very strongly. The bauhaus would have appreciated the strength and vigour of vernacular and it's traditions.
Still with us are the one off artist/craftsmen, still pursuing a romantic ideal, starving in garrets, making stuff inefficiently, desperately struggling to achieve originality, dependent on a tiny market of wealthy people. :roll:

But the threads criss cross over the years - the bauhaus was deeply influenced by arts n crafts but then departed from it in a big way.
I've got two chair books which show this really clearly - one is "500 Chairs" and is almost all slightly tedious post modern arty/decorative stuff, the other is "1000 Chairs" which covers the field and is vastly more interesting (and it's got twice as many chairs in it!)
.


----------



## MusicMan (9 Jul 2017)

I am sceptical of the claims that provincial makers used local materials only. Of course they would be used, but national material transport was well established for oak timber. The shipbuilders were on the coast, but the forests were all over. Moreover, English oak was generally reserved for the Navy, as its curved boughs and gnarly structures were suited for shipbuilding, not furniture. The latter was generally made of straight-grained Dutch oak, or "wainscot" hence the term wainscotting. Presumably transport bringing English oak to the ports could bring wainscot back.

Keith


----------



## Jacob (9 Jul 2017)

G S Haydon":ten2y5ln said:


> I think I know where you're coming from Jacob. One thing I like about vernacular styles is they are not "over worked". The best pieces feel direct but well made.


Design optimising (and minimising) the use of materials and labour - strictly in accordance with the principles of modernism. This is why the 'vernacular' (and the utilitarian, cheap, practical etc) is so relevant to modern design.
Personally I don't really rate the term 'vernacular' - clearly there are regional tendencies but I don't think they are that distinct - more a question of recognising the styles and influences of particular makers, who will obviously have a geographical location.


----------



## Jacob (9 Jul 2017)

MusicMan":3g83ieh7 said:


> I am sceptical of the claims that provincial makers used local materials only. Of course they would be used, but national material transport was well established for oak timber. The shipbuilders were on the coast, but the forests were all over. Moreover, English oak was generally reserved for the Navy, as its curved boughs and gnarly structures were suited for shipbuilding, not furniture. The latter was generally made of straight-grained Dutch oak, or "wainscot" hence the term wainscotting. Presumably transport bringing English oak to the ports could bring wainscot back.
> 
> Keith


They certainly would use a lot of locally sourced stuff, but not exclusively. It's a very common set up where timber yards would go out and fell their own stuff and bring it in to be planked up. They still do it in many places - used to do it near me - you could buy locally sourced timber until about 10 years ago. I think they still do a bit but now it's mostly agricultural - gates etc and firewood with what's left over. 
Another very old yard now does only imported timber. When I was little you could see them bringing in freshly felled timber. I recall steam traction engines on the job (about 1950).
"The Wheelwrights Shop" is interesting where he describes the transition from locally sourced materials which they'd cut in their own saw pits, to squared sawn stuff brought in by dealers - including 'deal' i.e. imported softwood, 'dele' being an old german name for a board - perhaps nothing to do with 'dealers' as a word.


----------



## Corneel (9 Jul 2017)

The Germans still use the word Diele, a thick board of wood as used for flooring for example. Pronunciation is almost the same as Deal with an extra soft e at the end.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Jul 2017)

including 'deal' i.e. imported softwood ...

I thought deal originally was a size rather than a type?


----------



## Jacob (9 Jul 2017)

phil.p":2o7upb4g said:


> including 'deal' i.e. imported softwood ...
> 
> I thought deal originally was a size rather than a type?


Dunno there seem to be different definitions. A 'deal' also is used in the dealer sense - i.e. a particular load of various sizes for sale as one deal.


----------



## iNewbie (9 Jul 2017)

Look up Scots Pine


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Jul 2017)

Thinking more about it, it was a size - something like 12" x 4"? Yes, I know what the modern definition is, but I remember reading that it was only deal if it was a certain size.


----------



## AndyT (9 Jul 2017)

We had a discussion about battens, deals and planks a while ago, here. 

a-historical-question-what-were-hewn-battens-used-for-t86167.html

Some of the images are missing, but this fresh link to a handy book explains what they used to mean - they were the same thickness but different widths.

https://archive.org/stream/everymanhiso ... 0/mode/1up


----------



## G S Haydon (9 Jul 2017)

Philip, as you mention, I think deal is about a certain size. In the same way board and plank have certain applications. However, they all get lumped in together. Much the same as joist eg trimmer, trimmed and trimming.

This topic has gone way off, but is still of merit. To touch on Jacob's point about mass making components, there is point were that becomes idiotic in the extreme. Inventory should be kept as low as possible and work flowed through. Amassing piles of inventory is a good way of tying up capital and making a less efficient process.

Lastly, one final dig at the Arts and Crafts brigade. As I mentioned, I really, really like a huge volume of what they made. I rightly or wrongly take away this from their concept. They were basically well off arty types who hated industry and thought they had a cure for all the ills. Reality, they needed wealthy patrons to keep them going. They never served the masses they were so worried about, they only served the well off or themselves. That does not distract from the amazing pieces they made or influence, but it was as selfish as any neoclassical piece ever was.


----------



## Jacob (9 Jul 2017)

G S Haydon":3leknrfp said:


> ......
> This topic has gone way off, but is still of merit. To touch on Jacob's point about mass making components, there is point were that becomes idiotic in the extreme. Inventory should be kept as low as possible and work flowed through. Amassing piles of inventory is a good way of tying up capital and making a less efficient process.........


Ideally you have a steady controlled rate of production with just enough stock so that any order received will be delivered pronto. Found this out when we were making toys - huge seasonal variations in orders impossible to match without steady production of a stockpile through the quiet bits.


----------



## custard (9 Jul 2017)

> Lastly, one final dig at the Arts and Crafts brigade.



There are many ways of interpreting the Arts & Crafts movement; politically, philosophically, socially, economically, artistically, and the list goes on.

The way that I choose however, having trained as a furniture maker in the Arts & Craft tradition, is best captured by the CFA Voysey motto of "Head, Hand and Heart". 

http://www.artsandcraftsdesign.com/boxe ... d_box.html

What "Head, Hand and Heart" means to me is that a well lived life includes, amongst other things, making things with your own hands and to the very best of your abilities. As simple as that really.


----------



## Chris152 (9 Jul 2017)

G S Haydon":2hkaxdrz said:


> They were basically well off arty types who hated industry and thought they had a cure for all the ills. [...] They never served the masses they were so worried about, they only served the well off or themselves. That does not distract from the amazing pieces they made or influence, but it was as selfish as any neoclassical piece ever was.


I don't think this is true (though they may well have been affluent etc). As I understand it they sought to redress an imbalance that they thought the industrial revolution had caused. And I think that ambition survives today in the will to make useful and beautiful things by hand, to have control of products from beginning to end rather than piecework, and saw that as a fundamental value among people - an ambition which i guess is shared by many people on this forum, affluent or otherwise.


----------



## Jacob (10 Jul 2017)

Chris152":d9ogboc3 said:


> G S Haydon":d9ogboc3 said:
> 
> 
> > They were basically well off arty types who hated industry and thought they had a cure for all the ills. [...] They never served the masses they were so worried about, they only served the well off or themselves. That does not distract from the amazing pieces they made or influence, but it was as selfish as any neoclassical piece ever was.
> ...


Compare and contrast the Bauhaus - the ideology here being to make beautiful things _by whatever means available._
Problems of industrial revolutions are not directly about the nature of work but are about the conditions of work, redundancy and poverty caused by rationalised production, then as now. In other words it's political - the problem being how to ensure that _everybody_ gets the benefit.


----------



## G S Haydon (10 Jul 2017)

Jacob, exactly! If possible it always better to level the production and standardise a process if you're ever going to offer a cost effective system. Although we work to standardise where possible no client wants exactly the same thing. That fact is one of the drivers of cost when compared to something that can be modular or standardised.

Custard, I understand my comments could be at best be rude. I'm sorry about that. The slogan you describe is a good one, similar to a cub scout promise or marriage vows. I'm with you about how it works into a full life, without that, life would be poorer (for me at least). However, I'm sure that many people never "make" anything with their own hands and are totally fullfilled. Who am I to judge what people should and should not include in their life to make it worthwhile? I find slogans like that ok but a little patronising at the same time. Plenty of people had that experience before the A&C people became SJW's.

Chris, in that case they missed the biggest open goal in history. Gordon Russel is someone who saw promise within the industrial process. As Jacob has alluded to, if they used the means at hand they could of offered something very special. Art & Craft is I think a slefish thing that rewards the person doing it. I feel that all personal projects, especially those one off itmes made with much hand work, made away (within reason) from the constraints of cost or time are mainly art. 
There is an popular culture these days of creating anrachy with a tool box or making basic furniture. When I look at it, it seems an indulgence. If they waned reall arnarchy, perhaps, as Jacob mentioned, make simple, quality work cheap and readily available. Instead it seems to want to charge fees for it's products beyond the means of most.
My kitchen table and chairs at home is rubbish, and I look forward to the day when I can make something better. However it was less than £100.00 and it was something I could afford. I would of needed to put myself into debt to purchase "anarchy" furniture made by a local arts and crafts hipster.
For those needing "self help furniture" take a look at https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nomadic-Furnit ... 039470228X . Some of it is daft but some is brilliant, low cost, honest an quick. https://vimeo.com/74444897 Sadly the video is pretty rubish but it gives some oversight. If I had to do things again, and I needed to furnish a home I would use this book in addition to the local second hand shops.


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2017)

The business model for all of this is Thos. Moser -- production but has maintained a very high level of quality.

http://www.thosmoser.com/


----------



## woodbrains (10 Jul 2017)

CStanford":2xruzr7t said:


> The business model for all of this is Thos. Moser -- production but has maintained a very high level of quality.
> 
> http://www.thosmoser.com/



Hello,

A fine example of a business model that works in the Western world. Unfussy, minimal and made by a team who batch produce and work at stations where tasks are repeated for efficiency. I doubt it was too dissimilar to the Firm, William Morris's company back in the day, or that of Edward Barnsley's shop where Gimson et al worked, very hard and unfussily, because their skill gave them speed. I doubt very much that Graham Haydon will be able to rationalise Moser's prices, though!

Mike.


----------



## D_W (10 Jul 2017)

woodbrains":1tpcqp9r said:


> CStanford":1tpcqp9r said:
> 
> 
> > The business model for all of this is Thos. Moser -- production but has maintained a very high level of quality.
> ...



$9,000 for a four drawer bureau. No thanks!

$1,300 for a couple of sticks with homely leather on them, and then a quick link to another chair with exposed finger joints....intentionally exposed. Yuck!

It probably does, however, have the potential to return the original buyer 25% of their purchase price on resale (though they can boast to their friends that they paid 8 times as much for their chest of drawers as one of the other guys down the street), or give them an excuse to yell at their kids about bumping into something. 

Pretentious and plain. It's no wonder that fine furniture has so much trouble making a market for itself.


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2017)

Whose furniture do you like? Living or dead. And who are or were their customers?


----------



## Jacob (10 Jul 2017)

CStanford":1t571ujh said:


> Whose furniture do you like? Living or dead. And who are or were their customers?


Personally I like it all in a way, though much of it I wouldn't want to live with!


----------



## D_W (10 Jul 2017)

CStanford":1elwu34v said:


> Whose furniture do you like? Living or dead. And who are or were their customers?



Not a furniture fanatic at all, so I don't have a favorite "who". Early to mid 1800s English, American (Eastern/Northeastern) and French furniture suits as long as it's not painted and doesn't have queen anne legs. Joinery should be nicely done and hidden. If I were to buy a bunch of that stuff, as my relatives have, I would probably buy it used. It is a fifth of the cost or less. I couldn't care less if modern design makers (anything arts and crafts or later) were operating or not. 

If I went off of the plane bender and onto a furniture bender, it would be of the styles above - but there are other things I would much rather learn to make than furniture.


----------



## woodbrains (10 Jul 2017)

D_W":1a8gvc3w said:


> woodbrains":1a8gvc3w said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":1a8gvc3w said:
> ...



Hello,

It is fair enough if this furniture is not to your taste, but it is a business model that has worked, and I say again, in the Western world, for 45 years. It has kept craftsmen in employment with the facility to feed their families and not live like impoverished, whinging martyrs. I know the craftsmen work hard, I know there is more batching and repetition than many would hope, but this is exactly the sort of work ethic that Jacob keeps banging on about, as if the furniture makers here were doing something different. And the Arts and Crafts Makers then and now. 

By the way, do you not think plain and pretentious is an oxymoron? Not liking this furniture is fine is your taste is different, but please make thought out, reasoned criticisms; you just sound like you are venting bile here, or, more likely, baiting Charles. I couldn't give a fig if you like this or that furniture, or why, I have tried the path of furniture maker, and it is much harder to do than hobbyist wooden plane makers or house joiners might think. 

Mike.


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2017)

Moser is in semi-retirement now (he's in his early 80s) and his son runs the day to day I believe. I understand the company has about 130 employees and has gross revenue in the $25MM to $50MM range, though it's privately held and financial statements are not available. The firm has showrooms in Manhattan, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Boston, and at the headquarters in Maine. 

His success speaks for itself.

There is some salary data available online. Apparently being a showroom manager is a good job (by most people's standards) as it pays in the high five to low six figures:

https://www.careerbliss.com/thos-moser/salaries/


----------



## G S Haydon (10 Jul 2017)

Mike, I think their costs are very, very fair. They are producing bespoke art! I'm very much in favour of that approach. Fine, unique work takes time and skill and they should be rewarded based on what the market is prepared to pay. My issue is more when people add in some kind of counter culture drivel or pay lip service to the poor from their positions of comfort.
Whether it is Neoclassical, Arts & Crafts or Hipster the process is all the same as you'll see here
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O7866 ... g-unknown/

https://www.artuk.org/discover/artworks ... uce-209754

http://www.ntprints.com/image/359481/si ... onal-trust

The core of it is the client wants to feel good, feel part of having something made unique, just for them.

My aside with Jacob is that for sheet utility, of which we I think he and I agree, the process shown in the paintings is foolish. If people require very affordable things an industrial method is required. Being a patron of art is something that should be encouraged if people are able. But some seem to be under the impression that individual hipsters can furnish the masses and then seem shocked that people think a primitive chair they made, priced in multiple hundreds of pounds, has no market. All I say is get real, if you go to a craft joiner, carpenter or furniture maker the process is as outlined in the painting. And that's a good thing!


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2017)

D_W":3fporp2t said:


> CStanford":3fporp2t said:
> 
> 
> > Whose furniture do you like? Living or dead. And who are or were their customers?
> ...



What do you want to make in addition to planes?


----------



## G S Haydon (10 Jul 2017)

Mike, I totally agree that and artist furniture maker is a much harder path than just about any wood trade. Hat's off to anyone who tries and further, huge respect to those who can make a success of it. Nobody comes to me for individual, free standing furniture. The nearest I get is this.












I feel my point has been lost or I have not conveyed it well. Put simply art furniture, bespoke furniture, is essential and should be celebrated and becoming a patron of a craftsman when possible is a great ting to do. Any kind of unique project is to be welcomed. My point is that's not a way to make quality accessible.

Looking at some of Chippendale's charges he looks far to cheap. Harewood state bed at £250 without uphostery, even in the 1770's was far to low a cost. As I mentioned, if you can make a good living from fine furniture work then great. Dying in near poverty of TB is not ideal.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jul 2017)

£250 too cheap? Using an inflation calcular it comes out at nearly £42.000 (2016).


----------



## D_W (10 Jul 2017)

CStanford":1oxwf0v5 said:


> D_W":1oxwf0v5 said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":1oxwf0v5 said:
> ...



Knives, chisels, guitars, straight razors...but each to a standard. My metal planes are not there yet, but certainly they work well enough that I could sell them. They are thus far common, though. Common is not the goal.


----------



## CStanford (10 Jul 2017)

Based on your previous posts, if you start to sell these items we're all looking forward to the bargain pricing!


----------



## D_W (10 Jul 2017)

G S Haydon":279gqgjz said:


> Mike, I totally agree that and artist furniture maker is a much harder path than just about any wood trade. Hat's off to anyone who tries and further, huge respect to those who can make a success of it. Nobody comes to me for individual, free standing furniture. The nearest I get is this.
> 
> View attachment 20170322
> 
> ...



I agree with your comments, and must say that bathroom work is quite nice, Graham. I'd be pleased if my house had a bath like that.

To quote Warren on the 1700s stuff when Bill tindall was mentioning sapfm pieces made well by amateurs, the shortage isn't of capable makers, it's of buyers. 

To extend quality and simple to moderate designs down to people who could afford them but can't otherwise now would be a feat. But such a wish ignores that current society is a strange combination of junk buyers with a rising minimalist class.


----------



## D_W (10 Jul 2017)

CStanford":3a1v7jxl said:


> Based on your previous posts, if you start to sell these items we're all looking forward to the bargain pricing!



I've made 20 or so wooden planes, given away or sold half for the cost of materials, one charity auctioned and I paid materials and shipping. I don't expect that will change. The cost of materials with the infills will just be more.


----------



## woodbrains (10 Jul 2017)

G S Haydon":4hh7ojmg said:


> Mike, I think their costs are very, very fair. They are producing bespoke art! I'm very much in favour of that approach. Fine, unique work takes time and skill and they should be rewarded based on what the market is prepared to pay. My issue is more when people add in some kind of counter culture drivel or pay lip service to the poor from their positions of comfort.
> Whether it is Neoclassical, Arts & Crafts or Hipster the process is all the same as you'll see here
> http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O7866 ... g-unknown/
> 
> ...



Hello,

I agree with all of this, except, perhaps that Moser makes art! Looking at the designs, I must say, some of them are actually brilliant. Since Moser's son has taken over the design aspect of the business and made some more contemporary twists on the American classics, I think the inventory is very interesting. His son is a better designer, as it should be, I suppose. But Moser only makes bespoke stuff very infrequently. His business model is a batch produced product from a range, some of which hasn't changed since the 1970's. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but the craftsmen and women do not make decisions or modifications, they make to a set of instructions, so outside the original design, there is no artistic or bespoke elements. It is well made, well designed and priced to pay its craftsmen a living wage, though and find for that.

My pet hate are things ( not just furniture) that pretends to be arty of crafty, but is actually crudely made, poorly conceived tat that seems to the maker to be worth 100 times more that it is worth. I think Krenov referred to that as 'side of the road charm', but these days it seems to have become some sort of cash cow. 

Your furniture is nicely done BTW.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (11 Jul 2017)

D_W":2xhm541i said:


> ..... the shortage isn't of capable makers, it's of buyers.....


If you are a maker/seller - making to sell but not achieving this, then you are an incapable maker/seller by definition; you can't blame the buyers. 
You can't blame the fish if you fail to catch any, however excellent your kit and your confidence in your skill and knowledge!

Too many themes and ideas in this interesting thread!


----------



## bugbear (11 Jul 2017)

Jacob":1norg57a said:


> D_W":1norg57a said:
> 
> 
> > ..... the shortage isn't of capable makers, it's of buyers.....
> ...


Your theory makes Van Gogh an "incapable" painter. Provocative view, but not widely held.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (11 Jul 2017)

bugbear":ro1pvcfh said:


> Jacob":ro1pvcfh said:
> 
> 
> > D_W":ro1pvcfh said:
> ...


Well yes, but it's not widely held that anybody who makes anything but fails to sell it, is an under appreciated genius!


----------



## essexalan (11 Jul 2017)

That Moser table and chairs looks like something Ikea might sell neither of which is to my taste. Furniture I have is made by Wood Brothers (Old Charm oak) and Ercol, elm, which has stood up up to a lot of hard use and will get passed down to my daughters if they want it. I do admire the work of a lot of woodworkers but that does not mean I like the product. For instance I do not like a lot of what Krenov made but his construction techniques, design and use of wood are a good read. I never understood why these artists in various genre require sponsorship so they can indulge themselves, build something that looks good, functional and at a good price and you will probably never be rich but will spend a lifetime in a vocation you enjoy. 
I could never hope to build anything like what I see on here, particularly the architectural joinery, Jacob?, and the stuff Derek makes so I will not attempt it, I can put a mean edge on a chisel or plane iron though!


----------



## Droogs (11 Jul 2017)

Jacob":3aru9adk said:


> Well yes, but it's not widely held that anybody who makes anything but fails to sell it, is an under appreciated genius!



I agree there Jacob, They're just a really carp salesman. And this is the part where the majority of modern makers fail, it's not enough to just put up a pic on etsy etc, you have to putin some real slogg to get noticed and have to be everyready to promote yourself which a lot of them don't


----------



## G S Haydon (11 Jul 2017)

Philip, he could of added another £50 . Sadly, when trying to make the finest, truly bespoke work, from the best timber with using the most skilled trades, it is easy to get the pricing wrong. Especially if the client want to be harsh. Although those things were expensive I doubt there was an open ended cheque book. I'm sure the client was firm on cost and then was likely to pay late, if at times, at all 

Thanks Mike, I must be clear though. The deisgn was not mine, it was provided by the client. I did not persoanlly make them. My role is meeting with clients, discussing how we might do something, pricing etc. I did used to make similar stuff though . On Moser, aRT with a small a. When it's trully one off it's ART with a capital A. I'm not sure Derek Cohen will like it but I view him as an exceptional maker with a capital A. From what I can see he makes for the pure selfreward and is good enough to document it too. He is an artist to my mind, no question. If he had to charge for it it would be rightly, hugely expensive. It's good to be able to remove the burnden of having to sell your stuff.

Although roundly detested by hipster makers I think http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/ is the "Gentleman's & Cabinet Makers Director" for the masses. They have some very good design and some of it is quite well made. Sure, some of it is junk and I'd like to see some more durable cheap pieces but it's a much more realistic model than meet a local hipster for furniture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTcvmmOkqJI

David, thanks for the feedback. I'll point you in the direction of my comment to Mike to clarifly my role within that project. I had assumed you'd detest it due to the paint 

Ercol made some smashing stuff, essexalan.


----------



## D_W (11 Jul 2017)

Jacob":2yrwffd4 said:


> D_W":2yrwffd4 said:
> 
> 
> > ..... the shortage isn't of capable makers, it's of buyers.....
> ...



It's a multi-faceted issue. One is that people with means would rather spend the money on a Mercedes, or they have no taste for high end furniture regardless of other money demands. Two, the makers decide what they want to make and then try to push market it by showing it, often to people who are window shoppers. Three, the theoretical limit of buyers probably still is far fewer than what it would take to keep makers busy. 

If anything, Moser's biggest achievement is finding buyers. How do you find people who will pay 5 grand for this, or 6 if it's made of walnut? 

http://www.thosmoser.com/category/bedro ... anket_box/ It is tidy, but boring. Doesn't use wide boards, you can see the glue lines, and it has plain chamfers stabbed onto areas that should be something more interesting (and could be, even with mostly machine making like they do). I realize things like sourcing wide boards for a relatively large business presents a cost, but for that price, I'd expect it.

To paraphrase Morty Seinfeld, cheap fabric and dim lighting. Or in this case, a very flashy showroom. Sell the showroom, not the piece. 
http://www.thosmoser.com/showroom.detai ... wroom_id=4

They do it well. 

I'll bet they do better (dollars per unit of work output) than the one local furniture maker that I know of who is making truly fine furniture, and not just simple studio furniture:
http://foundingfurniture.com/?page_id=105

I hope he makes it, I've seen his furniture in person, and it is wonderful - even to someone like me who is not that interested in furniture. I hope his wife has a good job so that his business can absorb a few bumps.


----------



## D_W (11 Jul 2017)

G S Haydon":cx1bu4w5 said:


> David, thanks for the feedback. I'll point you in the direction of my comment to Mike to clarifly my role within that project. I had assumed you'd detest it due to the paint



It's excellent, what can I say? The paint suits it well - far different than furniture pulled out of the skip around here, painted with milk paint and then intentionally beat to death. 

I'd imagine the client loves it if their eyes and brains work properly.


----------



## G S Haydon (11 Jul 2017)

Client is indeed please. However the shower that leaked and ruined their ceiling is another story. Luckily that had nothing to do with me!

http://foundingfurniture.com/?page_id=105 Very nice! Impressive standard of work.


----------



## CStanford (11 Jul 2017)

David, at the end of the day I think Mr. Moser has it figured out (he's been in business since 1972). He's not a studio furnituremaker and never claimed to be. He started out with himself and then added Chris Becksvoort, Bill Huston and a few others -- guys who went on to make names for themselves but his model always had a production element to it -- not a series of one-off commissions. His timing was perfect, he was making Shaker just when it got really hot. 

With regard to fine historic reproductions, these two outfits, one a partnership and the other a sole proprietorship are hands-down the best in the U.S. in my opinion.

http://www.andersenandstauffer.com/

http://www.jeffreygreenenewport.com/jeffrey_greene.htm


----------



## D_W (11 Jul 2017)

CStanford":1tmosovm said:


> David, at the end of the day I think Mr. Moser has it figured out. He's not a studio furnituremaker and never claimed to be. He started out with himself and then added Chris Becksvoort, Bill Huston and a few others -- guys who went on to make names for themselves but his model always had a production element to it -- not a series of one-off commissions.
> 
> With regard to fine historic reproductions, these two outfits, one a partnership and the other a sole proprietorship are hands-down the best in the U.S. in my opinion.
> 
> ...



Absolutely stunning furniture. It is practically looks alive, proportion and depth and no miscues to distract from its design. I'm sure the large pieces are more than either of my cars (hopefully they will hold value better over a decade).

In regard to what I think of Moser, it's really an issue of them having a limited slice of the market that will be a customer for simple designs at big dollars. However, they know their market, and it's like cadillac hybrids. There aren't many people who will buy them, because they look like a chevrolet volt to me at twice the price, but I'm not the customer for that kind of thing. Other people are, though.

The two makers you just linked are more like hand builders of Ferrari replicas in that comparison.


----------



## CStanford (11 Jul 2017)

Jeffrey Greene is an MIT-trained engineer and chucked that to build furniture. He wrote what's become a standard work in the field many years ago that was published by Taunton Press.


----------



## memzey (11 Jul 2017)

There are a couple of guys called Doucette and Wolfe with a YouTube channel that also make some fabulous stuff. Very relaxing videos to watch as well.


----------



## D_W (11 Jul 2017)

memzey":97q32x5r said:


> There are a couple of guys called Doucette and Wolfe with a YouTube channel that also make some fabulous stuff. Very relaxing videos to watch as well.



Rob Millard, too (though federal period is a bit stale compared to the two makers Charlie linked). I guess we've found furniture I'm interested in and would like to take a stab at maybe a decade or two from now once I've made myself the tools and guitars that I'd like to have but don't have any interest in buying. 

But that's sort of like saying that we've found music that is interesting to non-musicians...... _Say no to Riverdance, mediocre marketing genius guitarists, etc.... _


----------



## CStanford (11 Jul 2017)

memzey":39pq9a2d said:


> There are a couple of guys called Doucette and Wolfe with a YouTube channel that also make some fabulous stuff. Very relaxing videos to watch as well.



Doucette and Wolfe are a husband and wife team I believe. They're great, close but not quite as good as the firms I linked IMO.


----------



## D_W (11 Jul 2017)

CStanford":3jixqq89 said:


> memzey":3jixqq89 said:
> 
> 
> > There are a couple of guys called Doucette and Wolfe with a YouTube channel that also make some fabulous stuff. Very relaxing videos to watch as well.
> ...



Do you think you'd make furniture like that if you could find the customer base to pay for it? 

I've not made furniture of any type more complicated than dovetailed general case work, so I have no clue if I could ever even make anything like that (meaning after a half dozen years of trying with a significant amount of hours in a given week) - probably not. Certainly not in an environment with deadlines and customers calling in the middle of work. It would be an expensive endeavor given the cost of materials in some of those pieces. It would make building infills at a couple of hundred dollars a pop look pretty cheap.


----------



## CStanford (11 Jul 2017)

I don't have the skills to do that sort of work. People commissioning work with these firms expect a waiting period, which I assume at times easily exceeds a year, and in the interim have to place a deposit of between 30% and 50% of the price of the piece.

Even with the skills, one would be competing directly with these guys and others. Rarefied air for sure. 

That said, the customer base is worldwide. People wouldn't let shipping and insurance cost get in their way though customers situated in the Northeast have several makers to choose from and might tend to do business as locally as they can.


----------



## woodbrains (11 Jul 2017)

Hello,

I doubt you could give that sort of furniture away in Britain. :wink: 

Mike.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (11 Jul 2017)

Funny, that was what occurred to me when I looked at it. Very beautiful, very clever stuff ... but when you struggle to sell the genuine stuff there'd be little point in copying it. "Brown Furniture" is a no no.


----------



## CStanford (11 Jul 2017)

It's a limited market here as well, and a well-covered one at that. 

Worth a read: http://irionlumber.com/wp-content/uploa ... W198BI.pdf

Sadly, I don't believe Irion Furnituremakers are still around though I believe the lumber yard is. Were those guys still assembled together as a working firm, they'd be one of the top five in the world, easily best in the U.S., IMO of course.


----------



## D_W (11 Jul 2017)

CStanford":39qsusci said:


> It's a limited market here as well, and a well-covered one at that.
> 
> Worth a read: http://irionlumber.com/wp-content/uploa ... W198BI.pdf



My GOD, that first piece is fabulous. The carving on page 81 is sublime, too. 

I wish my eyes and brain visualized that kind of proportion and liveliness. Not that I could ever execute it. 

The federal piece is nice, but the top bracket gives a flavor of mystery science theater 3000 (or rather the character who sat on the right side in the theater for that series).


----------



## CStanford (11 Jul 2017)

World class furnituremaking no doubt. A staggering amount of fine work over a 90+ piece commission.


----------



## G S Haydon (11 Jul 2017)

Incredible, I look forward to a client sporting sweat pants covered in flour.


----------



## custard (11 Jul 2017)

CStanford":2u1uyk2c said:


> http://irionlumber.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/W198BI.pdf
> 
> Sadly, I don't believe Irion Furnituremakers are still around though I believe the lumber yard is.



Thanks for posting that, very impressive. The Irion Lumber Yard is still up and running, it's probably the main supplier to specialist UK yards of the very highest grades of figured Cherry.

Incidentally, the mahogany used in those pieces looks exceptional, I wonder where they sourced that?


----------



## CStanford (11 Jul 2017)

Check out the last couple of paragraphs in the article about some boards of Cuban mahogany they ended up cutting and using as veneer.

The highboy immediately above the verbiage was veneered in this wood.


----------



## iNewbie (11 Jul 2017)

Its mentioned on the bottom of the link.


----------



## D_W (11 Jul 2017)

I rarely read articles, but the furniture was so spectacular that I at least browsed this one and saw this comment earlier (but the wood that's not covered by the second half of the comment below is just as spectacular):

Almost every piece in the collection was
built with boards hand selected by Lou
and shipped down to his old company. For
many of the pieces in the collection, Lou
supplied mahogany from Peru. One nota-
ble exception is the Affleck chest-on-chest,
which is one of John’s favorite pieces.
Irion’s reproduction was built with veneers
they sliced from 4-in.-thick boards
of Cuban mahogany that are purported
to have belonged to Thomas Affleck himself.
Dredged from the Delaware River
early in the 20th century, they were squirreled
away in a barn for decades. Their owner,
who considered them too special to use,
died in 1998, having left instructions with
his daughter to offer them to Irion. They
found just the piece to use them in.


----------



## Jacob (12 Jul 2017)

It's all very wonderful this 'high end' stuff but to be honest I'm not that interested in it. 
It's a Hestor Blumenthal equivalent, with no bearing on what we normally consume. Even arguably a waste of skill and resources - all that effort into replicating some over-fussy antiquated designs. Even if I could do it (I couldn't) I wouldn't. A lot has happened in the field of design in the intervening 200 years!

PS actually Blumenthal and even Escoffier were modernisers - it's more like bringing Marie-Antoine Carême back from the dead. (Took some googling to find that name!)


----------



## cowfoot (12 Jul 2017)

I'd argue that what the top end/cutting edge/avant garde of any field of human endeavour gets up to usually filters down to the public. Heston's stuff is sold in Waitrose...
I also noticed that in the last series of that Interior Design Challenge on BBC 2, a couple of the more switched-on contestants were using "brown furniture". One chap used a very striking armoire for a 1920's themed room - as he pointed out, it didn't cost much. Might be wishful thinking on my part, but surely more people will tire of chalk paint eventually!


----------



## iNewbie (12 Jul 2017)

Jacob":1l36pcat said:


> It's all very wonderful this 'high end' stuff but to be honest I'm not that interested in it.
> It's a Hestor Blumenthal equivalent, with no bearing on what we normally consume. Even arguably a waste of skill and resources - all that effort into replicating some over-fussy antiquated designs. Even if I could do it (I couldn't) I wouldn't. A lot has happened in the field of design in the intervening 200 years!
> 
> PS actually Blumenthal and even Escoffier were modernisers - it's more like bringing Marie-Antoine Carême back from the dead. (Took some googling to find that name!)



Gave some woodworkers full-time jobs in a craft they trained for and enjoyed what they were doing. Whats not a positive there... Whether you enjoy it is irrelevant.

edit - I'll also say, it may have been reproduced work but for some people thats something of a challenge: can I make it to the same standard - or slightly better. For some thats a pleasure as much as a headache. Testing yourself.


----------



## bugbear (12 Jul 2017)

AndyT":11y0w2bf said:


> We had a discussion about battens, deals and planks a while ago, here.
> 
> a-historical-question-what-were-hewn-battens-used-for-t86167.html
> 
> ...


The Glossary of Wood was first published in 1948; it was a compilation from the glossary column that ran for a decade in "Wood" magazine. You can be sure that if readers of the magazine has disagreed with an entry, they would have said so, thus these are effectively reviewed and accepted meanings.

It says:

_*Deal*: A term applied to converted softwoods between 2 and 4 in. in thickness
and 9 and 11 in. in width. The sizes vary at different ports.
_

BugBear


----------



## B3nder (16 Jul 2017)

Blimey this thread has gone off on an interesting tangent!

Just to say my original issue has been resolved, when using the knife to make score the pins, I was angling it slightly thus creating a pin that was wider that the tail. Simply resolved by keeping the knife blade flush with the tail.

Thanks, just need to practice a few more!


----------



## Jacob (16 Jul 2017)

bugbear":3293oxcn said:


> ..... You can be sure that if readers of the magazine has disagreed with an entry, they would have said so, thus these are effectively reviewed and accepted meanings.
> ....r


6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Many (most?) readers wouldn't know and would simply accept what they were being told. In this way whole areas of woodwork have been radically revised by journalists and their readers passing on the misinformation - most extremely in sharpening. What used to be easy and hardly worthy of comment has become difficult, unrecognisable, and a big money spinner for the gadget makers
Or in bench design post1160597.html#p1160597


----------



## CStanford (16 Jul 2017)

B3nder":2n0txs1z said:


> Blimey this thread has gone off on an interesting tangent!
> 
> Just to say my original issue has been resolved, when using the knife to make score the pins, I was angling it slightly thus creating a pin that was wider that the tail. Simply resolved by keeping the knife blade flush with the tail.
> 
> Thanks, just need to practice a few more!



Use a marking awl - line is fine and won't follow the grain as readily as a knife will. Hold it near the end, like you would a pen, but not so close of course that your fingers get in the way.


----------



## Jacob (16 Jul 2017)

CStanford":rfnms0y7 said:


> B3nder":rfnms0y7 said:
> 
> 
> > Blimey this thread has gone off on an interesting tangent!
> ...


Agree.
In spite of the name a knife is not suitable for marking, except for those rare circumstances where you want an indelible mark. What they _are_ for is _cutting_ a mark (which may or may not be already pencilled in) but _only where needed_ to give a sharp edge to the sawn or chiselled arris - DT and other shoulders being the most obvious places.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jul 2017)

CStanford":2qw6muc8 said:


> B3nder":2qw6muc8 said:
> 
> 
> > Blimey this thread has gone off on an interesting tangent!
> ...



There are two ways to use a marking knife:

1. The traditional and correct way (because I say so  ) is to take a light stroke, and then a couple more light strokes. Do not try to mark deeply on the first stroke - that is how the knife is taken by the grain.

An awl cannot be used when the dovetail socket is narrow (such as "London" dovetails) since the curve to the point prevents it from being used vertically.

2. The second method with a knife is easiest of all - use my blue tape method. A light knife cut severs the tape (and outlines the dovetail). Easy peasy.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (16 Jul 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> ......
> An awl cannot be used when the dovetail socket is narrow (such as "London" dovetails) since the curve to the point prevents it from being used vertically....


Try it - but don't hold it vertically.
Many marking knives are thicker than awls.
If the pin hole is really small I use a thin Xacto type square ended craft knife. Single bevel pushed down with the face is flush with the side of the hole


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jul 2017)

Jacob":26q3zuy3 said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



Jacob, you cannot have it both ways if marking the pins from the tails  Either use an awl or use a knife. You end up using an Xacto for the very reason I say an awl cannot be used - that is cannot get into small spaced and keep the point against the wall ... wide dovetail, certainly, but nothing that I tend to do.

Detail and dovetail marking knife: 







And I do know about scratch awls. Chris Vesper sells one I designed for the purpose of marking (I designed the knife as well) ....






link: https://www.vespertools.com.au/marking- ... cohen-awl/

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (16 Jul 2017)

Here is a proper, traditional, and thin marking awl. And it is thin enough far enough up its shank to mark London Pattern dovetails off thin drawer sides - typically in the 3/8" thick range. I suspect that the Crown awl is a third of the cost of the Vesper awl, maybe even less.

https://www.amazon.com/Crown-20110-Scra ... B001C009PS

I have no idea what one would use the bulbous and clumsy awl for in Derek's photo - it looks like one designed for leather work. It misses the mark, fairly widely IMO, as a marking awl meant for woodworking.

Leather awls:

https://www.google.com/search?q=leather ... 64&bih=603


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jul 2017)

CStanford":3l0e2mif said:


> Here is a proper, traditional, and thin marking awl. And it is thin enough to mark London Pattern dovetails off thin drawer sides (where these are found):
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Crown-20110-Scra ... B001C009PS
> 
> I have no idea what one would use the bulbous and clumsy awl for in Derek's photo - it looks like one designed for leather work. It misses the mark, fairly widely IMO, as a marking awl meant for woodworking.



Charles, au contraire ... the scratch awl I posted is _designed_ to be held as a pencil. 

P-l-e-a-s-e tell me _how_ you would hold the one you linked to ...






THAT is one for leather work!  

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (16 Jul 2017)

Like a pen, on the metal shank (think quill pen) for dovetails; by the wooden 'handle' if needing to mark deep for some other operation -- deep drawbores or something like that.

The Crown design is absolutely superior because it's absolutely a faithful copy of a traditional marking awl. It's that simple. Sorry. This was a case where the wheel need not have been re-invented.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jul 2017)

CStanford":1lab75sq said:


> Like a pen, on the metal shank (think quill pen) for dovetails; by the wooden 'handle' if needing to mark deep for some other operation -- deep drawbores or something like that.
> 
> The Crown design is absolutely superior because it's absolutely a faithful copy of a traditional marking awl. It's that simple. Sorry. This was a case where the wheel need not have been re-invented.



In your dreams, Charles .... :lol: :lol: 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (16 Jul 2017)

Whatever Derek. The awl in your photo is simply too thick where it counts. It's also too short. It's a leather punch. It's not a woodworking marking awl. Putting a pretty, turned handle on it does not make it so.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jul 2017)

Charles, a birdcage awl is used for making holes (for screws, etc) ..







See how it is designed and held?

A scratch awl is used for a different purpose. It is used for marking. But the traditional scratch awl is shaped more like a tool used for making a hole. My scratch awl design is intended to be used like a pencil. It is used to trace around objects. It is used to mark a dimension (a dot from this tool is MUCH more accurate than a scratched line from a knife or from a pencil). It is not intended to be used inside a dovetail if marking pins from tails, although it could be used the other way around. And, finally, the thickness of the shaft is irrelevant. What is relevant is the sharpness of the point.

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (16 Jul 2017)

Derek, the Crown is a marking awl for making fine lines and very small ticks that won't show on a finished piece after a light cleaning off. They won't follow grain very readily which makes them handy for those having trouble knifing out dovetails. There were many different awls made for many different purposes, most of which have been relegated to history. I have a stout Stanley awl (really a leather tool) used for punching a slightly deeper hole. Gimlets come in for making screw starter holes and other uses. I don't own a birdcage awl and don't see the need for one given the Crown, the Stanley, and the three or four gimlets I own, and frankly even this feels a bit 'overtooled.'

To the OP who might want to make a dovetail joint with very narrow pins: cut them pins first, and use whatever you have to mark the tails. A 5H or harder pencil sharpened to a chisel point can even be made to work. You don't need a boutique awl or knife, tape, etc. to make the joint. If you want to do them tails first and need a little higher contrast on darker woods, then chalk the endgrain on the pin piece and then mark out.

Toodles... going for a bike ride.....


----------



## bugbear (16 Jul 2017)

CStanford":3tesnc25 said:


> The Crown design is absolutely superior because it's absolutely a faithful copy of a traditional marking awl. It's that simple. Sorry.



So _explain_ the reasons you believe make the traditional design superior. "Traditional is best" is not an explanation, or even an argument. It's merely an assertion.

BugBear


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jul 2017)

> Derek, the Crown is a marking awl for making fine lines ..



Charles, so does a marking knife with a _thin_ blade, such as pictured earlier.



> and very small ticks that won't show on a finished piece after a light cleaning off.



No quibble from me. 



> They won't follow grain very readily which makes them handy for those having trouble knifing out dovetails.



As I pointed out earlier, the correct way to use a marking knife _with_ the grain is to start with very light strokes. It is exactly the same when using a cutting gauge along the grain (as when marking mortices).



> To the OP who might want to make a dovetail joint with very narrow pins: cut them pins first, and use whatever you have to mark the tails.



That is indeed a viable alternative. But we better not debate tails vs pins first ...  

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (16 Jul 2017)

bugbear":26emhvhp said:


> CStanford":26emhvhp said:
> 
> 
> > The Crown design is absolutely superior because it's absolutely a faithful copy of a traditional marking awl. It's that simple. Sorry.
> ...



It's a statement of likelihood, unless something wasn't available due to technology. 

There is little that's new that's practically or materially superior, but a lot that is going the wrong direction.


----------



## D_W (16 Jul 2017)

CStanford":3ctp9ypa said:


> Derek, the Crown is a marking awl for making fine lines and very small ticks that won't show on a finished piece after a light cleaning off. They won't follow grain very readily which makes them handy for those having trouble knifing out dovetails. There were many different awls made for many different purposes, most of which have been relegated to history. I have a stout Stanley awl (really a leather tool) used for punching a slightly deeper hole. Gimlets come in for making screw starter holes and other uses. I don't own a birdcage awl and don't see the need for one given the Crown, the Stanley, and the three or four gimlets I own, and frankly even this feels a bit 'overtooled.'
> 
> To the OP who might want to make a dovetail joint with very narrow pins: cut them pins first, and use whatever you have to mark the tails. A 5H or harder pencil sharpened to a chisel point can even be made to work. You don't need a boutique awl or knife, tape, etc. to make the joint. If you want to do them tails first and need a little higher contrast on darker woods, then chalk the endgrain on the pin piece and then mark out.
> 
> Toodles... going for a bike ride.....



Charlie, I hate to agree with you, but I think anyone who cut a significant number of those tiny pins would soon stop trying to push water upstream with a needle and adopt a pins first method. 

Any quibbles with changing method would go away within very few sets, and anything shy of a grease pencil would mark them just fine.


----------



## Jacob (16 Jul 2017)

bugbear":2b96eb21 said:


> CStanford":2b96eb21 said:
> 
> 
> > The Crown design is absolutely superior because it's absolutely a faithful copy of a traditional marking awl. It's that simple. Sorry.
> ...


No it is a fact. 
This is a sweeping generalisation but; the whole point and strength of 'traditional' design and construction is that it tends to evolve, through the hands of many people doing roughly the same thing, faced with the same problems, copying one another, picking up others' improvements and modifications, tending to settle on what everybody agrees (albeit unspoken) is the best solution. It's a tendency - the result isn't guaranteed and may carry on evolving. On the other hand may fall into disuse and be forgotten.
I started realising this with one of my first jobs - as a building labourer. This was so long ago that small diggers, JCBs and the like were almost unknown and big holes were dug by hand. I spent a lot of time with a pick, shovel and barrow and soon began to realise that they were superbly designed for the job even though no named designer had ever been near them as far as I know. This same thing can be found everywhere - beautifully made and highly functional hand tools etc for many trades, or trappings for horses, carts, buildings, etc. etc.


----------



## CStanford (16 Jul 2017)

Aha, Jacob! You've identified the next hot market in boutique tools -- picks, shovels, and wheelbarrows!


----------



## CStanford (16 Jul 2017)

D_W":toyu5d8p said:


> CStanford":toyu5d8p said:
> 
> 
> > Derek, the Crown is a marking awl for making fine lines and very small ticks that won't show on a finished piece after a light cleaning off. They won't follow grain very readily which makes them handy for those having trouble knifing out dovetails. There were many different awls made for many different purposes, most of which have been relegated to history. I have a stout Stanley awl (really a leather tool) used for punching a slightly deeper hole. Gimlets come in for making screw starter holes and other uses. I don't own a birdcage awl and don't see the need for one given the Crown, the Stanley, and the three or four gimlets I own, and frankly even this feels a bit 'overtooled.'
> ...



You could even mark them with Derek's leather awl... :wink:


----------



## CStanford (16 Jul 2017)

bugbear":3787tnuv said:


> CStanford":3787tnuv said:
> 
> 
> > The Crown design is absolutely superior because it's absolutely a faithful copy of a traditional marking awl. It's that simple. Sorry.
> ...



Because it's long, thin and can be held at its bulbous end, or like a pen near the business end. A leather awl is short and thick because it is often punched THROUGH the material as well as being used to make marks on it. A woodworking marking awl is not made for this sort of robust usage. The thin end and point are also thinner than the hash marks on a folding rule for reasons one hopes are obvious.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jul 2017)

Piffle  Do you actually use these tools? :lol: 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (16 Jul 2017)

Nope, never! :roll:


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (16 Jul 2017)

:lol: :lol: :lol: 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (16 Jul 2017)

Jacob":zg6bvij9 said:


> bugbear":zg6bvij9 said:
> 
> 
> > CStanford":zg6bvij9 said:
> ...


You misunderstand.

Even if it is accepted _as an axiom_ that traditional tools are highly evolved (it's not a very controversial or interesting viewpoint) this tells us nothing about WHY an individual tool is the way it is, or HOW to use it to best advantage.

And if the circumstances of the use of the tool change beyond the context in which it evolved, it might be a dodo...

Superbly evolved for its circumstances, until rats chances the circumstances.

BugBear


----------



## Jacob (16 Jul 2017)

bugbear":2xtt75xa said:


> ...
> 
> Even if it is accepted _as an axiom_ that traditional tools are highly evolved (it's not a very controversial or interesting viewpoint) this tells us nothing about WHY an individual tool is the way it is, or HOW to use it to best advantage....r


Generally this becomes apparent when you try to use the tool in question. You should try it some time!


----------



## CStanford (16 Jul 2017)

Bugbear, why do you think a jointer plane is long? You seem to be baffled by the few varieties of awl still around, but take for granted (?) the differences in other tools. It doesn't make sense.

I have a Stanley No. 7 Hurwood that has a steel strike button and is thick in section, then there's the Crown. The contrast, of course, at least puts one on notice that SOMETHING is up. If not, they'd all be the same.


----------



## G S Haydon (16 Jul 2017)

Derek's tools are going to be made and suit his needs well, there can be little debate about that. It's likely it'll work very well for others too.

Bugbear, on the broader point of the how, why is now unable to be discussed properly. There just aren't the required number, of mainly skilled professional and some skilled amateurs to be able to approve it's design by constant application. Having a handful of people theorising about why a new awl, might be better than another, is interesting, but is unlikely to reach a conclusion. The last time there was enough volume of skilled workers to approve much ended roughly by WW2, and at that point the people who could approve in volume were already in decline.

I'm happy to work on the assumption, that the evolved forms of hand tools, from the period where hand tools were dominant, are likely to be the best for most people. As would be the methods used during those times when using them. I find it unlikely than any forum member would have the experience to redefine tool use and approve progress in any way. As others have alluded to, practical application is key. If you want to find out for yourself, buy them both, report back! However don't expect everyone to agree with you for the reasons outlined in the paragraph above.


----------



## CStanford (16 Jul 2017)

FWIW, Crown sell both the slender marking awl that I linked to earlier and also a shorter, stouter one. See Amazon.

Cheers.


----------



## CStanford (16 Jul 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Piffle  Do you actually use these tools? :lol:
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



Warning, messy shop photos below. We've got chairs in the hopper, a standing desk, and what will be a painted huntboard repro piece all in process. It's good to have something to do while chair parts are cooking and/or maturing in their forms. All of these I've done and sold before and this current work is on order (phew!) not on spec. And in all of this not-so-fine photography this afternoon I realize I can't find my Crown awl! The short and stout Hurwood is in one of the pics. I think my wife might have the Crown in her 'art closet.' There is another aspect to my sprawling shop complex (Ha, Ha!), an outbuilding that has a some finished parts and other assorted goodies. I'd show a picture of my bench but it is a god-awful total embarrassment. Some of the parts on the floor are for the huntboard's two drawers. They'll be planed close to finished thickness and transferred into climate-controlled circumstances in the next few days to settle in; the glued components in the photos were in this portion of the shop briefly today and are already back in air conditioning. This time of year makes for slower than usual build times because of the heat, humidity and necessary workarounds, family vacations, etc.

http://s1051.photobucket.com/user/Charl ... slideshow/


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Jul 2017)

CStanford":1zppijor said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > Piffle  Do you actually use these tools? :lol:
> ...



She does leatherwork? 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Ttrees (17 Jul 2017)

I don't see the long crown scratch awl as being very practical for marking dovetails in most furniture 
components ...It looks very unwieldy for the job. 
Held by the handle it would hurt my wrist.
Held like a pencil it would hurt my fingers and my wrist.
I would take a guess it is a tool that has survived from the ship building days, or other work which required 
marking for huge timbers... canal locks, church roofs, etc.


----------



## Jacob (17 Jul 2017)

Ttrees":1tpug7ph said:


> I don't see the long crown scratch awl as being very practical for marking dovetails in most furniture
> components ...It looks very unwieldy for the job.
> Held by the handle it would hurt my wrist.
> Held like a pencil it would hurt my fingers and my wrist.
> ...


I use an old dart (without the feathers).


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Jul 2017)

> I use an old dart (without the feathers).



Actually, Jacob, an old dart would make more sense than a traditional scratch awl. The dart gets your fingers close to the sharp _and offers a grip quite similar to the scratch awl I designed!_







Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## bugbear (17 Jul 2017)

G S Haydon":nadw4qfu said:


> Derek's tools are going to be made and suit his needs well, there can be little debate about that. It's likely it'll work very well for others too.
> 
> Bugbear, on the broader point of the how, why is now unable to be discussed properly. There just aren't the required number, of mainly skilled professional and some skilled amateurs to be able to approve it's design by constant application. Having a handful of people theorising about why a new awl, might be better than another, is interesting, but is unlikely to reach a conclusion. The last time there was enough volume of skilled workers to approve much ended roughly by WW2, and at that point the people who could approve in volume were already in decline.


Agreed 100%. The problem is the context - the users. If you're going to spend your entire life using a tool, it is overwhelmingly important that it is fast and effective in use. Little else matters.

If the tool is hard to learn, it doesn't matter. Should the tool requires near-constant practise to maintain skill, it doesn't matter. If the optimal use of the tool is counter-intuitive, it doesn't matter. All these limitations are of no consequence for a life long user, learning in Master-Apprentice mode.

I need hardly state (but I feel the need) that for a lone, part-time amateur, these would all be substantial negatives.

BugBear


----------



## CStanford (17 Jul 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> CStanford":66g8cxyg said:
> 
> 
> > Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> ...



Good one!


----------



## CStanford (17 Jul 2017)

Watch this video to see where a short-bladed stout awl excels. Fascinating stuff, really. I think she's Australian!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LYSzhk5p_4


----------



## D_W (17 Jul 2017)

Jacob":wwt5t74h said:


> Ttrees":wwt5t74h said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see the long crown scratch awl as being very practical for marking dovetails in most furniture
> ...



That's not a bad idea! They already come pointed, hardened, and sharp.


----------



## CStanford (17 Jul 2017)

"If the tool is hard to learn, it doesn't matter. Should the tool requires near-constant practise to maintain skill, it doesn't matter. If the optimal use of the tool is counter-intuitive, it doesn't matter."

This describes 95%+ of the tools used in woodworking, perhaps with the possible exception at times of the counter-intuitive part. Everybody looks inept, with almost any tool, at first. They're all hard to learn to use correctly and efficiently. Just when you think you've learned how to use one you see somebody else using the same tool and it looks like they came out of the womb with it. There's usually a reason designs have been around for a while, some for centuries. 

I'm of the unabashed opinion that upholstery foam and athletic tape make a plane handle better but I'm thinking most would disagree and would criticize how I hold a plane. Still, my hands remain convinced.


----------



## swagman (17 Jul 2017)

PINOCCHIO :---) 

https://bluesprucetoolworks.com/collect ... ixed-blade

https://www.vespertools.com.au/marking- ... hen-knife/


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jul 2017)

You could of course turn a ferruled handle to hold a dart. It could look (and be) quite neat.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Jul 2017)

Phil, don't tempt David ... he'll start on an infilled version 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (17 Jul 2017)

swagman":3vcniazb said:


> PINOCCHIO :---)
> 
> https://bluesprucetoolworks.com/collect ... ixed-blade
> 
> https://www.vespertools.com.au/marking- ... hen-knife/



Here are some rather ornate versions of the tools we've been discussing:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/54887689185838894/


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Jul 2017)

Blue Spruce also sells a scratch awl for marking along these lines ...






They also sell a full system ...






Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## CStanford (17 Jul 2017)

Here's a monster, if your taste leans in that direction:

http://www.venacavadesign.co.uk/product ... rsetry_etc

These still come in different shapes and sizes for different trades!

Harness awls, stitching awls, etc.:

http://www.zackwhite.com/Awls-Hafts_c_237.html


----------



## G S Haydon (17 Jul 2017)

[/quote]
Agreed 100%. The problem is the context - the users. If you're going to spend your entire life using a tool, it is overwhelmingly important that it is fast and effective in use. Little else matters.

If the tool is hard to learn, it doesn't matter. Should the tool requires near-constant practise to maintain skill, it doesn't matter. If the optimal use of the tool is counter-intuitive, it doesn't matter. All these limitations are of no consequence for a life long user, learning in Master-Apprentice mode.

I need hardly state (but I feel the need) that for a lone, part-time amateur, these would all be substantial negatives.

BugBear[/quote]

Interesting theory, pretty groundless though. If something needs to be fast and effective it is unlikely to of evolved into something that is overwhelmingly hard to use. It is likley to of devloped into a concise tool and method. How you could make a link to effective methods are linked to counter intuitive practices is beyond me, although I am impressed with the overthink. The whole point of a Master, Apprentice method was to avoid making things more difficult than they need to be, to be effective.
Take a look at decent part-time amateur woodworking books from the likes of Hayward etc. Concise and to the point. Further, there is a level that all of us work to, and that approach will require constant application. Woodworking is an art, there is a knack to be learned that's part of the fun. It would be a shame if the creative arts and crafts were reduced to paint by numbers, just because, on the odd chance something might take a bit of deddication and practice.


----------



## CStanford (17 Jul 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Blue Spruce also sells a scratch awl for marking along these lines ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



These things remind me of the miniature baseball bats you could get from the souvenir stand at a Major League game.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (17 Jul 2017)

Charles, you know you said the very same thing all those years ago when I first posted a picture of my marking knife 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jul 2017)

They look like they've got darts in 'em. :lol:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Jul 2017)

phil.p":76m7hmyg said:


> They look like they've got darts in 'em. :lol:



Well, if you can mark out dovetails with a dart, they should be just about ideal for throwing at a dart board! :lol:


----------



## D_W (17 Jul 2017)

phil.p":27qgrl21 said:


> They look like they've got darts in 'em. :lol:



If you went to nodor or designa and got a 12 quid tungsten dart head set, you could stuff them into a handle (e.g, turn one and then just drill a 1/4th hole in it or something) and make an easy scratch knife that might even have a nice balance profile. 

They are at least saw temper at the tip, or so it would seem. 

If the tips were too blunt, you could chuck them in a drill and stone the tips to adjust the profile.


----------



## D_W (17 Jul 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Charles, you know you said the very same thing all those years ago when I first posted a picture of my marking knife
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



Cue the hair shirt line. It's on deck.


----------



## CStanford (17 Jul 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Charles, you know you said the very same thing all those years ago when I first posted a picture of my marking knife
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek



That's actually good to hear!


----------



## CStanford (17 Jul 2017)

D_W":3ciode6y said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > Charles, you know you said the very same thing all those years ago when I first posted a picture of my marking knife
> ...



You'd have to like hair shirts to use one of those knives....

There you go!


----------



## D_W (17 Jul 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> They also sell a full system ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow...

Knife handle: $75
Four collets to hold the blade set: $100
"Wallet": $50
Ten Blades: $100
_Less _one collet and one blade because they come with the handle: -$35
Total price: $290 (let that sink in a little bit.)
Not knowing you don't need it when you buy it, and then finding that you prefer a couple of simple marking tools that don't require changing ends: Priceless 

Maybe there's a package deal? When the word "system" is used with anything, it makes me cringe just a little. 

One of my friends gave me a BS marking knife years ago - one of the really thin ones (he bought two). It's turned nicely, but I can't get along with it when using it.


----------



## AndyT (17 Jul 2017)

I'm glad I'm in the UK and don't have to put up with all these fancy US or Australian tools! :lol: 

(Especially after 14 pages - are we heading for some sort of record length digression here? There must be some aspect of woodworking this thread hasn't covered yet!)


----------



## G S Haydon (17 Jul 2017)

Sharpening


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jul 2017)

D_W":3puq08ps said:


> phil.p":3puq08ps said:
> 
> 
> > They look like they've got darts in 'em. :lol:
> ...



that's what I thought - a bit of weight on the front for balance.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (17 Jul 2017)

G S Haydon":30szj5lp said:


> Sharpening



DW's covered that - you chuck them in a drill and hold a stone to the point, apparently. 

Must admit, I didn't know that. Mind you, I don't mark out dovetails with a dart because I prefer to be a bit closer to the work than eight feet away, and someone shouting, "One hundred and eighty!" every third pin gets distracting after a while.

OK, I know this comment is a bit surreal, but, well, spirit of the thread an' all......


----------



## D_W (17 Jul 2017)

Cheshirechappie":79fgveue said:


> G S Haydon":79fgveue said:
> 
> 
> > Sharpening
> ...



The most surreal is throwing darts and being concerned about 180s!

I'm one of 11 people in the US who throws darts recreationally. If I could afford a caller and he waited for 180s, there's no way he'd still be awake to call one every 4 hours of throwing. 

(they make point sharpeners, but I've never bought one. I'm sure they're inexpensive, because it's not woodworking tools, shaving or amateur knife making. The point that comes on my darts always seems to be a tiny blunt thing and then long and thin, which is good, because I have HVAC ducting just above my D20. If there was such a thing as micro-beveling points, which I'm sure there is, that's what I'd call the point). 

I've always marveled at how 3 nice tungsten darts with hardened steel tips can be made and then sold at retail for the equivalent of $15. And then I've marveled at how they are somehow $30 in the US. Nobody plays darts here and it seems that the importer would like to keep it that way by doubling the prices vs. UK and europe. A strange thing to do when you can ship a padded envelope from the UK for the same price as you can ship it domestically here. 

At any rate, a couple of offcuts, a half hour on the lathe for each (if you're going to turn something really nice and do a good job of drilling it centered) and you could have a very nice delicate scratch awl for about five bucks. No harbor freight quality steel, either. For the luddites, it wouldn't take long to make one with an octagonal handle, either.


----------



## B3nder (19 Jul 2017)

Something I should have pointed out is that I am using a scalpel. 

I'll have a dig around to try and find a dart due to this thread and also try doing pins first.


----------



## CStanford (19 Jul 2017)

I tried a scalpel a few times -- it always followed the grain too badly whether on end grain (tails first) or long grain (pins first). Ditto Xacto knives EXCEPT for their thick blades though I can't recall the model number of these blades at the moment.


----------



## woodbrains (19 Jul 2017)

B3nder":2jlbvs44 said:


> Something I should have pointed out is that I am using a scalpel.
> 
> I'll have a dig around to try and find a dart due to this thread and also try doing pins first.



Hello,

If you sharpen a medium pencil with an elliptical point and do pins first, you will not need a dart or marking knife or scratch awl or scalpel, making the last dozen pages obsolete! :-" a pencil is all you need, save your scalpel for sharpening it.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (19 Jul 2017)

CStanford":39q7xqp5 said:


> I tried a scalpel a few times -- it always followed the grain too badly whether on end grain (tails first) or long grain (pins first). Ditto Xacto knives EXCEPT for their thick blades though I can't recall the model number of these blades at the moment.


The third one along is best. Chisel end. You don't slice with it, just poke it in square and perpendicular - keeping it flush with the face of the pin hole.






The pin hole hardly needs marking up at all - space them by eye or divider and then just freehand the angle. Or ditto if you do the pins first - though something tells me this would be more difficult when you get to the holes so I'm not going to bother trying!


----------



## CStanford (19 Jul 2017)

Certainly worth remembering and trying.


----------



## D_W (19 Jul 2017)

CStanford":3dwrgc5r said:


> I tried a scalpel a few times -- it always followed the grain too badly whether on end grain (tails first) or long grain (pins first). Ditto Xacto knives EXCEPT for their thick blades though I can't recall the model number of these blades at the moment.



That's the same thing that occurred for me when I tried using one of the expensive very delicate marking knives. I fought its flexible blade too much. 

Much prefer a cheaper and heavier knife when a double bevel chip carving knife (or any cheap pocket knife with a sheepsfoot blade) doesn't have room to work.


----------



## B3nder (19 Jul 2017)

I'll give a pencil a go as I can't find a dart! Whatever approach I settle on 8m at least getting better!


----------



## Jacob (28 Jul 2017)

CStanford":2b5yu43x said:


> Aha, Jacob! You've identified the next hot market in boutique tools -- picks, shovels, and wheelbarrows!


Well the new boys do tend to put a lot of effort into solving design problems which the tradition had sorted out generations before!
But tradition involved huge investment of man hours into design development which a newcomer could never hope to equal.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Jul 2017)

D_W":1k7abvyt said:


> CStanford":1k7abvyt said:
> 
> 
> > I tried a scalpel a few times -- it always followed the grain too badly whether on end grain (tails first) or long grain (pins first). Ditto Xacto knives EXCEPT for their thick blades though I can't recall the model number of these blades at the moment.
> ...



This is clearly where our differing experience is a deciding factor. I find that spring in a thin marking knife aids in keeping the back of the blade flush against the socket wall. It is otherwise difficult to mark very narrow dovetails accurately in confined spaces. 












Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (28 Jul 2017)

Not very well spaced Derek. Did you have an accident with the dividers? Even free hand spacing is tidier than that. :lol:


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Jul 2017)

Artistic Jacob ... artistic! :lol: 

That was from from my Krenov phase 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## woodbrains (28 Jul 2017)

Jacob":v2d0nzjl said:


> Not very well spaced Derek. Did you have an accident with the dividers? Even free hand spacing is tidier than that. :lol:



Hello,

Looks OK to me......there is a good reason for spacing dovetails so there are more towards the edges. I do it like that myself. If a joint is going to let go, it is going to do it at the edges, so put more joints there, to give more glue area. It also gives the work a bit of visual tension and helps with the hand crafted look of the thing. We do not have to regiment everything.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (28 Jul 2017)

woodbrains":3eotklw8 said:


> ...helps with the hand crafted look of the thing. ...


Helps with the dedicated follower of fashion look of the thing!


----------



## D_W (28 Jul 2017)

Jacob":3558kol9 said:


> woodbrains":3558kol9 said:
> 
> 
> > ...helps with the hand crafted look of the thing. ...
> ...



I'd agree. I see intentionally different sized dovetails, but no visual tension or anything like that. 

(not that there's anything wrong with it, I just don't think there's any virtue in it, either. Virtuous dovetails are those that only show up when some article of furniture is open (or in the case of casework where there are no drawers or joints not covered by mouldings - not at all).


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (28 Jul 2017)

Mike is correct - there is a good reason to place the dovetails closer to the outside. Krenov frequently did so, and he wrote about the technique. His argument was that the ends of the drawer are under greater stress than the centre. 

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (28 Jul 2017)

I've never had a dovetail joint break. My parents have scads of old hand dovetailed furniture, because it's inexpensive where I came from. Only one of the pieces with dovetails is broken, and I have no idea how - the tails literally broke off in the sockets - as in they broke right where the line is struck across them. 

I'm sure there's a story there, but I don't know what it is. 

(aesthetically, I do think it looks nicer if they're close to the edge. I have, personally, had drawers that failed - they were made by other people, but in cabinets in my house. They were either pinned, or made on modern machinery with some sort of attempt at a lock joint. Or, they are dovetailed, but held in the furniture with plastic pieces screwed into the bottom (this is common with local makers attempting to make something hat has a hint of sturdiness in it, but when you take it out, you find out that it's full of things that will break down the road, leaving you to make an extensive repair when the plastic bits are impossible to find).

At any rate, I'm poo pooing for explanations that go beyond aesthetics - our hobby is full of them. Hypothetical things, but that are fairly low occurrence.


----------



## G S Haydon (28 Jul 2017)

For normal domestic furniture there is no need for the spacing shown in Derek's photo, making an argument that there should be is groundless. But for a personal project I think they are quite nice, understated, not in your face. A bit of subtle difference. Keep doing it Derek!


----------



## woodbrains (28 Jul 2017)

D_W":1glit29a said:


> Jacob":1glit29a said:
> 
> 
> > woodbrains":1glit29a said:
> ...



Hello,

Keep making planes from rectangular baulks of wood and leave the aesthetics to people who actually make furniture!

Mike.

And yes, aesthetics is spelled like this, I speak English correctly too.


----------



## G S Haydon (28 Jul 2017)

Ah the language Stazi! Thank heavens for that!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBOCHPCYnDw Written to any papers recently :lol: 
Watch it to the end, he makes a great point.

Back to the planing. It's free to join and you can watch him join a panel. Might be reassuring to those worrying about perfect fluffy shavings.

https://woodworkingmasterclasses.com/20 ... terclasses

David is a smooth mover https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nka94EiVkmM


----------



## Jacob (28 Jul 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> Mike is correct - there is a good reason to place the dovetails closer to the outside. Krenov frequently did so, and he wrote about the technique. His argument was that the ends of the drawer are under greater stress than the centre.
> 
> Regards from Perth
> 
> Derek


It's nonsense. Krenov was an amateur, he said so himself, over and over again. I think he was embarrassed by the guru status thrust upon him. Didn't stop him from idly making up all sorts of woodworking theories nor a lot of lazy acolytes from soaking them up!

PS I always sense that whenever anybody uses the word 'correct' in woodwork chats they are talking nonsense. It's a fairly safe rule of thumb.


----------



## D_W (28 Jul 2017)

[Quote ]

I'd agree. I see intentionally different sized dovetails, but no visual tension or anything like that. 

(not that there's anything wrong with it, I just don't think there's any virtue in it, either. Virtuous dovetails are those that only show up when some article of furniture is open (or in the case of casework where there are no drawers or joints not covered by mouldings - not at all).[/quote]

Hello,

Keep making planes from rectangular baulks of wood and leave the aesthetics to people who actually make furniture!

Mike.

And yes, aesthetics is spelled like this, I speak English correctly too.[/quote]

I've got a pretty good handle on aesthetics in general, which is why I think most modern studio furniture is dumb looking, and why there's no good reason to expose common joints. I've also got no idea why you're repeating the spelling of the word. Maybe you can clarify why you'd do that and spell it the same way I do?


----------



## Jacob (28 Jul 2017)

You can spell esthetics how you like, you have my permission.
But beware of 'Estheticians' - they are into 'microdermabrasion' apparently, keep your back to the wall. :shock:


----------



## D_W (29 Jul 2017)

Jacob":8rw8go4n said:


> You can spell esthetics how you like, you have my permission.
> But beware of 'Estheticians' - they are into 'microdermabrasion' apparently, keep your back to the wall. :shock:



Ahh, you were the spelling culprit. I won't claim to be anything of an expert on writing, reading, and so on, but agree with you on krenov. Never saw the big deal. 

Think the dovetails with "visual tension" look like buck teeth, though I'll give Derek credit - he made them as cleanly as they could be made. 

I'll go back to making my "baulky" planes, but I can't get bucky beaver out of my head. His teeth have visual tension. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB7fJYyPTko

(In the states, balky - the way most people spell it - means uncooperative or stubborn. I have to wonder how that fits with the wood billets, as they work quite agreeably).


----------



## D_W (29 Jul 2017)

G S Haydon":2f118k51 said:


> Ah the language Stazi!



The language Stasi will get you for spelling their name that way!


----------



## Jacob (29 Jul 2017)

D_W":1uio7pul said:


> ...
> Think the dovetails with "visual tension" look like buck teeth, though I'll give Derek credit - he made them as cleanly as they could be made.
> ...


He could do a cosmetic dentist job and fill in the gaps with carefully made inserts?


----------



## G S Haydon (29 Jul 2017)

Classic! Try and prove a point, spell it wrong. Or was it proper English?


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Jul 2017)

DW wrote:


> Think the dovetails with "visual tension" look like buck teeth, though I'll give Derek credit - he made them as cleanly as they could be made.



You insult me Sir!!

I challenge you to dovetail chisels at dawn! :lol: 

Who will be your second? Graham, will you sharpen my Wards?

Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## woodbrains (29 Jul 2017)

Jacob":16z1y5fi said:


> Derek Cohen (Perth said:
> 
> 
> > Mike is correct - there is a good reason to place the dovetails closer to the outside. Krenov frequently did so, and he wrote about the technique. His argument was that the ends of the drawer are under greater stress than the centre.
> ...



Hello,

As you have been corrected before, several times in fact, Krenov said he was an amateur 'in the true sense of the word'. Which means, doing things for the love of it, not being forced into professional expedients. He earned a living by making cabinets, writing and teaching woodwork, so in the true sense, he was a professional woodworker, he just refused to make things to a standard that did not suit his 'aesthetic'. By the way, he used to work in piece work factories, so before anyone makes comment about his work ethic, I think you'll find he worked very hard and knew about productivity.

Mike.


----------



## D_W (29 Jul 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> DW wrote:
> 
> 
> > Think the dovetails with "visual tension" look like buck teeth, though I'll give Derek credit - he made them as cleanly as they could be made.
> ...



I'm bringing bucky beaver. He can fly into space and brush his teeth at the same time!

Plus, I'll be able to lay his teeth across the and of the board and use them to mark the dovetails 

You know I'm just giving you a yank, the stuff you make is exceptionally clean. I'm just not a krenov worshiper for several reasons, and I can't immediately tell when I run into people who really favor the aesthetics of his stuff because they do vs. the ones who are more like religious followers.

I don't believe dovetails need to be perfectly sized, I think if someone (woodbrains) wants to really make the hand aesthetic, getting skillful at laying them out by eye so that they are almost identically sized but not quite if you look really closely is a pleasant aesthetic. Natural, but without being gawdy. Actually, I think the worst place for the large tails in that design is right in the middle, or on the outside, so I guess that leaves the larger tails looking better if they were between the others. 

Still, well executed and a look back lets us know you never allowed yourself to do sloppy work, even before your current "it's derek's work, derek's taste" not "it's derek's work based on someone else's taste" state.


----------



## D_W (29 Jul 2017)

G S Haydon":18gwkegj said:


> Or was it proper English?



I'm American, Graham, and with a math degree. I have no idea what proper English is! I do have one genuine English friend and one genuine Scottish friend over here. I know how to wind them up. Call the English fellow British ("I'm not British! That could be anything!!") and introduce the Scottish fellow to other people as English. But they know more about proper English language than I do by miles, and even if that's not true, they've got me convinced!


----------



## G S Haydon (29 Jul 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> DW wrote:
> 
> 
> > Think the dovetails with "visual tension" look like buck teeth, though I'll give Derek credit - he made them as cleanly as they could be made.
> ...



I would be delighted. I understand Sir prefers a hollow grind, finished on ceramics with a dash of green compound.


----------



## Jacob (29 Jul 2017)

D_W":2y0qzoxx said:


> G S Haydon":2y0qzoxx said:
> 
> 
> > Or was it proper English?
> ...


In English your 'math degree' is a 'maths degree'. Mathematics is plural.
Most of us would say we were English, Scottish, etc. according to where we were born and brought up, but "British" as a nationality.


----------



## D_W (29 Jul 2017)

I think you guys are generally much more tolerant than my English friend. He left 25 years ago and is wired like someone who was in England 25 years ago - time stopped there, and he's rigid!


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (29 Jul 2017)

D_W":2lpj349u said:


> G S Haydon":2lpj349u said:
> 
> 
> > Or was it proper English?
> ...



DW, I think you'll find your degree is in maths not math

EDIT just realised Jacob beat me to it


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Jul 2017)

> Still, well executed and a look back lets us know you never allowed yourself to do sloppy work, even before your current "it's derek's work, derek's taste" not "it's derek's work based on someone else's taste" state.



Dave

I think that Krenov kindled a love for wood and an awareness of the possibiities that lay within it for many. His aesthetic may not be shared by all, and copies of his work are overdone. There are many who have sought to emulate him without really understanding the subtleties of his designs - often missing the gentle curves and lightness he was able to create. He built a lot, and some of his pieces are mundane ... but some are exquisite. 

I never built anything that was a copy of his, and have no desire to do so. I did build a few pieces of furniture that were in the spirit of Krenov, and I do still feel inspired by him. 

The drawer I posted earlier was actually built about 8 years ago, and part of an armoire I made for a bedroom at home. The drawer may have been influenced by Krenov, but the rest was arts and crafts.












Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## Jacob (29 Jul 2017)

D_W":3h0h99s1 said:


> I think you guys are generally much more tolerant than my English friend. He left 25 years ago and is wired like someone who was in England 25 years ago - time stopped there, and he's rigid!


He's a bit of a nationalist then. 
Scot nats, Irish nats, Welsh nats all wish to detach themselves from the English for historic reasons; everything the 'British Empire' did to the colonies it first practiced on the Welsh, Irish and Scots, including stealing the land, genocide and 'ethnic cleansing'. They (basically land owners) did it to their own peasants too so the English got a taste of the same. 
Which makes an 'English Nationalist' a slightly odd bod - either a land owner or a 'conservative' with a very vague idea of history, or both.


----------



## Jacob (29 Jul 2017)

Derek Cohen (Perth said:


> > Still, well executed and a look back lets us know you never allowed yourself to do sloppy work, even before your current "it's derek's work, derek's taste" not "it's derek's work based on someone else's taste" state.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very nice Derek. Can't see the Krenov influence in the drawer so I guess you did buck-tooth dovetails?


----------



## Jacob (29 Jul 2017)

More buck-tooth dovetails here in urgent need of cosmetic surgery!

http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... rob-cosman


----------



## Cheshirechappie (29 Jul 2017)

Jacob":29kwrlmc said:


> D_W":29kwrlmc said:
> 
> 
> > I think you guys are generally much more tolerant than my English friend. He left 25 years ago and is wired like someone who was in England 25 years ago - time stopped there, and he's rigid!
> ...



Jacob - please leave politics and your odd interpretation of the very long and complex history of the British Isles out of it. It has nothing whatever to do with dovetails.


----------



## Jacob (29 Jul 2017)

We weren't talking about dovetails.


----------



## Derek Cohen (Perth Oz) (29 Jul 2017)

Jacob":tob5tdq7 said:


> More buck-tooth dovetails here in urgent need of cosmetic surgery!
> 
> http://www.popularwoodworking.com/woodw ... rob-cosman



You really would not like my bench then! :lol: 

This photo was taken during its build (not inspired by Krenov) ...






Regards from Perth

Derek


----------



## D_W (29 Jul 2017)

Paddy Roxburgh":127n36mm said:


> D_W":127n36mm said:
> 
> 
> > G S Haydon":127n36mm said:
> ...



I haven't seen my actual degree in about 17 years, but I'm sure I could dig it out. It says "mathematics on it" and then provides the option that I chose within that. 

Guarantee our course literature called every course "math 451" or something similar.


----------



## Paddy Roxburgh (29 Jul 2017)

Math is American English, maths is UK/Irish English. Neither is "correct English" as such a thing does not exist. I was just getting into the spirit of the conversation and being a knob.


----------



## woodbrains (29 Jul 2017)

Hello,

A link to dovetail making, pins first, a la North Bennet Street School. It is likely to drive Jacob around the twist, I hope! :lol: 

http://www.finewoodworking.com/2017/02/ ... =182869533

TBH there is too much chisel paring for my liking, and I don't like people who start the saw on the back stroke, a bit amateurish IMHO. Oh and he has the board far too high in the vice to control, but in the main, the method is more or less OK and proves it can all be done with a PENCIL.

Mike.


----------



## Jacob (29 Jul 2017)

woodbrains":28aiwo9j said:


> Hello,
> 
> A link to dovetail making, pins first, a la North Bennet Street School. It is likely to drive Jacob around the twist, I hope! :lol:
> 
> ...


Pencil good. I'm all for them. 
Sorry couldn't watch the vid - its 38 minutes long!!! and I was bored stiff in the first few seconds. :roll: 
OK so it can be done, but I'm not going to bother myself!


----------



## D_W (29 Jul 2017)

Paddy Roxburgh":2e1qwuwd said:


> Math is American English, maths is UK/Irish English. Neither is "correct English" as such a thing does not exist. I was just getting into the spirit of the conversation and being a knob.



That all adds up now. Har har. 

You'd be surprised, when we had English students come abroad to my school, they were pretty insistent that "maths" wasn't the right term, especially once they were liquored. 

We did tend to get English students who wanted to drink every night, at least the couple I ran into. Daily pub must be a college thing over there with the mid-range schools (I doubt that goes at oxford - but my wife went to anglia polytechnic for a semester and drank her share there), but some of the professors don't go for it and use short-deadline workload to test their students. Not compatible with weeknight drinking!!


----------

