Hand cut dovetails in sapele

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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.

Drawer-Construction-01.jpg


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.

Drawer-Construction-02.jpg


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.

Drawer-Construction-03.jpg


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!

Drawer-Construction-04.jpg


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.
 

Attachments

  • Drawer-Construction-01.jpg
    Drawer-Construction-01.jpg
    49.7 KB
  • Drawer-Construction-02.jpg
    Drawer-Construction-02.jpg
    61.3 KB
  • Drawer-Construction-03.jpg
    Drawer-Construction-03.jpg
    69.7 KB
  • Drawer-Construction-04.jpg
    Drawer-Construction-04.jpg
    69.1 KB
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!
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.

Drawer-Construction-05.jpg


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.
 

Attachments

  • Drawer-Construction-05.jpg
    Drawer-Construction-05.jpg
    41.9 KB
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

drawer+slips.tiff
 
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).
 
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
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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":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.
 
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.

Hello,

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

Mike.
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.
 
Jacob":1uuse4p1 said:
woodbrains":1uuse4p1 said:
CStanford":1uuse4p1 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.
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.

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

Latest posts

Back
Top