Raised panel question

[Scott Stewart]

I am thinking about trying to make a couple of raised panels by hand on my next project. I envision them to have a simple tongue all the way around the panel to fit nicely into the groove and then a simple bevel around the main field.

Like this, but with a flat tongue around the edge...

http://www.leevalley.com/en/newsletters/Woodworking/5/1/article1.htm

In this example the bevel goes all the way to the edge. Doesn't this make for an overly tight or loose fit with seasonal movement?

How would/do you guys make these type of panels?

Thanks

Scott

[Sean Hughto]

I'd make it like this: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/furniture/Making%20a%20frame%20and%20panel%20door.html (with hearty thanks to Derek- hat tip, sir, for your generous hosting of this little thread from history).

[Chris Griggs]

That's a great tutorial! I've referenced it a number of times in the past. Really nice work on that Sean, et al.

Last time I raised a panel with a tongue I did the order a little different though and it worked better for me. For whatever reason, I find it easier to first cut the bevel, making it so the outside edge comes down to what the final thickness of the tongue will be, and then take a rabbet plane and cut the tongue. When you start your rabbet for the tongue you are initially only taking material from the inside corner of the plane (where the bevel is higher/thicker), and since you have no flat surface to reference the sole of the plane on you need to pay attention to using the fence to keep the plane plumb until you establish the rabbet, but for me, it was a lot easier that way. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Sean Hughto]

As I said in the article, I don't contend my way is best at all, and indeed welcomed insights for ways to improve my process. Question though: doesn't you way leave a step at the tongue/bevel intersection?

[Warren Mickley]

The traditional way of making raised panels is to have a slope all the way to the very edge. It has worked out well for three hundred years. In construction practice one has to adjust the bevel either on the front or back to fit into the groove. I think the machine method with a small flat around the edge was developed to avoid the step of having to fit the panel in the frame, not to address any moisture change problems.

The panel on the Lee Valley site that you reference has an extremely steep bevel. In most old work the bevel is a bit flatter, which would be better for expansion and contraction.

[Sean Hughto]

I've always wondered about this, Warren. On any panel of appreciable size, how could the panel fail to rattle or have gaps on the verticals seasonally whent he bevel goes all the way to the edge? I suppose it may be like breadboard ends, that changes happen, but in use are just accepted as part of the personality of the piece? I know this is the traditional way, buthave never tried it because I couldn't figure out the answer to this question so as to risk it - easier to just cut a tongue. I also worried that maybe the old way was just quicker and not necessarily better.

[Sean Hughto]

Also, traditional panel raisers often form a tongue:
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3076/2801245977_c05e2a5568_z.jpg?zz=1

[David Weaver]

I don't think the original ones usually do (it would limit your ability to make different size widths). I've only seen a couple of vintage in person (and had a big john bell panel raiser at one point) and none of them do. A search of google images seems to confirm that very few of the old ones, do, though many or most have a nicker.

That plane looks to have been made very recently.

[Chris Griggs]

As I said in the article, I don't contend my way is best at all, and indeed welcomed insights for ways to improve my process. Question though: doesn't you way leave a step at the tongue/bevel intersection?

Indeed. It does leave a step. I think it was small enough that I just left it. Honestly, it might be a piss poor way of doing it...it was just something I tried last time, that worked for well for me in that instance, and was quick and easy.

I actually usually do them the way Warren says...I don't remember why I added a tongue the time...I think there was some specific reason though. I didn't realize without the tongue was the traditional way of doing it. Like you said Sean, panel raisers I've seen leave a tongue so I guess I assumed traditionally they would be done either way.

Is that you panel raiser Sean or just a web image? That this looks sweet!

[Sean Hughto]

David, I'm no panel raiser expert. I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that Robbins made this one (end of the 20th Century model ;-)) in the style of the best old ones, i.e., with a skewed blade and tongue as part of the profile.

[Sean Hughto]

It's mine. Leon Robbins.

[Chris Griggs]

Question though: doesn't you way leave a step at the tongue/bevel intersection?

Okay, I found a pick. I just remembered I posted it to that bench thread...

Yes it leaves a a step.

285828

I'm remembering...when I first realized that the method I had chosen was leaving the step, I planned to go back with a shoulder plane to bring it down...which just defeats that purpose of doing it this way, and makes it harder than doing it in the other order to begin with.

...so I assembled the panel to see what it looked like with the step there, and it really just became part of the shadow line, so I left it.

Definitely not suggesting this is the right way, better way, or even a good way...but it worked well for me in this instance, so I'll put there as one possible option.

[Chris Griggs]

It's mine. Leon Robbins.

Lucky dog! Sweet plane!

[David Weaver]

David, I'm no panel raiser expert. I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that Robbins made this one (end of the 20th Century model ;-)) in the style of the best old ones, i.e., with a skewed blade and tongue as part of the profile.

I don't know who Robbins is, but I'd imagine he made that panel raiser to imitate modern panels so that people wouldn't be put off that the panels didn't look the same as routered panels.

I should have pictures of my old Bell panel raiser, but I don't. It was like a big handled moving fillister with a nicker on the front. I still have a badger plane (same as the panel rasier, but without nicker and step on the side that faces the panel), and would assume a lot of panels were raised either with a badger plane or with a standard bench plane.

(and just to prove i'm not snobbing old vs. new in this discussion, Freud has cut all of the raised panels on my kitchen cabinets thus far)

[Mel Fulks]

They do shrink .But a lot of the old architectural stuff was big scale, big detail and thick lead paint covered a lot .And they liked the paint to have brush marks,so that was a distraction. Shirley plantation is one of my favorites, and I visited there
several times before noticing the big cracks around some of the panels.

[Dave Anderson NH]

That's a name I haven't heard in a long time Sean. I have 3 tools made by Leon before he sold Crown Plane. I have 2 different types of compass planes and a travisher. All 3 work very well and are some of my favorite tools. did you buy the panel raiser from him direct or through Garrett Wade?

[Sean Hughto]

It came to me second hand, Dave. Leon did great work. I think of all of my tools as users, but several of them are nearly art too in one way or another, and this panel raiser, may be at the top of that list.

[Warren Mickley]

The reason the old panels do not "rattle around" is that they are held firmly in the upper and lower grooves. There is very little expansion and contraction in the vertical direction of the panel so one can make the top and bottom joints rather tight.

[Sean Hughto]

So flat sawn panels - I mean most are not quartersawn, right - won't move in length, of course, but they do breath in thickness, right? Anyway, my real question is whether bevels are somehow objectively better than tongues, or just less work?

[Chris Griggs]

objectively better than tongues, or just less work?

Less work is objectively better. :)

[Warren Mickley]

So flat sawn panels - I mean most are not quartersawn, right - won't move in length, of course, but they do breath in thickness, right? Anyway, my real question is whether bevels are somehow objectively better than tongues, or just less work?

If a table with breadboard ends moves 1/4 inch seasonally in width, it is noticeable. The equivalent change on a 5/16 tongue is .0025 inches. If the panel is flat sawn it will change even less in thickness because the thickness is in the radial direction like quarter sawn. (Compared to a quarter sawn panel a flat sawn panel moves more in width, less in thickness.)

For a hand tool guy the straight bevels are easier. I think they look a little better because you don't see that little crease. For a machine tool guy who barely knows how to use a plane, the bevel with flats is easier, but as David says you are limited to the one width of raising.

[Sean Hughto]

I suppose I'm just a poor woodworker. With bevels, if you want them snug at top and bottom, you have to hit the correct thickness top and bottom at a single line of contact - a line where the panel is snug, but not too big so the rest of the joints will close. A tongue is a bit more forgiving for me. I suppose if working with a compressable species, there is some forgiveness in the bevel method too.

Here are those ugly doors with the creases:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2615/3894571163_58527a410f_b.jpg

[David Weaver]

ew. Creases!!

[Sean Hughto]

In some circumstances, perhaps. I should have been more precise: "Do bevels make the finished piece better in some way - more beautiful, more durable, more ...?"

[David Weaver]

I do like the fact that you chose not to include a step on those panels - fielding or whatever that step is called. Crisp bevels look much better, and the step just screams "hey...look, machine made"

[Mel Fulks]

I don't like seeing the flats around the perimeter either, and have always been careful to avoid it. But some people like it
and I have seen architects spec it. Unfortunately it is catching on, just part of post modern nuttiness. I often watch the
cspan history talks that are taped in universities and public large buildings ,often I notice those ill fitting panels. And they
are not budget buildings.

[David Weaver]

I don't like seeing the flats around the perimeter either,

Neither do I. I think that's probably the biggest danger, because when you cut the panels to spec with some of the modern tooling, those flats are left at spec size. If they show up so far on my kitchen cabinet (and fortunately none have been large), the only thing I can do about it is get them centered and then pin the panels with a tiny dowel in the back of the door.

But those are just kitchen cabinets, and I'm sure the next residents in the house will just take them out and put something more trendy in.

[Mel Fulks]

What we were taught to do is carefully size the panels and set the shaper so that the frames would ride up about 1/32
onto the slope, that also assured that the panel was not too tight and hard to put together. Most of the good painters then
would would kinda dry brush around edges to avoid gluing them it . So what we did ended up looking like the hand cut
taper.

[steven c newman]

Seems I made a few for a tool chest I built awhile back.

Cut a rebate all around the backside of the panels, using a Wards #78. Rebate is shallow, and only 1/4" wide. Maybe four passes per edge

Mine had a simple bevel, using just a smooth plane on the shorter panels, and a #5 on the longer sides.

used the vid by Paul Sellers to use a #4 to raise a panel. Works. On the longer panels, though, i just clamped them flat to the bench. 285852Doesn't take all that long, either. Now, IF you have an old "beater" plane, and grind a serious camber to it, one could cove the bevel as well. I liked mine flat. Seemed to fit the 3/8" x 3/8" groove inthe leg stock, too. 285854

[Scott Stewart]

I'm swimming in deep water for me here so I want to make sure my thinking on this is correct....

If I am using plain/flat sawn lumber for the panels, the major movement is going to be side to side.

Do those of you that use the beveled edges without a flat use a square groove, or do you do something to make the groove more parallel with the bevel edge? I know it's been done forever this way, but it seems to be asking for a poor fit when you know the panel is going to shrink and expand in the groove.

When gluing up, do you put a spot of glue top and bottom to keep the panel centered?

Thanks for the patience with my questions.

Scott

[Tom M King]

Of all the old paneled doors and such that I have taken apart, reproduced, and/or made replacement parts for, I've never seen anything but bevel to the edge, and straight sided grooves.

[Darrell LaRue]

I am thinking about trying to make a couple of raised panels by hand on my next project.
How would/do you guys make these type of panels?


Faced with the same problem, I followed the plans in a recent Pop WW magazine and built a panel raising plane.

see http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?214750-finished-my-panel-raising-plane

It isn't the best plane I've ever made, but it did the job. The panels have the tongue on the edges, and they fit the grooves perfectly. The doors are now waiting for their paint job whilst I am framing up the doorway.

Darrell
off to the Tool Group Of Canada meeting tomorrow, followed by the Tools of the Trade sale in Pickering on Sunday!

[Daniel Rode]

Now I'm a bit confused. The only raised panels I've made in the past have been with a router bit set that creates a flat tongue. I have a particular set of smallish doors (10" each) where the panel moves enough in the summer to close a 1/8" gap between the doors and cause them to stick. I made them in the winter and and didn't allow enough room for expansion so they move the frames more than 1/16" toward the center. There is at a minimum, 1/8" of movement across 17" of panels. I suspect they probably more closer to 1/8" across each 8 1/2" panel.

Here's where I'm getting stuck. With no flat tongue, the beveled portion would meet the groove at one specific point and have no room for expansion or contraction across the width. To my mind, the panel is either loose or the panel is pressing outward on the frame. Not much room for error. I can make it snug top to bottom so it won't rattle, but the width is going to be tough to size properly.

Is the width figured differently than a flat panel? Do you just leave more room and live with the expanding gaps in the winter?