Traditional Drawer Construction (again!)

[jimi43]

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

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

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

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

The Front

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

The Rear

Hand-cut through dovetails....

The Bottom

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

Bottom extending out back for alignment?

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

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

Thanks!

Jim

 

[Jacob]

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

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

 

[jimi43]

Muntin!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers for your input mate.

Jim

 

[Jacob]

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

 

[jimi43]

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

Jim

 

[woodbloke]

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

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

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

 

[Modernist]

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

 

[Jacob]

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

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

.....

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

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

 

[jimi43]

Now this is getting interesting!

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

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

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

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

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

Jim

 

[Modernist]

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

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

 

[Jacob]

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

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

 

[woodbloke]

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

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

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

 

[jimi43]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim

 

[Jacob]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Modernist]

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

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

Jim

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

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

These are the flat top slips

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

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

 

[jimi43]

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

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

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

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

Jim

 

[woodbloke]

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

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

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

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

 

[Jacob]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Benchwayze]

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

John

 

[Modernist]

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

John

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

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