Half blind drawer fronts

Re: Half blind drawer fronts

Jim Shaver - Oakville, Ontario

>Hi Bill,

That is an interesting point. In a course I took with Chris Becksvoort back in 2000 that question came up. He said for North American customers he cut into the back of the drawer face, but European customers would not accept that.

I think I have been conditioned to not cut into the face, but I might try it next time...it would indeed be so much easier I imagine to chisel it out.

Take care,

Jim

Re: Half blind drawer fronts

ThomD

>"Somewhere along the way when dovetails went for a means of holding a drawer together to a flaunting statement of the makers skill this dovetail feature was abandoned."

I thought I had seen plenty antiques without this feature, history isn't my bag relative to furniture, So I will have to check again.

I don't think it is accurate to refer to this kind of thing as a flaunting skill issue. Skill is like summersaults. Right at the moment my 15 month old can barely do them. She has been on the verge, even did a few some months back. At some point she will be able to do them and it won't be difficult for her, noteworthy, or something the rest of want to waste our time watching. Dovetails are not hard to cut. They are hard to learn, particularly if you are self-taught and had to teach yourself every other thing leading up to them, make a significant portion of your tools, in the modern amateur vein, pre-video. Post video they aren't even hard to learn, assuming one actually tries. Skill is a big issue if you don't have it or are engaged in a competitive activity like golf. In a craft, it really isn't a big deal. Except that in a hobby ars longa vita breva.

There are probably a lot of issues around dovetails, but at least two are:

1) Revealed structure. The idea that ornamentation needs to earn it's keep, shouldn't just be a moulding nailed on, preferably an expresion of the structure that holds the piece together. So dovetails, which can be justified on strutural grounds on the outside of the piece ( stronger say than half blind or hidden) move into the foreground. Once you go down this path the dovetails draw attention, and so they get even "harder" to cut since they need to be perfect, both to express the structural and aesthetic points.

2) Quality. At some point (no idea when) a quality finish of every part of the piece becomes essential. A couple of things occur, but are probably too recent to really capture the idea:

Just the expanding realm of attention, every generation wants to make it's mark, and if all that is left is the underside of a drawer...

The influence of industrialization, where plastic molding gives the impression that cheap goods have perfect finishes, effortlessly mophing shapes, and finished interiors;

Also the fact that perfect is often better, and with machines is sometimes faster too.

Also as makers we may enjoy lavishing attention on the whole piece, we also know how the piece is made, and we know whether certain marks are really still evidence of thrifty thinking, or have perhaps lost their point. I'm not making a living with this stuff, or getting paid by the piece, while at the same time I have read Frid, and own a Leigh.

Re: Half blind drawer fronts

"RJ" Whelan

>Jim ... if you're interested in a very simple trick to make cutting half blind pins in the drawer front a lot easier let me know ... rj

Why?

Bill Tindall, E.TN

>Why would you not post it here for all to see?

Re: Half blind drawer fronts

Warren in Lancaster, PA

>I have made the long cuts on drawer fronts for about 30 years. This technique is common on Philadelphia furniture, but I'm not sure it was universal in America.

Dovetails as a "flaunting statement of the makers skill" sounds more like 20th century sentiment than 18 century. 18th century dovetails were neat and tidy, handsome even, but I think the makers tended to make their statements on the outside of the case. Sometimes someone will compliment me on my delicate dovetails, but then say they know someone who makes them even skinnier, as if that were beyond my skill. A competent maker can make dovetails any size they wish.

Well I am, care to share RJ?

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>

well said

Bill Tindall, E.TN

>

misplaced focus

Bill Tindall, E.TN

>I have this vison of someone on the power tool side contemplating moving to hand cut dovetails and the perception that they must be flauntable becoming an impediment to using them on his/her next project.

Or, they are 20 days into the lets "cut a dovetail a day" practice routine striving for flauntable dovetails. In another 10 days they might be proficient enough to start a drawer.

I fear, perhaps without justification, this fetish with flauntable dovetails gets in the way of people using them, or needlessly slows a projects completion as the woodworker strives for perfection in this mostly invisible joint. Fortunately the piece in this picture is off limits to most woodworkers opening its drawers to inspect its dovetails or it would be judged by many to be sloppy craftsmanship. Now that would be an example of misplaced focus. It should be pointed out that its tidy, but less than flauntable, dovetails have held its drawers together just fine.

The bottom line is that we should not put such emphasis on this functional joint that others fear to use it, or that we overlook the overall appearance, design and functionality of a piece.

Re: misplaced focus

Adam Cherubini

>I couldn't agree more, Bill. Sorry this isn't the best picture. The dovetails are clean, but they are a little gappy in spots. There are certainly over cuts into the back of the drawer front, but there are also over cuts on the tail side as well. Very small ones, but cuts I would feel bad about. I try not to overcut the tails. They obviously didn't care. Is this Thomas Affleck? I forget.

Adam

Fretwork

Adam Cherubini

>Paul and I got to pick the brain of the 18th c master who carved that fretwork under the moldings on the upper and lower cases when we were working at Mt Pleasant. His name is Chris and he works for the museum in the wood conservation department. Just a reminder that sometimes when you go to a museum you are looking at an 18th c masterpiece, and other times you are looking at a 21st century masterpiece!

Adam

Re: misplaced focus

Joel

>100% right on the money.

Cabinetmakers were on piecework, The work had to be to a high standard but it also had to be done fast. Dovetailing, or for that matter any joinery is mostly a matter of training your hands to work efficiently and consistently. I think a dovetail a day practice is a great way to get up to a decent speed and mimics a lot of training of yore.

I am personally convinced that very narrow pins are not an issue of aesthetics nearly as much as a way of working faster. I know in my case when I stopped laying out dovetails it became much faster to cut one side of a tail, twist the saw cut the other, cut straight down to make waste removal faster. And of course since the blind pins of a drawer need to be chopped anyway a slightly wider tail is no extra work.

Description of this restoration

Bill Tindall, E.TN

>Chris was our tour guide for this part of the museum exploration. The staff gave a slide show of the restoration of this piece.

It had been refinished in the early 70's, lacquered and the carvings fixed(poorly). Once the Philly museum owned the piece (it had been on loan) they stripped it naked to the wood (with paint stripper), recarved the missing molding pieces and fret work guided by work done on other pieces by the original carver and then to my astonishment....

The piece was sprayed with several coats of shellac to seal what was original from what would follow. Instead of staining the wood which would violate the current protocol of doing noting to a museum piece that can't be undone, the "glazing/staining/toning" was done by air brushing tinted shellac onto the moldings, carvings etc. The result is amazing. It looks like a stained/glazed piece. Again to make any repair reversible the missing wood was replaced with wood pieces and epoxy with a barrier coat of hide glue between the original wood and repair.

What would the antique road show think of this!

We were told of a growing trend to make period rooms and pieces look more like they did originally rather than the "oxidized " dark look of old stuff. Paintings are cleaned and the Sistine Chapel was cleaned to look original so doing this to furnitures seems reasonable. Apparently the 18th century was not as dark as I was lead to believe from visiting museums in my youth.

repeating what Adam has said many times, the museum's new finish expert told us that few pieces have original finish. Most early pieces that had been finished only with oil and wax were shellaced later in life and even later may have been finished with more modern finishes, an example being the piece discussed above that was lacquered in the 1970's.

Re: misplaced focus

Dean J in MN

>Also notice that the drawer bottom in Adam's post is installed "wrong" (insofar as all the ww rags and books tell us nowdays). I saw the same thing in every piece at the Winterthur show at the MIA. All the draw fronts showed the overcuts as well, and many of the rear pins were not flush with the rear drawer board. It was a pleasure to see.

-Dean

"Wrong orientation" explained

Bill Tindall, E.TN

>This issue came up during the tour and the answer answered another mystery, namely the use of white cedar in pieces.

Drawer bottoms were made from white cedar shingle stock- readily available, stable, the right length and easily flattened from the riven quartered shingles. These dudes were clever and resourceful! However, I would not suggest substituting elm for white cedar in this application. Surprisingly we saw little poplar in the Philly pieces. One chest had red cedar drawer sides.

The wrong oriented bottoms (poplar)I saw in an English antique shop were all busted.

Wrong was 'right' before 1720 (?) - historically

Andrew F in Australia

>Hi Bill/All,

The orientation of the grain in a drawer bottom was/is an indicator of age in some antiques - I'd have to dig up my training notes, but I'm pretty sure that this is an indicator of furniture made before 1720 (hence the question mark above.)

This may have been made historically correct.

These early pieces may have a drawer muntin to accommodate shrinkage on the wider ones.

Cheers,

Andrew

Re: Wrong was 'right' before 1720 (?) - historical

Adam Cherubini

>No. People say that. But its just not true. I'm working on an article on drawer bottoms. As my photo above indicates, that may be one reason why the conservators in Philly discussed drawers. This is ground we recently covered.

Drawer bottoms were oriented front to back well into the 1770's in Philadelphia furniture, and probably some Rhode Island furniture (Providence) as well. Furniture historians have attributed this feature to regionalism. The point of my upcoming article was that modern period furniture makers may offer a different explanation based on our very different perspective. If you can find something that looks like a drawer bottom, you use it. The work required to plane something down is not inconsiderable, especially if the something has knots in it.

Adam

winds of change

Adam Cherubini

>Bill,

Winterthur is training and paying people to study furniture. Those people know more about period furniture, textiles, etc than probably anyone in the last 200 years. They are taking over at places like Williamsburg, changing rooms, reinterpreting displays, arrangements, paint finishes, etc, and they are writing books and scholarly articles about it all.

Furniture buyers are interested in furniture and they are reading these books, and visiting these museums. The reproduction furniture made 10 years ago, may well not be good enough 10 years from now. People are going to be able to tell the difference between a faithful reproduction and a "practical one".

I think the sapfm does a disservice by assembling "like minded" individuals to discuss "practical" period furniture making. An organization like that needs to listen to the museum professionals and see the change coming so they can direct their membership accordingly.

The Windsor chair makers seem to be ahead of we cabinetmakers, authenticity-wise. I wonder if they are going to change their finishes from the bogus (inaccurate) three color milk paint to bright shiny candy apple greens? I'll be interested to see.

Adam

wouldn't it depend?

Bill Tindall, E.TN

>there is a place in Shelbyville, KY that has dozens of English chests. The ones with grain the "wrong way" are all split and sometimes badly. But they are not white cedar. Perhaps the availability of wood that didn't shrink much enabled this style to persist in places that had access to white cedar.

Practical reproduction will persist, and grow

Bill Tindall, E.TN

>There are barely enough people with enough $$$ and knowledge to keep the current practical makers in business. Avoiding naming names, one of the well known attendees lamented that his son probably would not be able to make a living in the trade. It was not for lack of skill; it was for lack of well heeled customers.

Another attendee said that he quoted 30% more for a reproduction executed with traditional techniques. The house he was providing reproductions for (with a tens of million budget) chose to go that route for the first piece and went the lower cost route for all the rest. The bottom line is that most customers are unwilling/$unable to spend money for what they can not see. I don't see what can change this attitude unless it be an infusion of wealth I can not imagine.

In the case of the amateurs in attendance, by in large they make stuff. Instead of $$, our economic limitation is time. To take but one example I can French polish 0.0001" at a time or spray the first 0.005" and polish the top layer. It all looks the same. In the end I make more stuff using machines to do what can't be seen.

Making more stuff means I have stretched my skills at designing and execution more than if I had spent my time hand planning drawer stock. And in the end I have more, and nicer stuff. And for most of us, more and nicer is better.

I said this once before and got considerable disagreement so this time around I will quote the Headley's. They "use machines to replace apprentices" (which are unaffordable). I think most of the people making stuff have the same philosophy and will continue to do so.

Re: winds of change

john jesseph

>I question that shiny bright green as "the" color of verdigris paint. Is that corroborated in period paintings? It sure is ugly IMHO.

I completely agree about the milkpaint, I just haven't gotten around to making any more chairs to use more authentic techniques...

yes.

Adam Cherubini

>

Re: Practical reproduction will persist, and grow

Adam Cherubini

>30% more for a reproduction executed with traditional techniques

Some of these guys charge outrageous prices for furniture as it is. So for this to be useful information (what you were told, not what you are telling us) you'd have to see the piece and know what the prices were.

At last year's designer craftsman show, I saw no pieces comparable to mine, but what I saw I generally felt was priced higher than I would have charged for similar pieces 100% hand made. So I don't think you get to charge an extra 30% for your ignorance. And that the customer wasn't willing to pay the stupid premium isn't surprising.

customers are unwilling/$unable to spend money for what they can not see.

I make more stuff using machines to do what can't be seen

The discussion here is whether the customer can see it or cares. Don't say that the use of machines is undetectable. Surely that's not the case. Swiping a perfectly flat board with a hand plane doesn't hide the fact that the piece was made by factory style machinery. I can spot that a mile away. I'm saying the customer doesn't know the difference today, but may in the very near future. And further, that serious minded furniture makers, under the age of 50, should bear this in mind.

To a large extent, I think the issue isn't even so much the machines, but how they are used. I think if you wanted to make authentic furniture, and didn't want to make the commitment to using hand tools, you could try using a band saw without a fence for all of your sawing. I think saws and not planes make the biggest difference in how a piece looks. In my opinion, I think what gives a piece its hand made charm is its maker dealing with imperfect stock.

"use machines to replace apprentices" (which are unaffordable)

We disagreed last time because there's no indication that this notion is true and some evidence to the contrary. Also, don'tconfuse Jeff Headly with his brother Mack. They aren't similar, don't work together, don't live near each other etc. "Mack S. Headley and Sons" is Jeff's company. Mack S refers to their Dad.

I'm not against guys using machines. And I'm not trying to convince you to change the way you are working. All I'm saying is, people are going to visit Mount Vernon and ask about the gaudy bright green chairs and the guide is going to politely inform them that a 2 year study was conducted by a Winterthur fellow and that these chairs are "right". That scenario is going to be replayed throughout Williamsburg's historic area and in museums like Philly where the pieces recently touched are getting duller and flatter finishes.

As people become hip to these changes, the market for reproduction furniture will change. So the polyurethaned Queen Anne highboy in curly cherry makers may see their work drop off. That's not necessarily the same as a down turn in the economy.

Adam

Re: wouldn't it depend?

Adam Cherubini

>Right. Exactly. What I'm talking about is the difference between some arbitrary "regionalism" factor and the real reason for a feature that has elluded the scholars because they've never tried to build furniture with hand tools. In the case of the drawer bottoms, Philadelphia and Providence had the same apporach. Was it a cultural infusion? Or did both communities have access to a specific wood that allowed this design? Or were both places growing in population such that there was an abundance of left over roof shinges that could be used for cabinet parts?

One scholar claimed folks tapered their drawer sides to lighten them while providing sufficient thickness for the groove at the bottom. (this was published in Chipstone's "American Furniture"). This was repeated by Becksvoort about the shakers I think. Yeah- it could be that, or they could have used leftover clapboards! They were probably offcuts.

Adam

Half Blind Helper

"RJ" Whelan

>This may not work for those of you using Japanese saws, but it works great for me and my Independence.

1. Scribe lines on the drawer front delineating the thickness of the drawer side and the length of the tails

2. Saw just a bit into the waste side of each pin, stopping at the scribed lines

3. Here comes the time saver - take an old scraper or piece of saw blade and set it in the saw kerf and pound it straight down with a few light taps of the hammer - caution at the corners you run a risk of splitting out the top and bottom of the drawer front so put a clamp across the end to support the edges.

4. Waste out the wood as you normally do

5. Place a paring chisel into the scribed line delineating the pin and pare for a perfect fit - using this method results in a perfect fit on the first try about 60-70% of the time (for me that's very good)

I usually add a tiny bit of extra depth so the tail board actually sits just below the drawer front, and then plane the excess for a perfect horizontal fit (fronts starts out sized exactly to the opening and the trimming takes off about 1/32" from each side, which is the spacing I prefer).

A friend taught me this trick and I figure it saves me a good 30 minute on a drawer having 7-9 pins.

Give it a try and let me know what you thing .... rj