Replies

1. 
   chuckh | Jul 12, 2007 05:14am | #1

   Bob,

   Earlier this year I built a small table with cabriole legs 36060.1 and not having 12/4 cherry, I made up stock from 8/4 & 4/4 pieces.  I tried to match the grain and color as best as I could and they turned out well.

   As far as this not being traditional, I'm not so sure.  In Lester Margon's book, "American Furniture Treasures", he provides measured drawings of a circa 1750 Highboy he found in the Cleveland Museum of Art.  In describing how to make the legs he starts with a 1-5/8 x 1-5/8 x 33-1/8 post and from the top of the knee down he builds up the stock with 1-1/8 thick material.  Considering Margon's philosophy in writing this book I have to believe that was how the original was built.

   Best regards,

   -Chuck    

1. 
   SteveSchoene | Jul 12, 2007 05:32am | #3

   Lester made a great many changes from the originals in putting together his plans.  I made several pieces based originally on the Margon plans, but fortunately I had the opportunity to see the originals in person in the museums.  The original internal construction details were ignored completely, and other visible parts were also changed.  Based on the two pieces I know very well, I'd say his plans would lead to his interpretations based on the originals not to reproductions.   

1. 
   chuckh | Jul 12, 2007 06:02am | #4

   Here is a quote from the introduction of his book: "....It is as if he were taking you on a personally conducted tour to see each piece.  ......he then takes the piece apart for you, as it were, and reveals every detail of the cabinetmaker's art - how the stock was laid out and cut, the joints made, the molding, shaping, carving and inlaying done, and the whole assembled." 

   You know, Steve, sometimes you get the feeling you can't trust anybody.  I bought this book thinking I was looking at reproduction quality drawings. 

   So tell us, from your experience & research was it common during the time of these originals for the cabinetmaker to build up stock for such pieces? 

   -Chuck

1. 
   SteveSchoene | Jul 12, 2007 02:06pm | #5

   I don't think it was very common, though of course the knee blocks were separate so a lot of cabriole legs could be made from 8/4 stock if it was generous rather than spare.  These early cabinet makers wouldn't hesitate to join wood if it could conserve on expensive primary wood however.  I don't think I have ever really looked for that particular issue, however.  Under old finishes, and with lumber all from one tree it might be hard to tell as a museum goer rather than as a conservator.

   With cherry I would want to be confident that the lumber was from the same tree since colors that are a close match now could be different shade in a couple of years as the cherry ages. 

   Yes, I was bummed when I discovered the differences.  I did the John Townsend Pembroke table, and discovered that Margon had the drawer rail constructed from boards framing the drawer with the cock beading on the drawer, while the original (in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts) had the drawer cut from a solid rail, with the cockbeading applied to the edges of the cut out in the rail.  Townsend used drawers at both ends while the original had one one drawer.  Margon didn't use the cross braces dovetailed into the rails, three on top and two on the bottom, and had a different structure of drawer runners compared to the Townsend originals.   

   But in some respects staying religiously with the original would have been problematic since Townsend constructed his drawers for small tables with the grain of the drawer bottoms running from front to back and not floating but nailed to the bottom of the drawer sides.  We'd call this wrong, and I do note that several of these I have seen in museums had split drawer bottoms.  My preference would have been for the author to have noted that the original construction might well lead to problems and suggested an alteration. 

    

    

2. 
   Ronaway | Jul 12, 2007 05:27am | #2

   Given this situation, I think I would use the 8/4 material for the main stand of the legs and just glue up 4/4 blocks at the points where the knee blocks would attach. This way it would be easier to match the grain at the knee and you would not end up with glue lines running in and out of the lower part of the leg.

   Ron Brese

   If you're too open minded your brains will fall out.
3. 
   joinerswork | Jul 12, 2007 03:21pm | #6

   Bob,

   You will have better luck matching the grain (and color) across the glueline if you glue two  blanks up using one piece of 8/4 stock.  Gluing 3 pieces of 3" wide 8/4 together, and then ripping down the middle will yield 2 blanks with little to no waste, and with a little work in selecting the stock and orienting grain beforehand, you can align the growth rings and make the joint fairly inconspicuous.

   I don't agree with the advice about gluing on small bits to a 2 x2 at the knees.  Then you'd have two glue lines in each leg, on front and side, which doubles the opportunity to not have a good match in the first place, and for failure of the joint in future.  Sawing the blank would be problematic. And, unless your pattern has a very stubbed toe, you must add bits on down there too.  Your legs may end up looking like a crazy quilt.

   Ray

1. 
   KiddervilleAcres | Jul 12, 2007 04:33pm | #8

   Ray,

   Fortunately the stock I'm using is all from the same tree so matching up shouldn't present any problems.  Also doing it your way would keep any gluelines on the sides and not that visible. 

   The boards I'm contemplating are all straight grained 8/4 x 15-16"W which I'll cut into 33" lengths and mill them to size for gluing up the leg billets, letting them rest as appropriate.

   A good glue-up strategy will be in order and I have that in place as well.  I'll be milling up the boards tonight hopefully.  I say that as last night we got slammed with wind and 2½" of rain!  Got a leak in the woodshop roof as a result that needs my attention first.

   Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres

    

   A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!

4. 
   SteveSchoene | Jul 12, 2007 03:50pm | #7

   The reasons 18th c. cabinet makers used wide boards and single piece legs are almost exactly the same as why modern manufacturers may use finger jointed panels glued from 1 1/2" wide boards today.  It was the cheaper way to work at that time.  Gluing up cherry for legs isn't wrong, it's just risky, because the appearance may well suffer over time. 

   So why care about "authentic"?  Mostly it's just an aesthetic question.  As an example, conditioned by seeing originals,  lots of narrow boards in a top just look out of place.  But, nothing wrong with deciding that's a matter not worth the expense, monetarily and in time, to use those wide boards in the quest for authenticity.  The 18th century cabinet makers (urban at least) were very sensitive to proportion.  It's simple expediency to follow an original closely so as not to have to reinvent that wheel.  Ignoring the proportions can very easily give rise to the factory furniture look where if it has a pad foot it is Queen Anne.  The purpose of reproductions is to fit into a room which might have come from the earlier period, or which might, even though eclectic in total style, have some pieces that evoke history.  Being "authentic" is a simple way toward that goal.   

   Originality is very difficult, and only successful for a very few.  The craftmanship involved in making major pieces of furniture is quite sufficient for most of us.  My goal is craft.  Originality is only necessary in art, where it is predominently important.  I'm not really interested in doing original woodworking--it's way too hard. 

    

5. 
   KiddervilleAcres | Jul 12, 2007 08:39pm | #9

   Metod,

   What did you make the stones from?  I would think they would be very tedious to make.

   Regards,

   Bob @ Kidderville Acres

    

   A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!

   
   

   ---

   Edited 7/12/2007 1:40 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres

6. 
   KiddervilleAcres | Jul 13, 2007 01:49pm | #10

   Metod,

   The originals have long since passed so I found a bow legged horse that I used for a model to create the pattern for the queens legs.  Makes a nice pattern sans the horses knees, but also makes for a rather strange gate..................

   I have refined what were once referred to as granite flakes to a more powdery form on the order of fine stonedust.  I could ship you a small amount for honing those etches to a razor sharp state if that might help improve the brain grooves.

   Another trick is to warm the vinegar before washing your hair, it will allow much deeper penetration into the gray matter!

   Best Regards,

   Bob @ Kidderville Acres

    

   A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!

7. 
   JohnWW | Jul 13, 2007 11:43pm | #11

   A contrary point of view: given the total amount of work and materials that will go into the piece, why risk compromising the appearance of the final product when for not a great amount of trouble or expense you should be able to get properly sized stock?

   John White, Shop Manager, Fine Woodworking Magazine 

1. 
   KiddervilleAcres | Jul 14, 2007 04:09am | #12

   John,

   Talk about hitting the nail squarely on the head!

   I'm a hobbyist and it's a matter of economics.  Currently time is not a problem.  I'm looking at it as a chance for me to hone my milling skills.  Trying to turn a lack of properly sized materials into what I need for the project at hand.

   Thanks,

   Bob @ Kidderville Acres

    

   A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!

   Edited 7/13/2007 9:18 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres

   Edited 7/14/2007 6:37 am ET by KiddervilleAcres