*
Or I am proposing to review it. The rule is never to wedge in such a way as to split the grain of the mating
piece.
Fine, makes sense. However what about, say you are making a bench. Solid top or seat , 12″ wide by 60″.
Two supports 14″ high, 2″ thick by lets say 10″ wide so you have a 1″ overhang. Set in from each end say
8 ” or what ever. Now lets say you have two through tenons, 3 1/2″ by 1″ by the thickness of the top on
each support and seat connection. The tenons are rectanglular. The rule says you put wedge length wise
in the tenon. This would make for a long and fragil wedge. It would look strange. This is different than the
way you would end up wedging if you were wedging a rail to a leg.
So what would be so wrong if in the case of the bench you wedged across your tenon with two widges. If
you have sufficient room in the mortise and don’t slam the wedges in with a sledge hammer, whats the
big deal. You are creating a dovetail of sorts. What would be the difference if one located the support to
the seat of the bench, cut a mortise through both, angled the mortise and made a tenon with a dovetail
shape and tapped that in. A loose tenon of sorts. It would be the same thing but that wouldn’t break any
rules. I really don’t see a problem. The grain is in the right direction, everything moves together. I see no
more strain than if the tenon was unwedged if one did it carefuly. What do you think ? LVC
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
*
My 2nd example was for discussion purposes only.
LVC
*In your first case, wedging with the length of the tenon, i.e., across the grain of the seat, I tend to agree that the visual effect might be a little odd. I think visually I would prefer the form you described second where you wedge across the short dimension of the tenon. Your last option of what I think you are describing there sounds like a loose tenon with a dovetailed end that locks down the seat by virtue of a matching dovetailed mortise in the seat part sounds eminently doable; technically somewhat tricky, but doable. I'm not sure that I'd use any of the forms you've described. In the first two you create a lot of long grain to end grain mating surfaces with only four effective glue surfaces where the narrow end of the tenons meet the long grain cheek of the seat mortice. I think I'd prefer to make slim multiple tenons (~3/4"- 1") that are close to the full thickness of the leg, e.g., ~1-3/4" to increase the long grain gluing surfaces. Perhaps a group of two M&T's front and back and a pair in the middle might be visually interesting. These could be also be wedged forcing the narrow ends of the tenons towards either end of the bench. It can be a bit tricky cutting the necessary slots across these groups of tenons, but there are ways and means of getting at it. Slainte, RJ.
*Good points about the small amount of long grain to long grain glue surface. The joint I was talking about would be (as you had noted) mostly mechanical which would necessitate a strong wedging action which would not be a good thing with the wedging action with the grain of the seat. I was thinking about this only in the terms of splitting the wood. In my myopia I didn't think about the end grain gluing. You are right about more and smaller tenons. I must admit some of my thinking about this is prompted by wanting to get this one done and out and I was looking for a fast and easy way out. ( I am not making much on this one, one of those favor things. Why can't I say no ) LVC
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled