What constitutes 'fine furniture'?

[John Loftis]

I've been wanting to ask this question a long time but haven't, mostly because it's teetering dangerously close to being a philosophical question. After seeing a reply in another thread from Pat Germain, I'm going to take the plunge. He said,

"What might seem obvious to us woodorkers really isn't obvious for most consumers. For example, furniture can be advertised as "solid wood!" even it's made completely from particle board. Particle board is made from wood. "Solid hardwood!" usually means at least something in the furniture is actual wood. But it doesn't mean the entire piece is actual wood and not particle board."

Obviously, there's a huge spectrum of quality in furniture, and furniture stores will generally market what they sell using the most ear-popping hyperbole they can.

Getting beyond marketing gimmicks, I'm really curious what you guys think are the requirements for a piece of 'fine furniture.' If, for example, you want to build a walnut chest-of-drawers, what are the required elements and what are the lines that shouldn't be crossed for you to consider the piece to be of true quality? Let's say you don't need or want special figure, inlay, or marquetry. Just a good, solid, honest piece of walnut furniture.

Materials? e.g. is veneer ok? Only on the side panels or on the top as well? If veneer is ok, ply or MDF?

Joinery methods and/or fasteners?

Finishes?

Etc.

John

[Mike Cruz]

I'll take a first shot at this.

MY opinion of what "fine furniture" is:

1) Quality material. The good woods, not pine and poplar. (Sorry pine and poplar fans.) Sure veneers are appropriate, as long as their substrates are good quality, and not "covering up" what is lacking underneath. There is a time and place for plywood/veneer and not solid hardwood...as long as each is used in its proper respective time and place.

2) Quality workmanship. Good joints. Do they HAVE to be fancy? No. Is fancy better? Only if done properly. A ratty dovetail isn't "fine". a perfect rabbbet, dado, or T &G is not only strong, but shows that time was spent making THAT joint properly.

3) Attention to detail. I don't mean that the work has to have fine details, but rather that there is consistency throughout the project, and that sander scratch marks and machine marks are not present. ALL surfaces are preped and cleaned...including the tiny areas that are hard to reach.

4) Longevity. A "fine" piece of furniture should last. It should be something that you can hand down to your children. It should be something someone should "want" to bring to The Antique's Roadshow...not that they would, but they should want to if it were around long enough.

5) Style. I'm not saying that it should/needs to please everyone, but design is a big factor. You know, you can't please all the people all the time...

6) And lastly, it is fine furniture because I say it is! :D

I think the bottom line is QUALITY. All around quality.

[Nate Carey]

John, this could be a very interesting thread.

"Fine furniture" is in the "eye" and mind of the beholder...and the definition can only be subjective.

I have sat upon a three legged wooden milking stool (in the context of the barn where it was used) that I would call "fine furniture".

And I have been present when both contemporary and period built "Queen Anne" High Chests have been auctioned well into the six figures. Three weeks old or 300 years old, both I would consider "fine furniture". That being said, at the hand of the right woodworker, the three week old piece is probably better built, but not necessarily more "fine".

That's my opinion.

[mike holden]

Nate, et al,
This is kind of the "dont know what is art, but I know it when I see it" type of discussion.
For me, if the piece is well-designed and well- built, then it is "fine furniture"
Another criteria: is it something that will be handed down and treasured for itself, not because "grandpa made that".
My opinion only.
Mike

[John Keeton]

"Fine furniture" is in the "eye" and mind of the beholder...and the definition can only be subjective.John, Nate is absolutely correct, and the problem with posing such a question to this group is just that - we, as woodworkers, will look for entirely different elements than will the general public.

When I see people look at furniture, I think the following list, in order, is what they look for -
style - does it match their taste?
design - is it pleasing to them, is it balanced, does it "look right"?
finish - again, does it fit the current trend (remember pickled oak?)
function - does it suit their needs?
fit and finish - is it smooth to the touch?
construction - is it made of pressed particle board vs. "good" plywood and veneer? Rarely do I see someone look for evidence of solid wood construction.

The things that I rarely hear mentioned are joinery, hand work, craftsmanship, uniqueness.

As woodworkers/furniture builders, our list will be entirely different. Because we are both building for ourselves (our need to create) we must pay attention first to those qualities that satisfy us. But, since our works will be for the masses (or at least those that are not woodworkers;)), I do not think one can ignore the elements of style, design, finish and function.

When David Keller looks at a piece, given his broad knowledge and appreciation of period pieces, he will look for that unique authenticity and craftsmanship that only strict adherence to period design will yield. Mike Holden will look for finely executed dovetails, appropriate cabriole legs, etc. For me, I want to see simplicity, attention to details, and beautiful domestic woods. If it is done in exotics it doesn't do much for me.

I also do not care for contemporary or modern design. But, I honestly think the work of Mark Singer is fundamentally superb. I always look at his threads, and I am always amazed. However, I would not want any of them in my home, simply because they do not fit my taste. That doesn't curb my appreciation for the quality of his creations. And, that illustrates the difference in how a woodworker views furniture. A non-woodworker with my taste in design (or lack or it!) might not even give Mark's work a second look and never appreciate the tremendous quality of design and construction.

Most of this group appreciate the work of the masters, but only a small segment of the population has any knowledge or appreciation of those works. So, if you are building a piece for yourself - that is your audience. If you are building them to sell, then you need to understand the marketplace.

[Stephen Musial]

For me it means a piece of furniture that will last through the generations because of proper workmanship and materials as well as nicely matched pieces of wood.

Take wood movement into account and compensate for it; i.e. sliding dovetails for cross grain moldings, floating panels in frames, etc.

NEVER having to fill brad holes - if you're going to brad something to hold it while the glue dries, do it from the inside where it won't be visible.

NEVER using plywood (unless as a substrate for veneer)

Proper joinery - if you're building a mission piece, then do the actual through tenons - don't glue a piece on the end to make it look like a through tenon. Same with drawers - it doesn't have to be a handcut dovetail but it should be either a dovetail (hand or machine), mitered lock joint, pinned dado, etc. It shouldn't be screwed or nailed together with butt joints. On the other hand, I don't see a problem with using good quality metal ball bearing drawer glides (especially if they're on the bottom out of site).

Careful wood selection - if it's walnut, cut out the sapwood, don't try and dye it to make it match the heartwood. Walnut lightens as it ages and the dye doesn't so in a few years, the dyed area will be darker than the rest of the piece. When gluing up panels, spend some extra time matching the grain - don't have a piece with grain running at 30 degrees butting into a piece with the grain running at 90 degrees.

Spend enough time on the finishing process. A good rule of thumb is to spend as much time sanding/scraping and finishing as you spent building the piece. Don't just sand it for a few minutes and throw on a coat or two of poly. Nothing ruins a nice piece of craftsmanship like a poor finish but it's probably the area that people spend the least amount of time on. They can see the light at the end of the tunnel and get impatient.

Use appropriate hardware. If you spend the time making a highboy, get proper brasses for it - not the 1.99 ones from Home Depot.

Most importantly - do it right. Don't settle on something as good enough or I'll fix it later. Everybody makes mistakes but the sign of the true craftsman is how he reacts to the mistake. If it can be fixed, fix it, if not, redo it.

[Frank Drew]

John,

Even a group of professional furniture makers might have differing outlooks on what constitutes the requirements for fine furniture; there are at least subtle differences among those of us who've posted here.

I'd distinguish between furniture, which I'll reserve for free-standing pieces, and high-end cabinetry (built-ins, wall units, and so on), which can be ultra-lux in design and finish and cost, but which would probably, and appropriately, include more modern elements such as sheet goods and mechanical drawer fittings.

As a partial definition, how about: Fine furniture shouldn't include anything, in design, materials or execution, that the maker would rather the client, and his fellow woodworkers, not see ;).

[W/r to one of your questions, shop-done veneering is anything but a cheap shortcut; I'd reserve it for the best pieces, or for a situation that demanded a particular look. Personally, I wouldn't use hardwood plywood as a primary wood in a piece of "fine" furniture, but I don't object to ply drawer bottoms.]

[David Perata]

I've always found it interesting how Heywood-Wakefield furniture in its day was production furniture, and if you look at pieces now that have been stripped you can see that pieces of wood they used were often not really matched too well.

Today, HW is highly sought after among Deco fans. Kind of like Scott Joplin where The Sting made him famous decades after his death.

I used to really like HW, and I still do. But aside from a few pieces I wouldn't use it in my home. I think the allure of HW is and always has been its design. Some top designers worked for them. And the pieces that survive have stood the test of time in the marketplace.

Is it fine furniture? No, it really isn't. But you can see it today in homes alongside furniture that is fine furniture.

Design is a huge factor. My theory is that you use whatever it takes to get your vision into reality, i.e., a prototype. If plywood fits the bill, then so be it. The end result is what counts. It will speak for itself.

I don't think a person should design and build a piece with that parameter in mind constantly: is this fine furniture I am building?

It doesn't have to be. It is what it is and I guess the market will decide ultimately where it fits in.

[Jamie Buxton]

A few weeks ago I did a minor repair on a 17th-century bombe chest of drawers from France. It was obviously built as an extremely-high-end piece, with fancy woods and shape and decoration. The present owner bought it for a price higher than most of us spend for a new car. To everybody in the furniture and antiques biz, this is a very fine piece of furniture.

However, to me, it wasn't all that fine. The dovetails looked like they were cut with a dull screwdriver. The wood in the drawer sides and bottoms was low grade, with knots and splits. The mechanical design exposed glued-on parts to severe shocks unless the drawers were opened carefully. (And antique glues were not up to that service.)

So, as some other posters have pointed out, "fine" does depend on point of view.

[David Keller NC]

"When David Keller looks at a piece, given his broad knowledge and appreciation of period pieces, he will look for that unique authenticity and craftsmanship that only strict adherence to period design will yield.
Mike Holden will look for finely executed dovetails, appropriate cabriole legs, etc. For me, I want to see simplicity, attention to details, and beautiful domestic woods. If it is done in exotics it doesn't do much for me."

Hmm - Since I felt my ears burning, I thought I'd expand this comment a bit.:D

What I look for in considering whether a piece of furniture is "fine" or not has a lot to do with context. I do not think that any man-made wood product belongs in a true reproduction of a colonial piece of furniture, nor is a modern alkyd, phenolic or polyurethane finish appropriate. I've seen comments to the effect that "if John Townsend had access to plywood and electirc routers, he would have used them". While superficially true, such a situation would have meant that John Townsend and the many thousands of artisans from the age of handwork would not have existed as cabinetmakers, because these modern methods and materials allow for factory work, which replaced the largely hand-made products made prior to the 1840's.

However, that doesn't mean that I consider any piece of furniture to not be "fine" if it contains plywood (at lest veneer-core plywood - mdf core plywood's a different story) and is made with power tools. For example, I think it'd be pretty goofy to insist that a reproduction Morris chair have all 300 some mortises made with a chisel - because a Morris chair was a product of the 20th century, and the originals were made with production machinery.

Likewise, in modern "studio" furniture the inventive use of bent laminations, baltic birch plywood and other innovations are part of the aesthetic of the piece, and in my view do not detract.

What I consider low-quality and not "fine" furniture when talking about modern stuff are the pieces that have surfaces and internal structure that are meant to represent something they're not to provide a cheaper substitute, either from a manufacturing process standpoint or materials.

It's for this reason that I consider MDF to be unacceptable in "fine" furniture, regardless of its stability as a veneer substrate. It is simply not proven to stand the test of time, and much of the joinery of store-bought furniture that is largely built of MDF is likely to fail. Similarly, I consider so-called "colonial" furniture put out by big factories like Ethan Allen to be poor and not "fine" because of specific stylistic short-cuts that are made to make the furniture cheaper. One glaring example is the "Queen Anne" feet that they put on these monstrosities - there is the barest hint of a true pad on the end of the leg, the knee is attenuated at best, and the overall proportions are wrong - all of it done so that the leg can be made of less material, and is amenable to factory CNC production.

[Chris Tsutsui]

I think fine furniture is something that has not been engineered to be the cheapest way out.

Fine furniture is also mostly made by a wood worker and not a factory worker.

[Jim Rimmer]

A few weeks ago I did a minor repair on a 17th-century bombe chest of drawers from France. It was obviously built as an extremely-high-end piece, with fancy woods and shape and decoration. The present owner bought it for a price higher than most of us spend for a new car. To everybody in the furniture and antiques biz, this is a very fine piece of furniture.

However, to me, it wasn't all that fine. The dovetails looked like they were cut with a dull screwdriver. The wood in the drawer sides and bottoms was low grade, with knots and splits. The mechanical design exposed glued-on parts to severe shocks unless the drawers were opened carefully. (And antique glues were not up to that service.)

So, as some other posters have pointed out, "fine" does depend on point of view.

I have been asked by various members of my family to refinish old furniture that they consider "fine" or "antique". Most are not fine and they can only be considered antique because they are old. After starting the stripping process I discover patches, fixes, cheap materials, short cuts, etc. I tell my family that I'll refinish but not to think they have a valuable piece of fine furniture. If they really were fine antiques I would not touch the original finish.

So what makes it "fine"? Many good answers already. Beyond design I would agree with materials and workmanship. No MDF, no staples, no butt joints on drawers, etc.

[Chris Friesen]

Here's my vote:

1) quality design (fit for purpose, aesthetically appealing)
2) quality materials (poplar is fine as a secondary wood, plywood is fine for panels/dust frames, MDF doesn't do it for me. I'm not a big fan of thin-veneer plywood for visible surfaces, but thick shop veneered is fine.)
3) quality joinery (durable, look good, be repairable, etc.)
4) quality finishing (suitable for the end purpose, looks good, nice to touch)

[Frank Drew]

Other criteria separating furniture from fine furniture: Wood selection; virtually no factories and few beginners take the time to select the best wood for a project.

And related to that, fewer wide boards rather than more narrow boards distinguish high quality work, IMO; if I see a glued up drawer front (:eek:), or a table top with too many, usually poorly matched boards, I move on in my mind... "Nothing to see here."

[Mike Cruz]

On that note, have you ever seen a piece of furniture with 2, 3 or 4 drawers in a row (across) and notice that the craftsman actually took the time to either cut them out of one continuous board...or at leat make it look like it? Likewise, when drawers are stacked, I always like to continue the grain pattern from the drawer to drawer. That way, even if you are glueing up drawer fronts, visually, the piece flows.

I've worked with folks that never took the time to arrange like this. MAN, did it irk me! To my eye, their projects were ruined...they thought I was being too fussy. :confused:

[John Loftis]

I went through the posts and did a quick and dirty assemblage of commentary. Bold means multiple people said it. Grain matching was the most universally-agreed upon element so far.

Good Hardwood

No use of pine or poplar
Using locally available hardwood
Grain matching
No sapwood
Hand-selecting the boards
Fewer, wider boards for panels/tops rather than more narrow boards

Quality craftsmanship

Well-made joints
No sanding or machine marks
Period Furniture: joinery consistent with furniture of the period
Joinery accounts for wood movement
No MDF ever
Good plywood is fine
Good plywood should never be used
Thick shop-made veneers are good
No visible brad nails
Use good hardware
Not constructed in a factory
No staples
No butt joints on drawers

Aesthetically pleasing design

Uniqueness
Period Furniture: true to design standards of period

Longevity

Needs to be repairable

Finish

Take the time to do a good finish
No mere wipe-on poly
Period Furniture: finish consistent with what was used in the period


A couple thoughts:

Lots of people commented on longevity. Wouldn't you agree that longevity is a consequence, not a criterion? Seems that longevity is a function of both craftsmanship and a pleasing (timeless) aesthetic. If it's bullet-proof but uglier than homemade sin, nobody's kid is going to want it in their house. Some years ago, I was offered one of my great-grandmother's valuable pieces. It looked like a baroque factory exploded on it. I passed, with real regret.

Related to that, there were a lot of comments on aesthetic. I wonder if that's part of the reason that emulating period pieces is so popular (I think someone's either making or talking about a G&G piece daily on SMC). Period furniture has stood the aesthetic test of time, and therefore is more likely to have longevity. In a sense, it represents less aesthetic risk than a unique design.

Plywood/veneers seems to be a point of some contention. MDF does not.

John K., I was trying to minimize the challenge by posing the question from a woodworker's perspective, not the general public's. More of an insider's view of fine furniture than an external view of general perception and marketing of it.

John

[David Keller NC]

"Lots of people commented on longevity. Wouldn't you agree that longevity is a consequence, not a criterion? Seems that longevity is a function of both craftsmanship and a pleasing (timeless) aesthetic. If it's bullet-proof but uglier than homemade sin, nobody's kid is going to want it in their house. Some years ago, I was offered one of my great-grandmother's valuable pieces. It looked like a baroque factory exploded on it. I passed, with real regret.

Related to that, there were a lot of comments on aesthetic. I wonder if that's part of the reason that emulating period pieces is so popular (I think someone's either making or talking about a G&G piece daily on SMC). Period furniture has stood the aesthetic test of time, and therefore is more likely to have longevity. In a sense, it represents less aesthetic risk than a unique design. "

Well, one thing that's worth pondering is that when speaking of 18th century colonial American furniture, it was not always viewed as the epitome of good design as at least some modern scholars would have one believe. In fact, period inventories of deceased persons strongly suggest that furniture made about the time of the revolution was not highly valued just 25 years or so later. And while there was a resurrection in interest around the time of the centennial, that interest faded fairly quickly and wasn't re-kindled for good until the 1920s. Even then, prices were relatively modest and only went through the roof in the 1980's.

And as many posters have noted, "period correct" doesn't satisfy most modern woodworkers' view of quality construction. I have yet to pull open a drawer on a mid to late 18th century piece and seen the sort of perfect dovetails that one might see on a modern studio piece, though I have seen pretty close to perfect and aesthetically pleasing construction in Federal pieces. But even then, it's not all that common.



"Plywood/veneers seems to be a point of some contention. MDF does not."

My guess is that the reason that some folks look down on plywood in newly constructed pieces diverge rather widely from why I wouldn't consider using it (in my case, it's wildly inappropriate for the period of the furniture I build). I suspect it's similar to veneer - modern high-speed production necessities have inexorably linked veneer, plywood and MDF to cheap, "curb" furniture (the kind that gets set out onto the curb after a few years with a "Free" sign on it). There's little question that much historical veneered furinture and much modern, one-off pieces are spectacular examples of the cabinet-maker's art, but I suspect those are very much the exceptions in many people's minds.

[Phil Phelps]

I've seen some amazing veneer layups on MDF. The furniture is stunning. These don't count?

[Frank Drew]

John, Phil,

I'd be surprised if anyone thought that the only acceptable veneer is thick, shop-cut stuff; shop-done veneering, from purchased veneer or veneer you cut yourself, is anything but a cheap undertaking.

Phil,

From my understanding of David's position on MDF as a veneer substrate, I think he wouldn't argue about the quality of the veneering done on it, just that the MDF itself doesn't have enough of a history for us to know if it will stand the test of time. David, is that correct?

I don't share his concerns in that regard, but I suppose it's true that we don't have enough data to know one way or another.

By the way, David, a Morris chair with 300 mortises? Was that a typo, or hyperbole?

[David Keller NC]

"From my understanding of David's position on MDF as a veneer substrate, I think he wouldn't argue about the quality of the veneering done on it, just that the MDF itself doesn't have enough of a history for us to know if it will stand the test of time. David, is that correct?"

Yes, and its association with ultra-cheap, ultra trendy "throw-away" furniture from a certain large big-box store. Of course, utlra-ultra-ultra cheap furniture isn't made of mdf - it's made of particle board, something that Chris Schwarz elegantly nick-named "termite barf".


"By the way, David, a Morris chair with 300 mortises? Was that a typo, or hyperbole?"

Neither - it was a guess, and a poor one at that. I've never made one - but just looking at all of those spindles and knowing that I don't have a mortising machine is more than enough to deter me from making one. :D

[glenn bradley]

This is a fun thread. I don't agree on the "no pine or poplar" idea. There is some very fine pine furniture in a museum near you, I can almost guarantee it. Secondary woods are not a sin either. I would say any furniture made with care and craftsmanship in the areas of material, construction and finishing would qualify.

[harry strasil]

Personal Flub up. What happens when you cut from the same board for the flow thru effect, and its late at night and your tired while assembling a nail and screw cabinet in the Shaker Style. Not meant to be fine furniture, just a utilatarian shop piece out of pine. And one of my first pieces with almost all dovetails.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/irnsrgn/wood/nailscrewcabant01.jpg

[michael I anderson]

Everything I make is fine[with me] but really ,quality and craftsmanship are the true definition of fine furniture.

In my view if you can't see the true quality of the craftsman in a piece of furniture,you have no clue what fine is.

[harry strasil]

And salvaged lumber at that, a few nail holes survived.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/irnsrgn/wood/nailscrewcabnt02.jpg

Them little sliding dovetails were a real challenge for me and my little shop made hand router.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/irnsrgn/wood/naillscrewcabnt03.jpg

[Larry Edgerton]

I have done many painted pieces over 5 figures out of poplar, so I would have to disagree with that, as well as pine being forbidden.

Asking this question is like asking "What is the perfect car?", or "What makes the perfect wife"? It is a question without an general answer, a personal choice made by each person.

Every time Ikea comes up there are a slew of defenders on here, which cracks me up by the way, so as you can see there are all kinds of ideas of what is acceptable.

I make a living at it so of course I want the answer to be "Whatever the factories can not do!" but there is not an answer. I side with David Keller that the compromise of design for the economics of scale takes many out of the running, and that there is no place for MDF/particleboard in a product of quality.

For my own conscience, I ask myself if I am building something that will be restored, or replaced. I try for the former, and I sign all of my work.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

I've been wanting to ask this question a long time but haven't, mostly because it's teetering dangerously close to being a philosophical question.

Well I'd say that it is an entirely undefinable appellation subject to the whims, preconceptions, and prejudices of the observer and little more.

Which I should think would suggest that it may not even rise to the level of philosophical.

[Joe Leigh]

Interesting thread. I think that the visual appeal has nothing whatever to do with the term "fine furniture". The defining factors for me are the skill of the builder, and the level of expertise used in the design, fit and finish of the piece.

[Mike Cruz]

Ok, with the muliple comments against my point about poplar and pine not being what I would consider quality woods, I would like to say this. It has been my experience that furniture made of these two woods, for instance, do not tend (I'm not saying CAN'T) put up with the abuse that quality hardwoods can. That said, pine 100 years ago was denser than what we buy today.

I fully understand WHY some would use poplar. Especially if it is going to be painted. Why use figured maple if it won't be seen? BTW, I have used both for projects, but when I have made two identical pieces, one of cherry and one of poplar (that will get painted), which do you think brings the smile to my face? That is why I made that comment.

As for those who say "no sapwood", I have to STRONGLY disagree. While I COMPLETELY agree that you should not use it and stain it to make it "look" like heartwood, I have seen (and have made) some absolutely beautiful pieces that have intentionally used sapwood for contrast.

I had some other thoughts, but they will have to wait, gotta go walk the dogs...

[Billy Chambless]

As for those who say "no sapwood", I have to STRONGLY disagree. While I COMPLETELY agree that you should not use it and stain it to make it "look" like heartwood, I have seen (and have made) some absolutely beautiful pieces that have intentionally used sapwood for contrast.


I strongly agree with your strong disagreement.

[David Keller NC]

"I fully understand WHY some would use poplar. Especially if it is going to be painted. Why use figured maple if it won't be seen? BTW, I have used both for projects, but when I have made two identical pieces, one of cherry and one of poplar (that will get painted), which do you think brings the smile to my face? That is why I made that comment."

Another historical comment - I find it rather interesting that in colonial america, maple was routinely painted or deeply stained to resemble mahogany and/or cherry. In other words, it was the "cheap way out" - historical accounts put its price at about 1/2 to 1/3 of the price of walnut or cherry, and about 1/5th the price of mahogany. One generally does not see high-style colonial furniture made of pine, poplar, cypress and other "secondary" woods unless the piece was intended for strictly utilitarian use - such as a dry sink for a kitchen.

However, and this gets more to the point - that attitude changed by the mid 19th century. Many Shaker pieces are made entirely of clear eastern white pine, lightly stained to impart a color or hue, but definitely not so opaque as to obscure the nature of the wood underneath. I suppose the argument that scholars can get into is whether the Shakers did this out of a sense of modesty and a utilitarian, no-frills ethic, or because they appreciated the beauty of pine.

My thought is that poplar, pine, cypress, basswood, hard yellow pine and even fir can be made into a very nice piece of "fine furniture", but the context is important - a philadelphia highboy made entirely of pine would look downright weird (and so would a painted highboy, for that matter), and likewise, and to my eye, the same highboy that had no secondary wood and was made entirely out of walnut or mahogany would be similarly suspect. In contrast, a Shaker blanket chest made entirely out of clear white pine and given a light wash of orange or blue is an object to be proud of making.

But I know my view on this isn't common - there are several makers in my area that would never even consider making interior drawer linings and bottoms of pine - they associate it with cheap 'n crappy factory-made "unfinished furniture".

[John Callahan]

What constitutes 'fine furniture'?


Well I'd say that it is an entirely undefinable appellation subject to the whims, preconceptions, and prejudices of the observer and little more.

I think you're right Cliff. Reminds me of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's opinion on a pornography case ........... something to the effect that it (pornography) was hard to define but he knew it when he saw it. I think the same is true of fine furniture ........ perhaps hard to define but we know it when we see it. Ultimately it's in the eye of the beholder.

[Mike Cruz]

Okay, I'll have a stab at it:

So if you are refinishing a piece of "fine furniture" and have to replace a part, it the piece still the same piece?

OK, that is very rudimentary, but I did get my BA in Philosophy (20+ years ago) so I thought I would HAVE to take a stab at it.

[NICK BARBOZA]

Interesting thread. I think that the visual appeal has nothing whatever to do with the term "fine furniture". The defining factors for me are the skill of the builder, and the level of expertise used in the design, fit and finish of the piece.

Joe: How else would you determine the skill of the builder (design/fit/finish etc.) other than its visual appeal by seeing a piece and its construction/methods? Maybe i misunderstood your point....

I also agree with most, this is a VERY subjective topic, but it is interesting to see everyone's take on it!

NWB

[Stephen Musial]

Okay, I'll have a stab at it:

So if you are refinishing a piece of "fine furniture" and have to replace a part, it the piece still the same piece?

OK, that is very rudimentary, but I did get my BA in Philosophy (20+ years ago) so I thought I would HAVE to take a stab at it.


Of course. When I fix things, I use my g.g. grandfather's hammer that he brought from Ireland. It's had the handle replaced four times and the head replaced twice but it's my g.g. grandfather's hammer. :D

The real answer would be - depends. Is the repair of the same quality as the original piece? Is it an antique? If so, just refinishing it would destroy the value for some people.

A Stradivarius is still a Stradivarius no matter how many times it's repaired - in fact, fine violins are made so they can be taken apart and repaired.

[David Keller NC]

A Stradivarius is still a Stradivarius no matter how many times it's repaired - in fact, fine violins are made so they can be taken apart and repaired.

This is the really odd thing about the collector's market for any antique furniture - colonial, shaker, Arts and Crafts, etc... Refinishing, or even cleaning is considered a no-no and drastically affects the piece's value.

Personally, I think that's ridiculous - I've seen references by antique dealers that the dirt and grunge built up over 2 centuries is "part of the piece" and a "guarantee of authenticity". That last statement is probably made out of ignorance - it is certainly possible to deposit layers of dirt, grunge and grease, as well as adding wear, damage and expansion/contraction damage from humidity changes to a new piece of furniture in such a way that it will pass any examination - including micro analysis.

But there's a different aspect to this that I find goofy. The makers of much of this furniture, particularly high-style colonial and Federal period antiques, would be horrified to see a product of their hands displayed in public in such a condition. They took great pains to deliver pieces that had highly reflective, refined surfaces, and there is a fair amount of documentation that quite a few of these shops undertook re-finishing when the pieces acquired and undesirable "patina".

Contrast that with a lot of other collectibles - a fully restored muscle car is worth considerably more than one that's acquired a "patina" of damaged and scratched paint, worn interior upholstery, and a lot of engine wear. As Stephen points out, incredibly high-value violins made in renaissance Italy are routinely taken apart to "tune" their output, and to effect repairs. Oil paintings are routinely cleaned, the varnish removed, and re-varnished - the end result is worth more compared to the one with a "patina" of nicotine and tar from a century or more of tobacco smoke.

I can certainly see why completely stripping a bombe chest made in Boston in the 1760s and sanding it is undesirable, but I've seen collectors howl when even museum-quality cleaning by going over the moldings and carvings with nothing more than a permatex q-tip and distilled water is undertaken.

[John Loftis]

Well I'd say that it is an entirely undefinable appellation subject to the whims, preconceptions, and prejudices of the observer and little more.

I woud probably agree if the question was, "What is art?" or "What is beauty?" Part of what makes this question interesting (for me, at least) is that artisanship involves both subjective and objective components. Many issues of craftsmanship can be proven empirically. e.g. Which glues are strongest, which joints hold up the best, etc. To say that all aspects of woodworking are subjective is to create a straw man.

Admittedly, our body of objective knowledge is imperfect and/or incomplete. The longevity of MDF might serve as an example of a remaining uncertainty (in the minds of some, at least). And tomorrow, there will probably be better techniques, tools, and products than there are today. Hopefully, our knowledge is steadily improving over the generations. From a craftsmanship perspective, I was (and am) curious about woodworker's opinions as to what elements should be in a piece for it to be considered fine furniture.

Chasing this rabbit a bit, David, I'm curious about your philosophy on period reproduction. If there are empirically superior techniques, materials, and tools that can be used today in creating a reproduction piece, where do you draw the line? Is absolute authenticity the highest good?

For previous posters who said something along the lines of, "fine furniture needs to be well-made", indulge me a bit and explain what that means. What makes something well-made? What are your guiding principles? Why do you think that?

Aesthetic issues are certainly subjective, though I think there can often be some degree of consensus. Few would say that slapping a coat of blue paint on Edward Alexander's quilted mahogany table would be a 'good' choice. But who knows, someone might think that's a great idea. Even today, John K. doesn't care for exotic woods or contemporary styling, but others love it. Also, as David and others have pointed out, what is considered beautiful by some in one period might not be in a different time. There are 'rules' for aesthetic proportionality, but 40 years from now, those 'rules' might change. So yep, I'll agree that the 'look' of fine furniture is both individually and generationally subjective.



Which I should think would suggest that it may not even rise to the level of philosophical.

You might be right. Since philosophy can be defined as a system of principles, I would think that if a group of subject matter authorities were in consensus as to some guiding principles on what constitutes 'fine furniture,' then that could be considered a philosophy. If not, so be it. Regardless, I'm interested in people's thoughts on the subject (and reasons for those thoughts). Some are undoubtedly rolling their eyes at this thread and this post. I admitted up-front that I was a bit hesitant. But I very much appreciate your willingness to play along.

Best,
John

[John Schreiber]

There are many legitimate views here. I'd say that fine furniture is built for the long term.

In terms of materials, that means little or no metal which will damage wood as the wood expands and contracts. Glues which can be disassembled and reassembled by some future craftsman. Wood which will stand the test of time - that means good plywood is ok, but not particle board or mdf.

In terms of appearance, it doesn't have to be a reproduction of some classic style, but it has to be a look which will last. That means that even if it is the latest fashion, the proportions must be classic.

Quality of construction is vital, but it can be appropriate to its place. E.g. the back of a piece doesn't need to be finished to the same standard as the front. The engineering must be adequate for the piece as designed. It could be done in a factory, but it probably won't be. No shortcuts which degrade the piece but save manufacturing time.

Nothing fake. Veneer which is used for ornament is fine. If veneer makes a piece better/stronger/affordable, I suppose that's ok too. But nothing, like fake tenon ends or dowels, which makes something look like something it is not.

Fine furniture should have an appearance which tells knowledgeable people that it is fine furniture and that it deserves to be treated well. Under those conditions, it should last forever.

[Clara Koss]

for me fine furniture is solid wood... solid as in not a deli piece of salami... the joints should all meet the drawers going in and out evenly and quietly...no rocking on uneven legs... large drawers, deep...doors that are even open and closed....the design color pulls etc are to your eyes liking... all the pieces ive seen on sawmill have been FINE!!!!:D

[Joe Leigh]

Joe: How else would you determine the skill of the builder (design/fit/finish etc.) other than its visual appeal by seeing a piece and its construction/methods? Maybe i misunderstood your point....
NWB

Sorry. poorly worded. By visual appeal I wasn't refering to proper proportions and scale, but that it needn't neccessarily be a piece from an accepted revered style such as Federal, Shaker, etc.

[Cary Falk]

The term "fine furniture " brings to mind hand cut dovetails, mortise and tendon joints, wood drawer slides, and classic designs. I picture furniture like you would see in castles and mansions back in the day. I do not picture biscuts, pocket holes, reversable glue joints,metal drawer slides, etc. So basically take whatever I make and that is the direct opposite of fine furnature. I am not ashamed of what I build. It is sturdy, functional and attractive. I would never describe myself as a I a builder of fine furniture

[Sean Hughto]

It's all about quality. Some aspects of quality are measurable (tightness of joints, smoothness of finish, etc.) and some are aesthetic and harder to measure. I'd say that even aesthetic issues can be judged (just like with painting and music and literature) - do most people of refined or educated taste on the subject agree that it is good? has it held up over time as judged to be among the best? etc.

Also, quality spans all styles. Rustic or folk pieces can be fine, for example. Pretension, ornateness, or anal retentiveness are not good touchstones. Something can be very fancy or have taken thousands of hours of effort, but be ugly nonetheless. Conversely, a well proportioned welsh stick chair hacked out with the crudest of implements, can be a thing of beauty.

[Mike Cruz]

John, what might cause some issue with "what is the strongest joint" type question is that a double or triple biscuit might be/is stronger than a mortise and tennon. But sets the M&T apart is the craftsmanship involved in it's execution. Of course a sloppy M&T does no one any good, not the craftsman or customer. But who would see it? Aha! That is where the longevity comes in.

Ha! Sean, you bring up a good point...What is Fine Dining?:D:eek:

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

one man's "fine" is another's "inferior."

[David Perata]

Maybe we should split this definition down the middle and make a category "high end" furniture. This would be furniture that appeals to and is sold to wealthy folks and therefore has a certain degree of fine workmanship as to be able to attract these people and the high prices. No?

[Nate Carey]

My original post is #3, and I'm standing by it...and adding..."fine furniture" serves it's purpose well, is pleasant to look at, and if cared for will have a long, useful life...i.e. three legged milking stool and Queen Anne High Chest.

Several weeks ago a friend invited me over to talk. We sat in his living room; he in a chair of his own design and construction and me in a chair built of white oak by Wendell Castle. The chair I was sitting in was made early in Mr. Castle's career and showed signs of wear, tear, and care. The joints had gaps and cracks, and the unfinished white oak was stained in places, shiny as a new penny in areas of continuous wear, and dull as dust where there was no wear. The chair was comfortable. The chair was as lovely as a chair can be. The chair is used every day and will be for years to come. The chair is "fine furniture".

On the wall of this man's living room hangs a cabinet made by James Krenov. It is made of pear wood and white oak with brass hinges (by Mr. Krenov). It is perhaps the most interesting piece of woodworking I have ever seen and touched. Its proportions, simplicity, and construction are stunning. The smoothness of the doors opening and closing is stunning. This is "fine furniture".

Interestingly enough the man who owns these pieces made by Mr. Castle and Mr. Krenov (and several other pieces made by woodworkers whose names you would recognize) was one of the original designers for IKEA.

[Stephen Musial]

I deal with a lot of those people for work (totally different industry). Many of them buy based solely on price - "Oh, it's expensive so I have to buy it." There are some that will buy just so they can tell others how much they spent for it while others think that the price establishes the quality. The minority understands the truth - the quality establishes the price.

In short, just because something costs more doesn't mean it's better quality. But, usually if something is of better quality, it will cost more. It takes an educated customer to understand the difference.

[David Keller NC]

"Chasing this rabbit a bit, David, I'm curious about your philosophy on period reproduction. If there are empirically superior techniques, materials, and tools that can be used today in creating a reproduction piece, where do you draw the line? Is absolute authenticity the highest good?"

My philosphy in making these is pretty similar to Adam Cherubini's - that the tools, methods and materials of the period produce a result most like what left a cabinetmaker's shop in the 1760's. Generally speaking, I don't try to reproduce the look of how these pieces appear today after 200 years of dirt, deteriorated finish and wear, though there are exceptions if someone asks me to make them an facsimile of a rare antique that they either can't afford or that is unavailable, or both.

However, I should post a disclaimer here. What I (try to) make are as close as possible to a true reproduction. There are many others that produce what I term "period representations". These pieces are typically made with the materials of the period, but using modern powered tools, and the end result conforms to modern expectations for fit and finish of the unseen secondary and tertiary surfaces. In other words, one does not find the scallops of a jack plane on the bottoms of drawers, the interior case sides are off-the-planer smooth, and the piece may be assembled with modern PVA glues.

There is nothing at all wrong with making a period representation - many people do, and they're not trying to make a piece that will challenge and antiques expert 100 years from now. There are a lot of shades of gray here, though. What Norm makes are most definitely period representations, as are the items that Glen Huey produces. However, I rather doubt one would find any plywood nor #18 finishing nails shot from a nail gun in Glen's furniture, though it is made largely with power tools.

Where this gets really dicey is modern representations that are very far away from the originals. In fact, I think I'd refer to these as modern in-the-style-of representations. Much of this are forms that didn't exist in the day being produced by large factories. An example would be a "Queen Anne" coffee table, or a "Shaker computer desk".

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

How about: If I made it then, it better damn well be fine.

[Mike Henderson]

I have a saying that I try to live by: "Nothing leaves my shop except my best work." Especially for a paying customer.

Mike

[John Loftis]

updated roll-up of thoughts in the thread (bold means multiple people said it):

Wood/Materials:
No use of pine or poplar
Pine and poplar can be used in fine furniture
-older, denser pine is better
-context is important: wood type should be appropriate to the type of ‘fine furniture’ you are making.
Using locally available hardwood
Grain matching
No sapwood
Sapwood ok if used carefully and intentionally for aesthetic enhancement
Hand-selecting the boards
Fewer, wider boards for panels/tops rather than more narrow boards
No MDF ever
MDF is fine… probably
Good plywood is fine
Good plywood should never be used
Thick shop-made veneers are good
Veneer uses for ornament is fine
No fake tenon ends or fake dowel ends



Quality craftsmanship:
Well-made joints
No sanding or machine marks
Period Furniture: joinery consistent with furniture of the period
Joinery accounts for wood movement
Little or no metal in the piece: can cause damage as wood moves
No visible brad nails
Use good hardware
Not constructed in a factory
No staples
No butt joints on drawers
Back of the piece does not need to be finished to the same standards as the front
Drawers slide smoothly and quietly
No rocking feet
Doors that are properly aligned/planar
Hand cut dovetails
Mortise and Tenon joints
Wooden drawer slides
A Castle chair can have gaps and cracks in the joinery and it is still Fine Furniture


Aesthetically pleasing design:
Uniqueness
Period Furniture: true to design standards of period
Classic proportions are important in a piece


Longevity:
Needs to be reparable


Finish:
Take the time to do a good finish
No mere wipe-on poly
Period Furniture: finish consistent with what was used in the period


‘I’m going to respond by not responding,’ or ‘There is no Truth':
“One man’s fine is another’s inferior.”
It just needs to be well-made
It’s entirely subjective
Salvaged pine with nail holes makes a utilitarian fastener-holder...

[Nate Carey]

A Castle chair can have gaps and cracks in the joinery and it is still Fine Furniture

John, you have missed the point completely!

[John Loftis]

Nate, I think you're right. The takeaways on the Krenov piece were clear to me, and I think reflected elsewhere in the summary. Help me out on the Castle.

The chair was comfortable, the finish was worn in places and dull in others, the joinery was not perfect. Something about that chair made it fine furniture to you. What was it? Did its provenance have anything to do with it, or was it fundamental to the chair itself?

[David Keller NC]

Hmmm...


"No MDF ever
MDF is fine… probably
Good plywood is fine
Good plywood should never be used"

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that regardless of the way I soft-pedaled it earlier, MDF is not an acceptable material for use in fine furniture. You may well get a few nay-sayers on this, but I could not look a customer in the eye and deliver to him/her a piece that has major structural components made of MDF. The exception would be if someone asks me to build them something out of MDF, but that would likely be new doors for kitchen cabinets, or a simple cabinet for a baby's changing table and I would not consider that "fine furniture".

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there are many absolutely spectacular kitchen cabinets being made out there that cost more than my house, and that have exotic veneers over an MDF substrate. But when discussing something like this, one has to stick to one's guns, even if unpopular. So my thought is that the final price of something does not necessarily designate something as "fine furniture".

The plywood debate will likely never end, and I think it's a lot more gray than the black and hot white of the question of MDF. One would, for example, have a very tough time making the sorts of sculpted forms that are a staple of modern studio furniture out of anything other than baltic birch plywood, and to my eye, the zebra stripes of such pieces looks "right". But I would call a Shaker sewing desk with a plywood, edge-banded top as "not fine", regardless of how well the joinery is done, how high-end the plywood was, or how well the finish was done.

[Nate Carey]

Help me out on the Castle.

John, first off, I apologize. It's the "teacher" in me that comes to the surface sometimes.

My point is that this chair (a gift to its owner) is the early work of a now recognized woodworker. This chair has been used in an ordinary fashion for near 40 years, and will be used as an ordinary chair for another century (and longer), yet it will retain its mystique (in my opinion) and remain a piece of "fine furniture" regardless of the fact that, and because, it is showing signs of the normal aging process (while functioning as intended). Mr. Castle did not build the chair with gaps in the joinery, nor did he cause the drying checks (I said cracks; a mis-statement). The chair has to be seen and used to be fully appreciated.

[Michael Trivette]

thats my one word answer to what makes fine furniture.

Craftsmanship

now we can start a thread to debate how to define Craftsmanship

[Nate Carey]

Craftsmanship; you have said the word Michael (and so did John K. in post #5). Craftsmanship is requisite to the production of furniture destined to be referred to as "fine"...

[Nate Carey]

...I encourage everyone who can attend, to attend the 76th Annual Craftsmen's Fair August 1-9, 2009 at Mount Sunapee Resort in Newbury, New Hampshire

www.nhcrafts.org (http://www.nhcrafts.org)

[Steve Rozmiarek]

If the value of the piece appreciates over time, it is a indicator that it MAY be fine furniture. Not a very good indicator, but it does apply to some antique pieces now, and may to some of the things that we're building later. Well, much more to David's than mine....

[Nate Carey]

Steve, by "value" do you mean "price" or usefulness? ...I think you mean "price".

"Price" is driven by the market; if 0 to 1 customer is interested in a particular piece of furniture, it doesn't have much "value" (price wise or usefulness wise)...if 2 or more customers are interested in a particular piece of furniture, that piece has acquired more "value"...possibly much more value!

On the other hand, the degree of "craftsmanship" required to make a piece of furniture "fine" is driven by the craftsman.

This principle applies to pieces both old and new.

...by the way Steve, you have a very well equipped, comfortable looking woodworking space...got any antique tractors?