Check out my legs

[Jim Kountz]

Ok so Ive been trying to learn cabriole legs and so I got a big chunk of old pine for practice and went to town on them. This leg is the best one Ive done yet but it still looks off for some reason to me. I was hoping maybe some of you could take a look and give me your opinions as to what I need to correct or do differently. This is sized for a QA lowboy.

Thanks!!

Jim

[Steve Thomas]

looks pretty good...
Maybe too narrow at the ankle?
it might always look funny not attached to anything...

[Robert Rozaieski]

I think it looks good. My only suggestion would be to try for a little more curve from the knee to the ankle. This leg looks very straight, though it could just be the angle and size of the pics. There should be no straight lines in the leg (except at the top of course), only a very gentle S-curve from knee to ankle. Don't exagerate the curve though. Too much looks worse than too little. It should be very subtle.

[David Christopher]

Jim, you have sexy legs

[David Keller NC]

Jim - I think I might know why it looks "off" to you. There's too much meat above the top of the foot to the beginning of the ankle. Factory-produced uglies like the ones found on Ethan Allen "reproductions" often have a heavily attenuated foot (too small of a diameter) and way too gentle a curve between the foot and the ankle. Presumably, the foot's attenuation is to save stock thickness, and the too-gentle transition is done to better fit the CNC equipment.

Robert's comment is also "correct" in that most of the 18th century cabriole legs are continuously curved from the knee to the inflection point of the ankle. However, that's not universally true. In particular, Connecticut pieces sometimes have almost straight lengths between the knee and the ankle.

If you have Jeffrey Greene's American Furniture of the 18th Century, there's an excellent drawing and technical explanation of the various angles and curves that go into the idealized cabriole leg - well worth checking out of the library, if not purchasing.

[John Keeton]

Check out my legs...Jim, I just want you to know that before I even clicked on this thread, I had to re-examine my maleness, and decide whether I was secure enough to even look at your legs:o. And, yes, I am relieved at what I saw! I really was not fully prepared for anything more.

Actually, I know little about cabriole legs other than having owned some Queen Anne furniture in a previous life, but it does not look "right" to me, and I suspect it is as David has noted. That being said - it is a heck of a lot better than I could do!!

[David Keller NC]

Jim - One other thought - a sharp, 90 degree arris where the two planes of the sides of a cabriole leg meet is a very rare thing in 18th century (American) furniture. The exception is the Goddard/Townsend group of highly carved ball and claw feet legs, but I can't think of an example of Queen Anne furniture that I've ever seen without a rounded profile at the knee, foot, and ankle.

[Jim Kountz]

Jim, I just want you to know that before I even clicked on this thread, I had to re-examine my maleness, and decide whether I was secure enough to even look at your legs:o. And, yes, I am relieved at what I saw! I really was not fully prepared for anything more.


John, thanks for making my spew coffee all over my laptop!! That was funny!!:D:D:D:D

[Jim Kountz]

Dave I see what you mean, also I was thinking another thing that made the foot look off was the ankle being too narrow. To me the foot looks huge below that small diameter ankle. So back through my archives I went again and found some pics I took of some originals in Williamsburg. They tend to follow all the "rules" you pointed out. Thanks for the tips, I now have something to go on when making up my next pattern. Ive got to say this is the most hand tool work Ive done in a while and its very cool. I can actually hear my radio cranking out classic music. Well classic rock that is!!
My favorite pick of legs in this group would be the highboy in the middle against the wall. What do you think?

[Jim Kountz]

Jim, you have sexy legs

Thanks Dave my treadmill must be working!!:D:D

[David Keller NC]

Ha! Well, you've certainly put the lie to my idea that QA cabrioles shouldn't have sharp arrises - seems that most of the ones in the pictures you posted have that feature. I'm not terribly familiar with CWs collection, and as with everything else about colonial American furniture, there's always examples that break the rules. I do agree with you that the highboy has the most graceful legs of the furniture in that picture.

By the way - do you have Norm Vandal's Queen Anne Furniture? If you don't, I'd highly recommend getting a copy. It used to be very pricey, but Lee Valley reprinted it, and I think a copy is about $20. Norm takes authenticity to the extreme in this book - there are no compromises regarding the construction methods in his furniture to accomodate modern methods or power tools. This book and Jeffrey Greene's American Furniture should be in everyone's library that's interested in reproducing colonial furniture, and they're cheap to boot.

[Jim Kountz]

Thanks Dave, I will check those books out. It was kind of funny actually, I went to CW just to study the cabriole leg and some other key features of period furniture and when I walked in that room I just went "crap now what". There were so many different shapes even from the same region of origin that it was hard to look at them all and decide which was "right". I finally decided something the old timers did, it doesnt really matter as long as it looks good to you when you make them.
The neatest thing I discovered and to me this is really really cool, is that in making the 6 legs Ive done so far I can already see how certain styles were developed. I mark them all the same, cut sequence is the same etc etc. Its easy to see how changing one aspect of the process could produce various results thus developing your own style or twist in the end product. Some guy in NC may not mark his lines the way teh guy in PA did so there for his were different and so on it went. That is cool to think about while Im doing these, trying to see which direction someone else would have gone in their process. Just a neat thing to me!!

[Jim Kountz]

In that picture I posted take a look at the other highboy on the left side in the back. I bet when that ol boy came out of the shop at night he was shaking and stuttering "drawers..............c..cant d...do .........any...........m...m....more............dr awers............"

[george wilson]

Jim,you need to be careful about the dates of the legs you are studying. I don't make 18th.C. furniture,but being around the cabinet shop and furniture conservation shop for many years,i have picked up a few tips. Later furniture in the 18th.C. began to become "decadent",as they call it. There should be a smooth "S" curve from the top of the leg to the bottom.Decadent furniture began to cramp up all of the curves to the top of the leg,leaving the rest straight,as on the picture of the tea table you posted. I can't recall dates when the "golden period" existed. I've forgotten them,but the earlier part of the century is superior in taste. The same thing happened to guns.The formerly graceful "S" curve in the hammers of flintlocks became like the table legs,with all the curve cramped up into a sharp bend at the top of the hammer(cock),right under the lower jaw that held the flint. Earlier rifles had heavier buttstocks,and tapered and flared barrels. Later ones in the decadent period had thinner buttstocks,and eventually straight barrels,making them very muzzle heavy. Earlier guns balanced much better.

It seems like after 1680,things began to go downhill in taste and design. This also affected function as in the rifles.

When you look at curved legs Vs. straighter ones,find out their dates. You will soon see that the later pieces are straighter and less graceful.

[David Keller NC]

"In that picture I posted take a look at the other highboy on the left side in the back. I bet when that ol boy came out of the shop at night he was shaking and stuttering "drawers..............c..cant d...do .........any...........m...m....more............dr awers............"

Yeah, I'll have to say that's the weirdest "highboy" I've ever seen. It almost looks like it was an original 18th century piece that a Shaker craftsman got a hold of and decided to "repurpose" it as a seed bin. It does, in fact look strongly like some of the shaker oragnization pieces for their seed business.

One other comment about regional styles/ variations. A lot of the furniture made in the Southern colonies had a decidely more British style and construction to them. The furniture of Charleston is an extreme example - full dustboards, horizontally oriented glue blocks backing up the bracket feet, low knees on cabriole legs, etc... After looking through my Colonial Williamsburg furniture book, I can see the same sort of thing in the pieces by Scott and others - looks quite different than pieces made in New England.

[george wilson]

David,of course regional differences are well known. I want you to be aware that some of the pieces of furniture,such as attributed to Scott,or whoever else,is based entirely upon Wallace Gussler's opinion. I'm not saying he's wrong,but there is no labeling on hese pieces,so everything is based upon features,such as the flattened ball and claw foot,that Gussler attributes to various makers. Some of the provenance of pieces are based upon family traditions. If you watch the Antiques Roadshow,you will many times have seen family traditions be way off of dates,and areas where the owners thought a piece came from,sometimes by hundreds of years,and thousands of miles.

We have only ONE signed piece from 18th.C. Williamsburg: a masonic chair signed by Benjamin Bucktrout,stamped into the back,and misspelled.

[Jim Kountz]

Well this is all certainly very interesting to say the least. George and David I appreciate the time you took for this I feel like the research is as if not more important than the actual building of the piece. Either way its alot of fun to look back on these things to see where we came from.

[george wilson]

Jim,if I want to make something authentic,like a flintlock pistol,I may spend several months researching subtle changes that seemed to occur about every 15 years in the 18th.C. Then,I choose the characteristics from several different pistols in the same time and design around those parameters. I don't personally like to slavishly copy things,though I got paid to do that as tool maker. As instrument maker,I designed my own inlay and carving,but made sure it fitted into the period properly.

If work does not fit the period you are trying to emulate,it is a waste of time to even attempt it. I hope you get what I am trying to say. Proper research is very important.

[Dewey Torres]

I am surprised Mike Holden hasn't responded. This is his game!

[mike holden]

Jim,
There are straight lines in your cabriole leg shape. The cabriole leg is based on Hogarth's "line of beauty" an ess - shaped curve.
The most important thing is to have a continuous, fair, curve throughout.

I will bet that if I were to look at your template, there are straight sections on it.

However, if you are making reproductions - then you are bound by the piece you are copying. You will need a good straight on shot of the leg to develop your template from. The Townsend-Goddard cabriole leg does have straight lines in it. I also think it is the least successful of their forms, but that is *my* taste.

I think that the leg should have a "spring" or "lift" to its shape. I should appear as though it is flexed to move, like an athlete with his weight on the balls of his feet.

Here are some pics of my foot, the unfinished one, compared to one by Phil Lowe. Mine is to my taste, Phil's is a reproduction of a Philadelphia piece. Note the straight line at the back of Phil's leg. Also, be aware that these pics were taken during a class on carving the claw&ball foot, the leg work was off-topic. And I am in NO WAY ragging on Phil's leg, he was bound by the original - I wasn't!

112743 112744

Here are the templates from my footstools, an 11 inch high one (definitely NOT a reproduction) and a 17 inch high one.

112747

And the legs they made:

112745 112746

Let me know if you have any other questions,
Mike

[george wilson]

Mike,you confirmed my post.

[Jim Kountz]

Mike those legs look great!! I can really see what you mean about the gentle curve and yes my pattern has straight lines down the back and the front. Crap. Back to the ol drawing board I go!! Im determined to get this right and I have LOTS of pine to practice on before I commit to my chunk o walnut.

[Calvin Hobbs]

Jim,

For a good read, you might want to check out Fine Points of Furniture, by Albert Sack. He definitely has a style to get used to, but he is usually on as he describes the cabriole legs in the book. He uses terms like stiffness, heaviness, abrupt, weak, beautiful, ideal, etc. to discuss why he thinks some pieces are Good, Better, or Best. There are two versions, the Original and the New Fine Points, the older one is very inexpensive on the internet, less than $10 probably. The New Fine Points can get expensive, but the photography is much better and in color.

I see a lot of cabriole legs that are not smooth in the transition from round to sharp on the outside corner going up toward the knee block. Here are a couple of pics from some chairs I built last year.

I admire you for tackling them. A couple of reps and you will get it down.

Thanks for the thread, Cal

[Dewey Torres]

Mike those legs look great!! I can really see what you mean about the gentle curve and yes my pattern has straight lines down the back and the front. Crap. Back to the ol drawing board I go!! Im determined to get this right and I have LOTS of pine to practice on before I commit to my chunk o walnut.

Jim,
Mike has shown you the legs I kept bragging about on my visit to his shop. If you are ever in MI you should see if you can go visit him. Hard to put into words until you see what the man does underneath a staircase!:cool:

[Dewey Torres]

Jim,
You must have some hot looking legs as 500 folks have viewed this post so far:eek:

[mike holden]

Dewey,
Thanks for the kind words, I have edited my signature in response.
Mike

[Jim Kountz]

I made this pattern today trying to copy an original the best I could. I scaled if from a photograph which by the way is a royal pain in the rumpus. I did have a nice straight on shot of it though and I referenced a tutorial from Lonnie Bird on cabriole legs. I like the curve of this one alot better and I think Im going to go ahead and make a mock up of it and see what I got.
What do you think of this one guys?

[mike holden]

Jim,
If you are making a reproduction, then you are probably good to go.
If you are making a piece to please your self, and want some input, then, what *I* would do, is bring the lower back edge of your template in a bit. It will put the visual weight more on the toe. Reality check is to run a straight edge down from the corner block which will reveal just how far back on its heels you are.
If you have a daughter, or perhaps your wife with some ballet experience - ask them to show you a "plie'" - the moment before the heel lifts is the tension *I* would be looking for.
Mike

[David Keller NC]

Jim - Couple of comments. Along the lines of Mike's comment, I think you might be trying to squeeze the leg out of stock that's too thin - on your rough-out, the lower third of the back of the leg is absolutely straight, and what you're typically going for is a nice fair curve (however, I'm also aware that might be an optical illusion from the square corners - once you rasp or carve those off, it might have a pretty good termination to the "s").

One other thought - the way you've got the crain lines oriented will form a "bulls-eye" in the center of the knee when you get the leg finished. One tip I picked up from Jeffrey Greene's book is to use rift-sawn stock, and orient the growth rings so that they follow the shape of the leg.

Keep in mind though, that while there's a good aesthetic point to Jeffrey's observation, period cabinet makers did not always follow this rule. The John Goddard tea table sold at auction at Sotheby's in 2005 (for 7 million, I think) had at least one of the legs done in the orientation that you've pictured - a nice clear "bullseye" in the middle of the anthemion carving on the knee. Since it was in dark mahogany, though, I think the flash of the camera may have accentuated it more than it would appear in person in normal room light.

[Jim Kountz]

Dave thanks again for the info, about the grain direction, actually what you see there is a 1/4" plywood template so the grain is irrelevant there. But I do know what you're talking about on the actual leg as far as the bullseye is concerned. As far as the stock size, I was using the dimensions given by Lonnie Bird in his tutorial since the legs in that article were the same size as the ones Im working on. He gave the dimensions for the knee, ankle and foot and then listed the stock size he cut his out of. One thing Im not understanding most all the patterns I see (sans the ones Mike sent me) all have a short portion of them that are straight on the back of the leg. Take a look at the picture I posted here at the middle leg, why does this have a straight portion at the back?? Is this considered "wrong" because this is the example Bird gave as being "just right". Very confusing to the untrained eye!!
Thanks again though for everything, Im getting there stick with me!!

[David Keller NC]

Well, it looks like the center template has a straight portion on the back of the leg. But keep in mind that's just the template. Ideally, one wants to carve every surface of the leg (except the terminal mortise post and the inside of the knee block mounts) so that there are no machine marks left.

I'll admit, though, that it doesn't quite make sense to me to have a perfectly straight portion on the back of the leg, as this would be the profile unless carving/rasping, etc... removed wood below the template and faired this curve.

One possibility, though, may well be what Mike mentioned - (a few) of the 18th century pieces had such straight portions, though those are not typically the examples that are held up as "masterpiece" in Sack's The New Fine Points of Furniture.

[Christopher Dowie]

If I can add my two cents worth. I think that your first leg was too straight.

Try and think of the shape like an "S" curve.

You want that flowing curve of an "S" shape.

Bring the hip downward and extend the ankle upwards.

I would suggest, in order to help you understand the shape better, make a test leg and over egsagerate the "S" shape far beyond what you would normally want. This would be good practice for you and help yo to understand the shape better.

Christopher

[Jim Kountz]

Well, it looks like the center template has a straight portion on the back of the leg. But keep in mind that's just the template. Ideally, one wants to carve every surface of the leg (except the terminal mortise post and the inside of the knee block mounts) so that there are no machine marks left.

I'll admit, though, that it doesn't quite make sense to me to have a perfectly straight portion on the back of the leg, as this would be the profile unless carving/rasping, etc... removed wood below the template and faired this curve.

One possibility, though, may well be what Mike mentioned - (a few) of the 18th century pieces had such straight portions, though those are not typically the examples that are held up as "masterpiece" in Sack's The New Fine Points of Furniture.

Well you guys were right on again. I made a new leg from my latest template and it looks horrible. Im not even going to post it here its that bad. That darn straight section keeps rearing its UGLY head. You know how you said the template looked straight in the back? You should see the leg made from that template!! (long exhale)
But Im not going to let this whip me, I have another blank cooking in the clamps right now and about 10 tonight Im going to have another go at it.
Dave you are spot on with what you said about the template being off a bit. Its off ALOT. Im surprised ol Lonnie Bird would let something like that go by. The thing is, I tried curving it some more but the template didnt leave me enough meat in there to do it. If I had curved it the amount it needed, I would have ended up with a 5/8" ankle or less. Im going to work off the templates Mike sent me and see what I get. I may just get this lowboy built sometime this year!!:confused::confused:

[Jim Kountz]

Ok this is it I think. This is my latest pattern based on, well.........Everything Ive read in the past week or so since I started this mess!! The curve seems right and all the proportions are there. Soooooo what do you think?? I thought painting the pattern black might make it easier to see and it might have if I didnt take the picture on a black counter. I think you can see around the shadows though.

[mike holden]

Suhh ----WEEEEEEET!

By Jove, I think he's got it!

That one looks good, give that a shot and see what *you* think. I think you are at the stage where *your* feelings should predominate. I certainly have no issue with what I see here.

BTW, for a sample, you dont have to make the corner block full height, since all you are interested in is the leg.

Oh, and remember in your excitement, that the real legs need the joints cut *BEFORE* the leg. (grin - DAMHIKT)

Mike

[mike holden]

Ummm, you do know that this latest template looks like it has the trifid foot on it?

Mike

[Jim Kountz]

Ummm, you do know that this latest template looks like it has the trifid foot on it?

Mike

Well I thought I just wouldnt bandsaw the bottom, leave it a square block then turn the foot on the lathe and just work the back of the foot/ankle by hand. Ive actually been doing them that way since I started and I
like that better than sawing it then rasping. Dont know why though!?

I was reading an article by Carlyle Lynch where he actually turned the ankle on the lathe by mounting the blank off center. Is this common? I thought I had better stick with what Im doing its working sorta kinda so far!!

I added a better picture so you can see the foot more clearly. I guess this would work for a pad foot doing it like I mentioned above?

[David Keller NC]

"I was reading an article by Carlyle Lynch where he actually turned the ankle on the lathe by mounting the blank off center. Is this common?"

Jim - It's very common on antiques, in fact more so than carved QA cabriole feet. That said, there are indeed examples of 18th century American furniture that have carved QA feet.

But what I'd suggest is to stick with what you're doing. Throwing another technique that has complications to it (off-center turning) may make the whole enterprise harder than it should be.

Regarding the template, it does still look like you've a flat portion on the back of the ankle, though much reduced from the first one. May I ask what size stock you're cutting these from? While it's true that certain smaller cabriole legs were cut from 12/4 stock, the larger ones seen on high chests and other large case furniture were typically (and are typically) cut from 16/4 blanks. Doing so allows you to completely cut the curve inside the wood, without the blade exiting on the back of the ankle and the top of the knee.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

No faults seen from this seat. Looks great~!

I rather like the slenderness of the leg near the foot.

For years I over built everything because I was unwilling to trust the wood to stand up so, my work looked blocky. my first guitar neck was a beast of a thing. I remember to this day taking a 14" rasp to that neck trying to tell myself that the string tension wouldn't really snap it and in the end I gave in to fear and made it a tad heavy. I see blocky lines in lots of other work too and suspect the reasons are similar.