I would like to explore what others here think about a particular issue with woodworking. I have seen religious discussions over the use of biscuits in gluing up a top. Some say using buscuits is not “fine furniture” making. So if we say -10 is flake board coverd with wood grain masonite and something made with only solid wood and hand cut dove tails is a +10 on the “fine woodworking” scale. I would like to know where gluing up boards to form a table leg ranks. For instance if you have a 1 1/2″ inch leg is it “OK” to glue up boards and put a face veneer on it as opposed to buying 8/4 lumber and planning lots of material away.
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
There's so many places to go with your question. First of all, who's to say what "fine woodworking" really is? I've seen guys cut Mortise and Tenon joints on some really bad looking furniture, and I've learned how to veneer over plywood from one of the most respected woodworkers in the country. I regularly make pieces with simple joinery (pocket screws) that will outlive me, and the ultimate customer is happy with them. Things I pay attention to that mean "fine" to me are 1). the quality of wood, 2.) quality of the finish, 3.) Composition of the grain (does the piece flow nicely). Pick the right combination of material, joinery, and finish for the project at hand - and you are, in IMHO, a fine woodworker...
As for your question about glue-ups for table legs, I've seen this in even the most expensive furniture in stores today. The difference is that they've finished the piece with enough color to blend in an variations in the wood, or to obscure the grain of the wood altogether. Would it look nice with just a wipe-on clear finish? Not to me, but then again, I can't see it from my house...
and just because I can't help myself...You can use biscuits to glue up a table top if you want to, but if you have a good clean joint (on the wood) and enough clamp pressure, you don't "need" to. I teach at a furniture making school in CT and one thing we do with students in a Hall table class is take the drops from the table tops after they are cut to size and smash them over the end of a bench. The wood fails before the glue every time. Just plain ol' yellow wood glue. Now - you can use the biscuits as an alignment tool if you need to, so that your tops are aligned more evenly (note: NOT perfectly) if it helps. I've used Pocket screws in some tops to hold them together in the glue up, not because they add strength, but because the provide great clamping pressure and sometimes I just don't have enough clamps...
Take it for what its worth, its my story and I'm stickin' to it...
Thanks the main reason I wanted to enquire is that I told a co-worker of mine I was making a table and I had glued together 1" pieces to make a 2" thick leg and I watched this persons face change to near disgust. I just dont think its economical to purchase lumber thick enough to do this and its on many occasions even waistful. I don't know if anyone else would tend to scowl as if a piece of fine mission furniture has somehow become Ikea grade due to a laminated leg.
tfk3160,
I believe I've read that a high quality 'mission' leg would actually be four pieces glued together. You take four pieces of truly qtr. sawn white oak, bevel the inside and glue up into a square....too much for me but for some...
As a woodworking instructor (you, not me -- I am NOT particularly knowledgable), I have a question for you based on a personal experience.
When I was in my mid 20s (a long time ago ;-)) I was fortunate to receive a sudden boost in income. I decided I wanted to commission a bed. I worked with a talented tradesman who made a really nice bed that my wife and I use to this day. The legs were glued up from two pieces of hard maple.
Initially the glue lines were nearly invisible. Now i can insert my fingernails.
Do you have any experience with older joinery verifying glue strength?
-robert
There's lots of reason's that glue joints fail...some of them include wood movement, surface preparation, The quality of the glue (did it freeze at some time?), or the amount of glue used. I've seen many glue starved joints that look great initially and then fail over time. Wood is constantly moving, and because it is, all glues will eventually fail over enough time. You have to plan on that when you are building the piece to begin with. One of the reasons M&T joints are so everlasting is that, done properly, they can still provide a mechanical connection between the pieces if and when the glue fails. Not a strong connection, but at least the joint doesn't just fall apart. I've had to restore tables done with hide glue that were a real bear to take apart because the glue was still holding after 50-75 years. And I've had to repair "high end" dining chairs where the glue joint simply failed. The joint became invisible again after my repair, and is "hopefully" still going strong today...
My very fine cherry dining table made about 10 years ago has now survived without any cracking of the 4 quarter top. I was pretty certain at the time I built this table that butt joining would have likely been more than adequate to hold up to the test of time. But I still put the biscuits in because I wanted to make absolutely certain that the joints wouldn't fail from wood movement. The nearly 4" square legs were laminated from 3/4" stock and no biscuits, because the glue surfaces were very large and the very process of lamininating the leg makes the wood more stable. I think its all about choices, making the best choices, makes fine furniture.Dave Graf
I couldn't agree more...
If you know how to do it right a glued up leg will look better that a solid leg. A few years ago WOOD WORK (I think) had an article about glueing up legs from two more-or-less flat sawn blocks and glueing the faces togather so that the growth rings meet in a football-ish pattern. Then you cut your blank out of it on the diagnal so that the glue lines are exactly on the croners. If you do it right when you cut the leg out of the block EVERY side will apear to be quarter sawn. It looks amazing. It works best on symetrical legs (tapers, cabrolet, splayed, etc.) but I've used it on round and and carved legs as well. The glue lines are NOT VISIBLE because they fall on the corners. The owner of the gallery that shows my work couldn't figure out how I did it. However this process wastes a LOT of lumber.
As others mentioned everyone has their own definition of fine woodworking. For the this process makes the ultimate leg.
Mike
Let the sparks fly!
Some say using buscuits is not "fine furniture" making.. YES AND Power tools not available in the 1600's!
Some might agrue that for a truely fine furniture leg you'd need to start with 10/4 and cut the blanks on the diagonal providing rift sawn grain all around. It all depends on the finer points of design, materials, and execution. I think biscuits in a glued-up panel don't rule out a piece from being fine furniture. On the other hand using biscuits or production corner brackets for table legs doesn't fit my definition of fine furniture.
John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
I think the important phrase here is "my definition of fine furniture." I agree that for the museum or gallery-quality pieces, there is no substitute for "traditional" joinery and the M&T joint is the most traditional and possibly the strongest, however, sometimes ( a LOT of times) I build pieces that are going to be in a whole other budget zone, with a whole different set of customers. These times still call for solid joinery, but production methods are preferable considering the amount of time that will be used to make the piece.
Interesting that I just got back from the Providence Fine Furnishings show this weekend with this thread fresh on my mind. Lots of really great gallery level pieces, lots of starving artists, and yes, lots of production joinery...
Dunno about the other part but in my operation buying the thicker lumber and processing down would be more cost effective than the time it would take to glue up the legs, process down, and then apply veneer.
Fine woodworking is doing the best job you can with what you have
Lance Patterson wrote an article 'Holding the Notes - Building an Adjustable Music Stand' FWW March 1987 also contained in Best of Fine Woodworking Traditional Furniture Projects with contained a small discussion on joining boards and concealing gluelines.
Properly done there should be no real difference in fact I would argue joining the boards and getting it right would take more skill.
Good point to a point. I wouldn't want a maple dining room table that looked like a bowling lane no matter how nicely the edge joints were done.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
Your right I wasn't thinking about table tops.
They must be coming in style though because every table I see in those mall furniture places use finger jointed short pieces. Fine woodworking at it's best!
Fine woodworking is doing the best job you can with what you have
And people saying "That's really nice, I like it"
I don't post here much. I don't build much furniture at this point. I am a timberframer, and I agree with many of your assertions about how it is the finished product that matters.
However, I think you are mistaken to believe that pocket screws will have the longevity of mortise and tenon joinery. There seem to be so many reasons why this is not so. Screws focus force on very specific areas. Mortise and tenon joinery tends to distribute various forces and 'moment'.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe in 4006 there will be some buildings and furniture with screw-based "joinery" still around, but I doubt it. I am sure there will some wood on wood joinery around from 2006...probably even from 1206.
I am a timberframer.. Now THAT is Fine WoodWorking to me! Just love timber framed houses.. Sure wish I could have afforded one...
Careful now, don't put words in my mouth ;-) I didn't say that Pocket Screws were stronger than Mortise and Tenon, I meant to imply that they were strong enough for the job at hand. That's the point of my whole discussion is that EVERY project may not require museum quality joinery, in my opinion (I know I'm opening myself up to get flamed here, but hey, its a discussion, right?) I believe that you have to strike a balance in effort, materials, etc. to fit the needs of the buyer. Its doesn't always have to be strongest, but strong enough. Not every piece is an heirloom.
But as soon as one starts saying "good enough", you are leaving the realm of fine furniture. Of course, not all furniture need be fine furniture nor is most of what is available.
Reviewing this discussion, I've noticed a tendency to associate fine woodworking with the level of craftsmanship brought to the work or the attractive appearance of the finished piece.But perhaps the adjective "fine" is intended to distinguish cabinet making from woodworking trades that do not stress precision or aesthetics. For example, in framing the emphasis is more on structural strength and conformity to schematics than on stunning finishes and well-fitted joinery. So too with form-work carpentry. These areas of woodworking emphasize utility over appearance, whereas 'fine' woodworking emphasizes both utility and appearance. (I would consider woodworking that emphasizes appearance only to be either art or arts-&-crafts.)If someone blanches at biscuit joinery, well, who said they're sufficiently well-informed to pass judgment? The world abounds with people with poorly formed opinions, doesn't it?
Thought provoking post. If I read you right you're saying essentially the objective difference is a priority of design over function. I guess that in turn would mean you can have "poorly made" fine furniture, or "finely built" functional construction, but those are subjective judgements.
My experience with fine furniture has so far been only on the receiving end, with some beautiful commissioned pieces (the bubble was good, while it lasted). As a buyer, I would have no problem whatsoever with buscuits, for example, if the design, appeal, longevity, and yes function too are not compromised.
Just me.
-robert
But perhaps the adjective "fine" is intended to distinguish cabinet making from woodworking trades that do not stress precision or aesthetics..Gee my old house HAS sQuare walls BUT made of cement block! I guess a old Italian or Polish Mason...
Edited 10/29/2005 3:13 pm by WillGeorge
I built a tv armoir out of red oak and I tried using biscuits, then glue joints, then finally I jointed and glued straight sided boards for the sides. I had alignment problems. I still had to sand the sides to smooth out the joints. I am an ametuer; not a professional woodworker. The result has been posted on this site.
I believe that if the result looks pleasing to the eye and is funtional as well as sturdy enough to last for a generation it qualifies as "fine" woodworking.
"Form follows Function".
Well, I suppose if you deigned and manufactured a piece of furniture out of economical board materials and made it all fit for the intended purpose including the durability requirements, and within budget, using nothing more complicated than nails and glue it would have properly fulfilled the brief.
Is there a need for overly built items including exotic woods and finely wrought hand cut drawer dovetails for a workaday workshop cabinet for example?
On the other hand if the intention is to make a gallery quality item with a wow factor but the design is a bit iffy and the joinery is poor including things like gappy dovetails and sloppy M&T's no amount of exotic wood will save it from being poor quality.
I'm leaving lines of discussion untouched in my comments-- on purpose. Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Is there a need for overly built items including exotic woods and finely wrought hand cut drawer dovetails for a workaday workshop cabinet for example?
I won't be using exotic woods, but I'll be doing lots of hand-cut dovetails on my workshop cabinets etc., mostly because as a newbie I need all the dovetail practice I can get! I probably have hundreds left to cut before I'll feel confident, approaching a beautiful piece of wood that deserves better than the wood butchering of which I am currently capable.
So I'm just saying, some of us aren't overbuilding to show off, we're overbuilding because we're not ready to show off yet. :)
Gee, you guys over here are interesting! Here's my two-cents on this issue:1) I think of "fine woodworking" as a mark on a scale of "state of the art". There are the pedestrian methods and then there are the elite methods. So the tricky full blind dovetail is truly fine woodworking. Gluing up two pieces of 4/4 stock isn't fine woodworking. Its a craftsmanly compromise. Joining the two boards with some dovetailed spline or funky interlocking joint would be fine wood working. 2) I think its easy to confuse fine woodworking with fine woodwork. You can apply objective criteria to art work and define beauty. That's what people do who work in art museums.For example, I don't think mission furniture belongs in the fine woodwork category. Ditto for shaker or other deconstructionist styles. This is not say that I don't like it, it isn't pretty, or that the craftsmen who build it aren't good.I hope you don't feel rebuked by your co-worker's reaction to your glued up leg. I think he was hoping for finewoodworking and you were offering craftsmanship.Adam
You know,I thought buiscuits were a tool to align the boards anyway. If the joint doesn't meet at the same plane dead-on (or ever so slightly sprung) a buiscuit isn't going to help. And even if the boards are bowed and you pull them up or down with the biscuit, The force of the wood is working against that biscuit untill it fails or the piece perishes. But it is the other aspects of your effort that will likely be noticed and will matter more as far as durability of the piece, than a little birch football buried in a glue joint that no one will ever see.
Vulcan , you offer good reasons for you and others in your position to overly build workshop aids, such as drawers, cabinets and so on. Looking from my end which has always been from the money making side of the business I'd never countenance spending so much time doing something so unproductive.
I can make basic but fully functional shooting boards in less than ten minutes. All it takes is a piece of 18 mm ply, two pieces of 6 mm ply and a squared stick of hardwood, a few nails, screws and glue. It does the job, but I know woodworkers that spend days lovingly crafting a fancy hardwood item with tapered sliding dovetails and other fancy joints that's a work of art. It doesn't function any better than my cheap as chips thing, but it is sometimes pretty.
It's the same with workbenches. I know that amongst the users of this forum a high percentage either aspire to, or already have made their own all singing, all dancing workbench out of exotic woods, expensive hardware, and complicated joinery. Apart from the fact that building a bench properly as a first time project for a rank beginner is usually beyond their capabilities it's a fine ambition.
Incidentally, I bought my bench many years ago, an open framed Ulmia-- I can't stand all the clutter of cupboards and storage space under a bench that some like. It makes much more business sense to buy a fully functioning bench with all the hardware on it that spend a couple of weeks or more on a project I'm not going to sell for a profit. Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Edited 10/28/2005 12:39 am by SgianDubh
I agree with you 100%. I'm genuinely looking forward to the day where I can stretch myself on things that will be good enough for others to want to use! Fortunately, as I have some pretty easy first projects lined up, that won't be months away, just a few weeks. Hey, even I can turn out a toy box... but the next one, a dresser for my girls' bedroom, has me wanting to prepare my drawer-making abilities!
FINE:
Of superior quality, skill, or appearance.
Free from impurities.
Very sharp; keen.
Exhibiting careful and delicate artistry.
Able to make or detect effects of great subtlety or precision.
Trained to the highest degree of physical efficiency.
Characterized by refinement or elegance.
Satisfactory; acceptable.
This discussion will have no end. Fine is as fine does. While we may discuss among ourselves what we consider to be fine, ultimately the consumer is the one who decides what is fine for them and they will seek it out. Whether that is constrained by finances, personal taste, or space, they will find what is fine for their needs.
Does the fact that a piece of furniture survives for 200 years make it fine? I have been in castles in Scotland with 800 year old tables that I wouldn't call fine wood working, but they were still sturdy and fairly flat. In their day they may have been the work of master craftsmen on contract to the king. Today that table might be in the basement under a pile of paint cans.
Tooling today is arguably more refined and efficient than it was in the 1700's. So should there be a higher standard for lumber preparation for modern furniture?
If you don't know it exists, can it bother you? The use of biscuits and dowels are common topics here, along with whether or not they are fine woodworking. If there were two similar glue-ups for a table top and one used biscuits and one didn't, could you tell? The same could be asked of mortise and tenon vs. dowels or loose tenon work. Strength differences aside, would the finished product look any different?
To me "fine" comes from design sensitivity, careful finishing and fulfilling the wants and needs of the client. If these aspect also meet our own personal tastes along the way, then we can feel that much better for it.
It's fun the play devil's advocate.
Andy
"It seemed like a good idea at the time"
"if you have a 1 1/2" inch leg is it "OK" to glue up boards and put a face veneer on it as opposed to buying 8/4 lumber and planning lots of material away."
To go back to your original question about glueing up thinner parts to make legs I'd generally wonder why you would do as you outlined in the statement above. It's not as if material to make such small section legs is hard to come by with 2" thick (50 mm, or 8/4) material being a common rough sawn size.
There may be particular circumstances where a specific grain pattern has to be visible on all faces which in reality is quite rare. For instance there is a faction of woodworkers that work on designs that are inspired by and/or copies of a particular form of the Arts and Crafts era where 1/4 sawn white oaks of one sort or another is much used.
If it's perceived that it's a must that the 1/4 sawn figure is visible on on all four faces of a section leg it could be argued that it would be good practice (i.e., fine woodworking) to make the legs out of four thin parts about 1/4" thick that are mitred at the corners to form the 1-1/2" section leg. Plain mitres aren't the only joint that could be used and more elaborate locking joinery could be chosen.
In my experience it's seldom that such restrictive aesthetic considerations in a small section leg can't be overcome by some other less demanding technique. One might be to use 2" thick stock, true and square it, and arrange the desirable 1/4 sawn flakes where they need to creat the most impact, e.g., the face that the viewer sees first or most often.
If the section of the part is 3" square or more then the technique starts to make sense because it's often difficult to find solid timber this big, and hard to handle when it is found. Also the smaller parts required to make up the square section become big enough to be worked more easily.
There is a tradition going back a long way of building up sizes as required. If you go back to English Tudor and Elizabethan times there was a style of massive bulbous turned and (often) carved legs on refectory type tables and so on. Whilst the central square column of the leg might be one piece that came out 6" square stuff, or whatever size, the central bulbous section was usually of pieces that were locally glued on around the outside of the central section. Once glued up the whole piece was turned on a lathe of some sort, and then later carved. Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
I appreciate your comment as well as all the others. I have opted to glue up legs e.g. a 2" thick leg because contrary to what you have mentioned the hardwood suppliers "near" me ususally don't carry 8/4 lumber and for a 2" thick leg 8/4 won't "cut" it. I often have trouble getting 5/4 (believe it or not) unless I am willing to drive 1.5 hours or do mail order. Its for me mostly an economic choice and since this is a hobby not my living the economy of my time is a zero cost adder (for now). Again thanks to all this has been helpful and thought provoking
look...........2 questions
1) do the customers like it?
2) Will they pay good money for it?
1+2 = Fine woodworking
The customer is always right
Wicked Decent Woodworks
(oldest woodworking shop in NH)
Rochester NH
" If the women dont find you handsome, they should at least find you handy........yessa!"
Edited 10/26/2005 8:08 pm ET by cherryjohn
When we make a table top and edge glue several boards together that seems to be acceptable pratice by all the great craftsmen working today. How many times does anyone come across a slab of wood 30" wide! I have found one and I am relunctant to use it untill I have the perfect place for it. 200 year ago these slabs were fairly common.
Regarding your table legs I think the important question is where and how is it going to be used? If it is for a reproduction 18th century piece then I might order one rather than glue up some. If it is for a kitchen table that is going to be heavily used I wouldn't worry about it. What shows,the top, is more important.
Good question.
"Good design should include the process of doing". The debate over what is fine and what is not could go on forever. it is your perception of a piece or technique that makes it so. As fine as i can with the hopes i will make a finer thing tomorrow is what i strive for. anyone, even the krenovs, maloofs, stickleys (or one of my favorites, Mr. roy underhill !) started from the basics. I'm sure if you look at their early work(s) you will find some work or technique that is not so fine, or some compromises they had to make, whether due to lack of skill(or fledgling skill) money or tool constraints. some times it's that a client wants something straight forward or inexpensive.now should you go out of your way and spend the extra time and money for the sake of exceeding the customers expectations? Sometimes. i always try and make things as fine as possible,but within reason. even a simple piece benefits from good stock preparation, careful layout, precise construction of joints(fancy or simple. ) i say glue up those legs if you have no other choice. do it as carefully as possible.someday you will not have to. you may look back at those early work of things you thought were so fine and think they were not!they were! Each cut ,each stroke of the plane , each frustration, each tearout, each blotched finish, each triumph, and each failure were the prize of knowledge gained. i remember early projects that i was so proud of ."wow! i made a square frame!' or 3 out of 4 tight mitres.or the table top i glued up with no thought to grain or colour, but I planed it flat by hand, all in my kitchen(my first shop.) i was not my house mates favorite!just don't get too cocky, after all, nature makes the wood so beautiful, we just get to play with it!!! cheers.!
Here is my 2 pennies. Who gives a royal rip. This issue to me ranks right up there with magazine articles about one more way to cut a dovetail, or is floating tenon joinery really a joint at all. We have a variety of skill levels. Do what is at or perhaps a little above your skill level. If you feel that bisuits are the thing to use, then use them. If you feel like they are dumb then don't. Why does it matter. If you piece doesn't fall apart when you give it a funny look then congratulations, you are a winner
Derek
I agree with derekb who says it doesn't matter what others think. Seriously, if you like the look of dry wall screws, why not build with exposed screw heads?But in my mind, the original question isn't about pleasing oneself, but navigating the esthetics and subjectivity of others. Suppose you'd like recognition for your work, financial or otherwise? What is expected of us to be taken seriously as craftsmen? Is there a council of elders that shun biscuits? Would FWW accept oak screwed together with drywall screws for the Reader's work section? Where does veneer and formica fit into this discussion?In my little niche of period furniture, there are pretty narrow "rules" governing "fine" work. As you leave this niche, I see fewer rules, but that may just be my lack of familiarity with other niches. I think its a mistake to assume we all build only to please ourselves or a single customer. You have to build each piece for the customer you want and don't have. I also think its a mistake to assume there aren't rules and standards to be complied with. There most certainly are and the original example given appears to be outside or on the fringe from what I can tell. If you want to be admired as a craftsman, you've got to exhibit that craft by doing things kids in high school shop class can't do.Note that I'm just responding to one little line in derek's post. I think his meaning was more along the lines that each of us should do the best work we can do without too much regard (especially discouragement) from others. His is a positive message worth underlining. Anyway that's my 2 centsAdam
I find it hard to believe that the "crafters of Fine Furniture" 200 years ago went out of their way to emulate the 'fine furniture methods" of 400 years ago. I'm sure these craftsmen we choose to emulate would jump at the chance to use any "more advanced' method or material, be it jointers, table saws or polyurethanes.Some earlier responders hit the nail on the head (excuse the metaphor) when they described the quality of results as opposed to the process.For my part, a while back I built a walnut buffet with cabriole legs, arched, frame and panel doors and, horror of horrors - undermount, full extension drawer slides. (the wooden drawer runners on the unit it replaced had worn to the point it was difficult to close the drawers properly.) I chose function over over fanaticism on a "fine piece of furniture".Jerry
Jerry, I appreciate your point of view. In actuality, the masters of the 18th century worked with highly standardized processes laid down centuries before. The Guild system sought many things; advanced manufacturing methods weren't among them. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but let's just say this clearly: Its extremely arrogant of us to assume the old masters would have preferred "our superior tools and methods" (these are my words not Jerry's). First off, our tools really aren't better. Table saws cut faster, but they can't follow grain and they make a wide kerf and a lot of dust and noise. The dust alone forces a busy shop into having a separate finishing area. BTW, period finishes are plenty durable, don't get cloudy like poly does and can be applied in slightly dusty environments. As for jointers, I suspect this would be the least coveted tool by 18th century masters. The first time they'd have to pass a 20" wide, 8' long piece of stock over one (such stock was not uncommon in America then) they'd liable curse the machine and never use it again. Of all the power tools, the jointer is probably the easiest to replace with a hand plane. Secondly, if our tools really were better, why are our products such crap? There are reasons why people save 18th century furniture and why machine made oak Hoosier cupboards will never bring 6 or 7 figures at auction. Mechanization taken to the extreme inevitably results in IKEA. Skill taken to its extreme results in Chippendale.I could be wrong, but I believe the quality of the results are directly related to the process.I hate to sound so disagreeable. But I hear this sentiment allot. All I can tell you is I think its worthwhile to understand a bit more about what was done 200 years and not to mistake progress for advancement. The nice part about studying 18th c technique (in terms of the original post) is how standardized things were. I think those old standards are an excellent starting place for any woodworker, but that's just my opinion.adamAdam
Adam,
until I realized who you were, I was going to quote out of your article in popular woodworking (excellent article, very inspiring). your note about how woodworkers in the 18th century would "turn their face to london" seems very applicable here.
Your article also provoked me to think about myself and the way I and other cabinetmakers currently work. If cabinetmakers back then could build their pieces accurately and quickly using the modest resources available at that time, and we can struggle to accomplish the same with the ample resources we have available now, then I'd say they are better masters of their tools, time and bodies, then we are today. I too think we could learn alot by applying some of their techniques and concepts.
I also feel like I'm on both sides of the fence on this one. I truly feel that if a cabinetmaker today were to apply that same level of discipline to his resources that our fathers before us did, we could in my opinion, accomplish more. I also think that people get stuck on elaborate joinery for the sake of it. As I understand it, (I have a bachelor's in Wood Engineering), the reason for many of these elaborate joints were due to lack of good wood glues. The real advancements in our craft within the last 100 years has not been in wood or joints, but in glues and finishes. These glues have made things possible that were not before (laminated beams which have a greater structural limit, and can be made longer, etc.)
I have personally made a high end kitchen with over 50 solid wood raised panel doors, dovetailed drawers, etc. all by myself (no outsourcing) using modest, but professional grade equipment, in about a month full time (including finish). and while I have no doubt that if I had the same mastery of skill and process that they did, I would have been even faster. But I question if any of them would want to or be able to do the same in a month. my point is because this was their livelyhood and the food on the table depended upon their productivity (just like many of us professional cabinetmakers today), then why would they not want something that would improve their productivity, without sacrficing quality, to better their quality of life. I'm sure that once the backsaw was invented and they saw the value it had in their shops they all sought after one, so why not with modern tools?
Please do not take offense to this as am only asking to represent the many professional woodworkers today who work hard to produce quality work for their clients and try to earrn a respectable wage in the process.
What "elaborate" joints have been made unnecessary by modern glues? The mortise and tenon? Or the dovetail? These are used today in quality furniture whether industrially manufactured or handmade. They are used because they still work better than the modern alternatives, not because of any "retro-nostalgia". Hide glue is quite as servicable, in furniture applications, at least outside of the pre-airconditioning deep south, as yellow glue.
You also have to remember that the market was very limited until the beginnings of the industrial revolution increased incomes broadly beginning near the end of the 18th. century. The fine antiques were made for a very small elite more comparable today to buyers of gallery furniture or the designer furniture made by Herman Miller or the like. They were status symbols, not just consumer objects. The stuff knocked together for the "middling sort" has seldom survived, and the poor had to make do. .
You can make a case for the sawmill, and the thickness planer, perhaps. But it isn't valid to just argue the 18th century cabinet makers would have used them if they had them. That's too big of a change--requiring the rise of a new middle class and the growth the age of mass consumption. Improved finishing has to do with the rise of industrial chemistry, and its largely a function of manufacturing cost and changes needed for industrial application, not for functionality. You can't tell whether a techological change is "superior" as a matter of logic unless it is both adopted by users AND is more expensive.
How is it that you have the audacity to say clearly in three concise paragraphs what I cannot in ten?In future posts, I'll wait for your post then write "what he said"!hugs and kisses,
Adam
I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who once apologized to a friend at the end of a long missive: "I'm sorry to have written so long a letter. I did not have time to write a shorter one."
Steve,
do not take my response critically, this is literally what I was taught in school. I am a fan of both the dovetail and the mortise and tennon, and I believe that they are integral with fine furniture. But, were they, in the 18th century, able to just edge glue boards together for a table top?!? what I was actually referring to was some of the "elaborate joints" the japanese were known for. But, regardless, there are many applications today were a Pegged mortise and tenon is more a function of asthetics, then of utility. this is not to say that a pegged mortise and tennon is not stronger then a glued mortise and tennon, of course it is. what I am saying is that due to the advancement of modern glues. I've been told it is unneccesary. Gary
The peg is far from universal in 18th century joinery. Many you see now are the result of 19th century repairs quite likely made when the old furniture became fashionable in the 1870's Centennial period. Yes the peg is unnecessary, but it was known to be unnecessary in the 18th century, too.
And yes, hide glue will handle a simple edge joint. Might be a problem in Georgia though. Liquid hide glue is virtually as stong as modern PVA glue, (3,590 psi for Titebond liquid hide glue, 3,600 psi for original Titebond, and 3,500 psi for Titebond polyurethane glue.) and most believe that the Titebond liquid is not as strong as the hot hide glue. Hide glue didn't disappear from furniture factories until after WWII. Its not just an 18th. century thing.
I don't know anything about the culture surrounding Japanese woodworking but that's not much relevant here.
That would have been funny- "hey I read this wacko's article about blah, blah,blah!"
I'm sure that once the backsaw was invented and they saw the value it had in their shops they all sought after one, so why not with modern tools?
I hear this sentiment allot. I'm always afraid my disagreement is seen as a rebuke of modern craft or modern craftsmanship. I’m not sensitive enough to know for sure, but I always suspect this conversation, often held passionately, is really about modern craftsmen's sense of their own inadequacies or lack of basic skill. Dunbar wrote about the requisite plane. But its a hang-up really. Like if you don't use hand tools, you're not a "real" woodworker. This may be the same crowd that becomes obssessed with the production of flawless dovetails. Anyway, this conversation freaks me out because I'm always afraid the subject is something other than the attitudes of pre-industrial woodworkers. But I admit I find the question irresistible.
First, for the furniture they built, I’m not entirely sure our tools would help them go faster. They certainly wouldn’t appreciate the space our tools take up, or the wood they waste. We could really stop there until we get an answer to that question. They certainly wouldn't prefer a power jointer, which generally seems slower and more difficult to use than a hand plane, especially for large stock.
Second, our tools were really designed for mass production, but their markets couldn’t always take mass merchandize. So for example, I’m not sure what modern tool could produce a ball and claw leg, but suppose you could program some cnc pin router to make one. Would the time and effort to program the machine and the cost of the beast be worth it for 4 legs a year? We all like French fries, but we don’t have French fry machines like McDonald’s, right? You could say the same things about all sorts of industrial machines. They are all more efficient than our tools, right? But we don't own them, despite their superiority because we can't justify the incremental benefits of their use. These things fit into a complicated context of market economics.
Lastly, I think its important to recognize that our values, and to some extent we could say this about our American values, don’t represent a universally and eternally accepted norm. Different people in different times and different places valued different things. We value interchangeability, uniformity, symmetry. They probably didn’t. We all know slavery was wrong, but there are people in our time pointing to the immorality of keeping gorillas in zoos for example. I personally don't see a moral equivalency between zoos and slavery, but in a hundred years, my views may be considered hypocritical, or abhorant. Period woodworkers may have been okay with rough surfaces, tearout, loose joints etc. They may have valued only sillouette.
So (as you know) I wrote about this point, and attempted to provide concrete examples of approaches they used to problems we solve differently. Their approaches targeted their values, just like our approaches target ours. The approaches are different not just because we have electricity, but because fundamentally our values are different.
If I had to guess, I’d say they would have loved the bandsaw. Plywood would receive mixed reviews, and the electric woodlathe with be treated with a good amount of suspicion. The jointer, planer, and shaper would have been universally rejected as pointless wastes of metal. They’d look at the table saw and ask if it couldn’t be made large enough to put a tree on, but it would likely have received no welcome in a cabinet shop. In short, our electric tools wouldn’t change their values any more than an automobile would convert an Iranian into a New Yorker. Make sense?
Adam
Adam,
My sole point is this, Quality is relative. Relative to the era, relative to what is currently available elsewhere, and certainly relative to the customers satisfaction. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief around here, there are MANY custom woodwork shops around this globe, that work with modest but professional resources and produce a quality product using the best of both age old joinery and wood, and the best of newer things such as plywood (prefinished even), Catalyzed finishes, and as someone said earlier, excellent hardware such as concealed undermount slides. The Demographics and demands place upon our trade has changed so dramatically that I think a direct comparison by purists between our work and those 200 years ago is unfair to say the least. Many of us today do the best we can with the demands placed upon us. Is it really any wonder that few professionals can hand cut dovetails when it is simply not the norm any more?
They certainly wouldn't prefer a power jointer, which generally seems slower and more difficult to use than a hand plane, especially for large stock.
do you honestly mean to tell it would be generally faster to handplane, flatten, and square and edge, then thickness again by hand, a 100 bd ft of hard maple of typical furniture size boards, then it would be to run them through a jointer, then a planer? I certainly cannot see how that would be feasible. Also, you mentioned earlier the wretched task of flattening a massive 20" wide by whatever long board by passing it over a jointer. I don't know how you would do it, but in my experience in a modern shop, we would cut a piece that large down (slighter over finished dimensions) making it MUCH easier to handle. now, as for it needing to be that size. If I had that requirement in this day and age, I would then do the more responsible thing and simply lay it up out of veneer and put it on a substrate. this is more responsible because today, just as in the 18th century, you can get a lot more out a tree in this manor (as you all know).
you also state that, "Second, our tools were really designed for mass production, but their markets couldn’t always take mass merchandize." I know of very few custom shops today that mass produce anything, so I prefer to think that these modern tools are utilized because they are more effiecient, and also because they offer greater flexibility. I do agree that such items as a ball and claw foot, may be not effective to write a program for 4 legs, but that is why a modern cabinetmaker may very well pick up the phone and call a company that does sell a ball and claw foot and barter or purchase it. just as a cabinetmaker did back then for a holdfast from the blacksmith. I really think the main difference between the modern cabinetmaker and our fathers really lies more in the demograhics of the business and the demands placed upon us by consumers. Our core values remain the same, we both strive for a quality product for our clients, the diferent means and methods are a result of both time, and different demands by the client. Thank you for listening to the "other side of the fence" Gary
Gary,I hear where you are coming from. I don't want you to think I'm comparing your skill to theirs. If they were in your shoes, they would do two-thirds of what you can do. We're bigger, stronger, and harder workers. We're also smarter and better looking.The thing is, they didn't build what we build. For them, in their time, our tools just wouldn't work for the stuff THEY built. Machine made reproduction furniture takes just as long as making it by hand and it looks machined. I could keep typing here, but I wrote 6 magazine article for Popular Woodworking on this subject last year. I think you'd enjoy reading them. Some libraries have these on file, or back issues are available cheap. You could start with the one on the newstands now (#152 DEC) and see what you think. I think we can learn from them, not because they were better, but because their situation was so different. At times, we can find ourselves in similar situations, but all too often we aren't armed with those old solutions. Here's a quick example: In another thread, guys are discussing the details of their very dangerous and complicated tapering jigs for making pencil post bedsteads. I'd probably use an axe for that job which would probably go at least as quickly, would certainly be cheaper, and likely safer. Modern woodworkers often don't think about an axe as a reasonable solution to that sort of thing.Adam
adam,
That's a good example with the axe. Too many of us today stumbe looking for the answer in a machine when it could be easily done by hand. I've also read all 6 of your articles (I'm a subscriber) and I feel was enlightened by them to think about why and how I currently do some things. I also admire and respect you for learning more about how "they performed their craft".
Gary
Sorry I flaked out, brother. I just forgot who I was writing to. I'm glad you liked the articles and thanks for the kind words. Adam
Take a look at the cover piece on the latest issue of FW. Read the article for the construction methods used.
There's your answer.
Some say using buscuits is not "fine furniture" making.
Yep in Two Hundred years.. They take it apart (assuming ys did other stuff right) NOT "fine furniture" making!
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled