I can appreciate articles of instruction, but do feel that appropiate choice of material should be part and parcel of such advice. Who, in the making of drawer sides would use white pine, quartersawn or not?
I mention this because in my small world white pine is identified as being light soft and weak albeit very easy to work with hand tools.
This is not a knock at an individual, but the more one of status has information to impart the more needful care should be exercised to avoid leading readers down inappropiate paths. Just my opinion of course.
Replies
Use of white pine for drawer sides depends on what is being made, and the intentions for it. Many 18th century American pieces did originally have white pine drawer parts. Today, many such pieces do show repairs to the drawers.
Depending upon the esthetic of the craftsman reproducing such a piece (or the client) white pine might well be chosen for its authenticity. As an aesthetic decision there is no right or wrong about it. Other woods include poplar, or in the South southern yellow pine. For reproduction harder woods such as oak or maple would be completely out of character since they were almost never used by 18th. c. American cabinetmakers.
In Britain the story was different and oak was frequently used in drawers during the 18th. c. It provides almost instant identification of what side of the pond an antique was made, quickly separating valuable American-made period pieces from much less expensive British made pieces from the same period.
Edited 11/7/2007 11:30 am ET by SteveSchoene
Thank you, being on the right side of the water I had not appreciated the use of pine on the left. Much of my stuff comes from recycling old furniture, and as you say pine if used figured at the low end of the market.
From this I have however learned that most of the fine panelling in Georgian houses was of Yellow Pine (your White Pine) on account of the ease of carving and no inclination to split on nailing. I do keep learning!
mufti,
pine if used figured at the low end of the market
Huh? I think he said for its authenticity as it was used for 18c. American century furniture.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 11/7/2007 3:35 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
I was referring to the low end of the market in England, at a time when the more well off here would have expected oak etc. All my knowledge, such as it is, has been gained from studying English products and now I would not use a soft pine for situations in which wear is likely to occur. If I was attempting an accurate antique reproduction then I would use a similar wood.
Bob has read me right. In the antiques markets here, a 18th. century mahogany highboy chest with pine drawer parts sells for many times the virtually identical item with oak drawer parts. Why, because the pine drawers signify American craftsmanship which is much rarer than the British equivalent. (American's have been importing container loads of English antiques for some time now--likely totalling a muliple of the numbers of the original period production.)
Why should this be true--it's not just chauvinism--it's because in the 18th. century Britain had the larger population and that population was much wealthier than the Colonials, even though labor was better paid in the Colonies and even land was available to the "middling sort" here. But even though those "middling sort" folks may have been landed they didn't have fine furniture of any kind, which was left to only the most wealthy on either side of the Ocean.
Thanks for the additional information. My expreience of American furniture has been limited to a visit to the Shaker museum at Bath, England, and of course I realise they were a singular development.
Mortified Mufti
I find that a white pine drawer side with a hardwood wear strip glued to the bottom edge works quite well. It may not be an authentic detail but it functions quite well in use. Since most of the weight in a drawer bears on the bottom edge it provides a durable hard surface, match it with a hardwood slide and you have a nice combination of function and durability.
Ron
I wrote an article on 18th c drawer making. I haven't been keeping up with other magazines so I don't know if you are referring to my article or not. But no matter.
Period cabinetmakers didn't seem to have a preference for drawer materials. They seemed to choose woods that were cheap and easy to work. London cabinetmakers (London produced the lion's share of English furniture in the 18th c) probably didn't have access to pine or other soft woods. I know that the Thames River had many ship yards and pine was used for spars. Those ship yards may have taken all the decent (or easy to get to) pine for their substantial needs, forcing London cabinetmakers to use oak.
We can assume they didn't prefer oak because London trained cabinetmakers (like Thomas Elfe) who came to America abandoned it's use. This, despite the fact that oak was surely available here and in sizes and quantities unknown in the British Isles.
Most fine Philadelphia furniture used white cedar (which once grew plentifully in South Jersey) or tulip for drawer sides. Though I have personally seen Philly furniture with Oak drawers, this is exceptional and usually noted as such. The advantage of South Jersey wood was that the land there is dead flat, its coast was not populated, and logs could easily be moved to the Delaware (which separates Pennsylvania and New Jersey in that region) and floated with the current to Philadelphia with very little effort. Just West of Philadelphia, the terrain rolls which would have made the transportation of logs more difficult.
I forget what I wrote in that article specifically, but I think these practical issues: availability, ease of working, cost, were the primary factors in the choice of material for drawer components in 18th america.
Adam
I don't think the naval explanation really holds water. The only native pine in the UK was the Scots pine. It once covered most of the island, but was replaced by other species early on, except in the far north of Scotland. Naval needs were often supplied by imports from Europe. Large well-branched Oak was pretty much monopolized by the Royal Navy also, for building the hulls of ships, which required a naturally curved shape, to the extent that elm sometimes had to be substituted. However oak as a species was estimated (H.L.Edlin) to constitute one of every three trees in England, so it would be readily and cheaply available in smaller sizes.
Jim
It is good of you to provide all that information, and you are correct, I try to read your writings so I suppose the post was a backhanded compliment. We Brits may seem a bit isolationist at times.
Much of the choice of woods in England may have been driven by the clients designer rather than the maker in that many followed a grand design rather than commissioning single pieces. Perhaps this occured less in the colonies.
If I can get you to write long posts here it will save me considerable loot in not buying other magazines! Best wishes, David
I double-checked with "Jack Aubrey's Navy" (not the most scholarly tome). It says that by the late 18th c., masts were so large and bore such a load that all but the topmost spars were "made", i.e. laminated, rather than single poles. What it calls "fir" for masts was actually imported from America. Imports fell off after American Independence, but picked up again a few years later. By 1811, Britain was importing 125,000 loads from the Baltic, and 155,000 from North America.
Jim
Before the Revolution, here in Maine (then part of Massachusetts), the best and biggest white pines were reserved for British navy masts. A forester would place a royal crest of some sort on the best trees (called "mast trees") and no other use was permitted. That was one of the many things we colonists took umbridge at, since we wanted the trees for masts for our own ships.
SMS
Wondering if you are around Bath? Lots of history of wooden boat materials around Bath and Brunswick. Also, have you looked at any of the Eric Sloane books?? They are easily found in the public libraries and used book stores. If you don't see them, you can buy them on amazon for very reasonable prices.
dan
I'm in Alna, a little town about 20 miles up the coast and a little inland from Bath. Lots of wooden boats still being built around here, ranging from little skiffs to giant state of the art sailboats built by Hodgsen (sp?) marine in Boothbay. Still a few big white pines too, although nothing like the old days.
My mother's kin are all on the Phippsburg pennisula south of Bath. Most connected to the Iron Works as you can imagine. I get back to Maine quite a bit these days from NC. My daughter went to McGill for undergrad studies and I got to go up every Spring for the summer pick up. I get over to Maine for my own pleasure. Love the coast and I just can not eat enough lobster. I'll be back next July.
Photo: stick of sugar maple I got over in Vermont last year. Love that cold weather maple.
dan
What it calls "fir" for masts was actually imported from America. I wonder if they were old growth Log Pole Pines. I have seen some long ago that were really tall and stout.. DO you know if they were fir or pine.. To me a different thing but what the heck do I know?
"Do you know if they were fir or pine."
In a word, no. You might suspect from smslaw's post that they were pine.
The naval historian I quoted uses "fir" exclusively, which makes me suspicious: to some peopls, all evergreens are firs. But nomenclature varies from UK to US, c.f. "sycamore." H.L.Edlin, a Brit who knows his trees, says of Scots Pine: "... its original name, by which it is still very widely known, was simply "fir;" it is still Fohre in Germany and Fyr in Denmark." He adds that Douglas Fir is sometimes marketed as "Oregon Pine." Confused? Me too.
Jim
"He adds that Douglas Fir is sometimes marketed as 'Oregon Pine.'"
I think the name Oregon Pine is used primarily in Europe. Douglas-fir (genus Pseudotsuga, "false hemlock") is actually more closely related to pines than to true firs (genus Abies). The common names of conifers are, to put it mildly, all mixed up. Not to mention the fact that the only things that hemlock the tree and hemlock the herb (from which Socrates' last drink was made) have in common are that they are both plants.
-Steve
All,
I was under the impression that "deal" was Brit speak for pine. Anybody care to clarify? Richard, mufti?
Ray
I think "deal" is more like "undifferentiated generic softwood."
-Steve
Thanks Steve.
Ray
Deal originally referred to a size of plank, more than 7" wide and at most 3" thick. It was used in the U.S. also, but denoted a different size. The term came from the German, and as the British lumber trade with Germany consisted of fir and pine, "deal" came to be associated with these species only. It's been a long time since I lived in the U.K., but I don't recall the word being used much.
Jim
Thanks Jim.
Ray
Hello Ray. This is the advantage of "book larnin" despite lack of personal experience, it helps to be a bit older in your reading as well. Chambers Technical Dictionary of 1940 says Deal is a piece of timber of width 9 to 11 inches and thickness 2 to 4 inches. Joinery and Carpentry around the 1920s says the term applies to soft timbers of various sizes and firs and scotch pine. George Ellis, 1902, a deal is over 2 and a quarter ins thick and less than 10 ins wide. Spons,1893, identifies deal as white fir or Norway spruce.
All meaningless now I suspect and applying to carpentry and joinery anyway. I even bore myself with my pedantry, must get a life!
Edited 11/10/2007 5:06 pm ET by mufti
mufti,
Thanks yto you and all. I've learned a great...deal..about deal.
Ray
"I wonder if they were old growth Log Pole Pines."
Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus). The King's Broad Arrow mark was made with three axe slashes, arranged in the shape of an arrow. Legend has it that there exist living trees where you can still see the remnants of the mark, but I've never seen a photo.
-Steve
Choice of secondary woods also depended on where you were. Yellow pine down south, white pine or poplar up north. Jimmy
One critical thing that nobody mentioned was overhead in the accounting sense of the word. Even if your tools are paid off, you need to charge each customer an amount to pay for wear and tear or for eventual replacement. You also need to include an amount for shop rags, new saw blades and drill bits, electricity, repairs for equipment (even if you do the repairs), insurance, business licenses and permits as well as any other expense, whether or not there is a cash outlay, not included in time and materials.
As a business owner, you need to be aware of all of these costs. Either the customers pays them or the business owner pays them. If you aren't factoring in overhead costs, you aren't earning as much as you think you are for all of your hard work.
This isn't intended to be a criticism of anyone. I can tell by reading this thread that everyone wants to do a great job running their business. It's just an additional issue to think about when setting prices.
Just my opinion of course. ... Like you said
Pine is like a woman with glasses and dressed up in her flannels with stocking feet, All covered BUT,, Just uncover her and.. Well.. You get the picture! NOT the old Pine you thought of!
care should be exercised to avoid leading readers down inappropiate paths..
OK so I thought she was pretty and she cooked really good!
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled