which cut should i use to join these 2 faceframes

[Bob Cooper]

Im designing a bath vanity made up of 3 faceframe cabinets. So i'm thinking about the best way to have the faceframes come together. First time I've needed to put in a cabinet at an angle and i'm curious if there's a big advantage in one angle choice over the other. Angle 1 seems easier to cut but i'm curious if it may show errors more. Any thoughts? BTW the blue lines are the cabinet sides, the gray is the base and the red (and light blue) are the face frames. This is a plan view 260761

[Sam Murdoch]

If the pieces are all the same thickness you would find it easier and cleaner to bisect the angles. The miter needed will be smaller and adding a spline or Domino or Biscuit will make for an easy joint - or do the miter fold with glue and tape. That is very strong and simple too. All these made easier by the fact that each piece at each corner will have the same angle of bevel.

[Jeff Duncan]

I always go for the miter joint, I find when I try it that way you have in figure 1 it always causes headaches. Ideally in a situation like this I'd want to do this as a single glued up frame and as Sam mentioned miter fold them. If you have to install them separately then I'd think about using a spline to align them.

good luck,
JeffD

[Mark Bolton]

We use your option #1 with a filler installed on the carcass flushing it to the outer edge of the face frame. It allows you to drill a face frame screw right behind the mitered face frame. Ive found doing it this way is much easier when installing the boxes because an equal miter will absolutely shift every time when drawing the two boxes together. The only way to combat this is the biscuit/spline option and that introduces issues of its own and doesnt guarantee a perfect inside/outside in the field.

The only time option 1 is an issue is if for some reason you need that long/short point miter to be exactly where it "should" be. Making your boxes as in option 1 will slightly shorten/lengthen the depth of that angled box.

Link - https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-BzHuWBBqcng/UXgiQqWKyFI/AAAAAAAABXU/-J4UMPUr5Pw/w854-h428-p-o/corner.jpg

Basically identical to your drawing with the addition of the small filler.

[Larry Edgerton]

#2. Causes me no problems with alignment? As Sam an Jeff have said, make both sides out of the same piece so it appears to be one piece of wood.

[Peter Quinn]

Id go with option z....slight redesign. I'd make the middle cabinet slightly deeper than the left and right boxes, I'd use a tape miter to run the FF straight back towards the wall on both sides of the center box about 1 1/2 ", run a dado into these to accept a tongue on the end of the Ff's coming in from left and right, done. Goes together seemlessly in the field as a 3 piece install, breaks up the odd Z configuration. If I could do a single large box I'd go that way but it might take one big door to get such a thing in, plus its harder to scribe to each wall at the same time.

[Mark Bolton]

I guess the bulk of this depends a bit I whether these boxes/joints are shop or field assembled. For me, drawing an equal miter together in the field with a face frame screw and clamps has always been cumbersome.

Again no idea of the op's finish, install, etc.

The little drawing I posted has always allowed me to drill a clearance hole and clamp two square faces. If a face frame has to be sprung slightly to get it dead tight and flush its no juggling act.

If I were putting this together in the shop it would be different.

With regards to a single board appearance that possible either way but yes, with option 1 you lose a bit for the miter but if you cut that stile a touch long you can shift it to match up the grain. Who knows if this is paint, buget, or what. Same with site/shop assembled.