Re: Question - 18th Century Tools & Processes
Don McConnell
>Roderick, et al:
Some days ago, you asked:
******************
"During the 18th century, how would a cabinetmaker produce your typical swan neck (goose neck) molding found on queen anne highboys?
If gouges were used:
1. Would he have used firmer gouges or carving gouges?
2. Would the gouges have been "in" or "out" cannel?
Would any other tools have been used?"
*******************
Though you've gotten some interesting responses, I've been thinking about your questions and finally concluded that it might be useful to attempt a more thorough-going response.
In the first instance, I believe the majority of these swan's neck mouldings would have been produced by carvers rather than cabinetmakers. Especially in the urban areas, there was some degree of specialization in the 18th century, and a part of the commercial scene consisted of specialty woodworkers (carvers, turners, etc.) supplying other woodworkers with the products of their respective trades. This is re-enforced, I believe, by considering the tools and process by which these mouldings were likely produced.
While these mouldings would not have required the precision necessary to provide suitable bonding surfaces/fit desirable for joinery, they do require enough regularity that one's eye is first drawn to their "fair" curves and symmetry. Closer study might reveal slight irregularities, but the effect is spoilt if those are the first thing to attract attention. So, these mouldings, I believe, would have been undertaken using a fairly systematic and regulated method. An approach which has analogies in producing straight mouldings through the use of H&R's as well as in traditional carving techniques.
Rather than simply wade in with gouges approximating the final profile, I believe the carver would have first executed one or more rabbet(s) to define key elements and dimensions of the profile. The margins of each rabbet, in turn, would be laid out with a pair of dividers and/or a marking gauge, then a gouge of appropriate size and sweep could be used to quickly remove the bulk of the waste - stopping just short of the gauge lines.
The gouge would be driven with a mallet where possible, paying close attention to the inevitable grain reversals. It may be tempting to think that this would require a firmer gouge, but I don't think so. One of the characteristics of the traditional carving tools (at least as they developed in the 19th century), was that they have a fineness at the cutting edge conducive to delicate work when required, yet they have an overall robustness which allows them to be driven with a mallet. As long as one keeps them sharp and doesn't pry with them, they can be quite readily driven with a mallet for quick material removal. I haven't had the opportunity to examine many 18th century carving gouges, but those shown in a photo by Gaynor and Hagedorn (_Tools: Working Wood in Eighteenth-Century America_) appear to be generally similar to 19th century gouges. This first step in producing each rabbet can be seen as an analogy to grounding or relief cuts in other forms of carving.
The next step in producing each rabbet would be to select a slow gouge for "setting-in" the inside sweep of the curved gauge line. For this, the gouge is held so that the bevel is vertical (and the axis of the gouge at an angle), at first just inside the gauge line, then pushed downward to separate the waste left by the previous gouge cuts. One wants to match the sweep of the gouge to the gauge line as closely as possible, but it wants to be a little "quicker" than the gauge line if a perfect match isn't possible. For the outside sweep of the gauge line, a very slow gouge may work for setting-in, but a chisel may need to be used if a gouge with a slow enough sweep isn't available. Then, the same can be done with the gauge line defining the floor of the rabbet, using a chisel. I like using a firmer chisel for this, but my hunch is that traditional carvers would have used their carving chisels. At the end, the gouge(s) and chisel can be used to clean up the wall and floor of the rabbet to their corresponding gauge lines.
Once the major dimensions and elements have been defined by these rabbets, the "modeling" of the moulding can be undertaken.
If the primary element is a scotia, or a cove, as many of them seem to be, a good deal of the remaining waste can be cut away using a chisel of appropriate width. Depending on how quick the overall sweep of the moulding is, one may have to resort to a curved or a bent (spoon) chisel to get into some areas of the inside sweep. The same goes for the gouge selected to accomplish the final profile of the scotia or cove. If the limits of this feature have been determined with relative accuracy and clairty, a gouge of appropriate sweep can quickly bring it, essentially, to its final profile.
If there are "convex" elements to the profile, such as a bead, this is where the small inside bevel on carving gouges comes into play. The primary thing this small bevel accomplishes is to allow the gouge to be turned over and used "upside-down" to form convex shapes. Again, chisels can be used to create defining chamfers and remove the bulk of the waste, but a carving gouge of appropriate sweep, used in this fashion, will help bring it to final form. I do not know if back-bent gouges were around in the 18th century, but they can be very useful for this purpose on inside portions of sweeps of curved mouldings.
As can be seen, this method requires a variety of gouge sweeps and forms, unlikely to be owned by the average cabinetmaker, to execute this work in a direct and workmanlike manner. The same might be accomplished with more typical bench gouges and chisels, but I believe it would be much less efficient.
Final clean-up of these mouldings may have to remain more conjectural. The carver may have used a "mould" (template) to check the consistency of the moulding throughout its length, and make any desired adjustments with appropriate gouges before resorting to scrapers and/or abrasives to eliminate any remaining tool marks.
Hope this has been of some interest.
Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
