Apothecary chest - part seven

Re: What I think I remember from a drawer in hand

Brian Holcombe

Sounds like it works. Not a solution I can see myself using but an ingenious approach non the less.

Thanks for posting it up!

Re: clarification needed

Brian Holcombe

Derek has corrected me enough times on the front drawer slip that I’ve stopped doing it mainly out of peer pressure. Derek and Richards argument against is quite logical and so it made sense to do it the traditional way.

Re: clarification needed

Sgian Dubh

Don, I wonder, now that I've been reminded of that exchange between us those several years ago, if your misinterpretation of the information you first got from me about drawer slips, i.e., you added an extra one on the back of the drawer front, led to others picking up on the idea? I wonder because, without being able to recall sources, I seem to have seen quite a few references to that exact configuration illustrated in relatively recent articles and photographs mostly on the internet as, perhaps, blogs, articles and so on. I think I may also have seen one or two descriptions of exactly that configuration in print too.

On the other hand, think of the credit or kudos that should possibly be attributed to yourself for a design innovation in drawer building - the 'Don Stephan Drawer Front Slip' has a certain ring to it, don't you think? (Tongue in cheek comment there.) Slainte.

Re: What I think I remember from a drawer in hand

Sgian Dubh

Thanks for the photo Larry. I get it now. I can't recall ever coming across that configuration of slip or wear strip that incorporated the angled saw cuts. That also suggests I've never come across a piece with Alan Batty's work in it, or other pieces from the factories where he worked.

It's a wrinkle in slip/wear strip construction that superficially seems to have some logic. All these slips, whether cut across the grain at an angle like that or not share the feature of being glued into the rebate at the drawer side's bottom edge. Inevitably this meant the drawer bottom itself usually got glued in at the same time. As I mentioned earlier, some of that type of slip were not just glued, but nailed/pinned as well through the bottom of the drawer side. I suppose it's possible those angled saw cuts, passing not quite all the way through the thickness, did allow for a bit of longitudinal movement in the slip/wear strip as the drawer bottom expanded and contracted, but I'm not properly convinced of that. Do those cuts scrape dust and dirt off the runner making the sliding in and out of the drawer more efficient? I'm not convinced of that either, but I can see that arguments in favour of the technique might be considered persuasive, although I'm not persuaded … obviously, ha, ha. Slainte.

More than ingenious, affordable

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

The chests of drawers that are appearing as English antiques in the Shelbyville, KY shop were once furniture that the middle class English purchased to store their socks, as I like to say. These pieces were made to be functional and affordable, something of less importance in today's hand crafted studio furniture market. In the fine print of Batty's recollection he notes that his daily quota of drawers assembled, presumably from prepared parts, was 6.

Not mentioned in the text but recollected, however reliably, were conversations that led to the Batty email reply to some questions I sent. For those that make drawers 6 a day is an astonishing number. How'd they do that?

One factor is the simple, functional slip he described, and shown in the picture. A second, even more important, are the dovetails. Mahogany is soft and easily chiseled. English oak is not! The labor saving approach, as described by Alan, was to cut the skinny pin sockets using three saw cuts, two to define the sides of the tail and the third that removed most of the waste. A simple paring cut then completed the pin hole in the drawer side. What is described by Alan as a means to make affordable furniture is now a fashion statement of fine English style. No doubt other labor saving techniques are to be found in the construction, such as the rub joint assembly of the drawer bottoms.

Alan mentioned the log yard of the factory where he worked. He described mahogany logs with diameter taller then he waiting to be processed into boards for this furniture.

Re: What I think I remember from a drawer in hand

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

Next time I am in Shelbyville I will ask if I can do a photo survey of drawers. If they let me in the storehouse I will have dozens to investigate. This shop makes two trips a year to England to collect furniture for resale. It was explained that these English pieces are of the same quality as contemporary American pieces but much less costly. A typical mahogany chest of drawers in this shop is $500-$1000.

Re: What I think I remember from a drawer in hand

Brian Holcombe

Are these antiques or newly made?

Cuts = wax retaining?

Kneale Brownson

Slips waxed for ease of opening drawers could collect wax in the cuts???

Re: clarification needed

Don Stephan

We colonists have to stir things round and round sometimes to keep the home country on its toes.

So should I put spurtle to porridge and ask if it was the British or the French that first started using slips? (Mouth hurting from the size of the grin)

Re: What I think I remember from a drawer in hand

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

As reported in some part of this thread the shop makes two pilgrimages a year to buy in England. They also have a contract with some shop there that made splendid reproductions, which they keep a few on display. The reproductions used to be largely Period Correct construction but the last time I was in the shop the dovetails were machine made; the oak sides were not quartered. But the fit, and finish and inlay was nicely done.

Re: What I think I remember from a drawer in hand

Brian Holcombe

What are those period reproductions selling for? What I’m driving at is the price of antiques has little bearing on the price of newly made. Newly made must account for expenses of production, where an antique sells at the price of either supply and demand (auction) or the purchase price plus markup.

Re: What I think I remember from a drawer in hand *LINK*

William Duffield

It's a shame Mark Firley of the Furniture Record Blog is not as obsessed with drawer bottoms, slips and runners as he is with dovetails. If he were, you would have a lifetime of data to slowly download and analyze.


Furniture Record ~ Capturing Furniture in the Wild

Re: clarification needed

Sgian Dubh

"So should I put spurtle to porridge and ask if it was the British or the French that first started using slips?"

You can ask, Don, but to be honest, I don't really know the answer to either question, ha, ha. Slainte.

Re: What I think I remember from a drawer in hand

Sgian Dubh

" ... surely you have seen drawers of this general description in 19th century construction."

I have Bill, as I described in my earlier post, i.e., a rebate worked on the bottom edge of the drawer side into which the slip or wear strip is glued with the drawer bottom held in place in the 'groove' formed between the top edge of the slip and the bottom edge of the rebated drawer side: and as before, it's usually the case that the drawer bottom tends to get glued in to at least some extent, along with the slip because the drawer bottom was normally used to create the right 'groove' width as the slip is glued in place. I've simply never seen the slips or wear strips cut across the grain as described by Alan Batty, and the photographed example provided by Larry.

"The goal here is to reveal ways of accommodating wear when using thin sides. If us rebels knew various ways the English used to solve the wear maybe we would use thinner sides."

The wear can't be eliminated entirely of course, but thickening the drawer sides with slips should increase longevity and the time between repairs. You can use a harder wearing wood for the runners and kickers than you use for the drawer sides, and slips if they're incorporated. The reasoning here is that it's relatively easy to fix worn drawer sides compared to replacing worn runners or kicker which are inevitably built into the carcase and therefore harder to get at to work on. Slainte.

Re: Apothecary chest - part seven

TomD

"The hand too maker needs the best bench he can make – or afford! You must know your tools, what they are made of, fine adjustments and sharpening angles. Everything must be clean and sharp."

This is closer to what machinists do, or engineers, than woodworking. Something like a bench or a plane is a machine.

"Tools talk to the craftsman, and will let you know when they are right. What the machine does by noisy, brute force, you will be able to do with quiet cunning"

I have JB's book, and it is good as far as it goes. But making chairs that few people want, using a style that is only present because the tools dictate it, is well, a "man needs to know his limitations", both in the good and bad sense. The good is to design your craft world and thrive within it. The bad is to apply arbitrary and ignorant labels and limits. It is the old en soi, pour soi dichotomy again. A foreman in a tool room can tell what is going on from the feedback also. The sound of the machine. There is even a woodworking version of that: Chaterwork, where the chatter cuts fabulous patterns in the work due to vibrations.

"I would not go so far as to say that there are no skills necessary to working machines. It is important to be able to read and interpret complicated instructions. What you end up with is engineering skills – precision engineering in wood".

Engineering may have a somewhat different sense to it in the UK, but overall this is ignorant. First the idea that engineers of almost any kind are just shoving things through the equivalent of woodworking machines it unreal. Woodworking machines are very primitive, though even they have many nuances. There is very little difference in the workmanship of risk associated with say a plane, or a table saw. Speaking of the craft risk, not to hands, and so forth. It just turns out to be a lot more repetitive with the hand tools.

Link: http://tonykonovaloff.com/?page_id=54

"What has this to do with the work I did this weekend? Well, I could relate to the role of engineer. Preparing the wood for the drawers with my machines was the work of a machinist."

Don't flatter yourself (if I can be excused for saying so )

"Would I have rather spent the time doing this by hand? Well, I have done this in the past - I worked almost exclusively with handtools and a few hand power tools for over 25 years before purchasing a tablesaw, jointer, thicknesser/planer, and bandsaw. I began upgrading these over the past 7 years. I would not go back. Machines do not replace handwork."

Of course machines replace hand work, that is their whole purpose.

"The question is whether this compromises the work I do?"

Yeah, probably, I don't suppose it is inevitable. It depends whether you start working in a style that was always supported with machine work to start with, so then reproducing it using machines is not going to make as much difference. Powered machines have been lurking in the background for hundreds of years, so it possible to imagine that when making antique styles from the last few hundred years that those are styles relatively free of machine influence, though I wouldn't be so sure. I think for a very long time the idea has been to camouflage how little of the work was done by hand.

It isn't immediately apparent to me that the benefits that come from hand work are limited to only certain parts of a project. What is immediately apparent is that using power tools allows one to trade very much increased productivity for the effort in all spheres (creative, physical, patience) that would be required if one did everything by hand. It is odd that a lot of the special work we like to do by hand is actually hidden, like dovetails often are. Much of what was traditionally done at the highest level by hand was the exposed ornamentation. No longer much in style, but probably just as well.

Is this covered in "Cut & Dried"

Chuck Nickerson

or is there another book to track down?

Re: Is this covered in "Cut & Dried"

Sgian Dubh

"Is this covered in 'Cut & Dried' … or is there another book to track down?

I'm assuming your question is addressed to me Chuck, although I admit it's a bit hard to tell from the way this exchange has threaded. But I can tell you as the author of the book you ask about that drawer slips isn't a topic I cover there. Slips are discussed in Ernest Joyce's The Technique of Furniture Making, which is one of my reference works. I can't tell you which of more recent authors discuss drawer slips, but I'm sure they're out there somewhere. Slainte.

Re: Apothecary chest - part seven

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

"I would not go so far as to say that there are no skills necessary to working machines. It is important to be able to read and interpret complicated instructions. What you end up with is engineering skills – precision engineering in wood". (John Brown)

Engineering may have a somewhat different sense to it in the UK, but overall this is ignorant. First the idea that engineers of almost any kind are just shoving things through the equivalent of woodworking machines it unreal. Woodworking machines are very primitive, though even they have many nuances. There is very little difference in the workmanship of risk associated with say a plane, or a table saw. Speaking of the craft risk, not to hands, and so forth. It just turns out to be a lot more repetitive with the hand tools.

Tom, I must admit to having a little fun when I quoted John Brown - he is a current figure owing to the blogging of Chris Schwarz.

I suspect that he was referring to chairmakers using power tools, and not furnituremakers. I have not read his book, or know enough about his methods, so I imagine that he did not turn rungs, but shaped them with a drawknife. Clearly he valued the irregularities left by handtools used freehand.

I wrote: "The question is whether this compromises the work I do?"

You answered: Yeah, probably, I don't suppose it is inevitable. It depends whether you start working in a style that was always supported with machine work to start with, so then reproducing it using machines is not going to make as much difference. Powered machines have been lurking in the background for hundreds of years, so it possible to imagine that when making antique styles from the last few hundred years that those are styles relatively free of machine influence, though I wouldn't be so sure. I think for a very long time the idea has been to camouflage how little of the work was done by hand.

Again, I was just stirring. I do not consider that my work is compromised by machines. I use machines to rough out boards. This is donkey work. There is little that I would consider educational or refined about it. The designs I build are only limited by my ability with hand tools, since they do the shaping and finishing.

I was writing in reaction to the "voices" on the fori that consider one can only "know" the wood when using hand tools, and that any power tool use is somehow "cheating". In my own case, I enjoy the tactile feedback and the visceral experience of handtools. They are capable of delicate work that cannot be matched by machines. Nevertheless, power tools have always played a part in my builds, and I do not wish them to be ignored by those that read the fori simply because some want to diminish the value of furniture made using them.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Apothecary chest - part seven

Brian Holcombe

I think there is a lot to learn from machine work as well. I prep material by machine, now, and there is plenty to take away from the experience.

Running machinery is a different kind of talent, not everything is as clear cut as would be expected. Solutions still need to be created by the user if ‘machine perfection’ is sought, and an understanding of what’s going on at the cutter is seriously important.

I am reminded of my uncle and Alan Breed

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

Uncle Ed was a carpenter. He could( and occasionally did) build an entire house if necessary- foundation, framing, finish work, rock or brick fireplace, on-site cabinetry , and for a hobby he built boats including a 24' cabin cruiser with bent oak planking for the hull and mahogany trim. His tool box included hand saws, planes and chisels. But what impressed me most was what he could do with aptly named "Skill Saw". Those that disparage those that use machines are simply ignorant of the skill that can be acquired and demonstrated in using them.

I am also reminded of an exchange at a SAPFM meeting. Alan Breed was demonstrating how to carve the rim of a tray table top. He could be boggling fast at the task. Someone asked, no doubt anticipating the "correct reply", how Alan excavated the recessed field. Alan airily replied he shopped it out to a colleague that had a CNC router. An audible gasp could be head from the peanut gallery. Alan went on to explain that he liked to carve molding and there was little reward in excavating a recess for the field of such a table top.

An ignorant claim from the hand tool purists

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

"I was writing in reaction to the "voices" on the fori that consider one can only "know" the wood when using hand tools,"

People making such a statement are ignorant of the topic they disparage. Only someone that had never used a jointer of planer could think such.

I have planed tens of thousand bdft of lumber. This experience enables me to read both the board and the wood removal process. Before I feed a stick I look at the surface and edge and orient to minimize tear-out. I may adjust feed rate, depth of cut, what side of the machine I feed to or even cock the board. I can tell by sound what is happening and I can tell by the shavings what the moisture content is. Is this knowledge any different than what the hand tool purists profess?

The jointer variables I optimize are even more complex. If hand plane purists thinks it trivial to remove a convex bow from an edge I will humble them with the task. By adjusting jointer variables I can straighten, eliminate tear-out , make or remove a taper and many other useful tasks. The only thing I can't do on a jointer, and quicker, is spring a joint, arguably a useless capability.

Just a few.

Re: An ignorant claim from the hand tool purists

Brian Holcombe

For me is has become about being able to produce high quality output at a timeframe that most customers can live it.

Making a perfectly flat, accurately sized tear out free board up to about 10’ long and 16” wide in mere moments has an enticing nature to it.

Indeed

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

I will bet that you bring the same degree of skill, experience and care to the task as if you were doing it with hand tools. If this hand tool thinking was applied to metal working they would believe that running a lathe or milling machine was a minimum wage job. Which is about as silly as claiming the only way to get the feel of the metal is to shape it with a file and scraper.

email

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

Bill, did my reply to your email get to you? It appears to have bounced back to me.

Regards from Perth

Derek