Replies

1. 
   joinerswork | Jul 11, 2008 09:24pm | #1

   Dear, uh, mr. bait,

   In the sketch, it does look like they've drawn the table with the grain going the wrong way.  In the written description on page 81, it doesn't specify which dimension is which for the top and leaves, but the bigger # is the length and the smaller dimension is the width.  Perhaps the artist was confused by the overall dimensions of the oval top, which is broader than it is long, or as Nutting amusingly expressed it describing a similar table in the Furniture Treasury, "Longer, the shorter way across."

   Ray

1. 
   mufti | Jul 11, 2008 09:51pm | #2

               Young sir, I am on a learning curve here and do not know what the table looks like. However, could it be that grain is following the leaves to facilitate the working of the hinge joints and as a way of sidestepping any cupping which might occur?

   I know these thoughts may be rubbish!

1. 
   fagbait | Jul 12, 2008 12:50am | #3

   What you are saying is, the grain on the top is running the long way. And the grain on the leaves are running perpendicular to the top. Correct me if I'm wrong in my assumption. Thank you for your reply

1. 
   mufti | Jul 12, 2008 10:05am | #5

              No, I was wondering if the original maker intended the grain to run as drawn for the reasons I mentioned. 

1. 
   fagbait | Jul 12, 2008 06:08pm | #6

   Thank you for your reply. I guess I will go with the way it is stated on the plans. It will give a nice effect. When the project is done, I will send in a picture.

2. 
   joinerswork | Jul 14, 2008 05:00am | #8

   fag,

   Rather than depending on what the artist who drew the plans thought, (or what I am telling you, for that matter,) please take the time to look at a few furniture books that have decent photos of oval-topped drop leaf tables.  Your questions will be answered, as to what is the traditional method of drop leaf table construction.  I suggest Nutting's Furniture Treasury, or Furniture of the Pilgrim Century, Downs' American Furniture: Queen Anne and Chippendale, Sack's Fine Points of Furniture, and New Fine Points.  Fales' Furniture of Historic Deerfield has good photos in particular of the type table you are building.

   Ray 

2. 
   joinerswork | Jul 14, 2008 04:47am | #7

   mufti, old man,

   The table is a rather conventional drop leaf, with turned "gate" legs that swing out to support the leaves.  As is conventional with drop leaf tables the world over, the grain ought to run parallel with the joints between top and leaf.  This eases construction in so many different ways as to be intuitively the "right way", hence fag's suspicion that the drawing was "wrong".   (His suspicions were correct). Aside from the initial ease of stock preparation (leaves and top glued up to make, or cut from wide boards, to be 20-22" wide and 54" long) one would have a lot of trouble working the rule joints for the top and leaves into the end grain of  boards made up the other way.  Then, one would have to deal with the possibility of the boards warping or cupping between the hinges,  and binding up.  Then, there is the weakness inherent to an oval leaf's corners with their grain running the short way. Etc, and etc.There's usually a very good reason for "the way we've always done it".

   A decent picture of the table would have eliminated any confusion, unfortunately, the photo in the book is very dark, and the drawing, bassackwards.

   Ray

1. 
   mufti | Jul 14, 2008 12:58pm | #10

             I appreciate your reply, Ray. My interest stems from my intent to make a lyre end side table, (a small version of a sofa table I think), and because I have some true quarter sawn padauk to use that for the top with the grain running lengthways so the rule joints will need a lot of care.

   The plan uses a blockboard top with veneers and edgings, but I feel like living dangerously!

1. 
   joinerswork | Jul 14, 2008 02:39pm | #11

   mufti,

   Go for it, old boy.  You only live once.

   Ray

2. 
   fagbait | Jul 17, 2008 03:32pm | #12

   I went with the opposite of what the book told me. Going parallel with the rule joint definitely made more sense. I will send a picture when it is complete. Thank you for the input.

1. 
   joinerswork | Jul 18, 2008 03:00am | #13

   FB,

   Good luck with your project.

   Ray

2. 
   fagbait | Jul 12, 2008 01:03am | #4

   So in your opinion I should lay up the top with the grain going the length of the pedastal? The opposite of what the plan says. thank you for your time. ( I know my name seems weird but it's a standing joke with a fellow woodworker and myself)

3. 
   jimmy | Jul 18, 2008 03:31am | #14

   not mister bait Ray...master ba.....

2. 
   SteveSchoene | Jul 14, 2008 06:29am | #9

   To be confident call the Brooklyn Museum, consult with a Conservator, and arrange to see the table.  However, the photograph of the table on p. 77, is almost certainly a photograph of the original, not of one made by Margon, and the photo pretty clearly shows a table with boards running from front to back as pictured.  You would need two leaves, each 24' Wide boards, with the center, fixed leaf about 20" wide. 

   If you want the details to be authentic, you will need to seek out the original.  Margon may very well have changed the turnings a little, how the tops are attached, and the nature of the pivots for the gate legs.  The drawers may be different, on one end only, or non-existant in the original--Margon may well have changed that as well.  I wouldn't expect to find such a table with the 3/4" thick top Margon shows either.  I haven't seen it, but wouldn't be surprised to find the top closer to 7/8" or 15/16" thick. 

   For example, I made the Pembroke Table similar to the one on p. 155 but did have an opportunity to view an original in the Boston Fine Arts Musuem which differs in quite a few details.  

   The original in the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston shows only one drawer, not two as drawn by Margon.  That drawer was cut directly from the center of the solid one piece end rail, not framed around, and the cock bead in the original is attached to the rail, not to the drawer as Margon shows it.  Margon shows the drawer front attached with only one single dovetail while Townsend used several very fine dovetail pins.  Margon has also changed how the drawer bottom in designed and attached.  (Margon's is conventional, with a drawer bottom in a slot in sides and front, running under the back.  Townsend uses an "inferior" construction with drawer bottom nailed on the bottom of the drawer sides and rabbetted into the drawer front.) 

   In short, about everything was changed to some extent, though the overall appearance and dimensions were basically correct.  Margon chose some very nice pieces to draw, but you should realize that he was using the original as a starting place, and drawing the construction almost entirely of his own devising, with only small changes in exterior appearance in the couple of pieces I have studied closely.  So if you want really authentic, go observe the originals.  In many cases a call or letter to the institution which owns it can get you up close examination, even hands on in some cases.