cabinet basics

Re: cabinet basics book

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>For just one, in-print book, I think I would recommend:

I like Rae's book also but...

Tim of Livermore

>highly recommend you figure out your sharpening set up sooner, rather than later.

Tim

Re: cabinet basics

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Bob,

On one hand, its a shame we don't have a single source to send you to learn what you want to learn. But maybe (on the other hand) that's a good introductory lesson. This is a complicated and sometimes contentious topic.

For example: Your question doesn't make it clear if you want to learn about what joints to cut where, or how to cut them. See I view those as entirely seperate, even though you probably need and intend to learn both. But either topic could fill a book. Its rare to find a book with both subjects covered well.

I would like to learn the basics of making cabinet carcasses using mortise tenon, dovetail joints etc. I am a nebie so I would like to learn the fundamentals. Can you refer me to a good source.

So lets' split them up:

I think its helpful to first understand what has been done. Regardless of your style or intentions, this is good to know before you go about reinventing the wheel. The best way is to examine period furniture. Many of the best woodworkers I know got their start this way. Fortunatley, one of them wrote a book: "American Furniture of the Eighteenth Century" by Jeffery Green. There are three sections (roughly) history/style, technique, and joinery. The last section shows which joints went where with semi exploded views. If you study these pictures carefully, revelations will come to you (and some confusion as well).

The next step is learning why things were done that way. Is it because that was the best way, or because of ecomonic pressures or technological limitations? For this you're on your own.

After that, you'll need tools and a shop. I'd start with Dunbar's "Restoring, Tuning and Using Classic Hand Tools". Even if you aren't interested in antique tools, this book will give you an idea of what you need, how to sharpen etc.

When you get into the nitty gritty of technique, (how to cut a DT joint, how to M&T) I don't know of any great single source. Like the rest of us, you'll have to read everything you can and find your own way. I can say, its difficult to learn with marginal tools. That doesn't mean "get the most expensive". But no serious woodworker thinks sharpening is "over emphasized".

Like I said, its a shame there isn't better basic instruction for folks like us.

Good luck,

Adam

HIJACK: Green's book Q (was Re: cabinet basics)

Dean J in MN

>

Fortunatley, one of them wrote a book: "American Furniture of the Eighteenth Century" by Jeffery Green. There are three sections (roughly) history/style, technique, and joinery. The last section shows which joints went where with semi exploded views. If you study these pictures carefully, revelations will come to you (and some confusion as well).

Ok, I'll hijack the thread -- Not without also recommending the above mentioned text.

Now for the hijack -- Adam is right you will have revelations and confusion... One bit I am confused by is, did they glue mortise and tenon joints if they were pegged? Seems from the section on pegged M&T that they did not use glue as there is mention of each part (the tenon and the mortise) expanding and contracting without effecting each other. And the drawing show a little spce for the tenon to expand into in the mortise.

Anyone have any other "proof" that they did or did not glue the M&T joints?

(To add to confusion, later when talking about large aprons, precompression and multiple tenons it is clear they *did* use glue)

Thoughts?

-Dean

Re: cabinet basics book

chichi

>Looks like a great book and just what I am looking for. Does the fact that I want to learn hand rather than machine work make the book more or less relevant or is the design the same using hand or machine techniques?

Thanks,

Bob

Re: cabinet basics

chichi

>Adam,

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I have done some dovetailing to the point where I have a reasonable expectation that the joint will be acceptable. I am a little slow but find that if I score my lines I can produce acceptable(for me) DT.

I have also done M/T joints and am getting better. My layout needs to improve , but I can generally produce a decent M/T. Therefore, I will keep practicing, but I want to do useful projects from which to learn. I dont have much knowledge about design so that is my primary interest altho I am not yet totally proficient with joinery. It sounds like this book would still be a good choice or would you pick the book recommended in the first response.

Thanks for the encouragement,

Bob

Re: cabinet basics

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>They'll probably be able to find the book anyway, but to make it a little easier on the search engines, I'll point out that the author's name is spelled Jeffrey P. Greene. Also, the publisher is Taunton Press.

Re: cabinet basics book

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>chichi, that's a deep philosophical question. I'll offer an opinion.

Wood has existed for the trees' purposes long before people ever tried to make anything from it, or even use it to keep themselves warm and cook their food with it, or even pick it up to use as a blunt weapon.

Furniture that was made with hand tools using traditional joinery techniques has stood the test of time, at least when the cabinetmaker understood the wood and his tools. Lots, but not all, furniture made with machines has failed and ended out at the curb in much less time than the even mediocre hand made furniture. It died an untimely death because the builders were only interested in making a fast buck with fast machines, by building something that looked like furniture out of something that superficially resembled wood.

If you look at a technique in any book, and you can't figure out an efficient way to make it with hand tools, don't run out and get the glitzy power tool, just keep reading until you find some other technique that you are comfortable doing, or ask us for some advise on alternatives.

Some techniques that I think you would be wise to run away from include router and jig dovetails (just because they are ugly, overly structured, and unpleasant to make), dowels instead of mortise and tenon, floating tenons, French dovetails, pocket screws, biscuits, and cope and stick paneled doors.

About the only technological advance in woodworking in the last century that makes a significant structural improvement over traditional joinery, is bent lamination with epoxy bonding. And the only reason that works better than the traditional ways is because no one can afford the luxury of going out in the woods and finding, harvesting, drying and shaping the rare trees that have the natural bends and curves that match the particular shape they are trying to achieve.

I'm afraid this doesn't answer your question, but it should at least help you evaluate each technique you read about in every woodworking book and magazine.

The books the others have recommended show lots of good joinery methods that are efficiently implemented with hand tools, but you still have to use your own judgment. There is one more joinery book I would recommend, Illustrated Cabinetmaking, by Bill Hylton (Reader's Digest, ugh!). It doesn't show woodworking techniques, but it does show joinery that work to build furniture that works, and that have stood the test of time.

Bill

HC Sakman

>"The Philosopher King" in you is shining through again. Very well said.

Chico...

FWW back issues in CD or DVD

HC Sakman

>Especially the hundred issues in between 50~150 have an enormous amount of good information.

Chico...

Glued.

HC Sakman

>Pegs were necessary though, because under stress (such as chair joints, or even carcass joints when the cabinet is carried/moved) hide glue would likely to give up. Today, we use the pegs mostly for looks since today's glues are much more capable.

Chico...

Re: cabinet basics/Adam's challenge

Matti Kuikka

>Adam,

Having participated in your cabinet challenge and still having new thoughts/visions about it, I must ask You half in earnest: Did You write intentionally "ecomonic pressures"? You might remember that english isn't my native language so I see your term as new to me though very appropriate in an 18th century context. ;-)

Matti Kuikka

Let's get a reality check....

Tim of Livermore

>"Furniture that was made with hand tools using traditional joinery techniques has stood the test of time, at least when the cabinetmaker understood the wood and his tools. Lots, but not all, furniture made with machines has failed and ended out at the curb in much less time than the even mediocre hand made furniture. It died an untimely death because the builders were only interested in making a fast buck with fast machines, by building something that looked like furniture out of something that superficially resembled wood."

Ummm.....I assure you there was and still is plenty of junk furniture made using only hand tools and there is plenty of fine furniture as well as junk made using only power tools. The tools do not make the craft, the craftsman (or craftswoman....since we're not 17th century ;- ) ) is the responsible party.

I've said it many times before....you can give a good craftsman cheap tools and a bad craftsman inexpensive tools - who will produce good furniture?

You can give a bad craftsman the finest hand tools available and a good craftsman the worst power tools (why does HF come to mind?) available - who will produce good furniture?

I'd also venture to think that as soon as inventions like the water wheel were discovered....it wasn't long before a direct drive or belt driven saw was invented...perhaps even something resembling a thickness planer.

Tim

Re: cabinet basics book

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>There is a mix of techniques in the book.

There are chapters on planes, layout tools, sharpening gear, clamps and clamping, flattening a board by hand.

If you go to Amazon, and look up the book, you can view the table of contents, etc.

There are other books that I like, but they are either out of print, or are narrow in their scope. (my solution was to buy all of them, but that's me - I am a bookworm)

It's Less comprehensive, but. I like...

Jonathan Kaplan (OR)

>Peter Korn's "Working With Wood."

It isn't really a book about cabinet construction as such, although building a small cabinet is one of the projects he discusses in detail. It goes through how to cut classic joints with hand tools, how to mill lumber with power tools or hand tools, and how to put those skills together. It has a brief but fine introduction to sharpening, and a brief but fine introduction to hand-tool use, care, and maintanence more generally.

It is, in other words, a good introduction to the basics. I certainly got a lot out of it when I started, and I still find myself using it regularly.

The Rae book mentioned above is excellent (I was given the trio it is a part of as a gift last year), but I think Korn's book is better to start with it.

Just my $.02

jk

Sorry Matti

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Sorry. I should have been more careful. I meant, "economic pressures".

I was trying to say that specific joinery techniques (nailing on drawer blades/slides cross grain on carcass sides, as opposed to letting them into dadoes for example) may have resulted from the need to get the job done quickly as opposed to getting the job done well.

Is that clearer?

Adam

Re: Glued.

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Sorry Dean. I have no idea what was typical. With zero data we can only go with Chico's reasonable assesment.

We know they had glue. We know they pegged some things, not not everything. Early formal chairs often have pegs, later chairs don't. Don't know why.

It is my opinion that the physics of a glued M&T is not well understood by the general woodworking community, so I'm skeptical about the opinions of my contemporaries (present WC company excluded). On paper at least (with relative motion neglected) hide glue seems vastly superior to PVA in these unclamp-able joints.

Is that gap you are referring to the gap at the bottom of the mortise? Is it your understanding that that is placed there to allow the shrinkage of the mortised piece (making the mortise more shallow) to prevent the end of the tenon from bottoming out in the mortise?

One wonders if glue use wasn't a regional thing. Good question for Greene or Mack Headley, or even a good curator.

Adam

Thanks William

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>

Re: Glued.

joel

>THe primary reason for draw-boring a joint is the it puts the joint into compression. This means that as the wood exands and shrinks during the year the joint will stay tight.

Over time the exansion and contraction of the joint over time can also slowly cause the glue to fail.

In pre-central heating homes I think the movement of wood was more of a concern so maybe (and this is just a guess that wood movement was more of a problem with glue fairure back then.

Re: Glued.

Dean J in MN

>

Sorry Dean. I have no idea what was typical. With zero data we can only go with Chico's reasonable assesment.

Nice to know we are in the same boat then.

It is my opinion that the physics of a glued M&T is not well understood by the general woodworking community, so I'm skeptical about the opinions of my contemporaries (present WC company excluded). On paper at least (with relative motion neglected) hide glue seems vastly superior to PVA in these unclamp-able joints.

I tend to agree, hide glue seems to be the "right" glue on paper for M&T as well as dovetails, both joints just don't allow clamps to develop any pressure on the joints which PVA needs.

Is that gap you are referring to the gap at the bottom of the mortise? Is it your understanding that that is placed there to allow the shrinkage of the mortised piece (making the mortise more shallow) to prevent the end of the tenon from bottoming out in the mortise?

Yes and no. Yes there was a gap shown on the bottom, and that would allow the mortised piece to shrink. But, the tenoned piece had the tenon shown with gaps on either end such that the tenoned piece, should it expand, would not be restricted by the mortise ends. i.e. the tenon was a tad shorter than the mortise.

Those gaps combined allow the entire joint to expand and contract at will, yet the peg (a single peg, multiple pegs would defeat this I think) would hold the shoulder tight, and that is what provides strength in a m&t joint. Seems a great way to put something together.

One wonders if glue use wasn't a regional thing. Good question for Greene or Mack Headley, or even a good curator.

I've asked the author. If I hear back, I'll let you know.

Dean

Re: Sorry Matti

Matti Kuikka

>Thanks for kind reply Adam,

I was thinking like (eco=ecology)+(monic=monetary) that means something like squirrel skins that were used as money in old times. (Just fooling, sorry)

Seriously I agree with your thoughts.

Matti, still grateful about the challenge and it's teachigs

Re: Glued.

Dean J in MN

>Joel --

The text points out that the joints were not drawbored. There was too great a risk of blowing out the backside of the mortise, as well as a lack of boring bits with a lead screw to allow such accurate boring which was needed in a drawbored joint. The method mentioned was: Clamp the joint tightly, bore the hole, insert peg, release clamp. No mention of glue. The mention of glue was in a later section in a different situation (multiple tenoned apron). In that section precompression is used, but in the manner of compressing the apron with clamps, perpendicular to the grain. Makes sense in that the wood stays in compression longer when it expands.

-Dean

shell bits-hijack

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>The text points out that the joints were not drawbored. There was too great a risk of blowing out the backside of the mortise, as well as a lack of boring bits with a lead screw to allow such accurate boring which was needed in a drawbored joint.

See, I don't agree with some of Greene's (this is Greene, right?) techniques and assumptions.

Certainly center bits are an easy way to bore accurately positioned holes. They were available in small sizes very long ago.

Ubiquitous shell and spoon bits have their advantages (low angle drilling, easy to change angles, easy to sharpen) but many have found them difficult to position.

I'm finding new tricks to achieving the dead on accuracy with these tools. The first (and most obvious) came to me as I sharpened one. Why are both edges sharpened? If you turn clockwise as I do, only the left hand lip cuts. So why sharpen the right? Racheting a shell/spoon with two sharp lips pulls (relocates) the center of the hole. Otherwise, chasing the shell around a prick mark just takes a little practice. But its certainly possible to achieve the degree of accuracy needed for drawbore joints. Yes its harder than using a center bit, but I can get the same sort of positional accuracy possible with a standard drill bit in an electric drill motor.

Shells and spoons don't typically cause break out and this is easily solved by boring into a piece of scrap. (I'm not sure if this is what was meant or if inserting the pin was the problem. But that's easy enough solved as well.)

So Greene may be right that drawboring wasn't done, but I reject the argument that their tools prevented this sort of workmanship (or I could be misunderstanding the whole thing).

Adam

Re: Glued.

joel

>I was about to post a query on question whether drawbored joints were not used when Adam beat me to it. Adam raises two important points:

the first is that technically drawboring was possible - if not as trivial an operation as it was later.

and the second is how good Greenes book is. I happen not to have the book so I can't comment. but I can say that if you take a piece of funiture built 2 hundred years ago in an unheated shop or air dried wood and used in an unheated room for a cnetury. Then used in a heated room for another century - It would not surprice me that the wood has shrunk so much that the drawboring has been negated. this is just a late afternoon tea break theory but drawboring is such a powerful technique to keep funiture solid that is seems to me it would not have been done only if there was an overriding reason. so my question is - is greens theory on no drawboring univerally excepted? or am i possibly right in why he overlooked vansihed drawbores?