case goods side construction?

Drawer integration

Adam Cherubini

>F&P furniture is very difficult to integrate drawers into. Its also more work to solve a problem they didn't have. If you were that concerned about moldings even after having switched to heart wood sides, you could make a newport style base (or invert it and use it as a crown) to attach the moldings to.

Adam

P.S. Technical stuff aside, the PA Dutch stuff you like is neat and Philly MoA has a fairly good sized room of it. I may even have a few pictures. Shoot me and email to remind me Buill, and I'll poke thru iPhoto and see what I have amongst the baby pictures!

Re: Top and Bottom integration

Adam Cherubini

>Another issue is the attachment of the top and bottom. You really can't mix the F&P into dt'ed carcass construction witout having a cross grain joint somewhere.

I think there are other esthetic reasons why this was abandoned and technical reasons why it came back in victorian/industrial revolution stuff.

Don't understand.....

bill tindall

>The drawer rails are dovetailed into the stiles of the side panels, no different than a solid sided piece. Three (front, back and middle) narrow ( about 3") pieces are blind dovetailed flat into the top and bottom for attaching chest top and bottom. I don't see how this is any different than a solid sided case could be constructed.

Re: case goods side construction?

Paul in NJ

>Bill,

I my opinion solid board case construction was faster and simpler to build, you are only dealing with four pieces dovetailed together. Think of how many extra components, joints, and operations are required in frame and panel construction.

Paul Dzioba

Re: Don't understand.....

Tim of Livermore

>I'd agree about the drawer construction. It is easy to join rails and other webframe components to a frame and panel case. Kickers and runners are constructed a bit differently since the case sides generally don't support the drawer....so the kickers and runners are made as rabbeted pieces. You can rabbet a single stick or build up the rabbet.

From a hand tool perspective, frame and panel is A LOT more work than solid wood panels. And if wood is not limiting, I'd much prefer to build with solid wood panels since it is faster - less work since edge gluing and dovetailing go faster than mortising and tenoning (frames) and edge gluing (panels) and grooving (frames to accept panels) and rabbeting and nailing (my preferred joint for frames).

Tim

Re: Drawer integration

Dan Clermont in Burnaby

>I considered Frame and Panel construction for a small desk I am building but can't fathom how to make the drawer supports.

Was their a way back in the Rame and Panel days? Any pics on the internet?

I decided to go with a solid dovetailed carcass design with sliding dovetails for drawer dividers. I have just started dimensioning so this could all change

Dan Clermont

why any different?

bill tindall

>Maybe I don't see the problem because of the way I install drawer supports.

Drawer dividers are installed with sliding dovetail, front and back. Divider at top and bottom of case is installed with blind dovetails. I don't dovetail the "finished" top to my chests. Rather, the finished top is a separate applied piece. I just don't like to look of exposed dovetails on the top. "Rails"(or what ever the part the drawer rests on is called) are captured between front and back case dividers with a mortise on the case inside of the divider and tennon on the rail. The rail is rabbited to provide side support for the drawer. I glue the front M&T and nail the back M&T. I never have fastened drawer rails to case sides ( I never understood why this was desirable) so not having a case side to fasten to is not an impediment.

There is never but a tiny fraction of the drawer weight on the drawer rail. With a 3" divider and a 21" chest depth, the drawer rail is only 15" long. By the time a 20" drawer is pulled past the back 3" divider 6/20 of the weight is on the front divider and 14/20 divided between the two drawer rails(at this instant), or 7/20 per side. On a 100# drawer, a very heavy drawer load, that is 7/20 x 100# divided by 2 equals about 17# max on each rail M&T. Shear strength of wood is huge relative to this load, so I make this tennon atypically thin, 1/4", to give the mortise bottom carrying this load extra strength.

Since I have never used frame and panel on a chest before this discussion should not be taken as a recommendation by me for this approach. I am using it on this chest to be faithful to the original.

Re: Frame and panel

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI

>I would guess that the main reason for not using frame and panel carcass sides at any time in histroy is because of the small bit of extra time involved making the frame and panel side. In my opinion, it is a better construction method than a solid glued panel. The drawer runners would be installed exactly as you describe, and you would have less potential for problems due to wood movement.

Re: why any different?

Ted Shuck, Centennial, CO

>I have a desk that I had made in Singapore over 20 years ago that, so far as I can tell by looking at it, was constructed in this same manner. Only difference is that the main joints, instead of conventional mortise and tenon, are triple mitered. The drawers fit very well and the joinery is very solid. Remarkable when you consider that it was built in an area with one extreme of climate (90 degrees, 99 percent humidity) and it now resides in the other extreme (less than 10 percent humidity much of the time).

I am using it to guide the design of a desk I will be building for my son. I am building a small side table now with a drawer using the same construction to make sure I can actually put it together. Pictures will follow, sometime in the next year or so...

Regards,

Ted

Re: why any different?

Paul Kierstead

>I think I understand your construction .... terminology is always a *****. I presume you are referring to 'web' construction, and the dividers you speak of run horizontal (hence dividing vertically....)

One question: Rather then mortis in the rail with an uneven mortise, why not just lap joint it in? There should be close to zero upward force exerted, no? Outside of a some twist in the dividers.

good idea

bill tindall

>

Re: A small bit of extra time?

Paul in NJ

>Moses,

What do you consider a small bit of extra time? How long with hand tools do you think it would take to rip, joint, and groove four stiles and rails? How long to field a panel? How long to chop 8 mortises, cut 8 tenons, and drawbore-peg them together? You would still need to dovetail stretchers for the top and bottom. All of the extra operations imo would add considerable time. If you are in business, time is money.

You could probably argue for either type of construction. While you may eliminate some cross grain situations with frame and panel I think you also lose a little strength. Solid board sides would have superior front to back racking resistance. I also think the dovetail joints connecting the top and bottom to the sides would be stronger in the solid side boards due to grain orientation. Perhaps frame and panel sides were used due to a lack of suitable wide boards?

Paul Dzioba

Seriously?

Adam Cherubini

>Let's just put aside the notion that this sort of construction was abandoned historically.

In a dovetailed caracss, the wide boards that make up the sides and top are joined in such a way that their seaonsonal movement doesn't effect the integrity of the carcass. Unlike your plan, the top is fully restrained and will remain flat. Your top is essentially like a table top, attached cross grain joint and not restrained (from cupping say).

Drawer integration is easier, faster, and stronger in the DT carcass. Dadoes for drawer runners can be quickly cut. Drawer dividers (in both carcasses need only be placed in the front. Dust panels will hold the runners in place if you bother with them. Otherwise the nailed on backer boards hold the case together at the back. There is no concern for ult strength of drawer runners. Wear and deflection are the problems early woodworkers concerned themselves with. Tight fitting drawers see less wear.

If you rabbet your drawer runners, you must account for that in the front somehow. Will you have a filler or face frame?

This is a neat furniture form, that I like. But it is labor intensive, and limited stylistically (because of teh top inegration, and possibility of a face frame). I can make a DT carcass in 4 hours. By the end of the day, I can have all its guts in. My guess is that it would take me twice as long to build using a F&P.

It seems to me that the big advantage of F&P is that you can build a piece of furniture without gluing up panels or having access to a sawn wood.

I regard the 18th c dovetailed carcass to be the pinnacle of case work. Everything before or since has paled in comparison. Even a quick look at the work of Goddard reveals just how far the DT carcass can be taken. What I think is funny (maybe funny is not the right word) is that the form the F&P replaced- essentially attaching boards edge to edge with fasteners, is the currect state of the art. That puts or modern commercial woodworkers (like my brother) behind about 300 years. So who's really the old fashioned woodworker?

Re: case goods side construction?

Norman (Ottawa, Ont.)

>Interesting, I ask myself this question each time I plan to build a cabinet. Should I use solid side panels or frame and panel this time.

It boils down to aesthetics for me. My opinion is frame and panel

sides are much more attractive to look at especially if the cabinet

is designed to be free-standing or as a center piece.

It would be quicker using a solid panel but the large compromise is

one cannot integrate the panel of a frame and panel to match the door panels. An example would be if figured wood were used.

More of a wrap around symmetry if F&P used throughout.

An example below, which happens to be Krenov derived...

Norman

I