Solid drawer bottoms: bevel vs rabbet

An offhand guess...

John in NM

If one is taking the trouble to make solid bottoms, one is probably a fan of traditional methods and aesthetics, hence the bevel or raised panel cut.

For utility work, and back in a shop I worked for, I've just used plywood and cut a groove to fit it.

I've never done solid bottoms with a rabbet alone, but I see no reason not to if that is what you prefer. Though the corner is a weaker point the difference is pretty negligible in a drawer bottom.

What I have done in the past is cut a rabbet on the table saw, then beveled down to it with a handplane. You still end up with a bit of corner in there but you get the traditional look. I've also used just beveled panels, I don't recall them taking a huge amount of fitting (maybe I was thinking of other things while doing it? )

Lots of ways to do it, and they all get you to a finished drawer

Re: but why did they do it that way?

Adrian Mariano

But if the reason to bevel is to make it look like drawers look in the Old Days...that just kicks the question down the field. Why did the workmen of old use bevels instead of rabbets?

Re: but why did they do it that way?

Mark Nowicki

My guess is they would thickness and bevel with the one plane, therefore saving time and money.

Re: Solid drawer bottoms: bevel vs rabbet

John McGaw

I have found that, for me, using the router table to cut more of an extended cove into my solid drawer bottoms to fit into the side's rabbets works out well and is easy. It looks neater and, since there are parallel sections, wood movements don't tighten or loosen the fit. Of course allowing for maximum seasonal movements is mandatory. When making wide drawers I put a solid bar at the center bottom and fit two solid panels and this has stood up at least for decades of heavy daily use with no sagging (half-inch solid poplar bottom panels coved down to a quarter inch to fit the drawer rabbets).

Not an answer but....

David Yoho

I don't think I have an answer to your question but do have some thoughts to share.

Sounds like you're talking about making solid drawer bottoms like would have been found in furniture from Colonial times and later. Beveling the edges was a way to fit a 3/4-inch-thick panel into the drawer box grooves.

Whenever I've made raised panels for casework they were always beveled to a flat place along the edges that was about 3/8 - 1/2 inches wide and 1/4 inch thick to fit into the grooves of the frame. Never made any totally beveled to the edges, so no experience with that.

For drawers in nice furniture I always used solid drawer bottoms that were 1/4-inch thick. However, to help with wood expansion I would orient the bottoms so the width was front to back (more expansion than the length). Also the drawer back was not as wide as the other drawer box parts and not grooved to accept the bottom. This allows the bottom to slide into the drawer box just under the back. In old days a small nail or two held the bottom in place. I used a single small screw through a slightly slotted hole in the bottom to attach. This way any movement would be to the back.

drawer bottom are typically made way to thick

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

I rarely put more than a 1/4 to 5/16" bottom in a drawer of any size. I just slide it into a dado that size. If thinning an edge of a bottom it does not matter how you thin it. I use a router and a core box bit if I need to thin an edge. I don't fret a loose bottom.

Have you seen bevels in antique furniture?

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

The bottom in the 1850's piece I have in our dining room has a bottom that was fit into a groove by using a rabbet plane to thin it around the edges. The bottom is rough sawn on the underside and the only reason the rabbet was cut was it was faster than planing the bottom side.

No...

John in NM

Kicking the question down the field would be if I said we do it this way because we've always done it this way (and I have heard that lame excuse often in my most recent iteration of professional life!). But I didn't tell you that mostly because I have no way of knowing what was done when building antiques - my opportunities to examine antiques have been "rare".

I also didn't take that to be your actual question - which I took as "Why do people do this now" and also "is the bevel better". I think those I took a stab at, though I admitted I didn't really know on the first one.

not necessary "better"

Jack Dover

Why, they did rabbets too, here's a link that surveys retain ways of fitting drawer bottoms: https://www.finewoodworking.com/2018/09/19/survey-period-drawer-bottoms

Spoilers: all methods have their own drawbacks and it's totally up to you which one to pick.

All the time ....

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

.... since preparing panels on a machine. The thick, bevelled bottoms are a method harking back to using whatever was available, and because the underside is not seen, there is less hand planing needed if just the top is prepared. The bottom can be bevelled to fit.

I typically make 6mm thick solid panels for drawer bottoms. The panels are rebated to 3mm, which connects with a 3mm grooved slip.

There is a typical build here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/EntryHallTableForANiece14.html

Two photos for illustration ....

An alternative approach is to make a 6mm bottom, and plough a 6mm groove in the drawer side. This is less common as the drawer sides I typically build are on the thinner side (6-7mm).

Build details here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/Furniture/ApothecaryChestTheDrawersAreDone.html

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: drawer bottom are typically made way too thick

John K Jordan

That depend on the intended use of the drawer.

I had someone build drawers for the kitchen, very nice - hickory faces, solid wood everywhere except they used thin ply bottoms in dados for all drawers. I had to rebuild the sagging bottoms of two large drawers that held heavy cookware. I used 1/2" baltic birch ply. They are perfect now.

Re: No...

Adrian Mariano

Well, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but you said people using solid wood are a fan of traditional methods or aesthetics. So that's kicking it down the field because it doesn't answer the question of the origin of those traditions. As others have noted, historical workers didn't seem to care what the undersides of their drawers looked like, so *those* people were not driven by any kind of aesthetic.

You are right, though, that my concern is why people do it now, and whether it matters if I use a bevel or a rabbet on the drawers I'm dovetailing tonight. I'm not particularly concerned about aesthetics of the underside. I have four drawers, two small (10" wide, 3-4" tall) and two larger (18" wide, 7" tall), and I know I want solid wood for the small ones because it means I can use bottoms thinner than 1/4". My drawer bottom came out a bit over 3/16 for those. Solid wood sags less and I also don't have a ready source of plywood under 1/4". By beveling or rabbeting I can set the bottom lower in the drawer without weakening it because the groove is smaller. I waffled about soild vs plywood for the larger drawers and went with solid wood. My thickness came out around 5/16. Also I work by hand and it's probably less work to plow a 1/8" groove than a 1/4" groove.

Re: rabbets on the *bottoms* not sides

Adrian Mariano

Unless I missed something, that article shows setting a drawer into a rabbet cut into the drawer sides, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about rabbeting the *bottom* so that you can set your bottom into a groove thinner than the bottom itself. Like Derek did. I didn't see this discussed in the article.

Re: All the time ....

Adrian Mariano

I think you may have hit on a possible answer for why traditional work uses the bevel. Someone said the advantage of the bevel was you didn't need another plane. But I can't imagine that a traditional worker would try to get by without a rabbet plane, so that doesn't make sense.

But if the underside is left rough then if you want the rabbet on the bottom it's going to be annoying to cut because you have no reference surface. It seems like it would be easier to cut a bevel than a rabbet on a rough board. The alternative would be to cut a rabbet on top of the drawer bottom, I suppose. But that gives up space, might not look as good (gap in the front) and would require a careful rabbet if you wanted a nice fit. To me, with modern milled drawer bottoms, the rabbet is easier because the target thickness is easier to define and my rabbet plane has a depth stop.

Nice build, Derek. I don't have slips. I've always been bugged by the idea of having the drawer bottom not be flat to the edges. But I have 1/8" (3mm) grooves and bottoms around 8mm. I'll proceed with the rabbet method for my bottoms, as it looks like there's no functional reason to favor the bevel. It's also an excuse to test my new rabbet plane!

You're right about that...

John in NM

That first bit can read that way, depending on assumptions - which are often different for reader and the writer. The trouble is that if one outlines all their assumptions before getting to the point, no one sticks with you to the point!

The assumption I made in that first part is that many builders don't know how a period drawer looks - I sure don't. They go with their impressions and wing it, and one of those impressions is often a beveled panel for the bottom. It may or may not be fully accurate, but I believe it is the general view of the average builder today.

That article Jack linked has some good pics, I need to read it more closely. Good pic too of what Bill and Wiley are discussing over on the Hand Tools side of the forum. I was just wishing for a picture of that!

I would hazard that 1/8" is a bit small for the groove. If you already have a 3/16" solid bottom I would just go ahead and plow a 3/16" groove for it. If you're already committed to 1/8", the endgrain sides should be fine, but you might want to add a rub joint strip under the long grain side (typically at the drawer front). Might or might not add support but it won't hurt anyway. Also depends on materials - some woods wouldn't need help even at 1/8", but some do (pine for example, unless its particularly tightly ringed pine). I have some pine kicking around that is about like balsa in the 1/2" or so between annual rings, light and weak.

makes no difference

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

It seems like cutting a rabbet would be easier to do and would ensure a perfect fit.

Perhaps for you but not for a professional cabinet maker. The drawer bottom you describe is just a variant on a frame and panel. If the cabinet maker can do frame and panel doors and case sides where it all shows, the drawer would not be any challenge.

The bottom line is that both methods are common and it doesn't make any practical difference what you do.

Drawer bottom thickness

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

There is a shop in Shelbyville, KY that specializes in English antiques. I have seen dozens of large dressers there with 1/4 to 5/16 pine bottoms. In fact I have never seen a thick bottom on the 19th century pieces.

Re: 1/8" big enough?

Adrian Mariano

I was following a Fine Woodworking article by Garret Hack ("A Solid Drawer Bottom is Worth the Effort", July 2010). He recommends the 1/8" groove and doesn't suggest adding any additional support. Regarding wood he says he likes "white pine, white or red cedar, basswood, aspen and poplar" but oak, cherry or maple are fine too. I'm using oak and ash. I noticed that Derek used the same thickness (3mm) in his project.

My drawer bottom stock isn't any particular size, so it would be hard to plow a groove that it exactly fits in. I think the thick material is between 1/4 and 5/16 and the thin stuff is a bit over 3/16. Of course, at that point it would be a few shavings away from fitting, most likely, though I'd still have to choose between the bevel and the rabbet. With plywood the stuff never seems to fit in the groove, and beveling or rabbeting plywood does not seem wise. Widening the groove is more trouble.

Re: makes no difference

Adrian Mariano

I would imagine the modern professional cabinet maker uses a raised panel router bit. And when I took a look at the profiles, they actually have a straight section to engage in the frame, so it's not like the case I've seen with drawers, where the bevel is engaging in a straight groove. But I've only done one set of solid doors so far. I did one beveled and had a lot of trouble. Fortunately the bevel is on the inside and they are sliding doors, so it won't show. I had to insert shims to force the door flush with the show side of the frame. Was the traditional approach to plane a bevel with a bench plane, or was there some other aid used for this process? (I could imagine making a rabbet first and then using molding planes.)

Unless there's some special plane with a depth stop for the job, in seems like rabbeting is intrinsically easier because you can set a depth stop on the rabbet plane and work until you hit depth, whereas if cutting a bevel it seems like there's a need for constant checking. It's not possible to mark the desired thickness because it's thinner than the groove by some unknown amount. And it will change if the panel shrinks or expands. And if the panel width is, say, slightly undersized, then fitting can't really be done just one edge at a time because it depends on the width of the frame. I think this might be what got me on the doors. The fit seemed good in isolation but was not good once everything was together. It just seems a lot more complicated.

So what have I overlooked?

(Note: I'm going to use rabbets for my drawer bottoms.)

Have at it then...

John in NM

I'm probably overly set in my ways and 1/4" grooves.

Re: rabbets on the *bottoms* not sides

Jack Dover

I've misunderstood your original question probably. Reading it again I can interpret it in two ways: "why did they do it?" and "should we do they way they did?".

I guess all who knew the answer for the first one are already dead, so we can just speculate. Most versions were already offered in this thread, and we could think of a few more.

"Whether we should do it the way they did it" is a more practical question. There's something this method has that we can't have today: a test of time. It's nice to think that an individual can improve something worked out collectively over a course of a few hundreds years, but realistically, it would require a lot of research and concentrated effort. This is not to say we shouldn't even think about finding a different way. It's just we're better off starting with a tried and true method.

I personally do bevelled bottoms because my methods of work are very similar to pre-WWI, and I couldn't figure any other way that would be at least as efficient as a bevelled bottom in a square groove. Well, except maybe using plywood bottoms and dedicated plough cutters ground to a particular width. The problems you've outlined in the original question are addressed by using a mulled when beveling and fixing a bottom with a screw in an oval hole at the back, so that expansion is always towards the back.

Re: 1/8" big enough?

Ellis Walentine

Bottom thickness and groove width should be appropriate, which means don't use thin bottoms on drawers that will carry lots of weight, and don't size or locate grooves where you may have wood splitting or failing.

It always bugged me that a beveled edge is only ever tight in the groove at one thin point, and, further, that it is subject to seasonal movement as well. Like you, I like to have enough friction between tongue and groove to take the slop out.

Other than that, regarding rabbeting a uniform tongue on a bottom of variable thickness will take some careful workmanship, as your thickness reference is the top surface. Technically, your depth stop is only useful if the board is thickness planed. One trick I learned from an old friend, Simon Watts (RIP), is to set a gauge to the desired thickness and gauge a line around the drawer bottom. Then use a block plane to plane a small bevel around the bottom edge down to the gauge lines. The bevel gives you an easy visual cue as to the target depth when rabbeting. Also, be sure to knife lines on the bottom surface to keep the endgrain from tearing as you plane across the board.

And, if you decide to rabbet those tongues, you can create a smooth transition between your rabbet and the irregular surface of the bottom by running a hollow molding plane across the shoulder. If you plan to be using this technique over and over, you can make yourself a custom rabbet plane with the transitional curve built in.

Ellis

Re: 1/8" big enough?

Jack Dover

is to set a gauge to the desired thickness and gauge a line around the drawer bottom. Then use a block plane to plane a small bevel around the bottom edge down to the gauge lines. The bevel gives you an easy visual cue as to the target depth when rabbeting.

Isn't it what everyone does? I'm sorry if this is a stupid question. I learned from books and that seems to be what every book has recommended: always gauge for thickness, always bevel to the gauge line first. I also rub some colored chalk on that bevel which really helps in my dimly lit shop. Useful when thicknessing a board by hand too.

question for the Forum

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.

Would any one here use a 1/8" groove on a drawer 7"tall and 18" wide?

Would anyone here think there was any significant difference between a bottom with a rabbet vs bevel?

For those that have made Period frame and panel doors and case sides would it take more than a few minutes to fit the panel to the groove?



This case panel was fit to the groove in just a few minutes. Hand pane and gauge block with target groove in it. Plane, test, repeat.