Minimum thicknesses of wood

[Andy Kev.]

Good Afternoon All,

I've noticed that in a lot of plans the most typical thickness for making small to medium items of furniture seems to be 3/4" (19 mm). I've just bought a plank of European Cherry and am planing the various boards into which it was rough sawn. Careful planing is giving me final pieces thicknesses of 1 1/8" to 1 1/4 " (29 - 32 mm). If I were to get access to a bandsaw to resaw the former I would end up with two boards of approx. 3/4" and 5/16" or alternatively two each of 1/2".

I fancy making a small sideboard (which would be quite a challenge for me) of say 3' x 3' x 1'. Would half inch wood be robust enough for e.g. the side panels, draw fronts etc? Would 1 1/4" be OK for the legs? (I would go for 3/4" for the top just on aesthetic grounds.)

Is there much use for 3'+ long boards of 5/16" thickness?

(Incidentally this wood, planed with a freshly sharpened iron, yields the most lovely, smooth finish which no amount of sanding could improve.)

Thanks in advance.

 

[RobinBHM]

Deeping boards to yield thinner stock is quite often asked as it seems a logical approach.

Unfortunately, deeping down boards of timber is likely to release tension so there is a high risk of ending up with lots of banana wood.

If you want to finish at 19mm, that is really ex 1" so that is the best thickness to buy -take an even amount off both sides.

 

[AndyT]

On the other hand, if you can get or make 1/2" or 5/16" boards, you have the chance to make something which will look different and distinctive - as Custard has pointed out before.

For a small piece, I think thinner boards can be plenty strong enough. Anything with a box structure will be especially rigid. Hardwood and proper joints will give you much more rigidity than mdf and screws.

Trouble is, no two boards will behave the same when resawn so it's impossible to predict how your wood will respond. I reckon it's better to try than not, but you're going to have to decide.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Hi Andy

Assuming that you could get the thicknesses off a bandsaw (re-sawing releases tension which cause boards to cup, boards require flattening and thicknessing ... all reduced the final thickness obtainable), then 1/4"-5/16" is a reasonable thickness for a panel insert in a frame-and-panel side (you would also need 3/4" for the frames), otherwise solid sides would need to be about 3/4". 3/4"-1" is good for the top. I tend to build drawer fronts 3/4" thick, with drawer sides about 1/4"-3/8" thick in a secondary wood (preferably quarter sawn).

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[Jacob]

Good Afternoon All,

I've noticed that in a lot of plans the most typical thickness for making small to medium items of furniture seems to be 3/4" (19 mm). I've just bought a plank of European Cherry and am planing the various boards into which it was rough sawn. ....

You should not plane anything until it has been cut to length and ripped for width/depth according to the cutting list of your project. otherwise it can be very wasteful. Ripping after planing is a mistake - you'll have to plane it again most likely.
3/4 finished size is what you'd expect to get from 1" boards. You can't quite get 1" sawn boards for 3/4" finish by ripping anything under 2" and a bit, but you might manage it with short lengths.

 

[D_W]

My opinion, not knowing what most modern furniture looks like, is that a lot of the older "we make, you finish" furniture around here was solid sides and drawer fronts with thin stock.

The only exception I can think of here is queen anne stuff (which is made over here as commodity furniture - sort of queen anne-ish shape, but not much detail and everything done with machine - details and such - and heavy sanding), but then that stuff uses a lot of heavier woods on the sides, top, and legs.

I can never, personally, get 3/8-1/2" stock out of 5/4 to make it worth the effort. Lots of panels with bends in them, etc.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

One of the problems in designing and making one-off pieces of furniture is that you can never be quite sure whether certain features will work visually until you've made it. It's far easier to look at an existing one, and decide it would look a bit better if this panel were a bit thicker, or the legs a bit thinner, or that curve were more pronounced.

There are a couple of possible ways round this. A working drawing can help (if you're familiar with making and reading drawings) or making a model. Many makers produce 'maquettes' or scale models of a piece, sometimes to test proportions and design features, sometimes to illustrate a design to a client (sometimes both!). In some cases, a full size model in cheap timber can help, too. They can also be useful in resolving construction detail problems, and in seeing how a piece will stand in a room.

Generally, smaller pieces look better in thinner timbers. However, there are tricks to reduce the visual mass of thicker timbers by using chamfers, mouldings and so on. You can go quite thin and still retain more than enough structural integrity, especially with carcase structures. Legs are a different matter; a 1 1/4" square leg 3 feet long will probably look rather spindly.

Great question though - most people would just use the wood thicknesses they have, and then feel the piece looks too heavy and clunky.

 

[David C]

Center deeping is usually a disaster.

I remember Edward Barnsley telling me that he had spent most of a lifetime getting his carcase sides down from 3/4" to 5/8" !!

5/8" looks significantly lighter than 3/4 and can look very good on smaller things.

David

 

[Andy Kev.]

Thank you all very much for the replies.

In the light of what you all say I think I'll play it safe with this wood and plan on getting the boards down to 3/4" thickness. Most of it is fairly straight grained and quite flattish even in the raw state, so I shouldn't have too much trouble. I'll then hoof it back to the timber yard and see if they've got it in 50 mm so that I can get 1 3/4" square pieces for legs.

Cheshire Chappie: I think you are probably right ref. 1 1/4" being too thin for three foot legs. I made a small table for learning purposes with legs that thick tapering down to 1/2" but it is only 18" tall and so it just looks delicate rather than spindly, so I reckon for three foot legs 1 3/4" or so should do it.

I've not seen the term "deeping" before. Is it an old term for resawing?

 

[sunnybob]

Deeping is a new one on me too. Just spent a quarter hour searching the web, no such word listed on wiki, encyclopaedia brittanica, collins dictionary, or any where else.

Must be a local dialect word.

 

[Jacob]

Deeping is a new one on me too. Just spent a quarter hour searching the web, no such word listed on wiki, encyclopaedia brittanica, collins dictionary, or any where else.

Must be a local dialect word.

http://www.deepingssc.co.uk/

I quite like it - it seems to mean "deep" ripping a piece of wood through the width rather than the thickness, the latter being "shallowing" perhaps?
Dave made it up I think. Well done Dave!

It crops up a lot on here search.php?keywords=deeping&terms=all&author=&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search so eventually will make it to google and wikipedia.

 

[mikefab]

I know joiners here in the North East who use the term 'deeping'. So I doubt David C did make it up!!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

And here. So that's an odd "regional thing", Cornwall to Northumberland.

 

[sunnybob]

There ya go, a national word that isnt in any global refrence library.

Like Homer says "every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out my brain"

 

[Andy Kev.]

The more I think about it, the more I like it. The frame saw that you use for it becomes your "deeping saw" which has a good ring to it.

 

[RobinBHM]

'Deeping' is quite a common term in joinery. Ive certainly heard it used in various joinery shops.

The result of deeping is often followed by another technical term; 'those deeped boards are now as bent as a donkey's hind leg'.

 

[Jacob]

Just call it bananaring instead?

 

[AndyT]

For anyone wanting written confirmation that 'deeping' is a common term, even though the compiliers of the OED have missed it, here are a few easily found occurrences:

The Woodworker, in 1911, had what seems to be a hand tool usage, and a snippet of an argument too:

With the backs of the teeth well down at a very sharp angle, this allows the wood to enter the saw too freely, and renders it possible for the teeth to break when ... I hope that those who file upright teeth for deeping purposes will mend their ways.

Carpentry and Joinery by David Bates - a recent textbook - Google books shows a snippet from page 150 including a diagram of deeping here which suggests that it means a single deep cut where the saw penetrates the wood in one go https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LtM ... ng&f=false

Or here, Wood Machining by Voisey, 1987 where 'deeping' means the same as 'blind cutting' - a cut to the full depth of the circular saw blade, so that the teeth do not emerge on the other side:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ezp ... edir_esc=y

I'm sure there are thousands more places where the word has been used, if anyone wants them.

 

[David C]

Thanks Andy.

I think the 1911 example is excellent.

David

 

[bugbear]

it is common for craft terms (or craft specific meanings of common words) not to be in general purpose reference works.

Which is why Stobart's mighty "Glossary of Wood" has 10,000 entries and 656 pages. :shock:

Woodworking isn't even the prime offender - "The Sailor's Word Book" has 14,000 entries, "The Sailor's Lexicon" 15,000.

BugBear