Hello,
First time on here posting. I’m a newbie, actually just trying to get started. I’ve been trying to read as much as possible on woodworking for the past half year or so to acquaint myself with methods and have felt rather intimidated to begin. Ideally I’d like to set up a shop with a very modest number of power tools with a majority of hand tools. I’m actually a self-employed medical illustrator with a huge desire to pick up woodworking as a weekend hobby. At any rate, I’m attaching 3/4 view drawing I drew up on the computer of an armoire-style entertainment center that I came up with. My question is, with traditional methods of joinery, how do I go about the joinery along the edges of the case if I went about creating the framework as shown with 1″x2.5″‘s? (red circle indicates this. The armoire is drawn to scale at about 69″ tall and 43″ wide plus any crown or bun feet I would add. I envision it being built as two sections…1 top with doors as shown and a bottom with two drawers. Is this method feasible and sturdy enough with 1×2 1/2’s? Would I simply glue up and put corner blocks or dowel it? I don’t want any plugs or other things showing on the face frame?
Thanks in advance for any suggestions and glad to meet you all.
-Matt
Replies
I am partial to a simple tongue rabbet and groove. I pin the joint from the inside with a 1 inch screw driven a roughly a 45 degree angle thru the tongue into the edge of the groove. You have to crawl inside the cabinet to see this fastner. I generally do not glue this joint if the fit is tight. crude drawing attached
Hi Wilson, which would you prefer to cut the rabbet and groove with on this length...dado or router? Thanks for the tips.
one word for the groove - tablesaw. My shop teacher (about 40 years ago) said - "never rout what you can saw". I have done this task both ways and he was right. I have found with the tongue - a wing cutter router bit gives a more consistent thickness if the board has a bow that is normally found in board - whatever tool you have that will do the job is ok - that is the fun of the craft. The reason I use screws to pin the joint is it has always keep the joint tight after multiple expansion and contraction cycle. I also use the joint often because with big pieces like this I tend to assemble the piece in the shop using screws and no glue- break it down, apply the finish and re-assembly it in location. God bless the inventor of pocket screws. Trust me spinal recontructive surgery is not fun. Moving single panel is easier than a bulky heavy cabinet.Further in the thread you mentioned a pocket door - hope you have plenty of religion. After installing pocket doors on two different projects, I refuse any job that calls for them. If there is a trick to make it a easy installation, I could not figure it out. Do not install the vcr box until you have the doors installed. You cannot adjust the hinge, door or track. my other advice is keep jointery simple. It one of your first projects. It will be enough to keep everything square and tight. Leave the dovetails until the fundamentals are learned - there are plenty of project in the future
Edited 8/19/2005 3:29 pm ET by Wilson
hello mdh, i dont like to see the edge grain of the face frame when viewing the cabinet from the side. also, the side frame stiles appear wider due to the thickness of the front stiles. i like to miter the edge of the side frame stile as well as the edge of the face frame stile to 45 degrees. one may accomplish this with a router mounted in a table and fitted with a 45 deg. bit. be sure the bit comes with a ball bearing. practice on some scrap of the same thickness as your cabinet stock till you get the router table fence set correctly. best of luck, eef.
Hi eef, would you spline your mitered edges or glue them in this circumstance? Thanks.
mdh- no need to spline. the tricky part is in clamping the whole deal together. i like to cut lengths of cord that will loosely fit around the cabinet, tie a good knot and twist each length up tight as a tourniquet, the twisting being done with a 3 or 4 inch piece of 38 dowel. hope this helps. eef
Go buy some ratchet tiedowns.
Cheers. WALKER1
You might want to look in to using knock-down fasteners so it will be easy to transport the armoire. Armoires are bulky, hard to lift, carry around corners, etc and being able to move smaller, flat components could be a plus. A number of sources are available, including Haefele.
Aloha,
Your design looks pretty basic and either one of the joints suggested will work, however, I think the mitered joint would be difficult to control and glue up. As to the groove and rabbit, I don't think I'd put a screw in it, just me, but I like glue joints with a minimum of fasteners. They're much more rigid.
That said, I'd like to make a few suggestions about the design. You say it's going to be an entertainment center and I assume that there will be a TV in the upper portion. Have you thought about where the doors will be when open? Two good solutions are to have the doors fold all the way back around to the sides or to put in pocket doors. The design should allow for what you intend to do.
Also, will there be a slide-out swivel tray for the tv to sit on? If so, you may want the base unit to be a little deeper to add some front stability.
Mdh,
That will be fine with those dimensions for the frame rails.
I would just butt glue the frames together. If you are not confidant about location you could use loose tongues or tongue and grove.As Dan says the mitre could be difficult to manage.
If you are worried about the side appearance at the joint you can use a beading cutter with router or simply use a scratch stock to do a bead at the joint.The width of the stiles on the side frame should be 3/4" less than the stile width of the front frame, so that when they are joined there is uniformity.
There should be top and bottom frames, so providing all frames are well mortised and tennoned it will be rigid and strong before you put in any other drawer frames etc. No need for glue blocks, and especially no need for those pissant dowels.
Hope that helps.
Matt,
Butt joint with a few biscuits to keep everything in line. Take into account that the additional 3/4" of the face frame thickness will make the side frame look wider. So make the back member of this side frame 3/4" wider in order to maintain symmetry.
The miter joint proposed is very difficult to get perfect, especially if you are relatively new to this.
Knock-down joints would work but in my opinion they do not belong on a piece like this unless it is absolutely unavoidable. The 2 sections you suggest are probably enough to allow moving in and out of any room.
DR
Thanks everyone for their helpful suggestions. Dan, I intend to have pocket doors and then build a separate box that goes inside to house vcr, dvd, etc and tv on top. Regarding a swivel base, well, hopefully by the time I go about this project and it's successful my wife will be so happy that she'll buy me a flat panel/screen tv and won't have to worry about counter weight/support for the thing. (Wishful thinking!!) From my design, the depth meaures 24 1/2 inches. I'm attaching my inspiration, an antique dresser of ours. Hopefully this is all visible, but I added a dotted line to the butted up edge. To me, the face simply looks glued up but does not look like any integral structural support for the dresser. (Please correct me if I'm wrong anytime since I am a novice). But, for my circumstance, that face will have to serve as support for both the structure and especially the doors. While looking at this photo another question comes to mind. I would also like to incoroporate something similar to my design as that of the top surface of the dresser. This would be the divider between the section with the drawers and the top half. Which would you attach this to, the top of base or the bottom of the cabinet? I'm also attaching another drawing with three view to help illustrate my babbling.
Thanks everyone!
-Matt
Matt,
That top surface of the dresser would usually be attached permanently to the upper cabinet, as it will stabilize the framing of the doors. The bottom unit would have its own top to its carcase, or at the very least 2 braces across its width, front and back. From the inside of the bottom case you can screw through these into the base of the upper portion in order to attach the 2 parts. Can be re-separated in the future if necessary for moving. Each part has its own back, and is a stable unit in its own right.
BTW, check carefully the clearance you need for the pocket doors, and don't forget the inner wall needed to support your shelves.
DR
Ring, Ok. Now you have me curious as to the braces. Sorry about another attachment but being an illustrator, I'm a visual person. Shown is a drawing which I added two 1x3s and only show joinery in the one corner in the red circle. As depicted I did Wilson's suggestion with the rabbet but then added a double slot dovetail. Is this suitable (not meaning "do-able" for my skills), but rather a sound method? I didn't add braces across the width yet but envision them mortise and tenoned with the members shown in the picture. What do you think?
Thanks,
Matt
Typically the dovetailed braces run the width and the side pieces are M&T. I also rabbet the 'brace' and the mating faceframe to create a better joint. One point I noticed: you seem to have the crown/cornice molding on all four sides when the back should be flat.
It's do-able, but as someone else posted the braces usually run in the other direction, across the width of the cabinet. It has the advantage of bracing the top face-frame member, which is otherwise a bit lonely out there, and giving you something to attach the back into.
DR
Edited 8/20/2005 4:49 am ET by ring
Thanks everyone!! Hopefully I'm not in over my head too much. We'll see. Practice and more practice. I'll be back posting progress, good and bad.
-Matt
Hopefully I'm not in over my head too much..If you are married and she still like you.. You HAVE AND survived...
Good point. I guess the more I think about it the more complicated it becomes. I'd better stop thinking then. Yeah, I'm married...been only a year and a half now but my wife has put up with me tearing apart the kitchen and redoing it along with 5 other rooms so hopefully now she can deal without the garage while I'm in there swearing over flattening a board and cutting to a line.Where abouts in Chicago are you from? I was there for a number of years until we got married and moved just across the border up here in WI.
-Matt
Yeah, I'm married...been only a year and a half now but my wife has put up with me..REMEMBER ALWAYS Put up with me... Just huge her often and whisper "'somethin' nice in her Ear'' EVERY day.. She will reward ya!
Ring, if I had the braces running the width of the cabinet dovetailed into the sides, what would anchor the front face frame? It seems as though the rabbet and groove as I had shown or biscuits would anchor the sides in and the braces running width-wise would do the same if they are dovetailed but what would prevent the front and back frame from falling forward and back besides glue? Are the braces primary function to aid in keeping the case together or for strengthening the upper horizontal rails from sagging in the middle or from bowing in and out? Once the brace configuration is worked out, would I do 4 sets, one for the bottom of the bottom and upper cabinet and one for the top of the bottom and upper cabinet? Is a dust cover advisable between the braces or is this overkill since the base of the upper cabinet would serve this purpose?
Thanks,
Matt
mdh,
In my mind the braces have the function of replacing a full top piece with less bother and expense. The dovetail to the sides keeps the cabinet width. Glueing (with or without aids) along the front face rail will keep it from bowing, as well as creating an attachment point for the upper cabinet. And the rear brace of course gives you something to fix the back into. It all comes together to make a strong box.
No, I wouldn't make a dust cover. It serves no purpose here. Regarding the other cabinet parts - The bottom of the base cabinet would usually be a solid piece. If it will be invisible (i.e. drawers inside) then you could use a pair of braces here, but this time with a dust cover. The upper cabinet has no bottom, except the solid wood piece that "passes through" the whole unit, and appears as the top of the lower cabinet when you open the doors. The top of the upper cabinet needs to be a full piece of course. Re-reading this it sounds awfully confusing. Sorry I don't have access right now to a drawing program so I could set it out on paper.DR
Ring, your post makes sense. I'm attaching a couple sketches. The first, labeled "joinery1", is a bird's-eye view depiction of what you described for the brace system (I think). If this is it, then the region indicated near the dotted line labeled "Rabbet" where the braces overlap the rails..would this also help to be tacked by a few nails? Would you construct the panels and the brace system and then assemble all at once or assemble the front, back, sides, and then the braces and slide that assembly down?The attachment labeled, "joinery2", is an attempt to figure out the drawer divider. The orientaion is the same as the last attachment but this is a cross-section at the level between the 2 drawers. I intend to have the divider in the front with ends butted to the inside faces of the front side stiles and notched around the front stile face frame with the edge flush with the face of the face of the front. Oh man, hopefully I made sense this time!! The drawing shows it better than I can write. I show a floating panel as a dust cover between the front divider and the side with and M&T joint as shown. If this framed panel method for the drawer divider is the method I take, how in the world do I attach it? Is there a better way than what I described without relying on plywood? I just looked back at this drawing and am now wondering if the drawer divider should have a stub tenon on either side to attach into the side stiles so that when assembling I would slip the sides onto this horizontal drawer divider (so it looks like an H from the front and then assemble the front and back.Also, based off your last post, I took it as though I should do the open brace for the top of the base cabinet as depicted in "joinery1" and do the same for the top of the top cabinet but have a floating panel. Now the bottom of both the top and lower cabinet should be solid also and I want an edge overhang for both, both with a profile similar to that dresser I posted. The question there is, what do you recommend for this to minimize movement? I don't want a lot of end grain to router the profile into.Thanks for all your help, Ring! I really appreciate it. I realize that figuring out the construction and assembly is just a small portion of the battle, actually doing it will be a whole different story.
mdh,
your sketch "joinery 1" is just right, although I wouldn't do the rabbet with the front rail, it's just overkill. Plain butted and glued, maybe some biscuits to align things.
"joinery 2" is fine also. It should be glued up to the front divider. The sides do not touch the panels of the cabinet sides at all. Only the rear portion needs to be fixed for height. It is commonly let into a dado in the rear stile of the side panel, and allowed to float there. In your drawing everything is frame and panel construction. If the sides of the cabinet were solid wood, then this frame inside would need to allow for the sides' movement. So it is usually glued only at the front. Regarding the order of things - I would start with the bottom, put the 2 sides on, then the braces from the top, and finally the face frame. It can be done of course in any order you want. Dry fit everything in any case... Your last point, on lots of end-grain to be routering - well, it's an integral part of this design, at least as far as the solid piece at mid-height is concerned. At the top of the upper and the bottom of the lower you can attach any molding you want, and build up a large cornice on the upper members of the side frames. But if you want to avoid it in the middle, it's easy but it changes the look of the whole piece. You would make 2 separate boxes, add any moldings you want at their meeting point on the sides, and fit a solid "shelf" to float inside (only) the upper cabinet. By definition, you were not going this way at the beginning. It's a pretty demanding project for a beginner. But after you've done one or two it will seem obvious. good luck,DR
Thanks again, DR. You've been instrumental in the organization of my planning for this project. Hopefully my precision as an artist/illustrator will carry over. Time and practice will only tell. I'll be making a few boxes as practice for this one. I'm leaning toward a rather traditional look and thinking about walnut but was wondering if you have suggestions as to either a contrasting figured wood or one that is figured and blends with walnut for the drawer fronts? I realize it's a matter of taste for the most part but might as well ask.
-Matt
Edited 8/23/2005 8:32 pm ET by mdh
Matt,
I'm personally not a great fan of contrasting woods in the same piece. It often feels to me like trying to put everything you know into one single work. I have done pieces like that at client's request, but if I were going to live with it myself, I'd use walnut or cherry throughout, and let the wood be quietly elegant.
George Nakashima was very emphatic on this, and I have always felt the same. The wood's nature has more to express than I do, and I question the need to clutter things with "over-intervention". I know that others will take issue with this, but as you said it's a completely personal issue, not a "right or wrong".send us pics of the finished piece,DR
DR,
Thanks for the input. I can see what you're saying, it probably takes on a more contrived look, especially at this scale. Perhaps save this type of experimentation for small boxes and delicate inlays. Any experience workinig with black walnut vs. peruvian walnut? I've read somewhere that the peruvian species is more uniform in regard to sapwood vs. heartwood. Is walnut rather dimensionally stable? I've also read that rosewood and mahogany are but was wondering how walnut ranks. In an article from FWW magazine a few issues back (#176), it discusses finishing black walnut and blending and concealing the sapwood to even out the contrast to the heartwood. Though I have no experience here to speak from, to me I'd rather save my oil paints for a canvas painting rather than creating glazes to alter the wood. Or, is this just something that woodworkers from today have to deal with when using younger growth trees?
-Matt
Edited 8/24/2005 9:28 am ET by mdh
Matt, Sorry, no experience with Peruvian walnut at all. American black walnut is quite stable and a good wood to work with, not too hard, machines well, etc. I am far from home right now and so I don't have access to books, but if you really want to learn about stability in different species, the authoritative resource is still Hoadley's "Understanding Wood".
As far as blending the sapwood, I generally don't do it unless I know that it bothers the client. Build the piece and then decide for yourself.DR
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled