Hi:
I know there’s an endless debate between starting with tails or pins, at least that’s how everyone who writes about cutting dovetails starts their pieces. I’ve tried both methods with variable results. The set up to mark the pins from the cut tails is more difficult but some woods make it hard to mark the face of the board for the tails, when starting with the pins. I’m thinking that I’ll chose my method depending on the wood.
I’m interested in others experience. Anyone alternate like this?
Replies
Bake sale,
Like you, I was indifferent to doing pins or tails first until I read some of the helpful hints in the Becksvoort article in the Aug. 2004 issue of FWW. I have had a problem keeping the dovetail saw square to the stock when cutting, doing several boards at once together really helps..of course you can only really do that if you cut tails first.
Thanks, BG. I'm actually using a table saw to make my cuts because I too have trouble getting the hand saw cuts right.
bake sale,
Like most around here, I have many books and lots of articles that describe the correct way to make dovetails. I would guess that it's about fifty/fifty on the pins or tails first question. All the authors have powerful arguments that prove their way is the only way; that doing things in the opposite, wrong order will inescapably doom any and all attempts to gaping joints and drawers that fall apart within minutes.
Interestingly, I can't remember ever seeing any difference in the quality of the photographs of the authors' dovetailed joints.
From this I've learned the "right" order is that which I feel more confident and comfortable doing, and which gives me the better result--with 'better' including things other than which way makes the more perfect looking joint.
But, by the way, tails first is the only correct way to cut dovetails. This is because it's the way I do it.
Alan
Pins first; marking done with a scratch awl.
I've stood an 18" wide, 72" tall carcase side on end (the pins cut first end) to mark the mating case side tails with no problems - no clamps, no vise needed. No hooray and who-shot-John crap. Picture doing this with the tails first method and you have my version of a bleedin' nightmare. I can't imagine cutting carcase dovetails tails first.
The pins first method will suit all your needs. No need to switch back and forth. I've never had the problem you mentioned marking out, as all the crucial marks are made on face grain, which is typically easier to mark than end grain - at least IMO.
You will use dovetail joints on more than drawers - use a method that works for everything.
Edited 7/22/2004 7:15 am ET by cstanford
This is Tage Frid's argument and the one that convinced me to start with the pins on my last project. (I'm a rank novice.) But after practicing on some scrap wood where the face grain was easy to mark with an awl, the joints on my project had gaps that must have come from marking deficienies.
I do my cutting on the table saw, which requires marking on both sides. I mark one face from the pins, square it across the end, and then use my bevel gauge to make the line on the other face. I thinking maybe that trying to bring the mark from the one face around to the other face adds too much imprecision. If I marked from the tails to the end of the board, wouldn't it be less likely to have this problem?
I would like to use one method and stick with it so that the repition will improve my skills. But Emerson once said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
BTW, in one of the latest FWW, the author built a large chest of drawers starting with the tails.
I agr
Before reading this, take my advice: don't take my advice.
Anyway, here's my argument for cutting the tails first.
The most difficult cut is the diagonal cut for the tails, because it's not 90 degrees. When you cut the pins first, you then mark the pins on the tail board and have to accurately make these diagonal cuts with the eye. But when you cut the tails first it's not so important that these angled cuts be exactly "correct" because you're going to cut the pins to match.
It makes sense to me, which isn't necessarily saying much.
I can't really comment about cutting them with a tablesaw. I know Frid showed that method in one of his books. I can't begin to imagine the things that could go wrong, but in time I'm sure you'll work out the kinks. Obviously, using a tablesaw would be very difficult with carcase dovetails on long workpieces. I cut dovetails exclusively by hand. All I need is a chisel, saw, marking out tools, and a mallet. Not necessarily a value judgement, but it is what I do.
If you want/need to cut dovetails with power tools then I would suggest that you buy a Leigh dovetail jig and move on down the road. A power tool cut joint is a power tool cut joint. You can cut great joints by hand if you are not physically impaired and are willing to invest a little time to learn. But of course the decision is yours. I hate to suggest spending this much money, but in this case it makes the most sense. Other than for economy, there is certainly nothing to get particularly excited about in mastering dovetails with a tablesaw other than the obvious utility of having a joint that fits as it should, assuming you get to that point (and you will with enough trial and error). So why not just get a jig.
The article you mentioned was a 3' (or so) tall chest of drawers I believe. I think the author might re-think his strategy had he been making a chimney cupboard, but maybe not. I've just never cut carcase DTs on long workpieces any other way than pins first and don't care to worry about a strategy to do them tails first. I'm sure I'm overlooking the obvious and somebody will 'correct' me.
Edited 7/22/2004 3:09 pm ET by cstanford
My reasons for using the TS are simple: you can get the flexibility of hand cut joints, any layout you want but the cut hopefully is more precise. I don't use a mallet as I can get very clean joints and use the chisel for pairing. I also am more comforable with my table saw than with my router and can't imagine using a router on large pieces either.
I hope to learn to do it by hand one day.
The Leigh jig allows variable spacing of the pins and tails. The tablesaw will work fine for drawer-sized workpieces. Without substantial jigging and gymnastics you will not be able to use this method for carcase joinery. This is not entirely the case with the Leigh jig, although it has its size limitations (certainly width limitations; I imagine some pretty ingenious solutions have been hatched for long workpieces).
Trust me when I tell you that a tablesaw will not make a more precise cut than a decent dovetail saw on a well-marked, square and flat workpiece.
With all due respect, the tablesaw is a dead end road for cutting dovetails. There are just too many limitations. I would start the processing of moving away from it. That may mean hand cut or router-and-jig cut joints. Either one is a vast improvement over the tablesaw.
Some people use their bandsaws to make the cuts. That would even be an improvement over the TS as long workpieces can be accommodated.
I built a simple and wonderful jig for cutting dovetails on the bandsaw. Frankly, for speed and accuracy I'm not sure why I ever cut them by hand. But now I've lost the jig. It wouldn't be hard to build another, though.
Here's my perennial question about dovetails. There is a fundamental mismatch between the rounded cutting edge of saw and the need for a flat bottom on the dovetails. So I'm always going back and forth between not cutting far enough and needing to fuss around wtih a chisel in the bottom corner, or cutting a bit too far and having tiny saw kerfs show on the finished product.
Actually a concave bottom is best, at least when hand cutting the joint. This assures that the joint will close. Of course the shoulder line still has to be perfect of the joint will look gimped up. I'm not quite sure how to achieve an undercut socket with the tablesaw and not foul up the shoulder line. But, beyond thinking about this for the minute it took to write this I'll never think about it again. I have enough problems in the shop without gumming up what I do know how to do. And I can honestly say that I can cut dovetails. I just wish I could design works of art. Now that's a real challenge.
I hope BakeSale will give up the TS in favor of the BS or something else.
Edited 7/22/2004 5:15 pm ET by cstanford
Edited 7/22/2004 5:16 pm ET by cstanford
I don't see why. I have a sled and a fence on my mitre on which I can cut pieces as high as my ceiling allows. If your read the next message, I don't have any problem with the bottom of my joints. I can set my blade for smooth, clean bottom. I'm not trying t be difficult, but I don't understand the limitation.
I stand corrected, I think. Sounds good in theory, but I would have to see a quality fit of joints cut on long workpieces before I believe this is a workable and consistent methodology. If I'm not mistaken, you are still struggling with the fit on drawer-sized workpieces. I say this with all due respect, but let's crawl before we walk. I can't help but giggle a bit when I picture in my mind a 72" long, 14" wide, 1" thick carcase side being run, on end, across the tablesaw to cut pins and tails. Maybe after your first attempt at this you'll laugh too and remember this thread. I believe I can speak for the late Mr. Frid when I say this is not what he had in mind, or would ever attempt. Drawer sized pieces, sure. Long, wide carcase DTs I seriously doubt.
I get the sense that you've become married to the idea of using your tablesaw to cut dovetail joints. This is where we will have to part ways. There are better ways to do it. You'll have to discover them for yourself. You no doubt will.
As to your marking out problem - it apparently stems from the necessity to mark both sides of the joint. FWIW, one doesn't have to do this when hand cutting joints (only one side is marked), and one makes no marks at all when cutting router and jig joints other than perhaps pin centers (centres for Richard Jones).
Good luck.
Edited 7/22/2004 5:32 pm ET by cstanford
Edited 7/22/2004 5:34 pm ET by cstanford
Busted. it's true that I'm kinda committed to the TS right now. I think because 1) I love my TS, and 2) as a beginner there's so many skills to learn and control that I like not having to worry about straight cuts and chiseling. Definitely on my list of skills to acquire. Down the road I can see giving up on power tools for most things. I think hand tools are quicker for the hobbyist.
Anyway, thanks for your comments.
I agree with cstanford. Pins first is how I was taught and it makes complete sense for the reasons he outlined in his post. Even if you stack the sides together you still have to saw accurately enough in order to keep the sides of the tails square to the face of the board. If not then you have an awful lot of paring to do.
I am not sure if you read the article/interview with Chris Becksvoort in Woodwork magazine, but he laments how hard it is to make money at woodworking, and the challenges of using hand tools and techniques for building furniture. He sid he grosses about 100k per year but only pockets around 25k after he pays his expenses.
If he only cut his pins first I'm certain he would do much better!
J.P.
All,
I have a question. In Lonnie Bird's video on the Pennsylvania Hall Clock the markings for the dovetails are showing on the outside of the bonnet in hte finished piece. Is that acceptable?....I'm really asking, certainly not passing judgement. thanks
Are you asking whether or not through or half-blind dovetails should have been used?
cstanford,
No...altough maybe half blinds would have been better in the bonnet. It appears when Mr. Bird layed out his dovetails he made his lines on the outside of the bonnet....and did not remove the lines before finishing (sanding, scraping out). When you look at the bonnet from the side on the video you see beautiful dovetails and the line...like you'd see on a draw side....just curious how others feel about that. thanks
I doubt I would have left the gauge line in this circumstance. I would probably have lightened up on the cutting gauge to leave a line easily removed in final scraping, or sanding. If I did leave a line, to 'prove' the joint was hand cut it would have been very faint, certainly not deep enough to be seen in a photograph.
DIYNET.com.
Article in 'Woodworks' series by David Marks.
Broadcast here (NZ) this week.
Peruvian walnut tool box.
Pins first, using spacers and a band saw. Very elegant.
Excellent reason to cut pins first.
What would you do with the dovetail requirements of the secretary I just completed.
The lower case was joined with half blind dovetails. The drawers had half blind dovetails on the front and through dovetail at the back. The gallery had 8 serpentine drawers that were half blind in front and through at the back. The section behind the prospect box drawer had two serpentine drawers made also with half blind in front and through in the back. The prospect box itself was done with through dovetail on all four corners. The upper case had half blind dovetails.
That is a gazillion dovetails. Would you hand cut? Would you machine cut? Would you cut some by hand and some by machine?
If anyone is interested, I will tell how I did it.
Edited 7/25/2004 7:12 pm ET by Coolbreeze
I have a masters degree, been to three county fair and two goat ropings, but I can't seem to get the hang of attaching a photo. First I had some done with a high resolution digital(10+pixils), and couldn't post those. I then converted them to jpeg and poste a couple on the "gallery". They were too dark so I took some 35MM, scanned them into 'my documents" and tried to attach to the above post and they do not appear.
When i select the document and click on "upload" the girations begin but then i time out. The photo's are not that large.
Sometimes in the next year or two, I will get decent photo's of the secretary posted.
What to do?
Cool
Joinery is the essence of the craft, after design. I would have done them as they were done on the originals.
I can appreciate what you are saying. However, one could argue that as far as the joinery, a dovetail is a dovetail whether done by machine or by hand.
I like the look of the handmade dovetail. However, a dovetail made with the Leigh jig can be made like a handmade(spacing) except it is a really well fitting joint.
The question still remains on a piece such as I described with "a gagillion" dovetails to make, would you make them all by hand. I will be the first to admit that I am slow, but I had about 800 hours in the piece. I made some by hand and some by machine. It was my first really major piece of furniture.
BTY, how can I attach a scanned photo that I have saved in "my documents"?
I can appreciate what you are saying. However, one could argue that as far as the joinery, a dovetail is a dovetail whether done by machine or by hand.
One can certainly argue that point and I wouldn't disagree. A dovetail made on the Leigh jig is absolutely as sound as one cut by hand - maybe more so depending on the skill of the hand worker.
These lines have been a recent point of dicussion here (Canberra). We have come to the conclusion that, given the indubitable competence of the craftsmen involved, they must be some kind of fashion statement.
we rather hope they will go away, and note that few quality old pieces of furniture appear to have them. The only reason for keeping them on the sides of draws would seem to be that they were not removed during final fit (the priority) of the draw.
They have another problem, because the expose a little end grain in the cut, any stain o dye will absorb more in the line than on the rest of the board an, IMHO, obscure the very tidy appearance of the through dovetails.
Patto, you've got to recall that the people knocking out the old work were almost certainly on piece work rates. They turned out dovetails like machines.
Scoring a deep line across the grain with a cutting gauge serves as a sure and exact place into which the chisel edge can be placed for final paring, thus saving time. As you note the cutting gauge line being deep, perhaps 2 mm or so would be hard to remove without planing away so much wood that a drawer would end up sloppy.
Cutting gauge lines can be removed, but the cutter deforms the wood a mm or so deeper than the visible cut, so to remove all evidence of such a line requires time consuming heavy planing, and those old cabinetmakers weren't into wasting time.
Often dyeing, staining and polishing of a drawer front turns around the corner, and the cut line serves as a convenient precise stopping point. I've used the trick myself more times than I can recall.
Anyway, it's never bothered me to see the scribed line defining the dovetail/pin shoulders on all types of furniture from the very finest to cheaply knocked out Victorian junk that's somehow survived the last 150 years or so. Slainte.RJFurniture
Thanks, like the idea of using the scribe line to define the edge of the finish on drawers. I guess my "problem" that the cumulative errors of inconsistent line depth and various fitting issues means that sometimes the residual scribed line sort of fades in and out across the boards (could always put it back as a "feature").
About your last remark about 150 yr old junk: One of my many brothers (collects planes and now good Victorian furniture) defines antiques as furniture that was either so uncomfortable or impractical when it was made that it never wore out.
Slainte
(Scapa and Oban being my current favorites)
As Richard said, a nice, deep line is nice. One could almost set the chisel blindfolded. I prefer all except the faintest of lines after the drawer is planed to size. I don't always achieve this myself.
cstanford,
I tend to follow Ian Kirby's method of marking the face side first, cut deep lines to accomodate the chisel and leaving the sides proud about 1/32" to plane away the guage lines and fit to the opening. Surprisingly, planing away the 1/32" tends to tighten up the joint too....( I gues that says I have not mastered the perpendicular cut yet)
Edited 7/26/2004 12:38 pm ET by BG
I've cut dovetails both ways, prefer pins first. If woodworker likes to cut the tails first, then that's the right way for him. I usually cut the pins on a bandsaw and the tails by hand with a back saw.Years ago I cut the waste with a coping saw near the lines and cleaned it up with a chisel. I found this to be a waste of time, I just chop the waste now.
mike
bake,
It's funny, I was talking about this very topic with a neighbor just yesterday. It suits me to cut the pins first(because that's how I was taught!), then scribe around them to lay out the tails. I generally cut fairly dainty pins, and it's easier to reach around between them to lay out, than it is to reach thru a narrow space between two tails if they were cut first.
Sometimes, however, it is just the opposite situation. In making a joint where the "tail" piece is very thin (desk interior drawer for instance), then the pins are too short to scribe around with a blade very easily. It's easier to reach thru the 1/8" thick drawer side where the tails are already cut to lay out the pins.
I prefer to scribe with a knife blade, or an exacto, rather than a pencil. If you are careful, you can scribe right against the pin, whereas even a sharp pencil line stands off somewhat from what you are tracing around, and this space will vary as the point of the pencil dulls.
So it's just like the old man answered when asked if he preferred boxers or briefs--
"Depends!"
Cheers,
Ray
Tails first, naturally. Really tough to accurately do half-blind any other way. Seriously, .... both ways work .... to each his own.
In most articles, the hint that one should CHOP out all the waste is worrysome to me. I was taught to remove the waste with a coping saw, leaving minimal paring to the base line .... except, perhaps, on the half-blind pins, where one would use a forstner to bore to depth at the baseline, but here too one can safely remove half the waste with a coping saw.
Any thoughts on this?
John .... back in TEXAS
I've never had material collapse behind the gauged line. Never. I think pruning out the waste with a coping saw or a drill is a waste of time and adds an incremental layer of 'complexity' not really needed. Regardless of how simple, you have one more tool to worry about - a coping saw, drill, or whatever.
Tails,
Most of the old work I've seen (pre- power tools) I think supports your argument for "hogging" off most of the waste, at least on the drawer backs (through dovetails). The areas between the pins are generally undercut, and appear to have been chopped to the center from each side, but not in increments. Chopping all the waste away will almost always show a series of "steps" reflecting the depth of the chips as they are removed one after the other.
On the old work I've examined, the end grain appears to have been chopped in one action. The easiest way to replicate this, I've found, is to remove most of the waste, to within 1/16" or less, by sawing (coping saw) then chopping about halfway through the thickness of the stock. For me , at least, this takes less time than chopping alone, and gives a cleaner cut at the scribe line.
I usually use the mortising attachment on my drill press to remove most of the waste between half-blind pins. Work done entirely by hand commonly shows the sawkerf defining the tail extending several inches down the inside of the drawer front, as the craftsman attempted to cut as near to the inside corner of the tail as he could. Often the endgrain surface between the tails shows the "stair step" effect of having been chopped one blow at a time, and the waste levered out.
But, as you say, to each his own-- as long as they go together it can't be ENTIRELY wrong!
Cheers,
Ray
It is not that difficult to chop to the center of thin drawer side and back stock with one chisel blow (from each side). I think your conclusion that the waste was somehow 'hogged off' is flawed.
On half-inch drawer side and back stock all one would have to do is drive a chisel a quarter of an inch in from each side in what was usually Pine or Poplar. This is the essence of easy.
cstan,
In my experience, chopping 1/4" deep at one go will:
1)Bruise the end grain severely, tearing out the fibers as much as cutting them, moreso in softer woods as are generally used in period furniture. I have not observed this as a rule on old work.
2) cause the chisel to press back past the scribed line to some degree, resulting in less than accurate work.
Just my experience, perhaps your is different. And I'm not trying to say it can't be done, only that the technique doesn't appear (to me) to have been used as a rule on old work. Like I said, whatever floats your boat.
Cheers,
Ray
joinerswork, cstanford
I'm having a hellofa time avoiding 'press back' on the thin draw sides. I can get a nice clean guage line cut...but the thickness of the chisel destroys the side walls of the tails. I can't find a chisel thin enough...maybe I should use a carving tool?...or grind down a small screw driver?
Don't mark a socket opening narrower than your narrowest chisel. Give yourself some breathing room.
I couldnt find a smal chisel for a box recently and ground a piece of 3/16 square tool steel into a bevel edge chisel. Only ground the first couple of inches.
It doesn look too flash but does the job. The carving tols available were all bevelled on both sides - great for carving but difficult to make sure they are vertical for this job.
Total cost $5 and an old file handle. I will probably re-do the grind when I work out how to do it neatly, I dont really like ugly work.
david
Patto,
That 3/16" tool stock sounds interesting. My problem is not the width of the chisel but the thickness crushing the tail as I push down along the guage line....I'd need to change the chisel slope to maybe 10 degrees to avoid the crushing...
The angles for tools are extensively discussed in books on carving tools. The consensus seems to be about 15deg for hardwoods and 10 for softwoods. I keep my gouges at about 15deg and knives at less than that; but my reasoning is that the very fine edge is just not as durable and unnessessary when used with a mallet for most work. the knives are always used with a paring action and the fine angle cuts cleaner but also reduces resistance.
What I think is happening - I had a really good look at this with the cedar but it is only my observations - is that there was a small crush action, and then the fairly wide angle I started with acted as a wedge against the waste stock and pulls fibres out leaving unsightly holes behind the cut. A finer angle reduced the wedge, and finer cuts meant that the waste could not support the wedge action.
I also noticed a little crushing behind the scribe line on this cedar, I am much more familiar with hardwoods - there is nothing much soft about Australia (joke Joyce) - so I am experimenting a lot. I suspect that the suggestion to hollow cut, which I think means lean forward a smidge, might solve that problem and will try it out this weekend (in between some adventure with my first go at a compass plane)
David
If you chop it almost has to be an undercut. It's very, very difficult to chop straight across and not bugger your gauge line. The only reliable way to achieve a flat socket would be the method used by Ian Kirby - cope them pare to flat. That said, there is no reason you need a flat socket.
Edited 8/13/2004 11:38 am ET by cstanford
When you stop learning - you are dead
A quick scan about my house shows my dovetail history is is the low hundreds, and I had arrived at the Kirby approach through trial and lots of error. It is for me, however, pretty slow and I was looking for refinements that would improve productivity without sacrificing the strength or aesthetics.
BG's approach helped keep the chisel square (I use a square block as a guide rather than the vice) but I found that I didn't need it after I had got my eye in, and it didn't help the forward face crush.
Patto,
Interestingly, I spent much of my free time this weekend chopping out dovetails for a silly box that would hold various grits of sandpaper...12"wx16"hx12"d....about 12 partictians. My method of using the front vise is not faster but I can, and do, sit down while chopping...with my cuppa tea and oldies on the radio....lol.
With 12" wide boards I needed to do a lot of fliping of the stock to have adequate support for the chopping action in the front vise. I think I'll square up some 2by stock and make a little jig with bolts and wing nuts so I only have to set it up once and put it in the front vise....should be a bit faster...
Edited 8/30/2004 8:15 am ET by BG
In the end guys an' gals an accomplished worker shouldn't be fazed by doing either tails or pins first, and the choice is dependent upon the job in hand.
For the now comparitively rare secret lap and secret mitre dovetails there is no choice-- the pins must be cut first to enable the position and the rake of the tails to be marked. You can't cut tails and transfer the cuts to mark the pins.
In lap (blind) dovetailing or through dovetailing, both typically used in drawer construction for example, I almost always cut the tails first. The reason is simple. If you have three drawers of the same height which is quite common across the top of a cabinet for e.g., the layouts are usually the same. I can cut six sides worth of tails front and back in two goes by stacking all the parts together in the vise thereby saving a lot of time.
True, the pins have to marked individually from the tails, and cut individually too which is almost always the case anyway. But if you cut the pins first and mark the tails from the pins, you then also have to cut all the tails individually.
Time is money for me, and whilst I appreciate this is not the concern of everyone, it does matter in many situations. Also, I get bored doing masses of the same joints and I just want to whack them out quickly, ha, ha. Slainte.RJFurniture
Patto,
To keep that guage line from crushing...I put my stock in the front vise vertically right along the guage line....rest the chisel on the front vise and tap away...taking little cuts initially...and fliping the board half way through. Works well.
I don't have the problems you mentioned in the species I mentioned.
I just don't think it is necessary to cope away material on thin drawer sides even if it took a couple or three blows to drive the chisel to the centre line. Small steps on an undercut socket don't mean anything since by definition nothing touches the undercut socket anyway. All one is looking for at the shoulder line is a tight fit. End grain doesn't glue well, therefore undercut sockets. Small steps from a couple of chisel blows don't matter one wit.
I absolutely disagree with your assertion that it was normal procedure, historically, to remove socket waste with anything other than chisel and mallet. Certainly some woodworkers did, but I don't believe the vast majority did.
I also somewhat disagree with your conclusion that the absence of steps (if they are in fact absent) meant that the woodworker removed the bulk of the waste and then proceeded to make one chisel blow to remove the last 16th or so.
cstan,
My references are mainly to the way the drawer fronts and backs appear. I didn't make that clear. I'm talking about removing the waste between the (usually widely separated) pins, moreso than the sockets for them on the sides of the drawers. I agree with you that it is more efficient to go ahead and chop the waste out between the tails. (I usually saw the tails and remove the waste on the bandsaw, when I'm working in the shop.)
My discussion of the appearance of the end grain surface was meant only as a means to try and understand the methods of period workmanship, not as a critique of the quality of said workmanship, or of the end grain's effectiveness as a glue surface.
Regards,
Ray
Of course by definition if one is examining the undercut sockets on a period piece one is examining a drawer that has come apart.
In the interest of disclosure I used to saw away waste with a coping saw. One day I didn't and I've never really looked back. There is certainly nothing wrong with removing bulk waste, I just think it's not a necessary step. I've never been convinced that the physics of chisel at the cutline is different whether there is only a scant 16th left to remove or the whole chunk of socket waste. My experience indicates that there is not. Ian Kirby discusses in his books material breaking off behind the gauge line which is something that has never happened to me.
He believes that removing bulk waste will prevent that but I'm not so sure. I think it has more to do with reading grain as well as the condition of the wood and the chisel.
I think as long as the chisel is driven in pretty much equally from each side the wood 'knows' not whether there is a little left or a lot left to remove. A crisp blow to a sharp chisel at an undercut angle of attack is the best defense against collapse below the line.
Kirby does not undercut his sockets. I think that not doing so puts the worker at risk of wood collapsing behind the line whether or not the bulk waste is removed. Undercutting also helps the back of the chisel clear the gauged line by a tiny fraction as it is driven. This keeps the gauged line in pristine condition which is necessary for a tidy joint.
Edited 8/11/2004 1:21 pm ET by cstanford
Is this collapse a function of the timber do you think?
I had a lot of problem with some Australian cedar last month on thin (8mm) pieces and but have not had problems with other timbers. My only solution has been small increments and finish with paring cuts rather than driving srtaight down
Yes, I think it is more a function of the timber than it is whether or not one removes bulk waste before chopping. Ian Kirby never chops - he copes the waste then pares a flat socket. I found this too time consuming and an undercut socket, for me at least, helped with joint closure.
You can get around the difficulty in seeing the marks (other than the depth) by simply not bothering to mark. Just saw the pins. Chop the waste and then mark the tails from that. Klausz is a famous proponent of such method.
On the neverending quest for wood.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled