Friends,
This is a very sad time for all of us. Our old friend, the mortise and tenon joint is dead. All of us are interested in only the finest methods and tools in woodworking. I just received the latest FWW issue, and they did a test of different types of joints for panelled doors. I was surprised and dismayed to find that the lowly half-lap joint is the strongest joint, followed by the bridle, splined miter, and then the M&T.
However, this article had some personally heartening news for me. I have a DowelMax. The article showed that DowelMax joints are stronger than 1/4″ M&T joints, pocket screws, biscuits and stub tenons. I have taken some heat for my ocassional use of the DowelMax. Now I feel better about it. 🙂
After reading Sean’s (Samson)thread, I was ready to try my hand at raised panel doors that are completely done with hand tools, and to make some really fine, piston-fit mortise and tenon joints. I was really excited.
Now, of course, I will make handmade half-lap joints instead, based on the information from FINE WOODWORKING.
I may still make M&T joints every once in a while, but I will only do it if I know no one is looking. I will miss the old ways.
This is a sad day for tradition, but a great day for continual improvement in FINE WOODWORKING.
Better days lie ahead. Chin up!
Merry Christmas.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Replies
Mel,
Why would you give up the mortise and tenon? The article certainly doesn't claim that strength alone is all you should consider. In fact, it concludes by explicitly telling the reader to consider much more than strength.
Then again, maybe there is something larger we can take away from the article. Maybe tradition is wrong. Perhaps the mortise and tenon joint, even though it's been used for centuries, isn't the best joint for a frame and panel door. It's not beyond human beings to get things wrong for a long time. Tradition is a dangerous thing. It's so comfortable that we can fail to recognize when it's wrong.
I must admit, though, that I'll continue to choose my joints based on a wide variety of factors, strength being one of them. And really, I think that's what the article is recommending. Sure, the mortise and tenon joint might be weaker than a half-lap, but that fact alone doesn't mean you should give it up entirely.
By the way, I find your subtle attempts at sarcasm hilarious.
Matt
Matt,
"By the way, I find your subtle attempts at sarcasm hilarious."I didn't know that they were subtle. Thanks for letting me know. I will try to be more obvious. You know, the Greeks outlawed the speaking or writing of irrational numbers (any number that can't be written as X/Y where X and Y are integers and Y is not equal to one.) For example, 3 is a rational number because it can be written as six divided by 2. But "pi" is an irrational number.Well, it is possible that the publishers of FWW magazine may outlaw the use of the mortise an tenon joint after this article. The only ones of us who continue to use it will be outlaws -- misfits -- revolutionaries -- people who will not go along with authority.Matt, I am glad you read the rest of the article. The purpose of my message was to make more woodworkers aware of it, because it is very interesting, and useful, BUT as you said, one must read the details, not just the headlines and the table of experimental results.Sic transit gloria M&T,
Your subtly sarcastic friend,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
The really silly thing about that article ws that they only tested one type of force and only from a single direction. In real life, joints are exposed to all sorts of forces - some subtle and long term, other from misuse. In short, this is perhaps the first of ten test that would have to be done before you'd even begin to have anough information to make fair assessments.
I did find it amusing that Dominos came off as glorified bisquits!
And ... you funny, Mel!
I did not think the test was very valid. The tenons on the mortise and tenon joints were way longer than normal so he seemed to want that joint to look good.He only used one biscuit on the Domino when we used a much larger tenon on the beadlock, three dowells on the dowelmax so it seemed that he wanted the Domino joint to not look good. In addition he used a "0" biscuit on the biscuit joiner. I also cannot believe that a butt joint is more than twice as strong as a stub tenon and nearly as strong as a biscuit.I thought it was a lousy article. Not up to Fine Woodworking standards.Cliff O'Bryan
Kansas City
Sean,
I find many things wrong with tool and technique reviews. Derek and I have gone round and round on that this year. Both of us got sick of the discussion, but I feel that it is far too difficult to write a really valid tool or technique review for anyone to undertake. I gave Derek some suggestions, and he pointed out that what I suggested would take a lot of time, and he had already spent a lot of time on it. You know, I understand where Derek is coming from. But I don't believe that many people have dug deeply into why tool and technique reviews are so unsatisfactory. In most magazine reviews, they set up a single variable, eg how many chops can you make into a piece of hard maple before the tip of the chisel breaks down, or how many pounds of pressure do I have to put on a joint before it pops. As you point out, this is intolerably dull and unsophisticated, BUT IT IS WHAT THE NEWBIES and the not-so-bright middle-bie woodworkers want in magazines. If that wasn't true, they wouldn't print such simplistic tripe.When getting my Ph.D at Penn State in the late 60s (( the 1960s to be more specific)), there was a "language requirement". One had to pass tests in two languages. I looked at the list of languages and picked German and Fortran. For German, I had to translate a scientific article. For Fortran, I had to write a computer program that the Penn State Computer Center would accept into their program library. I chose "multivariate analysis of variance".Multivaritate statistics is the way to do really valid reviews of tools and techniques (as you pointed out). But it is expensive to do, and it would take to long for any author to want to do, just to get an article in FWW. The article in question reminded me of how they test chemicals to see if they cause cancer. They give a two ounce mouse sixty four pounds of the chemical over the space of a year, and if the mouse dies, it must have been a witch. Ooops, I meant if he gets cancer, then people cant injest the chemical in minute amounts.OK enough of the humor. You can tell I enjoy this stuff almost as much as woodwork. Thanks for joining in. You give this thread credibility. MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
<<BUT IT IS WHAT THE NEWBIES and the not-so-bright middle-bie woodworkers want in magazines>>I must assume that you are a reader of said publication. :-)
Better life through Zoodles and poutine...
Peter,
"<<BUT IT IS WHAT THE NEWBIES and the not-so-bright middle-bie woodworkers want in magazines>>I must assume that you are a reader of said publication. :-)"Yup. You are right on all counts! I am one of the not-so-bright middle-bies! I wish the tool and technique reviews were more valid, by being more comprehensive, but that is too expensive and time consuming, so it isn't going to happen. SO, I will continue to read FWW cover to cover, reading the lesser stuff along with the great stuff. There were some nuggets in that joint review. My worry is that the newbies and middlebies are not going to understand that there is a lot what was unsaid. Bottom line, after reading the article, my guess is that no one will or should go away from M&T joints. Merry Christmas,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
I agree.Best of the season to ya.
Better life through Zoodles and poutine...
I am recalling all the pieces I have made over the last 30 years. All my family is packing up and shipping their furniture from various locations in the US. What a relief to have found out about this strength issue before any of the pieces began to show any actual weakness. I really can't understand how they have held together, without any sign of problem, all that time. Sheer, dumb luck, I guess.I am going to dismantle it all, every single one, and convert all the M&T joints to lap joints.One can't be too careful about this kind of thing.FWW, ever at the watch, on the bleeding edge of technology, comes through for us once again!(I understand they're in the process of preparing a review of glue strength and preliminary data has shown that mucilage is superior to hot hide glue and Titebond in all types of wood joints)Rich
Rich,
Great post. I like your style.
Dismantle all those M&T joints now, before they fall apart on their own.
Have fun. Happy Holidays.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
I found the article interesting and predictable. The Half Lap Joint has twice the glue surface of a M&T, so on a freshly cured piece put under a single form of mechanical stress, I was not surprised by the result. they are excellent joints.
The disadvantages to a Half Lap are that they show end grain and are missing a cheek shoulder for stability. They can not be cut in the middle of the board.
I didn't get too worked up about the article, the difference by this single test was nominal. I do use Half Laps quite a bit (drawer guides mainly) and love the joint--it is strong and easy to make.
Oh, I love this post. Very funny. Regards, Scooter "I may be drunk, but you're crazy, and I'll be sober tomorrow." WC Fields, "Its a Gift" 1934
Scooter,
They can not be cut in the middle of the board.
Oh contraire fellow Knots poster. I suspect they are actually stronger than those cut on the ends of boards. The dovetailed half lap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lap_joint) would be even better and stronger too methinks.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
A couple of years ago my daughter, studying engineering, had to make a composite material for a specific purpose. Material and purpose were her choice. It was almost a fun assignment.She decided to make a soundproofing material and we had a great time "designing" it. We used felt, sponge, pillow stuffing... sandwiched between 2 sheets of 3mm plywood.For some reason they (students and staff) decided to test the strength of the submitted materials. Her floppy sample tested out as the "strongest". They had to abort the test because the machine redlined!On a more serious note, FWWW tested one parameter and reported the result. Bearing in mind that a good M&T joint is rigid without glue and a half-lap joint depends exclusively on the glue it is a case of horses for courses. I am happy to use half-laps for a built in wardrobe. I made one 20 years ago and it is still standing. However I respect my wife's cooking too much to risk the same joint on the kitchen table which is subject to a lot of racking loads.
Perhaps a better test would be to get a relative novice to make all of these joints, using various methods, to see which joints have greatest strength in real-world situations.
Also, how about a test comparing the same joint type made by machine and by hand, with both experienced and novice woodworkers involved? I suspect there will be vast differences in strength that are nothing to do with the instrinsic mechanics of the joint type or the "theoretical" glue area.
Lastly, as many have mentioned the long-term strength of a joint will depend on how it is subject to degees of humidity cycles and daily racking forces from use. I wonder if the FWW "lab" is up to making such tests?
Lataxe
"Perhaps a better test would be to get a relative novice to make all of these joints, using various methods, to see which joints have greatest strength in real-world situations. "
Indeed, that's a much more useful result. All reading this thread should keep in mind one thing, however. The article in the most recent issue did not test common, woodworking joint's strengths. What they tested was the strength of cherry in various cross sections.
I don't know, but perhaps the individuals that were conducting the test simply didn't realize this until they'd returned the rented equipment, the article publishing deadline was looming, and so they just submitted it. It's also possible that none of them had any background in science or engineering and didn't have the necessary information to understand how to design and conduct tests, and most particularly, how to interpret the results.
BY DEFINITION - a test that results in failure of the wood and not the joint is not a test of the joint strength, at least in the sense that most woodworkers mean it.
Above post read: "All reading this thread should keep in mind one thing, however. The article in the most recent issue did not test common, woodworking joint's strengths. What they tested was the strength of cherry in various cross sections."You are exactly correct. Every joint simply broke at the end lever-point of the connection. They could have achieved the same result with a c-clamp at that point. Also, with only a few samples of each joint, the variability of the cherry could have skewed the results.
Edited 12/23/2008 12:22 pm ET by StephenNJ
Going to be a PITA here
Didn't see the article persay but saw one couple years ago I think in FWW or another. But as for journalist testing got to cut them some slack.
If you think about testing one joint, in a usual 4 joint system yea it might fail in a different way than a real world joint would behave. How would any given joint fair when you don't consider the deflection towards the other joints and molding, panels, what ever the joint is supporting? How to those other joints help out the stressed one? How much stress is put on adjasent structures?
Worse case scenario Dumb Fat Johnny is at granny for the holidays. The newly built enertainment unit with 1/2 lap doors with panel centered. Is open and 24x24 wide. and dumb johnny runs and jumps and grabs the top of the door and dangles in the air for a 1/2 second. The johnny falls to the floor, the hinges gave out. They pulled out of the material. the weakest link is now broken. The door was fine and johnny was not.
Seems johnny was smoking a single joint held in mid air a bit earlier and forgot about most else.
If any of those joints failed under real life use in our life time, there must be a circumstance not planned for. I had to reglue a half lap pinned joint after 15 years of my daughter rocking the table as she sat at it and did crafts. It was meant for a tea table.
What one should draw is I hope your joints never get tested to the breaking limit!
Now I get to go to the shop with some un brideleld passion ?Happy Holidays all
BB
That reminds me of when I was a younger lad and was fooling around with some mechanical object to the point of almost rendering it inoperable. My grandfather said that it is possible to make things fool-proof but not damned-fool-proof.
All to all a good night.
Edited 12/23/2008 8:28 pm ET by dherzig
As usual Mel is spot on.
RIP
Mortice and tenon.
I hope your tongue isn't too exhausted from pressing against your cheek, Mel. ;-)
As others have mentioned, the testing could have been much more comprehensive to reflect the various stresses joints undergo. Heck, for just a few $million more in test equipment, and a few hundred additional hours of joint making, they could have produced an article too complex for most to care to read. But, I thought the authors were straightforward about the limited scope of the single testing method they chose and the fact that other considerations in choices of joints may have greater importance than raw strength.
For me, the article provided interesting data, even if only from a single perspective.
Ralph,
You point out, "For me, the article provided interesting data, even if only from a single perspective".
Exactly so; those lads that are mocking and carping are perhaps a bit too attached to their preferences and see any exploration of these matters as some kind of heresy or iconoclasm. No doubt there are some who would convene the inquisition and have the authors confined to their house for the rest of their lives - or even burnt at a stake! (The earth goes around the sun? Wot nonsense)!
Gawdluvuz&saveuz - it's only woodwork.
I've used all them joining methods except the Domino (which I will indulge in one of these days). Nothing has fallen to bits yet; nor has the sky caved in; or the mountains tumbled. A demon from hell has not yet collected me up neither (unless having to read Mel's circumloquacious sarky-posts is a subtle punishment from the horned-one). :-)
Lataxe, not chuffing nor snorting with indignation (except at the indignant lads - it's my paradoxia agin).
David,"Lataxe, not chuffing nor snorting with indignation (except at the indignant lads - it's my paradoxia agin)."So David, where are the indignant lads. I haven't seen any around here. Just a few of us humorists having a chuckle. You know, not everything that is said on Knots is said seriously. Of course, I didn't figure that out until I read a few of yours. :-) ((I couldn't understand the first few of yours that I read. But after I got the dictionary of your language, I really understand and enjoy your posts, even the serious ones.))Merry Christmas,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Ralph,
Thanks for joining in the fun. That is all this thread is. Fun. Most of the folks here know better than to believe simplistic articles. ((AT LEAST I HOPE THAT IS TRUE.))
Merry Christmas.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Yeah, yet another example of FWW attempting a "scientific" test with no idea how to actually do that. We're about due for another of Roland Johnson's ridiculous "precision" reviews too. Thank God they don't build airplanes.
Pete
Pete,
I really look forward to getting my issues of FWW. For example, I make bowls using a 4" chainsaw blade on an angle grinder, -- much like the guy on the back page of the current FWW. The difference between he and I is that he gets from $4,000 to $10,000 per bowl. I merely get the satisfaction of seeing a smile on the face of my family, friends and relatives and neighbors when I give them one. I gotta admit. His bowls are much more sophisticated than mine, which are essentially dough bowls. Most of the stuff in FWW makes me think and it challenges me, and it gives me new ideas. I can put up with a few simplistic articles which the publisher includes because most of the readership wants them We live in a WWW ("Woodworker Wannabee" World) in which many of the wannabees really want to be told which tool to buy and which technique to use. If that wasn't the case, and Taunton could increase readership with more articles on the techniques of Kintaro Yazawa and Patrick Edwards, then they would include such articles. I give the editors of FWW credit for being credible businessmen. If their business doesn't stay in business, then I lose the opportunity to read the stuff I like in their mag. But I do like to poke a little gentle fun once in a while. It is good for my soul. I take my woodworking seriously, but I don't take myself too seriously. So please don't take my gently sarcastic remarks as more than I meant them to be -- just some good natured fun.Merry Christmas.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
I thought your post was great! I find some good things in FWW too, though I dropped my subscription a while ago. FWW is at its best when expert woodworkers write about woodworking. I'd like to see FWW do more of that and less of the "scientific" stuff that's for the most part bogus.Pete
Pete,
"FWW is at its best when expert woodworkers write about woodworking. I'd like to see FWW do more of that and less of the "scientific" stuff that's for the most part bogus."Couldn't agree with you more.
Thanks,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Don't believe everything you read, Mel. This article (I assume it is, I don't read the rag anymore) is precisely why I allowed my subscription to lapse. It's a bunch of hoooo-deee-doooo...........
Happy Holidays,
Jeff
Nice to see that you come here to criticize "the rag", at the "rag's" expense. Perhaps you did not know that this website/forum does cost money to run.
Better life through Zoodles and poutine...
I constructively criticize with the hope that "the rag" will return to it's glory days, instead of becoming a beginner to intermediate woodworking magazine. It was never intended as such, and is a shame, in my opinion.
Jeff
I suppose you are going to have to get used to it, or start your own. Then a whole bunch of "real woodworkers" could go to your associated web page and tell you what you should be doing different. ;-)
Better life through Zoodles and poutine...Edited 12/24/2008 10:12 am by PeterDurand
Edited 12/24/2008 10:12 am by PeterDurand
I like the website. I don't care for the basic nature of the magazine. It's wonderful to live in a free country with choices, like freedom of speech and expression.
Happy Holidays to you, fine Sir.
M&T - Test of Time-Stonehenge-
"The stones were dressed and fashioned with mortise and tenon joints before 30 were erected as a 33 metres (110 ft) diameter circle of standing stones, with a ring of 30 lintel stones resting on top."Two stone uprights with a lintel joining them. Tenon in top of upright and mortice in lintel.Larry
Jeff,
"I constructively criticize with the hope that "the rag" will return to it's glory days, insItead of becoming a beginner to intermediate woodworking magazine. "
Jeff, I have a better idea, On Knots, there is more competence in fine woodwork than there is among the writers of FWW, and there is no push by the editors (since we have none, to write pap because they think it will increase readership. SO - why don't we turn Knots into what we want FWW to be?
Samson (Sean, by name) got the ball rolling with his excellent writeup (with photos) of how to make a panel door completely with hand tools. Lataxe and I are going to do a few of those this year. Why don't you do at least one. We have a lot of talent here. Let's use it.
If it works here, you may see the editors pick up on it for FWW magazine.
Merry Christmas.
Let's make some masterpieces and also, let's change the world ourselves, and not ask others to do it.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Contrary to some of the other posters here, I liked and learned something from the article on wood joints in the latest FWW. I thought the test was done pretty well with respect to joints you might find or use in real world situations.
The test, I thought, wasn't designed to be the be-all and end-all on the subject. But it did give a good, general overall view of what joints work well and what don't in the type of stress situation produced by the testing procedure. From that standpoint, I found it valuable.
The finding that bridle and half-lap joints were the strongest was a surprise. But, as the article pointed out, in retrospect it should have been predictable, given their large glue surface area. That was maybe an obvious point, but until it had been illustrated, it never would have occurred to me. So that was good to think about.
Also, the testers acknowledged the limitations of the test when they detailed the miter joint configuration. They said that, over time, the joint - though strong at first - might deteriorate due to seasonal movement across the joint line. That's something beginning and intermediate woodworkers might not have thought about - and is a good reminder for those with more advanced woodworking skills.
So, call me a dolt, but I learn a little something from every article in FWW. This was an especially good one as it addressed something that we all must take into consideration with every piece of furniture we build - joint integrity. It explored that subject in enough detail that anyone with an open mind could see the general trend. Again, it perhaps wasn't scientifically complete. But it does give one enough to make an informed decision about what would be a good joint to use in a future project. For that alone, it was a worthwhile read...
ZoltonIf you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
I'll join Pete Bradley's thoughts on both the article and Roland Johnson's precision reviews. But life is simple around the Sarge shop and I really don't have time to get my shorts in a wad over it so... I just ignore both.
Sarge..
Sarge,
I was just having a little fun. I didn't take the review too seriously. This was just a creative way of getting a chance to say Happy Holidays to my friends.
So Happy Holidays, Sarge.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
I knew you weren't planning on putting M & T's out to pasture based on an article, Mel. As long as they have been in existance and gotten the job done with outstanding results, they probably deserve to retire but... I have serious doubts they ever will as they are just a "keep on.. keeping on" type joint. :>)
Wishing you and your's a Happy Holiday Season also...
Sarge..
I wonder if Taunton is publishing these test articles as part of a clever marketing ploy to generate interest and controversy (remember the Clamping Pressure dust-up and multiple posts thereafter?). Speaking strictly as a sub-galoot with more interest than skill, I thought the article amounted to more of a test of Glue Strength than Joint Strength. Specifically Franklin Titebond glue strength.
So the joints with the largest glue area won, period. How else could a pegged or wedged mortise and tenon be WEAKER than the un- version of either?
But as the article mentioned, seasonal wood movement over time will break almost every glue bond. This ignores the mechanical strength of the joints, which can eventually be the only thing left, e.g. a pinned mortise and tenon (or dovetails, or...) will hold with little or no glue... which is why those kinds of joints are found on many of the antient reliques we still admire? Half lap... not so much.
Seems like an article on joints for furniture making would take longevity and mechanical strength into account a little more (unlike building or cabinet making which might not be intended to last for generations). Don't some furniture makers avoid using Titebond/yellow glues altogether, preferring more time tested and repairable alternatives like hide glue or urea formaldehydes - despite their lower numbers in a short term glue-strength shoot out?
Seems kind of like a test designed around the testbed, i.e. it's fun (admittedly) to put giant crushing pressure on things and see what happens. And the resulting digital readouts seem so scientific! Crushing AND real data... maybe I'm gonna have to get a hydraulic atom smasher too...!
DM,
I got a real kick out of your idea for a hydraulic atom smasher. I'll take one of those if you find a dealer.
Happy Holidays.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel
Are not many of the very old Japanese wooden joints made with a variations of the half-lap joint? Some are in-line and others made at various angles. No glue used and held with pins.
Come to think of it many were combinations of half-lap with mortise and tenon.
Will George,
"Come to think of it many were combinations of half-lap with mortise and tenon."So why don't we name that joint the "HLM&T"?
Merry Christmas,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Mel,I discarded the use of all connective joints several years ago when I discovered, quite accidentally, that the natural surface tension of my saliva was stronger than PVA glue. Independent scientific testing has determined my spit to be slightly weaker than covalent bonding.My method is to dispense salivatic moisture to both pieces of wood and press them together with 3 newtons of force for 8 seconds. Generally, this approach is more successful on closed grain woods, and an extra application is needed for any joints involving end grain.Repositioning the wood after bonding is fairly straight forward, all that's needed is a small dollop of surfactant to break the tension, then clean away the surfactant to prep the wood again for salivatic wetting.I've submitted an article idea to FWW on my method, and I'm a bit surprised that no editor has immediately called me to document this revolutionary technique. But I present it here for everyone's review, none the less.Cheers,Seth
That's fine good, sir, on one who only feasts on hide and fish glue, with a tad of pva condiments for a special treat.
I suggest to do as I and resort to one piece total construction. However, one must be completely aware of how the grain runs.
Merry Christmas!
T.Z.
Seth,
Enjoyed your discussion of your salivatic bonding agent. Should work great in woodwork, but do you have any trouble kissing your wife? :-)
Have fun.
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
but do you have any trouble kissing your wife?
We hade a rule in our house... We decided it before when first married.. No matter how much either of us were really pissed off.. We would hug and kiss as I went to work.
Worked for us!
Mel,I tend to sport several days of scruff, being just a bit lazy with the razor, so there's *always* trouble kissing the wife. She's a proper girl from the Philippines, even after 13 years of marriage, I still have to be chaperoned when I take her out. I'm not exactly sure how we have a son, with such close supervision and all.Will,The lady and I do about the same, when we argue, it's about the differences over a problem, not about each other. It's easy not to stay mad. The nice thing about a bilingual wife is when she's rattling off Ilicano (her native language), I know it's best to head for the shop.Cheers,Seth
is when she's rattling off Ilicano ??
I had to look it up. I had no idea what that word was.
Maybe.. Of or from the northern Philippines?
I would say ALL women are beautiful. It just depends on who was looking at them.
I'd bet she gets on your case as often as possible just to get your attention!
Will,She's from Baguio City, which is well north of Manila. Ilicano is the dialect spoken in that region, though Tagalog is the main language of the Philippines. Baguio City is mountainous, and tends to be cooler during the summer than Manila. A natural get-away destination due to its less stifling temps, the city has self-ascribed the nickname "The Summer Capital of the Philippines". Whether by intended action or not, my wife has never failed to keep my attention.To remain a smidgen on topic, my woodworking has largely been for my wife's benefit. Some projects are: full head/foot beds for ourselves and my son, two cherry 'dressing' benches with upholstered seats (my term for a simple low bench you'd sit on if you were putting on your shoes), an end table somewhat influenced by Greene and Greene, and a set of cabinet doors modeled from a FWW cover article on a bookcase made from cherry w/ QS Douglas fir panels, of which I stole that wood combination. A large mirror framed with paduak using a curvy top/bottom rail graces the main hallway bathroom.Most of my projects use pinned mortise and tenon joinery, because I think pinning a M&T joint is cheap insurance, and a contrasting pin or two is interesting. The end table uses Dominos (my buddy's, not mine), which were very much faster than standard M&T. The mirror uses good 'ol biscuits to connect the rails and stiles; they're still very tightly connected. I would have preferred to use a sliding dovetail for that connection, an oversight that I fixed when I made a redwood picture frame for my sister using the same curvy pattern.For the bed, the M&T are basically useless as load-bearing structural elements, as I made a sub-foundation for the mattress to carry our weight. The head/foot boards attach to the sub-foundation with sliding dovetails. I did this because I didn't want to ruin the laminated cherry legs with a through hole for a bed bolt. In fact, the bed and sub-foundation (two maple rails w/ attached feet and a single-footed cross-rail) are all knock down, using only sliding dovetails for mechanical locking.Cheers,Seth
Funny as hell.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled