in search of flat and square

[Bob Glenn]

As I am building more case goods now, I find myself becoming more concerned about getting things really flat, and really, really square. Having spent most of my time making Windsor Chairs, where almost nothing is flat or square, I am now obsessing over my straight edges and squares that aren't.

Is this normal, or am I going crazy?

[Zach Dillinger]

There is flat, and there is flat enough. There is square, and there is square enough. You will know what that means when your board is "flat and square enough" to succesfully enable you to execute the design with a minimum of fuss. There is nothing more important than that, and all the precision measuring tools in the world will not help you. For example, my straightedge is a stick of cherry... is it perfectly straight? I have no idea, but its straight enough. I make my own squares. Are they perfectly square? I doubt it, but they are square enough. It really is quite exhilarating to be free of such concerns. Fine casework is certainly possible with this attitude. You should try it :)

[Dale Cruea]

I came to woodworking with a die making back ground. Flat was dead flat and square was dead square.
Now as a woodworker I have found that the fit of a joint and the appearance is more important.
I nearly drove myself nuts shooting for perfectly flat and square. I am talking about within .002".
As long as it looks good, it is good. If the joints match without a large gap it is fine.
Don't get me wrong. I still strive for square and flat, however I will take less if it looks good.
My clients say my furniture does not look mass produced or factory made. It look hand made and they love it.
The eye is what you have to please, not your square or your straight edge just like making your chairs.

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

Some of the things that I've found that have made my life easier :

Remember, you can alter both parts of a joint to make it fit. One might be easier to do than the other.

Once the strength is there, for looks all that matters is the visible parts. Things like tenons can be undercut to make showing a gapless surface easier. Shoulders can help cover an ill-fitting spot in a dado, etc. At the extreme, you have things like visible over-sawing on the inside of half-blind dovetail sockets, hidden in the drawer, and the hidden shoulder on the inside of a tenon (under a table top or inside a joint stool or something) not meeting the rails.

If it looks square, it's often square enough. A box most likely doesn't need to be perfectly perfectly square, unless it needs to hold something perfectly square, or fit inside something perfectly square.

The big one for me was that there's a difference between straight and smooth, and vary rarely to pieces in furniture need to be both. I don't mind tearout and rougher surfaces inside a cabinet, but they need to be square enough to reference joinery off of. If the outside dips off at one end, or has a bit of a hollow in the middle, as long as it looks good and I can get a nice smooth surface, I'm happy.

If you don't force everything to be square, it's easier to build to - I can spend time making a construction perfectly square, so that all the cross members I cut to be exactly the same length will fit exactly down the whole length of it, or I can make the construction look good and be close enough, and then use ticking sticks or whatever to make the cross members fit exactly wherever that might be.

[ray hampton]

[QUOTE=Dale Cruea;1924780]I came to woodworking with a die making back ground.
I nearly drove myself nuts shooting for perfectly flat and square. I am talking about within .002".

your tool & die training will come in handy if you build a wooden toy or table where some of the parts move [making 50 pcs of wood that will move in perfect timing required ????] try making a wood clock

[Jerome Hanby]

I think being fanatical about flat and square pays off for tool setup. Being just a hair off will drive you crazy. For the resulting cut material, like they saw straight and flat enough...

[Jim Matthews]

The test of flat and square in furniture is in use;

if the drawers open and close easily, if the door shuts with an even reveal, if the glass of wine sits upright on the table, if you don't slide out of the chair (but you knew that one, already).
Given that wood moves a great deal, it's more important to get solid joints that won't fail over time than perfect right angles in three dimensions.

But whadda I know?

[Bob Glenn]

All is good.......

