I have been trying to find the proper length:heigth:width ratio of a chest. I know that there is one but I can’t remember the right name and where to find it. I sure would thank you people for the help. akwoodman
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
I think you're refering to the golden ratio. It's 1.618 to 1. You can search the web for "golden ratio" to find out where this proportion comes from. This is a good starting point but I suggest making a cardboard mock-up before cutting any lumber.
The golden ratio is one set of proportion. I normally vary from that and use the Fibbonacci series- 1,2,3,5,8,13 etc.
For example, width to ht, 3:5. depth to width 2:3 and so on. It's best to work up a scaled drawing before cutting.
I simply look at the wood I have and the style of furniture I want and design from there.
I guess the Washington Monument is an example that there is no 1 ratio.
You can't wing the proportions. FWW put out a book on making period furniture that has a discussion of this.
I usually find a piece I like, take the proportions from it and vary the design to my taste. I recently made a TV/stereo cabinet. Not being able to find a "period" entertainment center I made a sort of colonial style piece. Beautiful cherry, lovely finish and joinery. It just doesn't look right because it is about 6 inches too wide. I'll post a picture of it.
Frank
Biscardi wrote:
"You can't wing the proportions."
While he may not be willing to, everyone who does good work does indeed "wing the proportions."
George,
Maybe it is just because I am a hobbyist and not the depth of experience of some of the professional guys who have developed an eye for it.The original poster was a begginer.
FB
...depth of experience of some of the professional guys...
Hmmmm.....
I don't know whether I'm an 'advanced hobbyist' or an 'intermediate professional' -- guess it really doesn't matter as long as I build nice 'stuff' and others like it.
After spending most of my career behind a desk, I spent the last two years working in high-end custom cabinet shops as a bench carpenter. I did quite well, based on input from most of my coworkers and managers. I say this to lay the groundwork for the only major issue I had during the time I've worked in the shops.
What is the 'professional' way to do ___________ ? Fill in the blank with any operation; line up three 'professionals' who have been 'doing it this way since I was trained 23 years ago' and you'll probably get four answers. And, by all that's holy, if you're the new kid on the block, you'd better do it whichever way the guy who just told you to do it. Don't get me wrong, I learned a lot from everyone I worked with, even those who never quite accepted me into the 'fraternity'.
Even in the pages of FWW, different professionals have expressed different ways of achieving the same goal. So what's wrong with each person applying different procedures as long as the end result is as good as the next guy's product? We're all individuals and, as such, any three of us will probably build the same item in slightly different ways -- when they're finished, they will all look the same.
Like all of us, I look to the experts for guidance, expecially if entering into an operation that is relatively new to my hands. After a period of familiarization, I may or may not perform the operation EXACTLY the way the expert did, but does it really matter if I follow a slightly different order as long as the product looks good?
Bill Arnold
B&B Woodworking
Food for Thought:The Ark was built by amateurs,the Titanic by professionals.
Edited 7/21/2004 5:01 pm ET by BArnold
Friends,
Maybe I can explain myself better with an example. I attach photos of a piece I just made for the family stereo and TV. I was more interested that everything fit inside than anything else. I found a period piece, but it was too narrow. I sort of guessed at some proportions, drew a quick sketch and started. I usually take great pains with a design, but I really couldn't get too bent out of shape about an entertainment center.
The central component (cabinet doors) is too high for the total height. The plinth is too short and the feet too narrow. The width is excessive for the height.
Is it a disater? Maybe not. Would it be a better piece if I'd changed these proportions a bit? I think so. Would it still have it everything it needed to hold? Yes.
I think the rules that dictate proper proportion really are very fixed. I think lots of people who do nice work have an eye for this sort of thing and can do it without resorting to fixed formulae. They just get it right. Guys like me who make a couple or three pieces a year benefit from having a source to look up. Folks who ignore the rules and don't have an eye for this are going to make similar mistakes to the ones I made on this piece.
So that is why I feel you can't just wing the proportions. That is all I am trying to say.
These are a little less dark
As one of those "folks with an eye", I'll say that good proportions needn't follow any particular rule, but it is quite helpful to be able to do some kind of drawing which shows the relative sizes of the different elements in a piece. The real trick is to draw and then build enough pieces so that you develop a good understanding of the relationship between a drawing and a built piece BEFORE you build it. This is largely a result of doing a lot of work, and so professionals have a much better chance to develop this sense. Those of us who design using CAD have an even better way of developing designs - the computer is an incredibly powerful tool for helping to visualize different forms, because it allows one to quickly draw, copy, and refine a design. My biggest beef with the so-called rules of proportion is that they really don't help much once you get beyond the most basic aspects of a design - your problem with the feet is a good example. If you had done 3 elevations of the piece, showing different size feet, and looked at them next to each other, then you would have been able to see the problem much more clearly. And once you get beyond boxes, the proportional systems are just about useless. No help whatsoever in designing chairs, beds, or tables.
Here's an example of a good design that doesn't use any kind of proportioning system at all, but looks great because the lines are very refined. This was all drawn on computer prior to cutting wood, there were no revisions done subsequent to starting construction:
http://www.shop.pauldowns.com/RTFairmountStookey.html
The beauty of using CAD for design is that you can draw the shapes and then place the joinery, and then print out full scale templates to cut the curves. Vastly faster and simpler than prototyping.
Paul
Paul,
Maybe, I need to get a Cad program. My drawings are done in pencil full sized and then inked by hand.
I think you have a good point. If you can look at it drawn to different sizes then you can see which works better.
Frank
PS. Beautiful table. What is a Stookey?
Edited 7/21/2004 10:25 pm ET by BISCARDI
Frank, a stookey, or stookie is something hospital staff put on your broken arm, leg, etc, ha, ha.
I try to teach that proportioning systems should be considered as a sometimes useful guide, not a god to be believed in through thick and thin. All designers know about them and understand them to a greater or lesser extent.
How do you know if you're breaking the rules if you don't know what the rules are? That's like trying to play cricket believing you need a baseball bat, a diamond, and a pitcher. Slainte.
RJFurniture
Edited 7/22/2004 3:16 am ET by Sgian Dubh
Perhaps this is circular reasoning on my part.
If it looks dreadfull, you broke some rule of proportion. If it looks wonderfull you didn't. My point is that you just can't build a piece without considering how the different proportions of the masses are going to fit together.
Frank
Absolutely Frank. If it looks out of proportion, it almost certainly is.
You don't have to rigidly follow the rules, but you do have to consider proportion as an important element. Which is essentially what you are saying I believe.
Knowing the classical orders, golden section, fibbonaci, etc., doesn't mean that you're restricted by being aware of them,
Knowing about them helps you consider aesthetics and proportion as an essential within the whole design development.
Knowledge is like money in the bank. You don't have to use it if you've got it. But if you haven't got any money in the bank you don't have a choice. Slainte.
RJFurniture
Answers:
1. Stookey is the name of the client.
2. I use a Cad program called PowerCADD by Engineered Software (it runs on a Mac).
To Sgian Dubh: there are lots of rules, and I find that the rules of proportion are the least useful in design. I never pay the slightest attention to the Golden Section or Fibonacci while working up a drawing. What I do pay attention to are:
First: rules of ergonomics
Second: rules of structure and joinery, and economy of production
Third: rules of size - make it in bite sized chunks, make it fit the space.
Last: whether the piece "looks good". Very little proportion involved, just a feeling based on the drawings.
Paul, That's about the way I do it. As long as it all comes together as a pleasing whole that's all that matters, and the client is willing to pay for it.
I must admit I've made plenty of plug ugly stuff that I wasn't interested in adding to my portfolio where I left the camera at home. I've always been happy enough to cash the customers' cheque though, ha, ha.
Here's another 'useful rule' which requires a designer understanding its intent rather than interpreting it literally.
Design furniture from the handles back.
Slainte.RJFurniture
The only rule the I follow religiously is this one: "Design around the corner", in other words take the elements on the front of the case and continue them onto the side when appropriate. This makes for a much better looking item. I had to chuckle at your confession regarding ugly pieces - we have been in this situation many, many times. Mostly I don't even photograph them, but here are a few which I personally didn't care for but the client liked:
http://www.shop.pauldowns.com/SCBecker.html
http://www.shop.pauldowns.com/DresserDemaio.html
http://www.shop.pauldowns.com/BedDemaio.html
http://www.shop.pauldowns.com/DresserPescatore.html
http://www.shop.pauldowns.com/NtstndPescatore.html
http://www.shop.pauldowns.com/WUOrtiz.html
These show what happens when you let the client get too involved in the design... The challenge is to take those ideas and make something good out of them.
Paul Downs
Er, jings, Paul. Why don't you show us your really dirty washing.
One or two complete horrors in there. I'm slightly surprised you've got the balls, but then you did get paid.
I think I need a drink or six. Slainte.RJFurniture
My respect for you grows with each post. Not many people would have the self-confidence to show pics of those Pescatore things. Of course you have a FWW back cover to your credit, so you can afford to be generous!"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein
http://www.albionworks.net
Thanks for the kind words. Those Pescatore things weren't to MY taste, but they also were quite challenging to build, so I am not ashamed to show them at all. The dresser is actually quite an impressive item - If I recall, its about 78" long and 46" high, and we barely got it up the stairs. Each drawer front is slightly tapered top to bottom, as the chest flares out on all 4 sides. The pickled ash finish isn't so simple to do, either. Incidentally, I just designed it. It was built by Nathan Rossman and finished by Kathleen Quinn, who work for me and are both extremely good.
Paul
p.s. The real abortions don't end up on the website.
Paul,
What CAD software do you use?
I began using Visio years ago because it was available at my office. It gives me what I need in a 2D environment, but I'd like to update to another program that's equally easy to use. I have a copy of AutoCAD (v 2002); have been through the tutorial and also received some personal tutoring from guys at the shop. ACAD seems to take multiple steps to accomplish the same thing I can do with a quick click in Visio.
Thanks.Bill Arnold
Food for Thought: The Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals.
AK, I occasionally putz with traditional ratios when building reproductions, but only because the objective is to achieve the same look and that's the way they did it. Personally though, I think the primary design consideration should be function. In other words, what do you intend to put in the chest and what dimensions best facilitate that use.
This is admittedly a very Shaker attitude when it comes to design, but in the final analysis, purpose is always the key objective. If your purpose is strictly appearance, then ratios can be important...otherwise, they aren't. And when they impede function, they're usually a bad idea.
Jon-
You've probably stirred a debate here with the 'form follows function' position. - lol
I follow that philosophy myself and only think of 'proportionality' after I've included all the functional requirements. I've been known to design a cabinet around the specific requirements for one drawer.
>>"You've probably stirred a debate here with the 'form follows function' position. - lol "<<
What ?...ME kick off a controvercy! I'm a natural mediator. I can't even spell controvercy.
Edited 7/15/2004 6:46 pm ET by Jon Arno
Jon,
I respectfully disagree. Look through Sachs' "Fine Points of Furniture" (AKA the good, better, best book). He shows you pieces that run from very good to masterpiece. The difference is often small differences in proportions.
Look at the first few pages of Chippendale's Director. It is all about the rules of proprtion for various Greek columns. If you look through the rest of the book you can see how he designs using these principals. If you get a Chippendale piece and strip off the ornaments it still looks good because the proportins are correct.
Anybody can learn how to cut joints and put on finish. Really great furniture is predicated on great design.
Frank
Frank, I didn't say that style and proportion were utterly unimportant, but only that they are secondary to function...I'm sure you've noticed that even Chippendale and Sheraton designed desks that were the proper height for writing, dining tables that positioned the plate at a comfortable distance from the mouth...and chairs that kept their patron's butts just high enough off the floor that their feet weren't dangling...THEN they turned their attention to making their creations attractive.
Hi, Jon
It's been awhile, how's everything. Regarding form and function, the former follows the latter. Like you've mentioned the likes of Chippendale, Sheraton, and even Hepplewhite and Pife designed their furniture for a specific purpose. The artistry was done to embellish their pieces in their own distictive styles! Their work stands as an inspiration to their designs and techniques. A piece of furniture that one of us builds today for more modern conveniences today could incorporate the antique details. Take for example an etertainment center, it can still have a traditional appreance in spite of the electronic equipment it's designed to hold. A woodworker can find antique pieces of furniture and incorporate the details into the entertainment center. Granted an entertainment center will not have the same dimensions as an antique piece of furniture, but if properly designed, can have the same appearance. Afterall isn't appearance everything.
Those daring young men in their flying machines!
Edited 7/15/2004 9:12 pm ET by f4phanatic
Jon,
I think then that we agree. No point if it is pretty if it isn't functional.
I saw a really cool drop leaf table at Monticello recently. It is very functional as it takes almost no space when folded up against the wall. The proportions on it are also nice even when it is folded up.
Regards,
Frank
What's more important - that some guy give your piece an A long after you are dead or that you can actually put your socks in your drawers? The Golden section and Fibonacci sequences will give you a bunch of poorly sized drawers. For a chest, I generally include (1) 8" drawer, (4) 6" drawers, and one or two 4" drawers. Like this:
http://www.shop.pauldowns.com/DresserDelphi6VArc.html
And then build whatever case I want around it. The width of the piece is determined by the space available, but shouldn't exceed 42" if you want it to go up stairs. 8" drawers are good for bulky items, 6" drawers are good for general purpose clothes storage, and 4" drawers are good for socks. Also, keeping your drawers some even number of inches wide means you can use a similar dovetail setup for all the drawers - saves time. If you want, you can make the overall piece into a Golden Section by making the width relative to the height.
Paul
Paul,
There are rules for dividing the front of a piece into different components. I think I saw it best described in books by Gottshalk.
I bet you have been doing this for a while. You probably have a very good eye for what looks right. I bet if you looked at Gottshalk's book and measured your pieces, that you will find you are inadvertently following "the rules".
They recently built a big fancy bank down the street. It looks dreadfull because they used big Doric colmns and ignored all the other conventions for the moulding/ plinth/ entablature. I know all these rules sound silly, but violate them and it won't look as good as it can.
Frank
I always thought a chest should be about 1/3 bigger than her waist!!
Edited 7/16/2004 4:42 pm ET by Shopmole
Shopmole, it appears you are a man who is easily pleased. :O)
Paul,
The convention of making each drawer front in a stack a little wider than the one above it came about because if several are the same width, the lower ones look narrower than the upper ones. It makes the piece look top heavy. Same principle as entasis in a column; if it's a straight taper, it looks too thin in the middle, so you make it a bit fatter to compensate.
Of course in production work, it makes sense to duplicate as many dimensions as possible, to make the most efficient use of time and materials. As you pointed out, dovetailing takes less planning, as does dimensioning stock. I think, however, that graduating all the drawers makes a more pleasing design. I'm not sure how much space is wasted by graduating the drawers in a case, it just gives a little more room to cram in a few extra tee shirts, or jockey shorts.
In my opinion, a 10" drawer isn't too deep for sweaters. I agree that 4" is about the shallowest a drawer used for clothing should be. That leaves a lot of leeway for graduating a stack of drawers to achieve a visually pleasing, and functional piece.
Regards,
Ray
joinerswork-
When you say wider drawer fronts, do you mean deeper? I don't think I've ever seen a 'stack' of drawers with different widths (i.e. side-to-side dimensions). I like to make drawer stacks with the deepest drawers at the bottom. Unless they're specifically for clothing, I also like to make a relatively shallow sliding tray inside a drawer to hold the small 'stuff' that always finds its way to the bottom rear of the drawer.
I found wider to be perfectly unambiguous in this context. The longest dimension of a board is the length, the shortest dimension is the thickness and the remaining dimension is the width, so the width of a drawer front is the vertical dimension of the assembled drawer.
True Dunc, if the width runs vertically, but a veneered drawer front might have the grain direction running running either way, or in other patterns.
I have always found drawer terminology problematical for this reason. I tend to refer to drawer front height and drawer opening width in an attempt to resolve the difficulty, but I'm not sure it's ideal. I'll usually describe depth as the front-to-back dimension or depth.
I always try to describe the drawer front configuration at the beginning to set out the descriptive parameters. Slainte.
RJFurniture
Edited 7/19/2004 2:25 am ET by Sgian Dubh
When talking to customers, I keep the discussion of drawer sizes in terms of their requirements for usable drawer space (inside measurements) and expected drawer loads (weight).
I use depth to describe the top to bottom dimension of a drawer, width to describe side to side dimensions and length for front to back. When I know their requirements, I can decide on the thickness needed for drawer sides and bottoms. Then, I add whatever dimensions are needed for drawer glides and that determines the final dimensions required for the cabinet opening(s).
After I build the drawer boxes, I then make the drawer fronts which are sized to either inset or overlay the cabinet opening(s).
Bless you. Brevity is the soul of wit and all that, but in descriptive speech or writing, brevity is a virtue only after the demands of clarity have been met. Ambiguity is a much graver sin than verbosity.
I believe, it is incorrect to say that the thickness is the smallest measurement and the width is the next smallest and the length is always the longest measurement.
To say that, would mean that- if I have a board 10" in length and 5" wide and I cut it to 4" in length that the length would now be the width. If I cut it again across what is now its width to be a measurement less than the thickness would its width now be its thickness? Is it not really just semantics and the length and width are really interchangeable? If I look at a chest of drawers (from the front)I consider the width to be from left to right on the horizontal plane.
Ripsaw, maybe it's my upbringing in the lumber business, but it's always been my understanding...at least when dealing with boards...that the length is always in the direction of the grain. The width is always the greater of the two remaining dimensions, while the thickness is the lesser of the two remaining dimensions.
For example, if a customer wanted a half dozen pieces of western redcedar measuring exactly 3/4" by 11-1/4" x 5" and wanted the grain running across the shorter dimension of the face...then the cutting instructions given to the shop would read:
6 pcs- 1 x 12 x 5" WRC
Since both the thickness and width of S4S softwood lumber are usually expressed in terms of their nominal measure, while the length is expressed as a net measure, the customer would receive six pieces of western redcedar measuring 3/4" X 11-1/4" X 5", with the grain running in the direction of the 5" dimension.
...But I don't think this convention necessarily translates to drawers, since they are actually an assembly. I've always thought of drawers as having a horizontal "width" (across the opening), a "depth" (the distance from the front to the back) and a "height" (from bottom to top).
As you say Jon, length always follows grain direction, whether in solid wood or veneered board. Width or breadth is the longest dimension across the grain and thickness the smallest cross grain dimension.
The only difference between US and UK terminology is the order. We always write L X W X T. So a pair of solid wood planks described as 6" X 30" 3/4" in UK terminology might be pair of end panels for a slim desk top carcase. The top might be 65" X 30" X 3/4", and the base could be 65" X 29-3/16" X 3/4" to allow for a 3/4" thick back panel to fit up from the bottom in side and top grooves. Slainte.RJFurniture
Jon,
I agree with you. The confusion that arose from my post regarding graduated drawers, came, I think, because I was writing about the drawer FRONTS, and the confused reader was thinking DRAWERS (as an assembly).
My only quibble with your terminology is with the term "depth" as regards drawers (not fronts). I've often heard depth used to refer to the height of the drawer (like you'd talk about the depth of a well)as well as its front-to-back dimension (where it would equate with the depth of the case). Not that I'm saying you're wrong, just that the usage of depth is confusing, because it's commonly used two different ways, at least hereabouts.
Regards,
Ray
It's interesting that there are so many diffent ways to look at something so simple as a drawer's dimensions. I agree with those who say that length runs with the grain whether wood or plywood, but that only holds when it's just a board. Once it goes into a piece then everything changes. I think people just tend toward using the prominent dimension to describe a piece. It's a 7' tall highboy or a 6' long dining table. But then again we take short cuts. Like when your scheduling doors for a house and there all 6'-8" then you call out just the width 3-0, 2-6, etc. No body would say a 7' deep highboy so why would a drawer in that highboy be 8" deep in the same direction as height? Maybe it's just English's propensity to have many uses for the same word. I have been working in engineering for 29 years and the one convention I have seen most, but not quite, universally is H x W x D which is based on the standard orientation of the object. This convention gives the size and the orientation. So a 24x30x8 J-Box is 6" shorter & 6" wider than a 30x24x8 J-box and this is known by all without need of a catalog. So in "my world" a 60x37x23 chest is 60" tall x 37" wide x 23" deep. The drawers might have 37x8 faces but they'd be 8x37x23 drawers.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
ELCOHOLIC,
"No body would say a 7' deep highboy so why would a drawer in that highboy be 8" deep in the same direction as height? "
I think it's because the drawer is a container...like you'd say a barrel is 3' deep, or a mine shaft is 150' deep, or a swimming pool, a packing crate. Anything you'd look down into.
Yes, the Anguish Languish is full of inconsistancies, and makes life interesting.
Cheers,
Ray
I probably should have clarified my earlier post about drawer and drawer front dimensions. As I said, I keep customer discussions in terms of usable drawer dimensions which I then translate into required dimensions for the drawer front(s).
For example, if the drawer dimensions require a cabinet opening of 6"x18" and I'm making overlay drawer fronts, the front needs to be 7" wide x 19" long.
Maybe this is the nexus for the expression " A picture is worth a 1000 words"? Considering that our language fails at yielding a common terminology for something as simple as a drawer, it's hard to imagine we ever had a successful Shuttle program.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
>> ... it's hard to imagine we ever had a successful Shuttle program.
Some people would deny that we ever had a successful Shuttle program.
"Some people would deny that we ever had a successful Shuttle program."
They'd be wrong. Incredibly expensive yes and despite losing two crews and shuttles I'd call it very successful. Look no further than the PC on your desk or at GPS that allows the E911 system to locate wireless phones in emergencies. Niether would exist without the space program.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
Amen and Amen.
The U.S. space program has been incredibly successful from the beginning! Had it not been for inevitable human error and component failure along the way, it would have been perfect. But, WE aren't God -- therefore, we have failures -- and we learn.Bill Arnold
Food for Thought: The Ark was built by amateurs; the Titanic by professionals.
Hi Uncle Dunc,
We did have a successful Shuttle program, but it was managed by an unsuccessful management team at NASA!
Those daring young men in their flying machines!
>> I believe, it is incorrect to say ...
The only standard for correctness is usage. I believe if you test people by anding them a board and asking them to identify the length, width, and thickness, most of them will respond as I have described, as long as each dimension differs from the others by a factor of about two or more. It's only when two (or all three) dimensions are close that any ambiguity arises, and then people will use grain orientation or other visual clues to resolve the ambiguity. As long as the three dimensions are obviously different, I believe most people will adhere to the strict hierarchy of thickness < width < length.
Dave,
Right, a wider drawer front =a deeper drawer. I was refering to the width of the board that becomes the front of the drawer. The length of the drawer front =the width of the drawer.
Regards,
Ray
Usally the biger the chest the higher the ratio of woman you can pick up. ;-)
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled