The Making of a Bombe Chest on Chest.
I found this wonderful YouTube video. Not sure if it qualifies as a weekend project BUT maybe, somehow I could do it in a year? Without finishing.
Enjoy. I thought it was GREAT! Charles Neil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG5xwTD7iac&feature=related
And … Several other parts to visit. I found 8…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShGob6HMvBA
EDIT: I thought a break from the norm (Not ‘the’ Norm) for the holidays.
I wonder why so few ‘visits’ to the multi part videos. SO MUCH INFORMATION!
Anybody know what mill he is using to cut those slabs?
Sorry.. I will ramble on as I view them…
I just thought of my local Hardwood supplier. They have a slab of a tree bolted to the rafters. I did not have my camera with me.. If I think of it I’ll go back and post some pictures. Owl Hardwoods in Chicago area.
Part 6.. On drying.. I was astounded. To heat my sort of small house cost me at the minimum $250.00 a month to heat with natural gas! Damn… And at one time I wondered why wood cost so much to purchase. Now I know why!
Many edits I deleated….
Looking at these sure made my day!
Edited 11/23/2008 8:48 am by WillGeorge
Replies
He said it is a Wood Miser mill in one of the videos. I am interested in milling some of my own stock. Even a small band saw mill is $5,000. I don't see myself selling lumber. I just want to scrounge for some of my own wood. I am going to buy a nice band saw with a large re-saw capacity and saw what lumber I can. A solar kiln makes more sense to me, for my purposes, than a powered one. The attic in my house gets warm enough, except in winter, to dry lumber. I would be concerned about introducing insects though. I am wondering if it's even worth it since I'm only interested in stock for myself. By the time I build a small kiln and buy a saw for milling, I could buy all the stock I need to build all the furniture I want.
I thing I wiil never sell lumber.. EVER..
I just saw a man with a wife that put up with that old man.
I sort of wondered a while back whether Charles was BossCrunk on Knots - just an inference based on what Boss commented on in the gallery (seemed to be primarily period pieces), and comparison of some of the typed posts to the phrasing that Charles uses in some of his videos.
The bombe's nice, but one thing that strikes me as rather odd is that it seems that he's using primary wood (mahogany) as the pediment boards. Not sure if that was a request by his customer, or his choice, but I'm not aware of any period pieces that ever used a primary wood for the pediment boards - mahogany, in particular, was too expensive in the day.
BTW - to someone thinking of building a period piece out of solid, wide boards (i.e., no glue-ups), Irion lumber and some of the other smaller mills will send you matched lumber, and with some species, will custom re-saw for you so that you can have matched sides and tops on case pieces, for example. You pay a bit more for this, but in my opinion, it doesn't make sense to economize on lumber when 90% of a piece's cost is going to be your labor. I always found it a bit odd as well to watch some of the local woodworkers spend quite a few hours planing, jointing and fitting smaller pieces of wood for a glue-up to get a 24" panel. The amount of work this takes makes paying the extra $4 a b.f. for the wider material seem like a no-brainer.
The bombe's nice, but one thing that strikes me as rather odd is that it seems that he's using primary wood (mahogany) as the pediment boards.
I tend to do the same using primary woods. However I would never try a project like that. I'd never get it finished in what I have left in my life time.
No special reason for doing that. I do it but then again almost anything I do these days is for free to family and friends. Yes the cost of the primary wood may be steep but for what it takes for the secondary parts is not that much more. NOT that secondary wood is second class. Just the way I do things.
And I have made many things of Poplar as the primary wood.
Not arguing with your point at all.
I have nothing against using veneered plywood and whatever it takes to make the project. I guess all I am trying to say is if I have enough of the the primary wood .. I use it.
But then again I'm just me.
The reason it struck me as odd is that most antique reproducers are after authenticity, though most make concessions to economic reality and use power tools to make them. I've a similar attitude - though an expert could certainly tell one of my repros from the originals, I don't want it to scream "Reproduction!" from across the room, either.
dk,
Your point raises a question/observation for me. If plywood were available would the furniture craftsmen of long ago used it? If a tablesaw were in existence would they have used them?
I think they would.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
"Your point raises a question/observation for me. If plywood were available would the furniture craftsmen of long ago used it? If a tablesaw were in existence would they have used them?
I think they would."
I've had this discussion numerous times with SAPFM members. Like anything else without an objective answer, it's a matter of opinion. Here's mine:
The cabinetmakers of colonial America, just like today, varied in their approach to "get 'er done" vs. "only absolute quality comes out of this shop". The Townsend/Goddard cabinetmakers, for example, produced furniture with highly-finished secondary surfaces - most of the back side of their legs were planed, some scraped. Most other cabinetmakers of the period left the sawn surface from the pitsaw or coarse panel saw because it wouldn't be seen.
However, just because plywood and power tools are expedient today doesn't mean that they're appropriate for use in a reproduction. Note that what I mean by a reproduction is a piece that, except for its age, appears to have been produced in the period, with period methods. A modern representation is a different animal - it contains all of the methods and materials of a modern shop that allows production at a cost comparable to modern furniture, except "in the style of" days long gone by.
Both are valid final products - my only quibble is with the labeling. A piece with plywood drawer bottoms and curved drawer fronts laminated from bendable plywood isn't a reproduction in any sense of the word, in my opinion.
Finally, in regards to whether the cabinetmakers of the period would've used routers, tablesaws and plywood had it been available to them. I think this question is not appropriate, and doesn't have an answer. The reason is that the cabinetmakers of the day could only exist in the age of handcraft because there were no modern factories and materials to compete against. John Townsend would not have existed as a highly successful, wealthy cabinetmaker in Newport, nor would he likely have developed such an individualistic style, if modern communication and transportation allowed the significant "buying out of market" that we do today.
I don't think that means that there wouldn't have been any cabinetmakers working out of a one-man or small staff shop - there would have been, just as there are today. However, their production would've been a tiny, tiny fraction of the antiques in existence - most furniture would've been produced in a factory if the methods, materials, and knowledge existed.
If you think about what will be left 200 years from now, an entirely hand-made object produced in a one-man shop will be an extreme rarity, the vast majority of "antiques" will be high-production volume factory made goods. Time will only tell if the handmade objects are as highly prized as 200 year old furniture is today.
Pretty brilliant analysis.
I just Popped in here.. I posted..
I just thought of my local Hardwood supplier. They have a slab of a tree bolted to the rafters. I did not have my camera with me.. If I think of it I'll go back and post some pictures. Owl Hardwoods in Chicago area.
Pictures are large so forvive me for the download time but cropping them would not show it as i saw it..
I did not measure it but I did pace-off between two main posts so I would assume about 35 feet long.
Color is off. My camera hated whatever lighting was up there...
Will,
What timber is that? (looks like Imbuia)Philip Marcou
I was told it was Bubinga.
They have a half tree of slabs labeled Bubinga and it looks about the same.
They have several large slabs of figured Bubinga but those look very different in color.
The color is off in the picture. They have a mixture of daylight? fluorescent lamps and Mercury lamps which my camera exposure sensor hated!
Edited 11/30/2008 7:21 am by WillGeorge
Thank you, that's kind of what I expected but much more eloquently put than I have command of. The quality of some of the originals still amazes me given what the makers had to work with. Kinda makes me feel small.
The modern representations that I make fit your description but if I were to attempt a reproduction it would as true to the original construction as I could make it. Of course it would be labeled as being made by me and dated with its completion date.
Thanks again, your answer cleared a lot fuzzies for me.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
"The modern representations that I make fit your description but if I were to attempt a reproduction it would as true to the original construction as I could make it. Of course it would be labeled as being made by me and dated with its completion date.
Thanks again, your answer cleared a lot fuzzies for me."
Hmm - I'll consider that a compliment - I'm not sure my opinionated views are worthy of such praise. ;-)
Funny thing about this is that it sometimes provokes heated arguments - I stay out of those, but tend to listen to the protagonists on both sides duke it out to hear what the reasoning behind the harsh words are.
My own thoughts about this evolved over time - Norm's use of the word reproduction to describe a bow-front chest he made out of plywood drawer bottoms, laminated plys for the drawer fronts, cold-set glue, a plywood back and polyurethane for a top-coat never would have gotten my attention in the past.
There's no doubt in my mind about the superior durability of such construction, at least in the timeframe of my lifetime (whether or not modern glues will hold up as well as hide glue in the long-term is open for debate), but part of my motivation for replicating the construction methods and materials available to the 18th century builder is that the modern material and methods thing leads to a slippery slope where I'm competing with Ethan Allen to make a very similar product.
My conclusion is that it's just not a do-able thing for a one-person shop, and so long as there are still a few individuals that know the difference and want something that closely replicates a $2 million dollar antique, I'm willing to make them, though at the end of the day my back hurts a lot more than if I'd just used my table saw, jointer, and power planer....
I'm not sure my opinionated views are worthy of such praise. ;-)
Let me say this; I have a lot of respect for your opinionated comments largley because they confirm my suspicions. Along with 50¢ you'll get a cup of coffee at Diamond Peaks down the street from me. Yes they do sell coffee for 50¢! :-)
So allow me turn this conversation to another suspicion of mine - cross grain constuction. Personally I don't see anything wrong with it when used in an appropriate application. But, what is an appropriate application? Raised panels enclosed in mortised and tenoned stiles and rails?
Most often I read that when using CG construction you need to make allowance for expansion/contraction of the pieces. That seems contrary to me when making mortises and tenons. They should be piston fitting.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
"Most often I read that when using CG construction you need to make allowance for expansion/contraction of the pieces. That seems contrary to me when making mortises and tenons. They should be piston fitting."
Depends - whether or not to allow for this gets back into a discussion of a value system under which a piece is produced. Many, if not most, pieces from the American colonial period make little or no allowance for expansion/contraction, and a lot of these places have failed over the 200+ years since their creation. Some examples include table-top attachments - most tea table tops were attached with glue blocks, and a lot of these tops have cracked or detached the glue blocks as a result. Most bracket and ogee feet have cross-grain glue blocks on their back sides, and the feet have cracked across the grain. And a typical construction of Philadelphia low-boy top was with wooden pegs driven in from the top into the aprons, again resulting in cracking of the top.
There's a good bit of discussion about what the reason for this was among scholars - I've heard arguments that a lot of cabinetmakers in the 18th century just didn't know that wood moved with changes in humidity across, but not with, the grain, and I've also heard arguments that cabinetmakers from the time just didn't care - the pieces were not designed to last 200 years, they were designed to last 20.
To my knowledge, there isn't a printed book produced around the time that's a corollary to Bruce Hoadley's "Understanding Wood" that would conclusively prove that the knowledge was there. However, it makes sense to me that at least some influential cabinetmakers knew about this. Otherwise, why would frame-and-panel construction be so prevalent? Surely just using a panel instead would've drastically reduced the amount of labor involved, so there had to be some underlying motive for using it.
Dave et al,Your speculation that at least some cabinetmakers of the eighteenth century knew about wood movement is borne out by Thomas Sheraton's description "Of the manufacturing Part" of a library table: "The top should be framed in inch and quarter wainscot, in the figure of a long hexagon, which best suits the shape of the oval. The pannels, which are tonged in, should be of at least three quarters hard mahogany, about nine inches square, and the stiles three and an half broad. The top being thus framed of very dry wood, it should be planed over, and stand for some time at a moderate distance from a fire, after which it may be glued together, and when hardened it ought to be planed over again, and remain in that state till the lower part is finished. If these methods are not pursued, the pannels will shrink, and their joints will draw down the leather or cloth, so that the figure of the framed top will appear, especially when it is lined with leather."In addition, he repeatedly mentions beginning with well-seasoned timber for various pieces. Such mentions, I think, clearly indicate they knew ... and cared ... about wood movement in the eighteenth century. Their methods of dealing with it may not always have been completely successful, but my sense is that the better cabinetmakers attempted to mitigate the worst effects. We may not have detailed treatises from the eighteenth century about such topics; but there are numerous hints, such as these from Sheraton, which give us fleeting and important hints about the mindset and intent of cabinetmakers of that period. In light of this, I'm constantly amazed by sweeping assertions to the contrary.Don McConnell
Eureka Springs, AR
"Your speculation that at least some cabinetmakers of the eighteenth century knew about wood movement is borne out by Thomas Sheraton's description "Of the manufacturing Part" of a library table:"
Hey Don, thanks for the reference. I've got Sheraton's design book (at least a re-print, anyway), but haven't read it thoroughly. You quote is good prompt to do so this evening.
There is, though a bit of a distinction between what Sheraton's talking about and what we modern woodworkers think about when we talk about "wood movement". I think it was obvious to woodworkers of the 18th century that working with un-seasoned wood was going to lead to shrinkage and problems. However, I'm not entirely sure they recognized that dried ("well seasoned") wood would continue to expand/contract. If I remember my science history correctly, it was not common knowledge in the 18th century that water existed as a gas in the air, and could absorb/desorb from wood after it had already been seasoned.
It is, however, quite possible that carpenters and cabinet makers knew about this in an indirect way without knowing its exact cause. I'm betting quite a few of them puzzled over why batten doors would stick in the summer, and show gaps in the winter.
David,
Ooooops, I think I may have lead you down a different path. What I was getting into was about the frame and its construction. To me the frame itself is classic cross grain construction. In some applications we even go to the extent of pinning them to keep them tightly bound, i.e. draw boring the pins.
We seem to tout the M&T as one of the strongest joint (Uh oh, that could lead to a longwinded discussion in and of itself.) but it also seems to me to be contrary to what some consider correct joinery practice. Perhaps it has to do with the size of the framing members themselves, i.e. because they are small wood movement is limited. Of course there are all kinds of influences such as finishing, environment where the piece will be, etc, etc.
I guess I'm wondering to what extreme (width) one can design framing members with regard to wood movement? Another thought along these lines is with regard to inlaying, specifically in table tops. I've seen several examples of old furniture where the framing members in a top were actually mitred with another material used for the field. And yet no evidence of failure of the parts showed.
Someone must have used well seasoned wood, assembled and joined all pieces flawlessly and finished the piece to make it impervious to moisture. Hmmmmmm.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob - I recognized that you speaking specifically of M&T joints, but I was addressing the larger question that includes M&T joints - whether or not wood movement was considered in furniture construction of days gone by.
Regarding the specifics of M&T joinery - I actually don't make the tenon as wide as the mortise. Generally, I leave about 1/8" of gap in width on a 2" wide tenon, but the cheeks are fit closely to the width of the mortise. My reasoning here is that the end-grain of the mortise isn't going to hold well with glue to the edge-grain of the tenon, so it doesn't really add any strength to the joint. I also usually pin the joint, or if it's going to be under a large amount of stress, I draw-bore it.
If you look at 18th century antiques, most of the M&T joints are pinned, though I don't know if anyone's taken apart enough of these joints on fine furniture to conclude whether the pinning was done such that the joint was draw-bored.
Great reply and brought some thoughts to my mind on very old Chinese furniture.
I have seen several collections of VERY old items in my visits to China. Some were cracked but mostly just sort of worn out from use or maybe just from ageing in storage in less than ideal conditions. Hidden so they would not be destroyed?
I COULD BE VERY WRONG in my statement below.
From the items I have actually seen or from details in books and pictures, I have never noticed anything that suggested that any consideration was given to wood movement. At least in the sense of slotted holes and such. No nails or screws but plenty of dovetails and hidden and not so hidden wooden pegs.
From my point of view everything was made for maximum strength within the constraints of the delicate? design details.
I do realize I was never allowed to take anything apart. I paid in hard USA cash (reasonable price at the time for me) for long looks and allowed to move and otherwise do what I wanted (within strict limits).
Very hard to judge because I would assume those pieces were made of REALLY old growth timbers that became a few hundred years older after they were made into furniture. Nothing I saw showed growth rings that I could see.
None had serious cracks.. Some had many small cracks but nothing that I would think would harm the overall strength of the structure.
Any thoughts?
..........................
I have the same problem right now with wood movement. I am in the process of making two canopy beds for my granddaughters. When making the side rails/boards.
They are 5 1/2 inches high by about 80 inches long in their current stage. I ran into a defect that I had to plane off of one board. It became thinner than I would like to properly contain the cylindrical bed-bolt nuts without breaking out of one of the sides of the rail..
The problem created is of my own creation. Yes, I could just laminate something on the inside of THAT one rail and 'save' it.. But I have had this 'thing all my life' about things matching each other. They can be different in look. BUT never in scale with a matching mate even if nobody would notice. Or by looking a matching subject near them.. Something in my brain 'what remains of it' at my age.
So me, being me, planned the other seven to match the thickness of my 'bad' one..
I went and bought some MORE expensive wood to laminate onto the back of the now all the same thickness rails. The Sapele is all quarter sawn with a strip of approximately two inch height of Panga-Panga that is RIff Sawn.. . Yes, like the bed post I have posted. Panga-Panga on the bottom of the rails and Sapele on top. I do not have enought Panga-Panga of the same size to make both laminations the same so a full height of Sapele will be laminated onto the inside of the rails.
I would normally use a Urea-Formaldehyde glue to do it. However my shop is now way to cold to glue anything so I have to bring it inside the house to do it. If I was alone, at my age, I would have no problem doing it... BUT I have my oldest granddaughter and one of her girl friends living here with me.. Long story about the girlfriend but her Mom died and her step 'so called' father sold the house and left her out in the streets.. All I will say about that. She needed a home.
My first laminations of the original rails were glued with Titebond III. I have moved them everyplace I can think of during the summer.. Inside and outside of the house.. They all remained attached!
The bonds seem as strong as when made. I even left them out in the rain for a short while... A few hours, and they dried inside the shop.. One curved a very small amount but went as it 'was' when dried out.
The real issue is the width of the rails for the bed-bolt circular nuts. And my 'thing' about being symmetrical...
Both 'sticks' are just a 'tad' under 3/4 inch now. I am tempted to just glue everything together? Or maybe just the Sapele together and use wax paper over the lower Panga-Panga and not glued at all. I will leave the paper inside..
Any suggestions?
Will - In regards to the Chinese furniture, I'm no expert (or even a novice) at Chinese antiques, but I do know a bit about Japanese antique furniture, so it might have some relevance, as there was a lot of cross-pollination of the decorative arts between the two countries in the last 1000 years or so.
A lot of Japanese furniture was made with "softwood", at least in the botanical sense. In particular, cryptomeria japonica saw a lot of use. Cryptomeria is sometimes called "Japanese Cedar", though it's only distantly related to true cedars. Cryptomeria, at least the small amount I've worked, doesn't have a very strong grain pattern. And I'd imagine over several centuries the furniture would get so dark that grain patterns would be well-nigh invisible. That might explain the absence of these patterns in the furniture you examined.
Regarding your bed - if you could direct me to the images you posted so I'd get a better mental image of what you're talking about, it would help. Overall, though, I'd say that you're not taking much risk by gluing edge-grain to face-grain over a 3/4" width. Even if the rails were made of unstable red oak, there's just not much distance involved, and it's my opinion that things don't start getting really squirrelly until you're dealing with 4" in width or more. Most tropical woods are very stable compared to domestic species, and I'd bet that you bed will still be OK (at least the glue joints) well after all of us are in the ground and pushing up daisies.
until you're dealing with 4" in width or more.
The rails are 5 1/2 inches wide and 1 5/16 inch thick of two laminations.
I do not have my camera now (granddaughter borrowed it again for the holidays).
I looked at all the grain in the QS Sapele and the so called Riff cut Panga-Panga. The slant of the grain in both are almost identical.
I do not know the 'limits' of the angle of grain difference between Riff and Quarter Sawn boards. At least by the person or machine that grades it.
My so called QS and Riff sawn look almost the same as far as grain angle on the ends. It is all approximately 30 degrees so I guess both could be graded QS?
I bit the bullet and I will continue on using the TitebondIII. Granted, my test piece was only 4 foot long of the stock I am using with the same glue-up pattern. Not sure of the exact length but it fits inside a large freezer I have. I measured the length and width of the test glue up and but in into the freezer for about 12 hours and then brought it into the house to warm up. I could not measure any change in the length and no more than 1/64 inch change in width along the length.
gluing edge-grain to face-grain over a 3/4" width...
The Panga-Panga to Sapele is edge-grain to edge-grain. I made these awhile ago and I could not split the glue-line on my test pieces. I could split the wood but not across the different woods or fracture the glue-line. Yes some of the wood would split to the glue-line but always left some of the wood glued to the other.
I 'think' all will be well...But who knows with wood. It has it's own life even after the tree died being cut down. Did it really die or some of it has a new life?
By the way.
"if you could direct me to the images you posted so I'd get a better mental image of what you're talking about"
What I posted were the laminations of the eight bed posts. Sorry, I cannot find them at the moment. I will do a better search and post if I can find them.
I sure hope these beds go well.. The most expensive project I have ever made. The wood alone cost me over $1000.00. That does not count the hardware or the maple for the bed slats or finishing. Worth every penny if the 'girls' have a true Princess bed to sleep in.
"That might explain the absence of these patterns in the furniture you examined."
I think it was because NO end-grain showed up anywhere! I would imagine most of those very old pieces were made of red sandalwood. A collective name for Rosewood? I never could find any information on true botanical names.
dk,
The lack of concern of early makers for wood movement is better understood if one realises that wood movement was less of an issue before the widespread availability of central heating. That is, relative humidity fluctuates less in interiors heated only locally and sporadically by fireplaces.
Nonetheless, it is true that some makers were apparently more concerned with seasonal movement than others. Gusler's book on Va furniture addresses this. Williamsburg (VA) makers' preference for stacking glueblocks behind the bracket feet of their case pieces to align the grain is an example, another is their interior framing methods for drawer support in chests of drawers. Williamsburg construction methods are apparently more in line with some contemporary English methods. Whether this is due to the demands of their clientele, or of the Tidewater Va climate, or the makers' disinclination to depart from their training is a topic of speculation.
Ray
RAY
GOOD POINT!
Williamsburg construction methods are apparently more in line with some contemporary English methods.
As in Damp and cold all the time? Serious question on my part..
I have been in Belgium and England a few times.. It was always DAMP! I went to Scotland a few times and the SUN was shinning.. Is this a Omen?
Will,
Well, the English climate is damp, so I hear. And so is Williamsburg, not cold all the time, but the year I spent there, the seams of my umbrella rotted and fell apart!
Ray
I like Charles stuff. I subscribe to his website and he is pretty good and he's from my part of the country.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled