# Timber for drawer sides and backs?



## Forbes (26 Feb 2010)

Hi, I am about to embark on a large chest of drawers (9 drawers). All the wood on show, including the drawer fronts, will be American White Oak, to match other furniture in the bedroom. The bottoms of the drawers will be 6mm birch ply, but I was wondering if I could make the sides and backs of the drawers out of some other hardwood which would be cheaper than the American White Oak but still nice to work, and to live with. Some years ago I used some stuff for this purpose from Travis Perkins which was reddish and light but a bit coarse and splintery - it may have been Meranti - but I didn't really like it too much but it was all they could offer. I would welcome any suggestions for a suitable timber. I could, of course, just order some extra AWO. Whatever it is, I think I may ask the timber yard to resaw it for me to about 14 or 15mm , to finish on about 10mm, as my attempts at resawing have been a bit hit and miss.
Thanks for reading, Forbes


----------



## markymark12 (26 Feb 2010)

I would stick with the oak myself.

For all the work you are going to put into it is it really worth the spoiling of it for the few extra pounds??

i would be very careful of resawing down from thicker stock, of what is going to be kilned dried, the in balance of the moisture contend from face to centre will most likely cause cupping which may be difficult to resolve.

Better to take from 1" stock and reduce by flipping through the planer so equal removal from both faces.


----------



## 9fingers (26 Feb 2010)

10mm seems a bit narrow but then again you don't say how wide the drawers are.
You will almost certainly need to use drawers slips to secure the base.

see this recent thread https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/post ... tml#464874.

As for your question.... Maybe English ash which is reasonably priced and quite well behaved.

good luck

Bob


----------



## OPJ (26 Feb 2010)

I'd also be inclined to stick with oak. It's durable and very hard wearing, which is an essential requirement for traditional drawer construction.


----------



## mr grimsdale (26 Feb 2010)

I wouldn't bother with AWO it's horrible stuff. If oak is what you want why not use British. and keep the AWO for the backs and sides?
Better - redwood will do for back and sides - given normal use it'll be good for 100 years or so.


----------



## Chris Knight (27 Feb 2010)

QS oak is the ideal for drawer sides and as has been said - given the work you are putting into it why stint on the materials unless it's absolutely essential.

IMHO, many people make drawer sides far too thick and 10 mm is plenty for almost any piece of furniture - I tend to shoot for 8mm myself. If the drawers are wide, you will likely need muntins anyway.

If you use a cheap secondary wood then ash or poplar are among the least expensive hardwoods. 

One of the reasons to use a hard hardwood is to resist wear. Wear can be overcome in other ways such as by the use of slips or the NK design which is essentially a sliding tray. The tray has all of the drawer's sliding surfaces which you fettle to fit the cabinet perfectly. After you've got a good fit, you make a drawer box and fix it to the tray. The drawer box itself does not touch the cabinet.


----------



## mr grimsdale (27 Feb 2010)

waterhead37":3nulnire said:


> QS oak is the ideal for drawer sides and as has been said - given the work you are putting into it why stint on the materials unless it's absolutely essential.


That'd be a very high spec for drawers with AWO fronts!


> ...
> One of the reasons to use a hard hardwood is to resist wear. Wear can be overcome in other ways such as by the use of slips ....


With trad design wear isn't much of a problem with drawers unless exceptional use is entailed. Slips are good - which can be hardwood if wear is really a problem.


----------



## woodbloke (27 Feb 2010)

mr grimsdale":p3cbx7be said:


> I wouldn't bother with AWO it's horrible stuff. If oak is what you want why not use British


Again, I find myself agreeing with Mr Grim here...oak is the best choice for drawer sides, and preferably English quarter sawn, if you can find some - Rob


----------



## Forbes (28 Feb 2010)

Many thanks to all of you who responded to my request for advice. I clearly should have given a bit more info about my project. First, it is not intended to be a masterpiece but a serviceable and useful piece of bedroom furniture that will look decent, and also will match a built-in chest of drawers that I made some years ago, a run of built-in wardrobes and a bedside cabinet, not to mention a bedstead that was actually bought from a shop. That means American White Oak. And the piece should not cost an arm and a leg, or be too tricky to make. ( I am a very slow worker.) The top and sides will be AWO veneered MDF.

I plan to use metal drawer slides, as I did before. With simple bottom fixing slides the ply drawer bottoms sit on the flange of the slides and the drawer box (front, back and sides) sits on the bottom, pinned and glued. That means that the weight of the contents of the drawer is transmitted through the bottom to the slides and hence to the carcase. There are no runners or kickers and no dust from wood rubbing on wood, hence no need for dust panels. And no need to even think about using slips. 

Having said all that, I now question my own assumption that I wanted to use hardwood for the sides. Thanks mr grim for suggesting redwood, I'll think about that, although I don't understand why you hate AWO so much.

The larger width drawers will be 600mm by 500 deep: I don't think that I will need muntins with 6mm birch ply.

Thanks to markymark for the warning about resawing. Losing well over half the timber in the planer does make me wince, though, but not so much as throwing out two warped pieces. Perhaps that issue wouldn't apply so much to redwood.

As regards the thickness of the drawer sides, 10mm looks about right to me, and is the same as has been used in the older pieces of furniture in our house. With the way I will be using bottom fixed slides, there is no serious loading on the sides, unless someone sees how many sweaters can be stuffed into one drawer.

Thanks to waterhead37 for the reference to the NK design. After googling NK and reading lots of stuff I think I get the idea. I might make use of it, adapted to metal slides.

Thanks again, your contributions much appreciated, Forbes


----------



## mr grimsdale (28 Feb 2010)

Forbes":2bxepnfn said:


> ...
> I plan to use metal drawer slides, as I did before. ....


In which case any old sh^te will do for drawer sides, even mdf :roll: as long as it will hold a screw.
Go for the cheapest.


----------



## Mark.R (28 Feb 2010)

I am using Tulip wood, and cutting it down from 30 to 15 mm to make the drawer sides and backs with 10 mm veneered mdf for the drawer bottoms. I read that it may pay to reduce the timber thickness by takingequal off both sides to prevent cupping if it was taken all off one side.

Please let me know your views regarding tulip wood for drawers. Is`nt it also clalled Poplar?


----------



## eoinsgaff (28 Feb 2010)

Another option for re-sawing is to get a thicker piece of lumber and divide it three ways rather than two. That helps to reduce potential movement. Air dried wood is also a better option than Kiln Dried.

Eoin


----------



## promhandicam (28 Feb 2010)

mr grimsdale":kbgidweq said:


> Forbes":kbgidweq said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I'm just waiting for woodbloke to have to agree with you twice in the same post which will be some sort of record :shock: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Forbes (1 Mar 2010)

Mark.R, Yes, I understand that Tulipwood is the same thing as Poplar. I just spoke to a man at Sykes Timber in Atherstone, who suggested that timber for drawer sides, as did waterhead37. He is having a think about the resawing question and will get back to me. As regards your veneered MDF drawer bottoms, if you have wide drawers I would be a bit concerned about them sagging over the course of time, but should be fine if they are small and lightly loaded.
Forbes


----------



## Mark.R (1 Mar 2010)

The sagging is something I havent considered until now! Perhaps I will incorporate something to go across the underside to prevent this.

Thanks again.

Mark.r


----------



## simuk (2 Mar 2010)

mr grimsdale":1eqjjxnk said:


> I wouldn't bother with AWO it's horrible stuff. If oak is what you want why not use British. and keep the AWO for the backs and sides?
> Better - redwood will do for back and sides - given normal use it'll be good for 100 years or so.



Why is AWO horrible stuff & what make British better?


----------



## Sgian Dubh (2 Mar 2010)

eoinsgaff":3n25wadh said:


> Air dried wood is also a better option than Kiln Dried. Eoin



Eoin, Why? Please expand on that and explain your reasoning. Slainte.


----------



## OPJ (2 Mar 2010)

simuk":1abz0s2p said:


> Why is AWO horrible stuff & what make British better?



Well, I don't know about Jacob but I prefer the grain in English oak; it's got much more character and that can make a big difference in your work. European oak though, is quite bland and almost straight-grained at times, which makes it better suited to joinery work. I don't think American oak has as much character and, certainly, red oak isn't as durable as others.


----------



## woodbloke (2 Mar 2010)

promhandicam":3p5v7zq2 said:


> mr grimsdale":3p5v7zq2 said:
> 
> 
> > Forbes":3p5v7zq2 said:
> ...


...ain't gona happen, there are limits :lol: - Rob


----------



## maltrout512 (2 Mar 2010)

> Air dried wood is also a better option than Kiln Dried.



eoinsgaff I too would like to know.


----------



## Chems (2 Mar 2010)

Come on not the Kiln vs Aired again. Do a search and we can talk about other things!

I used some AWO, but it wasn't AWO as they didn't do that but the stuff they gave me was very nice, can't remember if it was European oak now but it was lovely. Got a huge plank in the shop waiting to be planned up for a serving tray as well.


----------



## Benchwayze (2 Mar 2010)

I agree with Jacob. I might consider finding an old 'utility-furniture' sideboard. A good source of oak you can recycle. You could rub joint strips to the bottom edges of the drawer-linings, before you size the stock. That way you will save money, but still have the durability of oak against oak. But is a 100 years long enough? I think so. 

Also try to plan for English oak next time. Even when sawn through and through, it's by far the better timber, works well and the scent of it is a bit intoxicating to me. (I always was a bit wide of the norm though!) . 

Regards
John


----------



## Sgian Dubh (2 Mar 2010)

Chems":2kloaaf2 said:


> Come on not the Kiln vs Aired again. Do a search and we can talk about other things!



Oddly enough Chems, I was sort of thinking, "Oh no, not the drawer side material debate yet again".

I'm interested to see how eoin sets out his argument for air dried material always being superior to kiln dried material for drawer parts.

I already know all the options regarding drawer side material choices, in the same way that I probably already know all the pluses and minuses regarding air dried versus kiln dried wood; I am still interested to see how other woodworkers justify a bald statement that initially lacks any reason to support it. Slainte.


----------



## woodbloke (2 Mar 2010)

Sgian Dubh":2ohf2ku7 said:


> I already know all the options regarding drawer side material choices, in the same way that I probably already know all the pluses and minuses regarding air dried versus kiln dried wood; I am still interested to see how other woodworkers justify a bald statement that initially lacks any reason to support it. Slainte.


Richard, I can't put an objective slant to this as I'm not party to all the technicalities of KvsA dried timber. For me, and this ia a personal view, air dried timber is just more pleasant to us. It's very difficult to quantify for me...it is just better. I'm doing a couple of projects at the moment in air dried oak (I know as I saw it in stick outside) which is fabulous stuff to use, it has none of the 'carrotyness' that you sometimes find with kilned material.
That said, I've probably done stuff in kilned material (and not realised it's been kilned) which has also been good to use (American Cherry is decent when kilned) but my view has probably been jaded by using kilned AWO which I don't like :evil: - Rob


----------



## Stevie-Raw (2 Mar 2010)

Definately oak for the drawer sides. Something I've been doing to get round the inevitable cupping(not to mention the wastage) when reduceing stock down from 25mm to 8 to 12mm for sides is a Robert Inghram technique. Using 2 inch stock(PAR), rip off strips of approx 14mm thickness and then edgejoint them to produce your drawer side. The growth rings will be more or less in a quartersawn fashion and the width of the drawer is constructed of narrow pieces of wood so movement will be minimal. Once edge jointed you can resurface and thickness the timber down to your final thickness. More timeconsuming I know but the result is a very stable drawer side.


----------



## Chris Knight (2 Mar 2010)

Quite recently I finished up a fabulous supply of QS oak drawer side material I got a few years ago from one of those architectural salvage places. It was said to be some ancient Belgian skirting board. Apart from a few nail holes, it couldn't have been better. It was thick enough to resaw and it didn't move at all when sliced in half.

I'm not sure if the yard knew it was oak even but as it was covered in a heavy varnish with nails sticking out of it, it looked awful. Mind you, the fact that they were cut square nails ought to have provoked a bit of curiosity I reckon!


----------



## woodbloke (2 Mar 2010)

waterhead37":4t1zoz08 said:


> Quite recently I finished up a fabulous supply of QS oak drawer side material I got a few years ago from one of those architectural salvage places. It was said to be some ancient Belgian skirting board. Apart from a few nail holes, it couldn't have been better. It was thick enough to resaw and it didn't move at all when sliced in half.
> 
> I'm not sure if the yard knew it was oak even but as it was covered in a heavy varnish with nails sticking out of it, it looked awful. Mind you, the fact that they were cut square nails ought to have provoked a bit of curiosity I reckon!


If you were using it for drawer sides Chris, my guess is that you only needed shortish lengths and so could work round the nail holes - Rob


----------



## Paul Chapman (2 Mar 2010)

Sgian Dubh":2556t5h8 said:


> I probably already know all the pluses and minuses regarding air dried versus kiln dried wood



It would be helpful if you could give us a few pointers, Richard. I've certainly had problems with kiln dried wood - case hardening and splits developing (which only tend to show up when you start working the wood).

For me it's a case of once bitten twice shy. I think the problem for us hobby woodworkers is that we have no way of knowing how well the kiln drying process has been carried out. I've also found that some woodyards sell kiln dried wood which they've stored in damp conditions, which rather defeats the object. Whenever possible I try to use air dried or reclaimed wood as that seems to result in fewer problems.

Cheers :wink: 

Paul


----------



## Chems (2 Mar 2010)

Sgian Dubh":2qt7w96v said:


> Chems":2qt7w96v said:
> 
> 
> > Come on not the Kiln vs Aired again. Do a search and we can talk about other things!
> ...



I've obviously not been around long enough as I don't think I've come across that one before actually!


----------



## simuk (2 Mar 2010)

OPJ":225hk4mz said:


> simuk":225hk4mz said:
> 
> 
> > Why is AWO horrible stuff & what make British better?
> ...




Thanks, interesting


----------



## OPJ (3 Mar 2010)

Chems":355nihym said:


> I've obviously not been around long enough as I don't think I've come across that one before actually!



I don't think it was that long ago that we were debating this on the forum... I'm sure the last time was only just before Christmas!


----------



## Sgian Dubh (6 Mar 2010)

woodbloke":ecbi9b2k said:


> Richard, I can't put an objective slant to this as I'm not party to all the technicalities of KvsA dried timber. For me, and this ia a personal view, air dried timber is just more pleasant to us. It's very difficult to quantify for me...it is just better. I'm doing a couple of projects at the moment in air dried oak (I know as I saw it in stick outside) which is fabulous stuff to use, it has none of the 'carrotyness' that you sometimes find with kilned material.
> That said, I've probably done stuff in kilned material (and not realised it's been kilned) which has also been good to use (American Cherry is decent when kilned) but my view has probably been jaded by using kilned AWO which I don't like - Rob



It looks like eoin isn't going to set out his reasons for saying that air dried timber is best. So I'll respond to your post Rob.

It's my experience that you can only say that one type of dried wood is better than the other in certain circumstances. For example we've just had a project go through the workshop to build furniture for outside use. Generally spreaking it makes sense to use air dried stock here because air dried stock will never dry below about 18% MC in this country unless it's dried in covered sheds, and it's not always. Outdoor furniture is never likely to get much below this sort of moisture content either, and frequently will be above 20% or 25% MC.

Similarly if you are building furniture or fittings for museum archives and storage facilities where conditions are kept particularly dry on purpose it's a sensible choice to make these items out of kiln dried stock so that shrinkage is kept to a minimum.

I have come across badly air dried wood, just as I've been sold badly kiln dried stuff. There's a myth out there that all drying problems are induced by the kilning process. They're not as I've come across case hardened air dried wood as well as case hardened kilned stock.

It's often cited that air dried stock is kinder on tools and easier to work, and generally that is the case. Secondly, many put forward the argument that air dried wood has a greater range of colour than kiln dried material, and that too is often the case. However, to set against that those colours are often fugitive and I've made pieces of furniture using, for example, various walnuts. Usually, after about a year or two years it's hard to tell the difference in colour between air dried and kiln dried material.

Air dried material is more likely to bring unwanted pests into your workshop, eg, common furniture beetle and powder post beetle. The kilning process kills these pests, but it's true that the pests could attack the wood, particularly the sapwood, later on.

Kiln drying hardens and stiffens the wood to a greater extent than air drying-- explaining why it's harder to work than air dried stuff, see above. This is a major disadvantage if you are steam bending the wood, but it is an advantage where strength is an issue. Kiln drying, because it dries the wood to a lower MC than air drying will reveal what may be unacceptable warping in wood in a finished furniture item. You can reject it before you use it whereas you won't find out the problem until after the piece is made with the air dried material. Kilning therefore helps to stabilise the wood because it causes the cells to distort as much they are going to distort.

If you have two samples of the same wood species, one air dried down to 15% MC and one kiln dried to 7% MC and they are both at, say, 15% MC you can assume the kiln dried material has gained moisture, and the air dried stuff has never been below 15%. If you were to set about conditioning both these pieces of wood to, let's say, about 8% MC, through stickering them up inside in a warm dry spot, (eg, your house) you'll find the kiln dried stuff dries out a lot quicker than the air dried material.

These are just some of the differences between air dried material and kiln dried material. It's my experience and knowledge that says to me that it's not good advice to simply say one is always better than the other. The characteristics of air dried material are somewhat different to the characteristics of kiln dried stuff. Neither is really better than the other, but there are circumstances where the use of one is a better choice than the other.

I think it's generally best to add context and reason for any advice given. At least this way it gives the reader something solid to chew on and learn from. Unsubstantiated opinion on factual subjects doesn't really add anything useful to a discussion, and may even hinder learning. Slainte.


----------



## PerranOak (7 Mar 2010)

waterhead37":2ps9mr7j said:


> IMHO, many people make drawer sides far too thick and 10 mm is plenty for almost any piece of furniture - I tend to shoot for 8mm myself. If the drawers are wide, you will likely need muntins anyway.



I too like to have thinner drawer sides than "normal". I'm just making one with 9mm sides/back, sapele. 

What depth would you put the groove for the base in this?


----------

