Replies

1. 
   DaveHeinlein | Jul 29, 2003 04:04am | #1

   What is the cut- a 45cut at a 45? I seem to remember some square M&T in there somewhere(?) I couldn't find it in my reference book, but I may have looked in the wrong place.

1. 
   Jimma | Jul 29, 2003 05:23am | #2

   Something like that with 3 M&Ts inside. It's harder to describe than it is to show, so If there's any interest in it I'll take some pictures of the poplar prototype, if I can find it, with the joint disassembled. I originally got the procedure from FWW several years ago in which the author made the joints using a table saw instead of traditional hand joinery. The end product is very cool -- completely flush top and rails. Non-woodworkers don't quite get it, but it allows for some designs that wouldn't otherwise work. I had to make a jig to fit over the table saw fence to hold the work when making the 45s.

1. 
   DaveHeinlein | Jul 29, 2003 06:05am | #3

   Yeah, I'd like to see it. It is a nice, clean looking corner. Any jigs you made for it, too.

1. 
   eddiefromAustralia | Jul 29, 2003 10:22am | #4

   Dave,

   edit (first link didn't work).  I looked in the archives and found this previous discussion including picture of one of these joints disassembled (post 1)

   Saved me redrawing it.

   Cheers,

   eddie

   Edited 7/29/2003 6:13:01 AM ET by eddie (aust)

1. 
   Jimma | Jul 30, 2003 01:24am | #5

   Eddie -- In that same thread wherein Michael Lomax presented his version of the 3-way miter (showcase joint), I mentioned having made the joint for a table based on how the joint was made on the table saw described in an article in a previous issue of FWW (FWW #56, Jan/Feb 1986, pp 48 and 49,"Console Table" by John Kriegshauser). Michael's joint is far more complicated and resembles the classic Chinese joint which is based on dividing each mitered face into 5-parts with intersecting M&Ts. These have to be made mostly by hand. The table saw method allows you to make all the pieces for a table the same way and with only one mortise per face, essentially a production run. It is very ingenious and holds extremely well with modern glues. The example at the top of this thread is one of those and is several years old. I will take some time to upload a few pics of mockups for two joints.

   Dave -- if you have the FWW referenced above, try it out. It's a bit of a challenge compared to the routine stuff, but looks great.

2. 
   Jimma | Jul 30, 2003 10:43pm | #6

   Here are the two types of showcase joints we've been discussing -- the Chinese type made mostly by hand, and the modern version made mostly with the table saw. The pic showing the top rail attached to the leg with a side rail open to it is of the mockup for the table posted in the top of this thread. The Chinese joint (three separate pieces) is all made with mortise and chisel except for the outermost 45-degree cuts which I made on the table saw. If anyone would like to explore this topic a litle more, I'd be willing to discuss it.

   
3. 
   DaveHeinlein | Jul 31, 2003 06:29am | #7

   The image #38 is the joint I had in mind, very complcated. The other image(your mock up) looksa as though it could be a production joint, using loose tenons.

   Did you cut the joint in image #38? If so, hat's off to you, pal.

4. 
   Jimma | Jul 31, 2003 05:25pm | #8

   Yup, #38 is the Chinese joint. In order to make it, I had a reference that only showed part of the joint, so I had to guess at the details. The crucial information that made it possible was the way each piece was divided into fifths. From that, trial and error on tenon lengths and matching mortises finally resulted in the completed joint. I believe it was originally developed when glue wasn't all that dependable and most of the holding power was derived from a complex mechanical fit. I have a neighbor with a very old Chinese low table in which the leg joints are made this way. Much of the table has succumbed to damage from wood movement, but the leg joints have only had some glue failure. Very brittle glue. I tried some repair to the bad spots, but the wood is so old and soft that it won't take much fixing. (I think it's just the lacquer that's holding most of it together!) But the machine-made joint in the other pic doesn't have loose tenons; it's pretty tight if made well and can be done with only a little hand work as opposed to a bunch of hours on the Chinese joint. The author of the FWW article claimed it only took him an hour to make four joints on the table saw, but it took me all day. See if you can get the article and give it a try. Jim

   Edited 7/31/2003 10:27:40 AM ET by JIMMACMAHON