andybarss

This is a really gorgeous piece of woodworking. Can you tell us what the finishes are? And also, what is the acoustic material on the front faces? it's quite attractive (which a lot of acoustic fabric isn't).

This is my post. Keep up the great work!

Really gorgeous, and impeccable design and execution. I have admired your work for quite a while -- I think you're one of the top three boxmakers in the world. I would love to see your work in person sometime (and would really love to take a workshop with you).
A question: how do you edge the panels, at least when you use MDF as a substrate? What I mean is that to have the MDF edge not show in e.g., the lip of a box, I would think it either has to be veneered itself, or be a solid bit of hardwood that is co-planar with the MDF panel.

Send it on down to the Southwest, and me.

Gauges? We don' need no stinkin' gauges!

Now THIS is a cupholder!

@saschafer:

My initial double-take at the headline was a result of my own sense of what the word means; in my speech, it has a completely negative connotation, meaning to dull the senses, confuse, make befuddled, and so on. This is shared by several other speakers I just asked, though it may well be that there is regional or interpersonal variation.
Nonetheless, the editor chose unwisely in picking a word that has this restricted meaning for some, and whose first dictionary definition (OED, Merriam-Webster, and Free online) is that same one. Particularly when 'stupendous', 'remarkable', and many other adjectives capture the intended meaning and are not variant between speakers. (My best guess was that "stupendous" was confused with "stupefying", but that's just a conjecture.)

Amazing and intriguing table.

Note to the author/editor: "stupefying" doesn't mean what I think you think it means. Did you mean "stupendous"? 'Stupefying" = "to make stupid"; "stupendous" = superb, of extreme quality.

GEIde: That's not a good analogy. In the Miss America contest, the same judges do a strict ranking of the entrants, so it's ompletely clear who the second-best-rated one is in case of a disqualification (like in olympics competitions as well).

You used a totally different voting system -- one reader votes for this bookcase, another for that one. You have no idea what the results would have been without the disqualified bookcase. None at all, and you need to address and acknowledge that.

GEIde: That's not a good analogy. In the Miss America contest, the same judges do a strict ranking of the entrants, so it's ompletely clear who the second-best-rated one is in case of a disqualification (like in olympics competitions as well).

You used a totally different voting system -- one reader votes for this bookcase, another for that one. You have no idea what the results would have been without the disqualified bookcase. None at all, and you need to address and acknowledge that.

With all respect to Pete Jones, I strongly urge the editor to reopen the voting in this contest, or award the cash prize to every one of the top 15. With more than a quarter of the votes disqualified due to editor error, the remaining results are meaningless. There is no way of knowing, without revoting, where the 26% of votes for Mr. Purdy's bookcase would have gone.

Beautiful work. What is the finish?