Antique joinery – Cricket table to start
james3one
| Posted in New To Woodworking on
New to woodworking but have been engineering and constructing things for years. Started in fabric arts, then into the structured aspect of drapes(cornices, valances,etc.) , now I’ve started making furniture. Prefer to reproduce antiques keeping as close to the original methods as I can. Have spent much of my time reverse engineering most of the things I’ve made but with woodworking that isn’t always possible. I’m trying to find out how most of the Cricket Table tops, made in the 1800’s, were joined to the legs. Of all the pics I’ve seen most were devoid of any clear means of joinery. Does anybody know a good resource for antique methods or at least how the Cricket Table was done?
Thanks,
James
Replies
Most of the three-legged cricket tables I've seen have rails running between the legs. My guess would be the top is "clipped" to those rails, with attention given to seasonal expansion of the top. The "clip" can be either a metal "8" (one side screwed to the top, the other fitting into a slot in the rail) or an L-shaped wooden block that fits into a dado on the inside of the rail and screwed to the table top.
A member more familiar with antique joinery may have other ideas, though.
clipped
The main issue that I could see in that form of connection is that a cricket table is still lawn funiture. That would seem to be a bit complex for an item such as this. Plus clipping the rail to the top would still require a metal or wooden peg to hold the clip in the slot. something that would be seen on the outside of the rail and, of those that I've seen, they appear to be pristine. I also think that the support set across the grain of these antique tops was meant to resist expansion.
Top cleats
The type of cleats I'm referring to are attached to the inside face of the apron, so they aren't visible from the outside.
In my experience, expansion can be limited (e.g. with quartersawn stock), or directed, but, like the Borg, cannot be resisted effectively. ;-)
Resistance is futile, but we can try
I have pics that include the inside face. Again, they're pristine. Unfortunately, the call of nature got me up at 4:00 this a.m. and I started thinking on this, and that, as they say, was that. I was up. My harddrive failed recently so I've had to deal with a new computer and my lack of data trapped in the old computer, which included all of my many pictures of tables and my data base of pics from Turbocad. So I loaded up the CAD on this computer made a rough drawing and then got online and found a pic of said table provided by Pine Trader Antiques - Finest European Pine and French Country Antiques(I believe in proper sourcing). What occured to me was that with the cross support and the triangle config. of the rails, all four boards work together to suppress the expansion of the grain. Because of the initial use of this type of table, outside, it needed to be both simple and durable. My guess is that the cross support, table top and rails were all screwed and glued together(no tatoo though). A guess that I can't verify. Any simple connection, that allows expansion also needs to allow access for tightening if dry conditions get things too loose. There is no access on these tables.
The table pictured is no longer for sale.
The cross support appears to be attached to the top only in the center, which would allow the top to expand perpendicular to the grain, and would further support the overhang, which otherwise might be subject to cracking when a tankard was placed on the table with too much vigor. The cross support might then be attached to the rails on either side, providing a tight attachment, even without screws through the top and into the three legs,but one that would allow expansion of the top. I'm assuming the rails were notched for the cross support, so the top rests on the leg-tops and the rails. Hard to tell from the photo, however.
The underlying problem, as I see it, is that water simply does not compress - one of those physics things. So, hard attachments to the legs would likely cause the leg/rail joints to fail, or the top to buckle. In the typical stool or chair design, expansion of the seat allows the top of the legs, mortised into the seat, to move outward, pivoting against the lower stretchers. With rails at the top of the legs, however, that movement is resisted, usually causing a failure somewhere in "the collective".
I'm just theorizing, though, since I've never actually built a cricket table.
I'd be interested in how the New Yankee plan solves the issue.
Cross support
Have seen many pics of the cross support. Most are clearly attached, with screws in what appears to be in a slightly countersunk hole, with no evidence of elongation to allow expansion. Some have several screws even out to the end of the board. Much to my frustration as these are the only sign of hardware.
Norm ignores the problem entirely by not including this very prominent feature of antique cricket tables. He adds in an extra peice in each corner where the rails meet, chamfered to match the angle he set the rails to, drills out an elongated hole and secures the top with three, one and a quarter inch, drywall screws. I used my drill press and bored out two holes in each rail, then pilot holes at a smaller diam. Then secured the top with six, #8, inch and a half wood screws(phillips). I wouldn't feel safe with only three screws given the amount of lumber in this table.
cross support addendum
Two items to add. One here is a pic of a table seen on PBS. If i had to guess probably WGBH Boston's New Yankee Workshop show #311, but thats just a guess. You can just make out a triangle on the table top, under the paint. There is a cross support on this table, clearly seen seconds later. He just ignores it. The first time I saw it I assumed that it was a repair. realized a short time later that all old cricket tables have one.
Two. There also a bit of a difference in the bulk of the top as compared to the rest of the table. Is it possible that the muscle of the larger lumber of the leg assembley overwhelms the expansion of the less substantial top? Hmmm.
The next one is of my table still in need of a few corrections. The stain is irregular on purpose, as I was trying to emulate the patina and wear of the table this was copied from. which is the next photo from Valley of Virginia Antiques http://www.antiquesvirginia.com .
Thank you for your patience.
I realize that I am both opinionated and stubborn. I thank you for your input and patience over the extent of this debate. It is most helpful in getting my brain working.
Consider these: 1, This is lawn furniture and is therefore going to be exposed to more intense expansion and contraction. this a also the reason for three legs. always stable on uneven surface. 2, This is lawn furniture and they aren't going to put a great deal of detailed work or intricate engineering in this item that's going outside. 3, Furniture designed to expand and contract, but made with limited hardware needs access. A top secured with screws is going to loosen over time with the continual movement. Once in a while you will need to tighten those back. There isn't any access to what ever it is that is holding that top to the legs. None that I can make out anyway. One detail of the underside of that cricket table pic that you might not be able to make out is that the end of the support board is chamfered and set with two screws. These are actualy pointed back into the table top. The last place to put them for allowing expansion. So I wondered, what would happen if you didn't allow for expansion by letting the parts move past each other? The board parallel to the support wouldn't do anything as the screw, or screws holding this are relatively close to each other in the center of the board, the other two legs would tend to bow slightly but only where they were the furthest from each other. the largest remaining part of the table, held by the support would bend, down at the ends, away from the center. This is also the most flexible part of the top. As the moisture goes up the wood is also more flexible. So as the wood bends with humidity, it is more capable of doing so. If you look at the drawing the rails come to a point and there is very little to prevent the top bending over the support.
As it turns out my table is done and the support is securely fastened with glue and screws. weather here is changing and the heat is up as well as the humidity. I had the cricket table up on the work table and just happened to see the top. Something was amiss. The top was bending. An 1/8th of an inch down on each side, right over the support. As I thought it would.
It is quite possible that the thing is going to tear itself apart. I don't think so. We shall see. I'm going to keep an eye on it and make the next one with a lot more insight. At any rate I do thank you for your comments. They are greatly appreciated.
photos, please
I'd encourage you to post photos of what you built, including detailed shots of the joinery. You could then update those photos with new ones showing any effects of "aging" for the benefit of future cricketeers.
Photos, per request
Actually got the photos before I saw the request. Not only of mine bending but of an old one doing exactly the same thing. The bend in mine is harder to see but it is there. At leat 1/8th of an inch down on each side, right at the support. If you look at the old table the bend is even easier to see. The pic isn't straight on edge but you can just see the top. at this angle the table should go down in the center a bit, but in this pic the center goes up. A much older table, bent and still intact.
lack of data trapped in the old computer
Off topic, I am following for my own edification, but I been getting at least one of these things for each of our computers here. Three with one on the way. Some people have children we have Apples. Can't afford kids.
: )
any way these are cheep now :
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001D7REIK/ref=oss_product
can find them for less than $ 70 with some looking.
Then we use Apple's time machine backup program. Seems good.
Not sure if you want to spend money but I guess I'm now a salesman for....
http://store.taunton.com/onlinestore/item/cricket-table-011237.html
$25.00 seems a bit steep for me. Not sure if it follows exact antiques design procedures.
I have made several for a donation to local church for fund rasing (long ago). Due to the angled mortise-and-tenon joinery, I made several jigs to 'fit' the angles together. I think I made 10 of them and all sold. I have no idea what the church got for them. I had money and time then so expense for wood was not a problem. Now all I have is time and no money.
I made all of them from birch that was donated so all my cost was time and glue... LOL... Brings back a fond memory.
I made a drawing from a Cricket Table that my long passed on neighbor lady had in her living room. She died at 103. I could be wrong, but from what I recall, her table top (solid one piece slab) was fitted to the triangle stretchers with only two wood screws in a oversized curved slot. Sorry, but I have forgotten the grain direction that the two screws held to top at. I do recall that one screw was very close to a leg and the other sort of centered in the opposite stretcher. I believe that the screws were positioned to keep the top from warping along the grain.
Just what I recall from memory...
Cricket plans
Thank you for the reference.
Have already spent $25.00 for new yankee workshops version. Norms construction was helpful in making new ones but my concern is in the old form of joinery. All of the antiques that I've had a look at have a single board, across the grain of the top, parallel to one of the rails. All of these supports that I have seen were set with screws. But when It comes to how the rails and legs were joined with the top it is unclear. I'm guessing that drilling straight through the rails wouldn't have been the first choice for an item made in the 1800's. Most of the rails seem to be a little too narrow for that and I couldnt make out any sign of plugs(many of the antique shops online include various pics including close-ups underneath). It is possible that they came in from the top, skillfully plugged the holes and finished the top. The one Norm referenced on the DVD did seem to have impressions of screws, under the paint, that matched the triangle shape. This is the only example I have seen suggesting screws, or nails set in from above.
How I would do it
When I magnified the photo, it looks like the cross brace is screwed at both ends. I would imagine that the screw holes were elongated perpendicular to the grain of the top to allow for movement. Where I to attemt to reproduce this, I would screw the cross brace to the aprons from the top, flip the assembly over and attached the cross brace to the top.
Cross brace to rails/apron first
i thought about that, but there still has to be some joinery going on in the rest of the rails. these are all tightly fit tables and the cross support is off center and wouldn't hold up to any use or abuse without that connection. My reproduction(first of many) connects the top to the rails with screws from the bottom up. I thought about plugging the holes but want to wait and see how it reacts. The cross support was both screwed and glued making no allowances for expansion. I'm in Oklahoma and the humidity goes up and down like a rollercoaster, along with the temps. If it is going to fail, it shouldn't take long. Can't wait to see.
roc - off topic computer
Thanks. Even less expensive. I'll burn a cd from my very capable cd-burner. I know better and should have backed up those things. Easy to do and i have plenty of re-writable discs.
thanks for reminding me
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled