Tenon shoulders, more advanced...

[D_W]

Sort of in the spirit of the dimensioning thread, I think this will probably get a negative reaction out of most, but not because it's a reaction to people, but fortunately, the subject.

I'm making a fairly crude loft bed for son over the last couple of weeks and wrapped it up today. He wants paint, so no nice wood. M&T for the short sides, long side rails are bed bolts and a triple of 3/4 maple dowels and unglued M&T for top rails that aren't structural.

The wood is fairly dry SYP, which chisels not so great due to the rings being harder than a lot of hardwoods and the latewood being really soft. So, I've sawn all of the joints, tenons, shoulders and all.

It occurred to me that if I were working mahogany, I could've sawed them right on a line and based on my history as "not building furniture" as told by gurus, I've only maybe cut a few hundred mortise and tenon joints.

Marking is critical, but then not moving the mark with the chisel is also critical, and so on. it's fiddly, and I'm fairly sure I could cut almost all of those joints even for fine work ( no mental lapses allow) and move the lines as little or less with the saw as they would be pared or chopped.

To that end, YT suggested a video for me the other day - it's mack headley making some fine ball and claw furniture and cutting the shoulders on something more complex than a typical plain mortise and tenon.

...
...

He's using mahogany, and he saws right to the line and refers to "riding the line with the saw".

When I did the few hundred mentioned mortise and tenons, other than on a pair of beds, I never cut them right off of the saw except for "garbage wood" (SYP works just fine if it's still a bit damp, but mine isn't).

I suspect that not moving toward cutting most joints right off the saw was a mistake of being too careful, just as I've never felt like cutting dovetails using a DVD method and strict blinders was realistic.

(A user on another forum who knows mack headley has also reported that there are no specialty tools or extra steps in cutting half blinds, for example - they're just sawn and chiseled out).

 

[D_W]

So, has anyone done this for fine work?

Mack makes several comments just in the few minutes that I watched of things that 18th century woodworkers would forgo because it saved time, such as not clamping work when it didn't need to be clamped and working it in hand or just loose on the bench top.

The name may not be recognizable here - he was the master cabinet maker at Colonial Williamsburg for quite some time and has a private shop along with a son or two (or more?).

http://headleyandsons.com/furniture/etc.html#null
If anyone here has never made furniture or joints out of honduran or cuban mahogany, if you ever get a chance to work with it, you'll get an idea quickly why you might spring for wood of that type if you were going to work on something that needs to take detail. It does every operation of woodworking (sawing, chiseling, even sanding) better than almost anything, has relatively low seasonal movement (very low compared to a lot of things) and it's really forgiving to things like sawing without being too prissy about the back side of the cut. Sort of like beech is to maple, it is to cherry (you can get away with a lot more with a rasp or saw with beech than you can maple if you're working by hand and contouring something).

 

[Sgian Dubh]

it's mack headley making some fine ball and claw furniture and cutting the shoulders on something more complex than a typical plain mortise and tenon.

He's using mahogany, and he saws right to the line and refers to "riding the line with the saw".

Are you saying he's aiming to get a good fit to shoulder lines straight from the saw in hand work? As far as I'm aware that's always been the aim, certainly at a professional level, whatever the wood species. I've not heard the "riding the line with the saw" description, but to hear an instructor or tutor say to a learner "your aim should be to split the line" for a fit straight off the saw is common enough in my experience - said it myself to learner's many a time, and that's what was dinned into me when I was learning.

As to always getting it perfect straight off the saw, i.e., the shoulder lines needing no further fussing for a tight fit I usually get it right, but not always - I hate it when that happens because it means fiddling about and slowing the job down. The same aim applies to cutting dovetails in that they ideally fit straight off the saw.

I've worked enough mahogany, especially a few decades ago when the source was generally older growth, to agree with the sentiment that it's a lovely wood to work with. The woolly interlocked stuff isn't anywhere near as nice to work which seems to be mostly what's available nowadays and probably mostly plantation grown trees: even that seems to be hard to find not that I've sought it out, when I think about, for fifteen years or more. Slainte.

 

[Yojevol]

A link that takes us to the subject matter would help

 

[D_W]

A link that takes us to the subject matter would help

I'll see if I can find it. I also kind of rely on one or two people to pop up who have read historical texts where things like this are kind of briefly said "tenons are cut without the use of other tools, riding the incised marked line" and was hoping someone would say that.

I know someone in the states I could ask, but will save that for now. But said person mentioned budgeting 2 minutes when putting together an estimate where there would be some volume of small tenons. 2 minutes per. I'm sure I could cut a tenon and shoulders in two minutes, but I don't know how neatly I could do 40. He's a professional, I'm not.

 

[D_W]

I think there are some things to note here - the saw is cutting this shoulder from one side, all in one shot and it's cutting the back side of the cut without someone moving work all over the place.

Williamsburg requires the makers to work in public using historic methods and the makers and curators work very hard to read and research what would've been done, not just what could've been.

The subtlety of this is easy to miss. It's not a cut I'd be afraid to make at this point, but when I only cut joints, i would've been very nervous. I would have to go more slowly, though and have my eye more on the back side of the cut.

Why I bring this up is because I think a lot of us conclude we couldn't work by hand because we think of all of the ways charlesworth or cosman would teach us to do things, but those are methods designed to give beginners success or to be very safe for a studio maker who would not be as good with hand tools.

The one thing mack does have the benefit of here is a supply of mahogany that all of us might have to think twice about as hobby builders. If you were going to build a chest of drawers because you wanted to build it, but maybe you didn't really care that much about having the chest of drawers afterward, you'd have to think fairly hard about putting $1000-$1500 of wood into it, and that would also cause me at least to think a whole lot harder about design and making sure I could execute the design.

 

[D_W]

Are you saying he's aiming to get a good fit to shoulder lines straight from the saw in hand work? As far as I'm aware that's always been the aim, certainly at a professional level, whatever the wood species. I've not heard the "riding the line with the saw" description, but to hear an instructor or tutor say to a learner "your aim should be to split the line" for a fit straight off the saw is common enough in my experience - said it myself to learner's many a time, and that's what was dinned into me when I was learning.

As to always getting it perfect straight off the saw, i.e., the shoulder lines needing no further fussing for a tight fit I usually get it right, but not always - I hate it when that happens because it means fiddling about and slowing the job down. The same aim applies to cutting dovetails in that they ideally fit straight off the saw.

I've worked enough mahogany, especially a few decades ago when the source was generally older growth, to agree with the sentiment that it's a lovely wood to work with. The woolly interlocked stuff isn't anywhere near as nice to work which seems to be mostly what's available nowadays and probably mostly plantation grown trees: even that seems to be hard to find not that I've sought it out, when I think about, for fifteen years or more. Slainte.

yes - good fit in general. Most of the instruction here in the states is to cut shy and trim. I don't like it, though. It doesn't feel like woodworking.

it only occurred to me making two beds in a hurry that it might be useful to see if it was done as I was using *handsaws* and not joinery saws and it still was pretty accurate.

 

[D_W]

Yes on the second growth mahogany, too. I've only used it in guitars that I can recall, but it can be *really* hit or miss and it has to be allowed to sit somewhere for a while as it will move more than expected - even when it's fully (8% here out of the kiln) dry.

I'd be surprised if they get old growth mahogany at CW to use on a daily basis, though, too, but less surprised if they allowed new wood to sit in a loft for a year to work out bad behavior.

 

[D_W]

For anyone watching this video, or just seeing or hearing bits in the background, note the way mack uses the mortise chisel, It is only flat back to the wood side at the end of the cut. He rides the bevel and rotates the chisel.

This is often a point of contention because it must've been taught later to chop straight into a mortise after mortises weren't cut in any volume. It takes much less time and the job is much neater if you ride the bevel and cut the mortise with the chisel traveling on the bevel so that the edge is moving on a diagonal and the sides of the chisel are scraping the sides of the mortise as it travels down.

 

[Just4Fun]

I cut some M&T joints today, and they took a lot longer than 2 minutes each. Partly because I am slow and in no rush and partly because the shoulders were curved. That was a new technique for me but I still cut to the line with no fettling to get the shoulders to fit.

In general I always try to cut joints - any joints - to fit straight away without trimming to fit. I don't always achieve that but I do always try.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

I think there are some things to note here - the saw is cutting this shoulder from one side, all in one shot and it's cutting the back side of the cut without someone moving work all over the place.

At 15:27 minutes the maker in the video starts cutting one of the shoulder lines for the tenon. His approach is exactly the same methodology I was taught, gosh, I don't really want to think about it really, but more than fifty years ago. Much the same as I was taught, he starts at the corner nearest to him, cuts downwards a little, and then works his way across to 'split' the shoulder line prior to deepening the cut to remove the waste - all pretty standard.

In my case, however, I changed the order in which I work, and I can't recall when exactly, but I generally prefer to start my cut at the far corner from me, deepen the cut a little at the far corner, then define (split) the line with a saw kerf to the near corner and finally cut down to the tenon to remove the waste.

I don't think one order of work is better than the other, but my method seems to suit me better. When I'm instructing learners I show both approaches and after that they can decide what suits them. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

.........

In my case, however, I changed the order in which I work, and I can't recall when exactly, but I generally prefer to start my cut at the far corner from me, deepen the cut a little at the far corner, then define (split) the line with a saw kerf to the near corner and finally cut down to the tenon to remove the waste.

I don't think one order of work is better than the other, but my method seems to suit me better. When I'm instructing learners I show both approaches and after that they can decide what suits them. Slainte.

Same here. It is better. Easier to get a straight line as you drop the heel into it from starting at the far side. Neater too - start with a back pull on the far edge and then keep the blade in it as you bring the kerf back. Cut down to the line then turn it, drop the saw into the kerf and finish the cut.
It means that all your cuts are into an existing kerf, and guided by it, and at no point is the saw cutting its way out of the workpiece, with the added risk of spelching out.
Those dudes in the museum are just actors.
Re tenon cheeks - supposing that your marks for the mortice (which you cut first) are spot on with the mortice chisel, and your tenon marks with the same gauge, then saw tenon cheeks, ideally with a rip tooth tenon saw but not essential. Has to be sharp and with a good set so you can keep it on the line - then "split" the line, with a bias towards removing the line rather than preserving it. This is because any error adding width to the tenon makes it a tight fit, small error the other way no problem

 

[Jacob]

For anyone watching this video, or just seeing or hearing bits in the background, note the way mack uses the mortise chisel, It is only flat back to the wood side at the end of the cut. He rides the bevel and rotates the chisel.

This is often a point of contention because it must've been taught later to chop straight into a mortise after mortises weren't cut in any volume. It takes much less time and the job is much neater if you ride the bevel and cut the mortise with the chisel traveling on the bevel so that the edge is moving on a diagonal and the sides of the chisel are scraping the sides of the mortise as it travels down.

erewego again!
He's at it at about 1.11 in.
It's not a point of contention is more that he simply doesn't know how to do it.
I did a demo back here Getting an Old Pigsticker Ready for Work apologies for the background noise!
The great hefty OBM chisel only makes sense if you do the fast and efficient technique of vertical cuts, much as a hand machine morticer would work. Seems to be forgotten and not easy to work out for oneself - luckily I was shown by a very old joiner!
This is why so many line up to say you can do it with a firmer, or a bevel edge etc. They are right, but you can do it much more easily and neater if you know how to do it with an OBM chisel.
Also it's fast and furious, non of this casual sproradic mallet bashing and wiggling the chisel about.

PS just revisited the link above. One oddity was this How to Mortise the Moxon Way: Part 2, Chopping the Mortise where Joel is trying to chop a mortice but with the wrong size of chisel! Very difficult! He's generally on the ball, a woodworking cognescenti so it shows how common it is simply to not know how an OBM works

PPS Just had a look at Moxon. He does describe the process more or less but with respect to a 1" mortice chisel cutting a 1" mortice. Not a smaller chisel, which would miss the point entirely.
He does talk of paring the sides, but that isn't necessary with the normal OBM used the vertical way, so maybe what I describe is later than Moxon and with a different design of chisel.
It was 1703 , probably no 2 pin mortice gauge or similar luxuries, and the first DIY book for the Gentleman reader, so perhaps not wise to see it as gospel!
Nicholson, 150 years later, says no more and is similarly brief.
His book is more or less a revision of Moxon , as he says in the introduction

 

[D_W]

At 15:27 minutes the maker in the video starts cutting one of the shoulder lines for the tenon. His approach is exactly the same methodology I was taught, gosh, I don't really want to think about really, but more than fifty years ago. As I was taught he starts at the corner nearest to him, cuts downwards a little, and then works his way across to 'split' the shoulder line prior to deepening the cut to remove the waste - all pretty standard.

In my case, however, I changed the order in which I work, and I can't recall when exactly, but I generally prefer to start my cut at the far corner from me, deepen the cut a little at the far corner, then define (split) the line with a saw kerf to the near corner and finally cut down to the tenon to remove the waste.

I don't think one order of work is better than the other, but my method seems to suit me better. When I'm instructing learners I show both approaches and after that they can decide what suits them. Slainte.

I do the same as you, but I know what the reason is - it feels safer to me because I have shot for vertical on the far side without looking and missed before. Once that line is established, the only real danger is accidentally rasping wood making too many adjustments which moves the base line at a corner accidentally.

This to me, even with relatively little experience seems preferable. Repetition is all that would be needed not to wander a little on the back side of the cut, and I mean relatively little, but Mack's back side of the cut will have no gap at all as well as he saws it and he can spend his time making the adjustments that count instead, as he mentions (improving contact to a degree and ensuring squareness).

Everything taught now is overly "safe", but complicated and some of it has its own bag of problems. I have never taught beginners, but I see all of the suggestions to get around learning to saw to marks, etc, so that the first year isn't rough. The solution is everything remains difficult.

The subtle fast pace here is important, too - I think as we see mack dimensioning the legs of the table, it gets hard to make claims "you can't build anything", which is often said. It's OK to bandsaw all of that stuff if the result ends up looking the same, but people ought to at least have a decent look and go at doing it by hand if they want to as the dimensioning will cut out a whole lot of learning time on the joinery.

 

[D_W]

Not sure what honduran mahogany costs there, but I just checked the market here. I only know off the top of my head what it costs in guitar bodies and neck blanks, which is a higher price than FAS lumber.

boards 8-11" and at least 8 feet long without choice of grain orientation are $15 a board foot.

blanks suitable for legs for smaller tables (sawn nicely, not just junk) are around $60-70 each 3x3 and a little more for 4x4, but the supply from fiji and maybe indian plantation wood (less of that in the US than fiji wood) is pretty reliable so sometimes you can find deals.

This is one of the things that convinced me to build tools and guitars instead of getting deeper into furniture. Cherry isn't a problem here, but it's not mahogany - even compared to second growth stuff that has to sit a year. African mahogany (khaya) is getting slimmer in supply - especially wide stuff, and as much as it can look a lot like honduran - especially under shellac, it doesn't work the same and it's no longer cheap, either.

 

[Jameshow]

Why would you split the line surely your going to get sloppy joints?

I'd always cut to the waste side of the line in any tenon?

Or I've missed something?

 

[Jacob]

Why would you split the line surely your going to get sloppy joints?

I'd always cut to the waste side of the line in any tenon?

Or I've missed something?

You'd use the same gauge setting for the mortice so if both were perfect the joint would be dead centre (splitting) the line. But both won't be perfect, so taking a gnats off the line could make up for the errors - the roughness of a saw cut etc.

 

[D_W]

Why would you split the line surely your going to get sloppy joints?

I'd always cut to the waste side of the line in any tenon?

Or I've missed something?

If you set the pins so that you're not necessarily taking out the center of the pine with the mortise chisel, the joint is still fine and will probably end up a little tight, anyway.

The dirty secret with hand done mortise joints is they aren't piston fit with a 2 thousandth glue space -they have some texture, so you have to cut the tenon slightly thinner than you would if you cut like a laser, and it'll still work out in the mortise.

I used to worry about this because magazine articles and forumites talk about trimming to a perfect fit, but it gets in the way of paying attention to the shoulders and as little furniture as I make, I've still never had so much as a gap even form with an M&T joint. I try not to overglue them (having no idea what the right way is) and bias the glue toward the top side of the mortise to favor wood movement).

But there's also a case here that if it takes a shot or two to learn what the pins look like in reference to the chisel and saw, then so be it, that's fine, too.

 

[D_W]

Actually, I went away from the site and i"m talking about the tenon and mortise and not the shoulders.

Mack talks about what I'm thinking even just sawing the bed mortise shoulders - get the saw into the cut (but far side for me first) and let the saw sink down. It can't be like a tent from both sides or the saw sometimes ends up sanding or rasping part of the cut that was already done - the effect is obviously not what's wanted.

 

[Jacob]

Pictures speak louder than words.

1. Half inch chisel cutting a half inch mortice. It will be quite precise and need no paring.
Use the same gauge setting for the tenons means you have a precise guide of where to cut and they should all be a good fit, with no paring.

2. 3/8" chisel cutting a 1/2" mortice. Wrong size - both sides will need paring out. The job is suddenly 3 times as long and quite messy! The paring would have to be very carefully done or the tenons would not fit well and you could end up paring them too.
If you have to use the wrong size chisel it would help to use it against the line on one side, so that only the other side would have to be pared down.

Re reading the Moxon description - it's not very clear and also he talks about a 1" mortice and chisel. 1" is above the upper limit for an OBM - it would be massive and need a Desperate Dan to work it.
Maybe the OBM had not been developed, this was more than 325 years ago. Or he was cutting a big timber frame mortice, which is another technique altogether. You wouldn't expect to find a 1" mortice in normal architectural joinery and typical furniture.