[Deane Allinson]

If time is your eneny and you have a lot of parts, then flat and square are you friends. If not, then it doesn't matter as much, you can scribe and cut to fit if you like. Less math skills too.
I use a smaller Starrett machinists square for most things. I like things dead nuts. I doesn't always happen that way though.
Deane

[Zach Dillinger]

If time is your enemy, don't spend a lot of it flattening parts that don't need to be flat. If you're working by hand, its much faster to flatten what needs to be flatten exactly as flat as it needs to be, no more, no less. Of course, its all relative to how you want to work. When I make a piece, whether for me or a customer, I'm not going to waste time making everything perfectly flat when it accomplishes nothing to do so. But I work all by hand, thicknessing included, so those with machines may find it easy to make things perfect.

[david charlesworth]

Flat, square and out of wind (twist) are all essential for cabinet work.

I always envied my Windsor chairmaking friend, where these things were less important.

My second DVD shows planing techniques and repeatable methods for achieving the above.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

[Charlie Stanford]

As I am building more case goods now, I find myself becoming more concerned about getting things really flat, and really, really square. Having spent most of my time making Windsor Chairs, where almost nothing is flat or square, I am now obsessing over my straight edges and squares that aren't.

Is this normal, or am I going crazy?

You absolutely should be concerned especially if your casegoods include doors and/or drawers. Glue-up is not the time to discover discrepancies and little inaccuracies that combine to result in bad work. You need to KNOW the case is going to go together correctly. This can only really be accomplished by having accurately prepared components.

People have often mistaken the roughness of period drawer bottoms (which might still show pit saw marks) or rough non-showing sides of components as some sort of license to take liberty with good cabinetmaking practices. Folks are misinterpreting a surface attribute with a geometric attribute. While the surfaces mentioned might have been left rough it is most unlikely they were in severe twist or severely out of square or had other warpage. You can have a perfectly square and flat component (in a cabinetmaking context) that still has a rough surface.

[Zach Dillinger]

Flat, square and out of wind (twist) are all essential for cabinet work.

I always envied my Windsor chairmaking friend, where these things were less important.

My second DVD shows planing techniques and repeatable methods for achieving the above.

Best wishes,
David Charlesworth

Of course, you are correct. My point is that there is flat, and then there is "flat enough for cabinet work", which does not require precision measuring tools. That doesn't mean the workpiece can be in wind, only that it doesn't really have to be uniformly flat in most cases. Many pieces of woodwork do not require that level of precision, including some casework. I certainly meant no disrespect for anyone or their chosen methods of working wood.

[Jim Matthews]

The enemy of good enough is perfection.

I don't have the rest of my life to perfect my technique.
Given that my home isn't air conditioned, and there is significant seasonal movement in my casework -
I keep things simple in construction, and stress utility and durability over blueprint level accuracy.

I'm a hack, no doubt, but I have several finished projects that are better quality that what I can afford to purchase.

[Charlie Stanford]

Of course, you are correct. My point is that there is flat, and then there is "flat enough for cabinet work", which does not require precision measuring tools. That doesn't mean the workpiece can be in wind, only that it doesn't really have to be uniformly flat in most cases. Many pieces of woodwork do not require that level of precision, including some casework. I certainly meant no disrespect for anyone or their chosen methods of working wood.

You're probably right. I guess knowing those situations requires more judgment than I have to bring to bear on the problem. Every time I've said 'it's flat enough' (usually out of exhaustion or boredom) it has usually come back to haunt me at assembly time or required some gyration that is more time consuming than just flattening the workpiece would have been in the first place.

[daniel lane]

The enemy of good enough is perfection.

I've mentioned before that I follow what I call the Gorshkov Rule - Sergey Gorshkov (Admiral, Soviet Navy) is credited with the phrase, "'Better' is the enemy of 'good enough.'" I find it's a good credo to live by. Now if only my joinery could get to the "good enough" stage... :rolleyes:


daniel

[David Keller NC]

You absolutely should be concerned especially if your casegoods include doors and/or drawers. Glue-up is not the time to discover discrepancies and little inaccuracies that combine to result in bad work. You need to KNOW the case is going to go together correctly. This can only really be accomplished by having accurately prepared components.

People have often mistaken the roughness of period drawer bottoms (which might still show pit saw marks) or rough non-showing sides of components as some sort of license to take liberty with good cabinetmaking practices. Folks are misinterpreting a surface attribute with a geometric attribute. While the surfaces mentioned might have been left rough it is most unlikely they were in severe twist or severely out of square or had other warpage. You can have a perfectly square and flat component (in a cabinetmaking context) that still has a rough surface.

In some sense of the word, I would disagree with the above. A period cabinetmaker from the age of handwork would rarely absolutely know that the case/doors/drawers of a cabinet would go together before it was assembled. But what they were masters at (and there is a great deal of evidence left behind of this on period pieces) was adjusting parts, sub-assemblies and even large case pieces to be square enough to allow drawers to operate freely, doors to fit openings, etc...

And at least from the American colonial period, most of the work was skimpily (is that a word?) designed by our standards - cross-grain wood was often glued/nailed/pinned together, with resulting cracks and warps. Many case pieces simply had drawer runners nailed to the inside of the case with no dust boards.

But that wasn't out of ignorance - it was out of the philosophy of "good enough". Much of the furniture from Charleston at this time in history follows design and finish practices that would rival that of modern production (without the modern glues, of course).

[Charlie Stanford]

[QUOTE=David Keller NC;1925724]In some sense of the word, I would disagree with the above. A period cabinetmaker from the age of handwork would rarely absolutely know that the case/doors/drawers of a cabinet would go together before it was assembled. But what they were masters at (and there is a great deal of evidence left behind of this on period pieces) was adjusting parts, sub-assemblies and even large case pieces to be square enough to allow drawers to operate freely, doors to fit openings, etc...

And at least from the American colonial period, most of the work was skimpily (is that a word?) designed by our standards - cross-grain wood was often glued/nailed/pinned together, with resulting cracks and warps. Many case pieces simply had drawer runners nailed to the inside of the case with no dust boards.

But that wasn't out of ignorance - it was out of the philosophy of "good enough". Much of the furniture from Charleston at this time in history follows design and finish practices that would rival that of modern production (without the modern glues, of course).[/QUOTE

So what? What about cabinet making best practices in Britain and France (if not anywhere in Europe really) during the same period?

Why pick a colonial example of craftsmanship to set a standard or an ideal, if that's what you're saying?

And some of the examples you've provided really don't have anything to do with flat and square. Nailing on a drawer runner is a construction decision - now, if you're telling us they nailed on warped, propellored drawer runners and just said 'screw it' that would be another matter. Ditto for cross-grained construction - that doesn't really have anything to do with whether the parts themselves were out of square and flat.

Woodworkers have been minding flat and square for a long time. Not doing so leads to nothing but problems.

I'd be more than happy to be enlightened about how to build case pieces without going to much bother about squaring and flattening components - just 'adjusting' them at assembly. This would seem to require more virtuosity than simply putting together accurately formed components in the first place.

Please be more specific about how all of this was done. This could end up being a watershed moment for me.

If you can lay your hands on a copy, you ought to watch the two volume set of videos with Arthur Negus and Hugh Scully "The Story of English Furniture." Could be an eye-opener for you regarding cabinet making best practices of the 1700s and 1800s.

Did colonists working in North Carolina set the cabinet making standards for the period? I don't think so, and unless we're concerned with producing exact copies that border on fakery I don't find all that much about how they worked compelling for my work at all (unless there is some sort of genuine revelation in it somehow). Otherwise, the standard for the day was set by the firms building for the various crowned heads of state. Everything else was frankly just varying degrees of substandard.

There seems to be some implication in your post that there's room for hitting a few loose shots, if you will, but no real instruction about how to recover from the left rough at time of assembly other than that North Carolina craftsmen were able to do it a few hundred years ago. The OP has more immediate concerns I think.

[Zach Dillinger]

[Why pick a colonial example of craftsmanship to set a standard or an ideal, if that's what you're saying?

Charlie, I hope you don't mind the "snipping" of your worthy text, I just wanted to address this directly.

I pick colonial craftsmanship as my standard because that is the type of work I enjoy, not gilded pieces for the King of France. That is what I like to make, with few exceptions along the way. Why shouldn't I use the original techniques, "flawed" though they may be, to produce the work? I have zero interest in modern furniture and modern techniques. If it was good enough for colonial workers (I'm an American, after all), its good enough for my work. If I cared about the modern sense of perfection, I'd buy machines.

Of course, this is the way I work, the way I think. I've never intended to tell anyone how they should work, only that there are other ways to do exactly the same thing with less work / mental effort. My doors fit just fine, drawers operate just like they should, because I make them that way, or I fit them to what I need. My case pieces are as square as they need to be to accomplish the design objectives, not to pass NASA inspection. No more, no less.

EDIT: Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by "flat and square enough". If you're using a micrometer to verify that your board is uniform, you are there. If you need a precision ground machinist straightedge and feeler gauges to measure flatness and straightness, you were there a long time ago. Most of this can be determined using your plane as a straightedge, a good source of light behind your work, and the most accurate measuring tools in your shop, your fingertips and eyeballs. Just remember, if it looks right, it is. If it doesn't, it isn't.

[Sean Hughto]

Good to see you, Charles.

I think you and David may be talking past each other because you are not being specific. Generalizations don't cut it on this topic.

We all try to make things as flat and square as we can, but sometimes fail for various reasons. We may run out of thickness on a stick. The stile may twist a bit overnight before assembly. Our dovetails pairs (each imperceptibly off at the baseline for example) may go together in a way that slightly twists the assembled case. And on and on. Working by hand with planes, handsaws, chisels, etc. we can worry about these things a bit less than a strict stationary machine woodworker might.

- it's easy to plane door edges for an even reveal even if the case is out a degree or two.
- it's easy to plane minor twist out of a case or drawer box
- it's easy to plane the faces of a frame and panel door to arrive back at flat if assembly introduced a minor twist
- it's easy to plane drawer sides to tweak a fit

and the list goes on and on

My point is that hand tool woodworking allows fitting steps that are well-suited to overcoming what are for most woodworkers, inevitable instances of out of square and flat components and assemblies. This doesn't mean you can be slipshod in preparing the stock and cutting the joints. It's a matter of striving for perfection, but being well prepared to overcome the certain shortfalls.

[Charlie Stanford]

Good to see you, Charles.

I think you and David may be talking past each other because you are not being specific. Generalizations don't cut it on this topic.

We all try to make things as flat and square as we can, but sometimes fail for various reasons. We may run out of thickness on a stick. The stile may twist a bit overnight before assembly. Our dovetails pairs (each imperceptibly off at the baseline for example) may go together in a way that slightly twists the assembled case. And on and on. Working by hand with planes, handsaws, chisels, etc. we can worry about these things a bit less than a strict stationary machine woodworker might.

- it's easy to plane door edges for an even reveal even if the case is out a degree or two.
- it's easy to plane minor twist out of a case or drawer box
- it's easy to plane the faces of a frame and panel door to arrive back at flat if assembly introduced a minor twist
- it's easy to plane drawer sides to tweak a fit

and the list goes on and on

My point is that hand tool woodworking allows fitting steps that are well-suited to overcoming what are for most woodworkers, inevitable instances of out of square and flat components and assemblies. This doesn't mean you can be slipshod in preparing the stock and cutting the joints. It's a matter of striving for perfection, but being well prepared to overcome the certain shortfalls.

I absolutely agree but what you're talking about falls under the heading of correcting errors and adverse eventualities, not a regular methodology of putting poorly processed components into a project only to "fix" them later. Or, file it under the heading out-of-four-square components only get worse, not better.

So, the OP in my opinion should err on the side of being a touch obsessive about accuracy with regard to components.

I've had a spirited debate or two with Adam Cherubini on other forums, well relatively spirited, that I summed up by asserting that the worse thing that ever happened to Adam is that he happened to see the rough underside of a drawer bottom of an essentially country piece (way, way off Broadway if you will). And then his imagination ran wild. I don't know if the same thing has happened to David or not. The antidote is the set of videos I mentioned in my post to him. Nothing like seeing works out of shops purveying goods to kings and queens to fix one's perspective about the overall level of execution of fine furniture a couple of centuries ago. None of us work to that level frankly because most of us can't (I surely can't). There is furniture making and then there is professional furniture making at the highest echelon, in the most professionally run of firms engaged in the full time pursuit of cabinet making for the most discerning clientele on the face of the Earth, rarified air that we'll never breathe. And then there's everything else. The also-rans. My floor-sweeping would be found inadequate.

Otherwise, the baby should not be thrown out with the bath-water. Long ago I tried, not always successfully, to not dislike work that I'd never be a good enough craftsman (much less designer) to execute. I cannot build works shown in these videos that came out of the Chippendale shop in London destined for one of the royal's country estates. They are stunning in their conception and most certainly in their execution. I may be wrong, but what I saw left me with the impression that very few corners were cut.

The video series I mentioned (from the 1980s) is particularly interesting because, except in a few circumstances, the narrators had their hands all over the furniture (no white gloves) - actuating tip and turn tops, removing drawers, working table leafs, turning chairs upside down. It is not a superficial look, like a photograph in a book. It's "live and on TV" and you get to see the guts up close.

[Charlie Stanford]

Watch the videos if you can.

The most accurate purchased measuring device I have in my shop is a 12" Starrett square, FWIW.

[Zach Dillinger]

Watch the videos if you can.

The most accurate purchased measuring device I have in my shop is a 12" Starrett square, FWIW.

Of that I have no doubt. But the most useful measuring device in your shop is your eye...

[Charlie Stanford]

Charlie, I hope you don't mind the "snipping" of your worthy text, I just wanted to address this directly.

I pick colonial craftsmanship as my standard because that is the type of work I enjoy, not gilded pieces for the King of France. That is what I like to make, with few exceptions along the way. Why shouldn't I use the original techniques, "flawed" though they may be, to produce the work? I have zero interest in modern furniture and modern techniques. If it was good enough for colonial workers (I'm an American, after all), its good enough for my work. If I cared about the modern sense of perfection, I'd buy machines.

Of course, this is the way I work, the way I think. I've never intended to tell anyone how they should work, only that there are other ways to do exactly the same thing with less work / mental effort. My doors fit just fine, drawers operate just like they should, because I make them that way, or I fit them to what I need. My case pieces are as square as they need to be to accomplish the design objectives, not to pass NASA inspection. No more, no less.

EDIT: Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by "flat and square enough". If you're using a micrometer to verify that your board is uniform, you are there. If you need a precision ground machinist straightedge and feeler gauges to measure flatness and straightness, you were there a long time ago. Most of this can be determined using your plane as a straightedge, a good source of light behind your work, and the most accurate measuring tools in your shop, your fingertips and eyeballs. Just remember, if it looks right, it is. If it doesn't, it isn't.

I think working to a colonial (in the generic sense) or provincial standard makes perfect sense if that's what you build. I do to - not necessarily by choice but because my overall level of achievement won't allow me to work to the standard of the British cabinetmakers I'm talking about.

It would be weird to see a Welsh dresser form (original) with an airtight carcase and piston-fit drawers. So, what if a fine cabinet-maker today received a commission to build one, say somebody like David Charlesworth who absolutely has the skill set to build to the high standard I'm talking about. Does he build the dresser to a standard the form never achieved? Would it look weird? If he decided not to build to that standard what exactly would somebody like David DO to torque his skills back to fit the form? Consciously futz up a drawer or two? That seems bogus. I don't know, this is the sort of weird dilemma I contemplate when I have too much time on my hands.

[Sean Hughto]

If he decided not to build to that standard what exactly would somebody like David DO to torque his skills back to fit the form? Consciously futz up a drawer or two? That seems bogus. I don't know, this is the sort of weird dilemma I contemplate when I have too much time on my hands.

I don't think it would be a problem. For example, do you think the Impressionists couldn't have painted hyper realistically, if they had wanted to? I think Pye addresses this in his Workmanship book - talking about the appropriate level of finish one might bring to different objects (farm gate versus french fitted gun box or some such).

[Zach Dillinger]

I think working to a colonial (in the generic sense) or provincial standard makes perfect sense if that's what you build. I do to - not necessarily by choice but because my overall level of achievement won't allow me to work to the standard of the British cabinetmakers I'm talking about.

It would be weird to see a Welsh dresser form (original) with an airtight carcase and piston-fit drawers. So, what if a fine cabinet-maker today received a commission to build one, say somebody like David Charlesworth who absolutely has the skill set to build to the high standard I'm talking about. Does he build the dresser to a standard the form never achieved? Would it look weird? If he decided not to build to that standard what exactly would somebody like David DO to torque his skills back to fit the form? Consciously futz up a drawer or two? That seems bogus. I don't know, this is the sort of weird dilemma I contemplate when I have too much time on my hands.

Charlie, you raise an extremely interesting point. I can't work to the standard of those cabinetmakers you refer to either. Lucky for me my interests lie elsewhere (or do my interests lie elsewhere because I can't work that way?). I think the bottom line in all of this is that, no, it isn't crazy to obsess about your measuring tools if you value that level of precision in your work and your work requires it. If you don't, you can get by with just about anything, including a stick with a mark on it.

[daniel lane]

As I am building more case goods now, I find myself becoming more concerned about getting things really flat, and really, really square. Having spent most of my time making Windsor Chairs, where almost nothing is flat or square, I am now obsessing over my straight edges and squares that aren't.

Is this normal, or am I going crazy?


Bob,

You aren't alone. Aside from the thorough discussion above, I thought I'd mention that the more I get into the neander/hand tool mindset, the more I chase flat and square. I've been fighting it be forcing myself to consider "good enough", but it still gets to me and I chase it more often than I'd like. Anyway, I think you're normal. :)


daniel

[Paul Incognito]

As I am building more case goods now, I find myself becoming more concerned about getting things really flat, and really, really square. Having spent most of my time making Windsor Chairs, where almost nothing is flat or square, I am now obsessing over my straight edges and squares that aren't.

Is this normal, or am I going crazy?

Bob,
In my opinion, chasing square and flat is a good thing, especially for someone new to casework. Try to get as close to square and flat as you can, and as it becomes more of a second nature thing, you'll get more of a feel for how to do it efficiently. And along the way you'll gain the experience to know when you're close enough to flat or square to assemble your piece. Make sense?
Hope this helps,
Paul

[Bob Glenn]

Hey, guys, thanks for all the conversation. About ten years ago, when I first bought Dunbar's book, "How to make a Windsor Chair", I thought this was the holy grail of woodworking. I read the book cover to cover at least three times in as many years, thinking I could never make a Windsor Chair. Then one day I went out in the shop, grabbed a draw knife and a piece of oak and tried to carve a spindle. Five spindles later, I had one that I thought was pretty good. Then I just had make 12 more just like it. And so it went, one piece at a time. Eight months later I had a Windsor Chair.

I acquired Glen Huey's book "Building 18th Century American Furniture" at the Colonial Williamsburg woodworking seminar a few years ago and have already built the gate leg drop leaf table, and it turned out wonderfully. There I realized any degree off square on the aprons between the legs would be magnified by the length of legs. It is now my intent to build the New England desk and secretary, an absolutely stunning piece. There are 209 individual pieces in that secretary. So, as I often tell myself, just make one piece at a time. Let's see, if I just make one piece a day, I'll have it done in less than a year!