Replies

1. 
   yotonyb | Sep 15, 2003 10:53pm | #1

   Nice!

   I've measured and built the Gus #353 (without the inlay!) and I suspect many of the dimensions are similar.  I can give you some benchmarks for starters.  You'll have to interpolate from here.

   On yours, the legs are likely 1-1/4"x1-1/4" tapered to 1"x1" at the bottom.  Length for the front legs is around 18" to 20" depending on what seat height is comfortable for you and your guests.  I don't recall the height of the back legs or the distance between legs front-to-back and side-to-side, but I do recall the splay is only around two or three degrees. 

   The horizontal rails on the back are curved to a radius of 36".  I made mine using bent laminations on a form and built a jig for cutting the mortises and tenons.

   When I get home, I'll try to scare up my drawing from the #353 and provide you with the distance between the legs.  After that, you're on your own!

   Good luck and good skill!

   tony b.

2. 
   JeffKurtz | Sep 15, 2003 11:09pm | #2

   If you place both images side-byside, you'll see very little difference between the two as far as proportions go.

   The Ellis chair was designed in late 1903 or early 1904.  Unfortunately, I, like you have pictures of it, but don't have a drawing.  Suggest you contact Bob Lang (the author of the books you link to).  He visits this site, so you might just post a  thread titled "Attention Robert Lang", or contact him through Cambium Press.  http://www.cambiumbooks.com/contact/

   Jeff

3. 
   Elcoholic | Sep 16, 2003 06:43pm | #3

   I built 4 side and 2 arm similar Harvey Ellis dining chairs (sans inlay) a couple of years ago.  I'm pretty sure I still have the drawings.  I wasn't able to find a drawing either and I have the Craftsman Magazine on CD ROM so it's doubtful if the design was published.  I made a trip down to my local Homestead House furniture store and took the few critical dimension from the current version being made by LJ & G Stickley today.  I scaled my drawing from a photo using the drafting projection method from a FWW magazine which got me close.  After consulting with my customer the seats were left square and the back rest dogleg was set to 5 degrees.  The curved back rails were steam bent.  I fine tuned the width/spacing of the vertical back slats by dry assembling a chair and eyeballing several combinations until it looked right.  Hopefully I did an as-built mark-up on the drawings (I usually do).  I live in Fountain Valley, CA so if your close you're welcome to come buy and make a Kinko's run or you can send me a few bucks to cover it and I'll send you copies of what I have.  Contact me at my email address.

   John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking

   Life is tough.  It's tougher if you're stupid - John Wayne

1. 
   yotonyb | Sep 18, 2003 09:22pm | #4

   Chipper...I'm on the road for my regular job so I haven't had a chance to dig through my drawings for the Ellis chair.  I'll be back on Sunday and I promise a follow-up then.

   tony b.

4. 
   BobLang | Sep 19, 2003 03:55pm | #5

   I wish I had a definitive answer, but the original version of this chair is pretty rare. I don't think it ever went beyond the prototype stage; other than the "Craftsman" magazine illustration, I can't find it in any of the old catalogs. I have seen photos in auction catalogs, but none with reliable dimensions. The 353 is similar, but as you point out, it is "heavier" than this one. There was another production model, #338, which appeared in the c.1904 "D" catalog, which to my eye appears to be the same chair, minus the second rail at the top of the back. That catalog lists the following dimension:

   height of back from floor, 40"

   height of seat from floor, 18"

   size of seat, 15" wide, 14" deep

   The numbers others have posted here, the 1 1/4" legs, and the 36" back rail radius sound good to me. All of this should get you pretty close, the only real problem I see is the actual height of the back, and the distance between the two top rails. The photo you posted is as good as any I have seen, and you should be able to come very close by scaling the photo.

   Hope this helps, are you thinking of doing the inlay also?

   Bob Lang

   http://www.craftsmanplans.com

1. 
   ChippingWood | Sep 20, 2003 01:46am | #6

   You guys are great!

   I've taken all the dimensions that you have sent and I'm working on the plans. It's kind of tricky matching up the perspective because the back is a bit narrower than the front so I can't get a "box" match. But it is starting to come together- I'm hoping that I can get some rough plans together early next week. If I could interest any of you in taking a look that would be great!

   Yo' Tony B- hey any time would be great- I completely understand about work- we are putting in some silly hours on a deadline now too! Only 6 more weeks to go!

   John- email is on the way!

   Bob Lang- I've seriously enjoyed your books! I'm a huge fan of the period, and your books have helped me get my skills far enough along that I'm actually trying something nutty like trying to make a plan for this. And thank you for looking around for more information for me- The #338? I am somehow going to find a picture of that! The 15" by 14" seat is a little smaller than how the plan is working out... I'll have to try and figure that one out. I would like to do the inlays- but I'm not entirely sure about the design. Or, well honestly what they are made of. The picture isn't that good- but it almost looks like they are metal... or painted? If they are wood I'm going to need a scroll saw in a big way. It is actually very interesting to see such a direct cross over from Art Nouveau into Craftsman. Which is why it was probably an easy sell to my wife- and why Stickly changed the design from the original Ellis... ehehe, sorry. Fan indeed. :)

1. 
   BobLang | Sep 21, 2003 01:07pm | #7

   The seat seems small to me also. I wouldn't be too concerned anout making a perfect reproduction. If you are trying to make some nice looking, comfortable chairs, work your plan to that end.

   The Ellis inlays did contain metal, copper and pewter as well as wood veneers. I've been researching them, and will have somthing published in about a year. The Art Nouveau connection is a pretty strong one. Stickley's magazine "The Craftsman" had a lot of articles on Art Nouveau design, and some of his earliest furniture pieces were in that style.Bob Lang

   http://www.craftsmanplans.com

1. 
   yotonyb | Sep 25, 2003 07:16pm | #8

   Found 'em!

   On the #353, the distance between the back legs is 13-1/4".  The distance between the front legs is 15-1/8".  The side arched rails (the seat rail) is 13-1/2" shoulder-to-shoulder and my notes say "angled approx. 2-3 degrees."

   The tenons on the seat rails and the seat rail itself are offset to the inside of the chair allowing the slip seat to drop comfortably inside without notching for the legs.  HOWEVER, the front legs are actually notched about 1/8" - 3/16" to allow for the seat!

   Height of the front legs is 18-1/2".  The back legs...well, I don't have a dimension on the drawing.  My notes say to "follow the template" which I created as a story stick for for the shape of the legs and location of the mortises, but I can't find it right now!

   I agree with Bob's observation that the seat seems small.  It is.  I'm not tall, or wide, but it's small.  I have tall, wide relatives and it seems even smaller underneath them.  Paul Kemner has a similar chair in his book with a deeper, wider seat.  I've built that chair from his plans and the seat is quite comfortable.  Bob is right on in his observation that you should "work your plan" to your goal of designing a comfortable chair in the arts & crafts style.  After you settle on a design, you might consider a mock-up in poplar just to test your set-ups and to review your final dimensions.

   Chipper, good luck and good skill, particularly if you try some inlay work.  It's a skill I admire and one that adds a level of elegance to the sometimes austere arts & crafts style.  Hope this helps!  Holler if you need more numbers.

   Bob, thanks for publishing a couple of outstanding books.  They are a GREAT resource. 

   tony b.