No longer remotely Shaker(ish) dining table

[AJB Temple]

Hi Steve, Annoyingly the iPhone picture of the best image is too large (this forum is a bit archaic in picture handling) but the picture attached is from two birdcage tables circa 1700. These from my bible on oak furniture: Oak Furniture - The British Tradition by Vincent Chinnery.

There are a number of ways used by the old craftsmen to joint tables to legs. However most dining tables (refectory or one of the multitude of names) had more substantial leg structures. It is worth remembering that back in medieval times is was common for house staff to sleep both on and under tables, hence structure and balance was critical. My medieval refectory table is getting on for 4 inches thick on the top and the legs and braces are what one might call sturdy.

 

[Steve Maskery]

Thank you.
The column I have drawn is 95mm diameter at the bottom, the dovetails can be anything up to 30mm long.

I have another design in my head. I might draw it up and see if floats my boat more.

That Moser table seemed sturdy enough. Those end structures were ex-2". 45mm I suppose.

The thing is, I don't really want a normal 4-legged table, I want something more interesting.

 

[Jacob]

Talking of 3 legged saw horses table supports (well I was anyway) I first saw one in the Rijksmuseum in a dolls house (I think). Couldn't find a snap but found this instead, which I thought was interesting https://www.canvas.co.com/creations/2957
PS Talking of Amsterdam, just remembered (trying to ignore) today is Brexit day. :roll: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9jEuHbB0GQ

 

[AndyT]

Steve, I hope these might help with your thinking. Both shaker originals.

This table is 20 feet long but does give a precedent for more than one base unit.

And this one is a bit more conventional

 

[Racers]

I am with the crowd here Steve, the joint between the top and legs isn't strong enough.

It needs to be T or Y shaped to spread the load.



Pete

 

[Steve Maskery]

Well, when so many experienced people, whose opinions I (normally! ) respect tell me I'm wrong, I should listen.

So I've beefed it up at both ends, The leg is now 25mm taller at the dovetail end and the top rails are now 95mm deep, set as a bridle joint.

What do you think? Click to enlarge:

 

[Jacob]

Remove stretcher and add a 3rd leg to each post and you are there!

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Hi Steve, Annoyingly the iPhone picture of the best image is too large (this forum is a bit archaic in picture handling) but the picture attached is from two birdcage tables circa 1700. These from my bible on oak furniture: Oak Furniture - The British Tradition by Vincent Chinnery.

There are a number of ways used by the old craftsmen to joint tables to legs. However most dining tables (refectory or one of the multitude of names) had more substantial leg structures. It is worth remembering that back in medieval times is was common for house staff to sleep both on and under tables, hence structure and balance was critical. My medieval refectory table is getting on for 4 inches thick on the top and the legs and braces are what one might call sturdy.

I've always thought that the birdcage mechanism was to allow the table top to be rotated - a sort of 'lazy susan' idea when serving afternoon tea - as well as tilted (to save space when not being used to serve afternoon tea).

http://blog.thakehamfurniture.co.uk/201 ... ge-tables/

There's a good video of Roy Underhill making the sliding dovetails for a "Hancock Pedestal Table" which I think is the sort of design that might have influenced the designer of what influenced Steve (!) https://www.pbs.org/video/the-woodwrigh ... tal-table/

Here's a design (a bit chunky but could be refined) for a dining table which is essentially a pair these pedestals supporting one tabletop:

https://www.barkerandstonehouse.co.uk/d ... 797-91502/

Cheers, W2S

 

[MikeG.]

Well that top is better Steve, certainly. I'm still sceptical about the legs. How about extending it downwards in an upside-down finial, and putting a strap around it, like a ferrule? That would have the duel benefit of getting the joint away from the end of the vertical post, and tying it together to resist the grain splitting if it came under pressure. I also just think it needs to be chunkier.

This leg design is something I would consider marginal, and if I were making it I would want to reassure myself by making a reasonable mock-up before embarking on the real thing. If that turns out OK, then crack on.

Edit....moving the stretcher away from the joints between the posts and the feet would improve the strength of the latter. If you added a third foot in its place you could eliminate the stretcher altogether, so long as you don't drag the table around.

 

[AJB Temple]

Well - the old original birdcage tables I have seen in real life have neither rotated nor tilted. That is not to say that they didn't at one time I suppose. They certainly were making rotating candle stands to go up and down on a screw at that time, and also more rudimentary candle and rush taper holders that could be adjusted for height.

For anyone who has the book, look at Figure 3.184 on page 297. Very high quality birdcage with four turned posts and arches, and an elaborate through centre post. Clearly not designed to tilt in that case.

 

[D_W]

I saw an advert for a Shaker Bar Stool once! They'll be making Shaker condoms next...

I'm waiting for the Tesla Model 3, Shaker edition. Aged cherry paint with virtue signaling turn indicators.

 

[D_W]

I'll be watching this one closely. It looks an interesting project.

But Shaker? I mean "Shaker" gets added to all sorts of simple panel work as though no-one else ever did panels, but I've never seen "Shaker" added to such an ornate table leg arrangement as that. Shaker furniture was all about stripped back simplicity. I may well be wrong, but if anyone can post an image of a genuine Shaker table that looks anything like this I'll be mightily surprised.

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/shak/hd_shak.htm

There were some shaker bits with turned elements and curves, but they were probably the minority. Not sure if the shakers and quakers at the time knew they were building a strong brand for future boutique furniture makers (some of the shaker makers in maine charge nosebleed prices - snooty and I guess targeted at doofus customers who don't find anything strange about $12,000 boutique made case work called "shaker" that most amateurs could build).

 

[Woody2Shoes]

Well - the old original birdcage tables I have seen in real life have neither rotated nor tilted. That is not to say that they didn't at one time I suppose. They certainly were making rotating candle stands to go up and down on a screw at that time, and also more rudimentary candle and rush taper holders that could be adjusted for height.

For anyone who has the book, look at Figure 3.184 on page 297. Very high quality birdcage with four turned posts and arches, and an elaborate through centre post. Clearly not designed to tilt in that case.

I wish I had a copy of your book!

The antique ones that have passed through my family have usually rotated and mostly tilted (unless bodged by some repairer). I suspect that there is a difference between US and European designs and between the use envisaged when they were first made (e.g. tea or candles!).

There are a couple of common themes for the antique ones:
- there is very often an iron re-inforcement under the base of the tripod - perhaps sometimes added later;
- there are often repairs near the feet where the short-grain of the curved leg has proved (almost literally) to be an achilles heel.

Cheers, W2S

 

[Eric The Viking]

My medieval refectory table is getting on for 4 inches thick on the top and the legs and braces are what one might call sturdy.

That's so that when it was turned over in a fight, the arrowheads wouldn't stick out at the back.

I've got me coat...

E.

 

[Jacob]

.......
Here's a design (a bit chunky but could be refined) for a dining table which is essentially a pair these pedestals supporting one tabletop:

https://www.barkerandstonehouse.co.uk/d ... 797-91502/

Cheers, W2S

Exactly! But slender Shaker style.
I still don't like it but its better without the stretcher and stronger with 2 extra legs.

 

[Jacob]

Well - the old original birdcage tables I have seen in real life have neither rotated nor tilted. That is not to say that they didn't at one time I suppose. They certainly were making rotating candle stands to go up and down on a screw at that time, and also more rudimentary candle and rush taper holders that could be adjusted for height.

For anyone who has the book, look at Figure 3.184 on page 297. Very high quality birdcage with four turned posts and arches, and an elaborate through centre post. Clearly not designed to tilt in that case.

I wish I had a copy of your book!......

Only £12 and 579 pages!: https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/Book ... 0551618985
A lot of these classics come cheap after a while as interested parties rush out and buy them when first published, in larger quantities than you imagine.
I've done it myself and very few hold their price. I probably paid a tenner 2nd hand. Most books are first editions which may surprise some, but it's because they never make it to a 2nd edition, so don't get over excited!
Some do hold price: I bought this new for £30 or so when it first came out https://www.amazon.co.uk/Country-Furnit ... 0300063962 and it's worth every penny, a real gem of a book.
On the other hand I bought this when it was out of print and highly collectable, £100 plus, but now back in print for peanuts! I paid £30 ish I think. https://wordery.com/swedish-carving-tec ... 1627106733
Also a gem!

 

[Steve Maskery]

Right, where were we before we got side-tracked? Ah yes, improving on nature.

There are a couple of places where the balance of pippiness is not as good as I would like, such as here:

So I rough cut a little patch from some waste and I think it will improve things a bit.

But it's a one-way journey!

Fingers crossed...

And after a couple of more as well, whaddayano?

So then it just biscuiting and gluing and clamping up

I have a nice even line of glue all the way along.

That'll be it for a while. It's clear I have to finalise the design but if I do stick with this, and I do like it, I will need a very particular board for the columns, which I do not yet have. I'm going to leave the top untrimmed until the end. I'm still mulling over whether to have the end square or slightly curved, and the edges square or slightly bevelled under.

Decisions, decisions.

So I'll probably get on with another project for a while. I have far too many doors to make (two pairs for Ray, 6 for myself - glad I bought a Domino) and I need a new bench, preferably before the woodworm season gets underway again.

But feel free to continue discussing the design, I'm genuinely grateful for your very constructive criticisms.

 

[Fitzroy]

The difference between experience and noob! I would never have though you could cut such a patch to balance up two boards. Looking good so far.

Fitz.

 

[Racers]

Well, when so many experienced people, whose opinions I (normally! ) respect tell me I'm wrong, I should listen.

So I've beefed it up at both ends, The leg is now 25mm taller at the dovetail end and the top rails are now 95mm deep, set as a bridle joint.

What do you think? Click to enlarge:

That's better but I liked the round tops of the original, it looks a bit top heavy now.
Round tops with a upright stretcher fixed to the cleats underneath the top would look lighter.
Link the legs together at the top as well.


Pete

 

[Steve Maskery]

I've just been down to take the clamps off and scrape the glue. The glue line is perfect, but the top is not flat. It's a bit crowned at one end. Not by much, 1-2mm over its width at the most, but I was hoping for skating rink flat. It is, at the other end. We'll see how it settles. I think that that much will pull down onto those cross-piece thingies. Somebody must know what they are called? Cross rails? Braces? Goingacrossbits?