Dovetail Survey - Real Ones

[David Weaver]

I said something a while ago about taking pictures of some of the dovetails on my parents' furniture to counter the idea that many dovetails are sloppier than what beginners make. So, here's some pictures.

You can tell that most of these were done at speed (of course, they were a commodity item), but there are things that beginners could take from the in proportions, and especially in drawer thickness (none of these are fat 3/4" thick drawer sides) and wood selection (well from some of them - at least a couple are quartered, but others are not).

Some of this furniture was in the house when I was growing up, but some wasn't - a lot of our furniture came from a relative who had a furniture store, so we had a lot of bland pennsylvania house branded type stuff that was made of solid wood, but very boring rounded over queen anne style stuff.

I don't get into furniture, so I don't know which if these things qualify as candle stands or end tables or side tables or whatever else.

301414

One of the tails is broken here. The stand these are in looks like this:

301415

And another small stand in another room (check out the repair on the front):

301416301417

[David Weaver]

301418

These are on a small night stand in their upstairs. I thought this was interesting because they look like they broke at one time or were mismatched, and were filled with some sort of filled glue, and now they've failed again. This is on the opposite side from what you'd see when you sleep, who knows how long they've been like this. Parents were not aware that they were broken (I didn't look at the other side, it might've told a story about whether or not the sides are original to the drawer. There are a lot of people who flip antiques where I grew up, the repair could've been done by someone trying to make a few dollars. Otherwise, I don't know who would've thought it was acceptable)

Another side table (call it a light and phone stand these days)

301421301420

Those look pretty decent.

[David Weaver]

And a dovetails from a couple of chests. I don't know where my parents got all of the chests they have, but they have gobs of chests like these and a TON of old finger jointed crates with store lingo on them. These also look pretty tight

301422

And while I was out, scouting antique shops for planes that could be pitched to harvest their irons, I took a couple of pictures (could've or should've taken a lot more). These two chests were stacked on top of each other. The one on the top was totally beaten, but it appears at least that early on, the dovetails were all made pretty tight, and in nice proportion.

301423301424

And one more random picture of a bottom drawer on another blanket chest my parents have - sorry for the blur - the house is old and fairly dark, and it's not easy to get pictures with the phone. I thought the method at the bottom of this drawer was interesting, it doesn't just terminate at the bottom like most half blinds.

301425

Most of the stuff is not particularly old, at least not for the area. The chests may be, who knows... Some of the antique stores have REALLY old stuff (new oxford, pa, or near there) including work benches from time to time (being sold as decor), but a lot of it is really beat.

I did not cull any nasty looking dovetails to find these, with the exception of one really beat chest that looked like it was probably never intended to be a nice chest in the first place (and that was in an antique store).

[Pat Barry]

Its kinda interesting. Would be more interesting to know if this was high end or utilitarian furniture. One thing is for certain is that whoever did these didn't spend a lot of time getting advice from this website. For example, his dovetail angles are all over the place. That and the spacings and placements of the tails are all over the place.

[David Weaver]

Some of these dovetails are ugly, and some are not. I would rather look at things like these than perfectly laid out dovetails ala cosman (just my opinion), they make the furniture a lot more interesting and it's no contest which type I'd rather cut (fiddling with marking gauges and marking lines everywhere vs. just cutting the tails by eye?).

If you have some older stuff that is more commodity or middle class type stuff like these, I'd love to see the pictures.

No M&T failures in any of this furniture, and a lot of what my parents have is pegged M&T, even though some of it's not that old. I guess that probably helps in manufacturing the small tables in a skilled or semi-skilled shop.

I did not take a picture of any of their really cheap stuff, the old cheap stuff has nailed drawers.

[Steve Baumgartner]

Its kinda interesting. Would be more interesting to know if this was high end or utilitarian furniture. One thing is for certain is that whoever did these didn't spend a lot of time getting advice from this website. For example, his dovetail angles are all over the place. That and the spacings and placements of the tails are all over the place.
Which, I think, was David's point :) That plus the fact that despite these cosmetic flaws, the fit is mainly tight, meaning that the worker could have made evenly shaped and spaced tails if he thought it was worth the effort.

[David Weaver]

For example, his dovetail angles are all over the place. That and the spacings and placements of the tails are all over the place.

I think it's middle of the range or may be high middle for its time (since there probably wasn't much of a middle class), but not similar to the stuff that is ogled over and sold in galleries. I'm sure all of this stuff came from flea markets and lower end antique dealers and furniture flippersaround where I grew up.

Some things go wrong when doing that. This walnut two-piece came from a local dealer, and for not much money. Someone has completely refinished it, and I would guess probably sanded off all of the lines of character that it had on it.

301426

[Sean Hughto]

Rules are for chumps. Generalizations are not absolute. We don't know if it's good until it exists and we see it.

Functional, attractive dovetails come in lots of varieties. Neat, sloppy, planned, cut on the fly, a variety of spacings, narrow or wide pinned, etc. There is nothing more "real" about these than contemporary handcut dovetails.

[David Weaver]

Rules are for chumps. Generalizations are not absolute. We don't know if it's good until it exists and we see it.

Functional, attractive dovetails come in lots of varieties. Neat, sloppy, planned, cut on the fly, a variety of spacings, narrow or wide pinned, etc. There is nothing more "real" about these than contemporary handcut dovetails.

Lighten up, Francis, I just used the term because it gives us an actual idea of what the dovetails were before instructional videos and without opinions from some that all old dovetails were really sloppy. Some were, I'm sure I could've looked around the antique shop and found some ugly ones with damage or misfits. The workaday "real" ones like these were not so sloppy.

You get to make yours however you like without any interference from me, though. Your dime and your time, you make them however you like. My favorites are still the ones that are out of view unless a drawer or something is temporarily open. While the large chests look fairly nice and it's interesting to see that they did a pretty nice job fitting the dovetails on commodity furniture, I'd still rather not see nails or dovetails at all. Commodity chests aren't going to have a hidden mitered dovetail, though.

[David Turner]

I build period furniture and cut all my dovetails by hand. I purposely space the tails/pins at different intervals to display that they are cut by hand and not by fixture. On occasion I will even nick the drawer face or over-cut the tails to depict the cut by hand construction. Although I don't change the angle of the dovetails, I do not worry too much about small gaps.

David Turner
Plymouth, MI.

[David Weaver]

Which, I think, was David's point :) That plus the fact that despite these cosmetic flaws, the fit is mainly tight, meaning that the worker could have made evenly shaped and spaced tails if he thought it was worth the effort.

Exactly. And there's an element of humanity and life left with these that is more pleasing to the eye. Measured and marked attempts at perfection leaves a cold and lifeless looking drawer side (to me).

[Sean Hughto]

I assure you I'm "light." :p

I highly value the "imperfections" of hand work. I personally believe they tend to give pieces soul. They let the hand of the maker come through.

I don't fetishize the old ways however, especially when they seem sloppy, are not optimal, or compromise integrity. Like when Shwarz made that table and attached the top in the "traditional" way which ensured that it would split, when attaching it in a way farmer Bill was ignorant of would have been perfectly easy and made it look just the same, but for the split.

[Brian Holcombe]

Interesting stuff. My great grandparents had similar stuff after they became established in the 40's and could afford some good furniture.

To me it looked like it came from a shop that must have done a huge variety of classical styles, focused on making the finished parts very well and with utilitarian underpinnings. Good, but not luxury.

IMO, I would think a shop creating luxury period furniture would be incredibly specific about the details and would probably be able to afford more time spend in layout. Similar to studio furniture at current.

[David Weaver]

Yeah, I don't necessarily get attached to the "old ways" either. The point if these has more to do with them being workaday type than the old days. For all I know, a couple of these could've been built in the 1900s, and they are nowhere close to the oldest stuff you find in shops in PA and northern or eastern shore Maryland.

I'm sort of partial to the "old ways" on wooden planes, but not the oldest, either. I bird dog early 19th century planes because I think they're the best made. I would not make anything that I expected to fail, but in that case, the customer is buying something other than woodworking (it's bloggertainment or whatever you call it. It's sort of a Tru TV version of woodworking). I suspect if David Turner did a show of building stuff, it wouldn't be quite so much pine and milk paint and clumsiness.

There used to be discussions on wood central maybe, where several people would argue about just how sloppy older work was. I can't remember who fell on what angle, but it went from slight cosmetic imperfections (like these) to practically falling apart with gigantic overcuts. I'm not that interested in furniture, and thus never had a dog in the fight other than that I wouldn't intentionally make sloppy joints for an aesthetic.

I would assume that the legs on these pieces of furniture are turned on a duplicator machine, and if not, by someone who is cutting gobs of the same leg and has learned to do them like a duplicator.

Far different type stuff than the bombe chests or boston/philly's best efforts.

[David Weaver]

Interesting stuff. My great grandparents had similar stuff after they became established in the 40's and could afford some good furniture.

To me it looked like it came from a shop that must have done a huge variety of classical styles, focused on making the finished parts very well and with utilitarian underpinnings. Good, but not luxury.

IMO, I would think a shop creating luxury period furniture would be incredibly specific about the details and would probably be able to afford more time spend in layout. Similar to studio furniture at current.

Mine also commissioned some modern stuff from a local maker (all made by the same guy) and it looked a bit modern to me -they got it around the same time. It was very carefully made, but had a lot more evidence of machine tool (doors that had a very rounded over profile on them and that were not overlay doors but not flush fit, either. It was nice furniture, very tight, but a bit plain and modernized for me. That said, it locally brought a bunch of money - several thousand dollars for each piece, even thought I doubt it would elsewhere).

[Brian Holcombe]

Interesting, any recollection of who the maker was?

[David Weaver]

Interesting, any recollection of who the maker was?

No, but he was one of many around us. My parents might recall (i'll ask them), but it is stuff I think that wouldn't interest us much - looks more like modern factory furniture, just neatly made and sized to whatever you need. Their furniture was all cherry, which is common around where I grew up for later furniture, and has the overpowering dark reddish brown "cherry" stain on it.

I think the appeal other than the tidiness was that the maker was not cheap, and not amish or mennonite, but he made clean furniture that middle class folks could afford a piece or two of. Everyone around us of any age had a grandfather clock, too. Nothing spectacular (relatively plain looking casework), but they could tell you the aspects of the movements in the clock because they were hand made and cost what to them was a great deal of money - probably the equivalent of $5000 or so now.

My grandparents were of the type who lived through the depression, and people seemed to either go one way or another where one way was to keep everything they ever came across, or the other was to have a few reasonably nice things, but nothing flashy and not waste money on things they didn't need (the fear of running out of money is ever present in every discussion). My grandparents were of the second type. My parents are of the first, but they will barter junk if someone else wants something of little monetary value. They have trouble throwing things away, though - not like hoarders shows with old bags of garbage or food or anything, but anything else is fair game to keep or find a place for.

[John Coloccia]

Lighten up, Francis, I just used the term because it gives us an actual idea of what the dovetails were before instructional videos and without opinions from some that all old dovetails were really sloppy

On antique fine furniture, much as it is on modern fine furniture, the dovetails and other joinery were more or less perfect. I have no problem with imperfection. The great guitar builder, William Cumpiano, refers to it as being able to see the hand of the maker. He never meant it to mean that sloppiness was OK, or somehow desirable. It's just that everything doesn't need to be perfect, even though that's what you strive for. Honestly, I've seen plenty of sloppy machine cut dovetails as well, obviously due to rushing the setup, lack of skill, or maybe just plain laziness, so I don't think much has changed concerning different levels of craftsmanship and price points. I find it very irritating when I see sloppiness when you know the guy could have done much better, but really just didn't care. I just feel like, "I did my best work to earn the money to pay you. Why didn't you do your best work to earn it from me?"

But I happen to think that Cosman's videos, in particular, are great. He's a fine craftsman, but a really world class teacher, I think.

[Chris Hachet]

I think it's middle of the range or may be high middle for its time, but not similar to the stuff that is ogled over and sold in galleries. I'm sure all of this stuff came from flea markets and lower end antique dealers and furniture flippersaround where I grew up.

Some things go wrong when doing that. This walnut two-piece came from a local dealer, and for not much money. Someone has completely refinished it, and I would guess probably sanded off all of the lines of character that it had on it.

301426

Proportion could really be better on this piece. And it would not be the first p[iece of furniture messed up by gobs of sanding.

[David Weaver]

But I happen to think that Cosman's videos, in particular, are great.

He is, and a lot of people have learned to cut really tight dovetails. I just don't like the thick drawer side look, and I've noticed that once people hammer down his methods, some of them really go bananas with the dovetails, making a lot of really plain stuff with through mortises and extremely carefully laid out dovetails but with fat drawer sides. It sort of types the work right away.

Who knows, maybe people will look at that in 100 years and find it favorable?

I agree on the guitars. Some of the older guitars don't look like they were done perfectly, and there is an assumption that they were always better than new. Some of the new boutique made stuff is so tight these days that it's just about at perfection. The only time I've gotten a guitar of any price that had some flaws in it (that were cosmetic, but by no means offended me) was buying a Golden Eagle from Heritage about 10 years ago. Those guys were from the old days, maybe that's why.

it cost me a lot of money when I sold the guitar, though. I didn't have the heart to send it back to them when I got it new, the issues were fairly minor, but not minor to other people I guess for a guitar that was inching toward $4k. If those same flaws had been on an older gibson, nobody would've said much. Expensive lesson!

The diminishing quality with name that you speak of made me learn eventually that it's probably better to buy from the guy who is trying to make a name for himself than it is to buy from the guy who already has made his. I'm happy to be over the guitar buying disorder. If I were to do it all over again, I'd go to a custom maker and order the plainest thing they made (dot inlays, no figured wood, etc) and tell them I'd pitch in a few extra bucks to get them to do their very best work despite the guitar being very plain.

[David Weaver]

Proportion could really be better on this piece. And it would not be the first p[iece of furniture messed up by gobs of sanding.

Yeah, it's very chubby. There is a gigantic walnut table in the room with it that is also very chubby, though, too. Their fatness goes together (it has also been refinished).

[Joe Tilson]

It looks to me like we should have learned a lesson or two from all of this, but in many cases we have not(looking at some of the work today). Speed seems to be the norm of today, and just build it good enough to get it out of warranty. Quality of workmanship, like quality of planes sort of went away prior to World War II. Now this is not to say people hear do not do good work, excellent is the word I would use for the work seen on the creek. I agree with Sean, mistakes give our work some flavor and style. It just proves we are not perfect and can slip once in a while.

[Bill Rhodus]

Several years ago Roy Underhill had a show on cutting dovetails and the one thing I took from it was the manner in which he was cutting his dovetails. No layout tools were used other than marking the baseline of the dovetails. All angles and spacing was by eye. I began to use this technique on many of the things I build and find that it greatly speeds up the process. When doing this there is no doubt that the dovetails are hand cut and your sense or proportion, or lack thereof are on display.

[Daniel Rode]

For me, dovetails can be purely functional as or they can be a design element. For shop quality items, I'm going to make them strong but the layout will be efficient and I'm not going to worry about a couple of gaps. Same for dovetails on furniture that won't be seen. However if they are going to show, including drawer fronts, I'm going to spend some time on the layout and I'm going to put maximum effort into getting them neatly cut and tight fitting.

Most people don't know a hand cut dovetail from a doughnut, so I'm going to attempt to make what I like. I may be the only person who ever cares about it.

I'll echo Joe's sentiments. The work shown here is far, far above the norm. IMO, the work shown in this forum ranges from well made to world class. Where else can you find a detailed debate about dovetails.

[Jim Matthews]

Dovetails are design elements until you've got to make
twenty drawers - then they're functional.

I'm going to try the utilitarian approach of the interlocking
rabbet joint. That should be easy enough to cut by hand
with the tools I already own.

I'm looking over some of the photos in the OP and it
appears that some of the drawer fronts were "blown out"
by being forced shut, with no stop to keep the drawer
front clear. That's the weak spot of the lock rabbet, too.

[David Weaver]

I have a lock rabbet in the kitchen drawers (in my house - the cabinets are probably circa 1970). They are pinned then on top of the lock rabbet. When I have had to repair a few sides, I've found the pins are the only thing holding them.

I don't have a problem with that, it was easy enough to make replacement sides for the drawer fronts, and I'd rather have drawers that can be repaired than almost indestructible joints that can't.

[Derek Cohen]

When I build something, I strive to do the best I can. If I make a mistake, I will correct it as best as I can. Sometimes this is difficult to spot, other times I have to decide whether I can live with it, or whether it must be redone. My work is not perfect. I do not expect it to be.

Trying to make something look "hand made" when using hand tools is a tautology. My work is hand made, supplemented with machines. I do not make deliberate mistakes to send a message to others that it was made by hand and not a machine. I consider it farcical that someone will deliberately make a sloppy joint - dovetail or otherwise - or add blemishes just to convey a message about construction. The only message that it conveys to me is that the individual either lacks pride in their work or is dishonest.

I am not sure I know what David is trying to say by posting the pictures of sloppy dovetails - that is is OK to make sloppy dovetails because the furniture makers used to do so 100 years ago? I am not pretending to be an olde world professional furniture maker attempting to churn out second-rate drawers. I am a modern amateur furniture maker that has the time and takes pride in making something as perfectly as I can. No, I am not suggesting that one should only accept perfect dovetails. I am not trying to glorify dovetails - they are just one part of a build - all parts of a build should be treated the same, that is, do the best you can.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

Both sets of my great grandparents seemed to go to the direction of good furnishings but sparing in their use and never really doing much in the way of excess.

If you could build it, you built it, otherwise you bought as best you could afford so as to get many years of use. A common sentiment of the era, IMO.

[David Weaver]

When I build something, I strive to do the best I can. If I make a mistake, I will correct it as best as I can. Sometimes this is difficult to spot, other times I have to decide whether I can live with it, or whether it must be redone. My work is not perfect. I do not expect it to be.

Trying to make something look "hand made" when using hand tools is a tautology. My work is hand made, supplemented with machines. I do not make deliberate mistakes to send a message to others that it was made by hand and not a machine. I consider it farcical that someone will deliberately make a sloppy joint - dovetail or otherwise - or add blemishes just to convey a message about construction. The only message that it conveys to me is that the individual either lacks pride in their work or is dishonest.

I am not sure I know what David is trying to say by posting the pictures of sloppy dovetails - that is is OK to make sloppy dovetails because the furniture makers used to do so 100 years ago? I am not pretending to be an olde world professional furniture maker attempting to churn out second-rate drawers. I am a modern amateur furniture maker that has the time and takes pride in making something as perfectly as I can. No, I am not suggesting that one should only accept perfect dovetails. I am not trying to glorify dovetails - they are just one part of a build - all parts of a build should be treated the same, that is, do the best you can.

Regards from Perth

Derek

My original point was more along the lines of I don't think that most commodity dovetails were that sloppy with gaping holes or wonky stuff. The wonks in these appear to be breakage or wear, but most of them look pretty handsome to me for a joint that is expected to stay hidden.

I don't do overcuts in my dovetails and such, either. I strive for a little less perfection in measuring than you, but again, mine stay hidden - mostly just drawers or in a couple of cases...cases that have wrapped moulding, so the HBDT at the top and through dovetails at the bottom won't be seen. I also don't go quite for the english pins (the tiny ones) but I don't see anything wrong with them).

My point is that reality in this era of commodity furniture seems to be what I'd call handsome dovetails, especially those intended to show on the sides of chests, and not slop, but also not someone sitting around with dividers charting out OCD level layout. In my opinion, these types are more attractive than perfectly laid out, but that's my opinion. Garish mistakes, open holes and bad fitting joints, even on perfectly laid out (or not so perfectly laid out) dovetails however, I have no taste for that. I guess in the world of the old perfect vs. sloppy, I choose in the middle somewhere but the aspects that you have latitude on are particular things. layout doesn't have to be perfect, but execution should be tidy and handsome.

Everyone gets to decide what they want to do, though, it's not my business to do anything other than dig up pictures of actual "old stuff" that isn't intended for royalty, but is also not just nailed together shoddy. Visually, I FAR prefer these types of dovetails shown to 30 drawers pulled open with identical looking dovetails that appear to come from a cosman video and have 3/4 inch thick side stock. Again, that's opinion.

I'd disagree, though, that most of the dovetails I showed are "sloppy". I'd call it much more visually interesting than the measured and marked type that are popular now. Plus, they are better hidden - I've said that about half a dozen times already in this set of pictures.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi David

My reaction was not entirely to your illustrations, but also to some of the posts in the thread, as well as the memory of posts on other forums that appear to glorify the rough-and-ready look as being more representative of the olde world furniture makers. Chris Schwarz once linked to a fellow who has collected thousands of photos of dovetailed drawers, many of them that looked like they have been gnawed by beavers. What was the message here?

I have no doubt that there is a whole world of drawers that were made with gappy dovetails, and the buyers did not care. But that does not interest me. I would rather emulate a high end maker if I must set out a model to follow. This does not mean that the result should be uniform and mechanistic. It simply means that the standard of the work is to be as high as I can take it.

Design is another matter. Don't equate making with design. Like you, I find more interest in something that adds character. With dovetails, this means creating the profile for the situation - large, small, irregular, regular, spaced, etc. Jim Krenov used this to great effect. All I am trying to say is that character comes from thoughtful design, not sloppy work.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mel Fulks]

I've seen some on old work that looked rougher than what most modern beginners would accept in their own work. But
not a lot of them. They always get a close look on a possible purchase to see if they are sloppy "restoration". Concluded that most were original. Especially if they ALL look the same and the wood looks the same as other wood in same piece.
It's usually on something that is of a modest utilitarian nature. If the rest of the work looks a little better than the dovetails I assume an apprentice cut them....or someone from temp agency.

[Justin Green]

I follow Derek's philosophy. I'd rather make something as high a quality as I am able (which isn't saying much at this time for me).

I do use a divider and bevel gauge to layout my dovetails, because at my novice skill level, my dovetails done by eye alone look off and it bugs me. There are enough variations (and gaps :eek:) in my dovetails after paring for fit that I can tell it isn't machine made, lol.

My mother deals in antiques, as my grandmother did. Most of the pieces are old enough to eliminate any possibility of the dovetails being machine made, and may of them are done really well. Some have evidence of layout lines, gaps here or there. Most are mid tier or lower pieces, not extremely fine furniture. I don't have pictures, but only on one piece out of about 20 pieces of furniture did I actually see the dovetails and think, "man, that guy was inebriated when he cut those".

[Chris Hachet]

I follow Derek's philosophy. I'd rather make something as high a quality as I am able (which isn't saying much at this time for me).

I do use a divider and bevel gauge to layout my dovetails, because at my novice skill level, my dovetails done by eye alone look off and it bugs me. There are enough variations (and gaps :eek:) in my dovetails after paring for fit that I can tell it isn't machine made, lol.

My mother deals in antiques, as my grandmother did. Most of the pieces are old enough to eliminate any possibility of the dovetails being machine made, and may of them are done really well. Some have evidence of layout lines, gaps here or there. Most are mid tier or lower pieces, not extremely fine furniture. I don't have pictures, but only on one piece out of about 20 pieces of furniture did I actually see the dovetails and think, "man, that guy was inebriated when he cut those".


I own an actual Queen anne lowboy from the 18th century. Very welll built, but the dovetails leave a bit to be desired. Rest of the piece is nice, however.

[Frank Drew]

I agree with Derek: Do your best work within whatever constraints you're working under (skill level, budget, etc.), but don't worry that you might make things so perfect that someone might think a machine did the work -- I'd be very surprised if I couldn't tell machine- from hand-made dovetails, or machine-carved details from hand-done.

[David Weaver]

Interesting, any recollection of who the maker was?

Levi Ogburn in Two Taverns, PA - he apparently made the grandfather clock, too. I could've been wrong, that sure sounds like an amish name, or former amish. Lots of former amish in the area. I would imagine if the furniture brought money, it would've been in the very immediate area. Two Taverns is not something you'd recognize as a town if you drove through it.

[Art Mann]

Suffice it to say that not everyone thinks that sloppy and poorly executed dovetails from old or new furniture add any particular character or beauty to the piece. Perhaps it is just the engineer in me but I like precision.

[Jim Matthews]

I have a lock rabbet in the kitchen drawers (in my house - the cabinets are probably circa 1970). They are pinned then on top of the lock rabbet. When I have had to repair a few sides, I've found the pins are the only thing holding them.

I don't have a problem with that, it was easy enough to make replacement sides for the drawer fronts, and I'd rather have drawers that can be repaired than almost indestructible joints that can't.

That's the application, a kitchen remodel.
Eleven drawers that will get overlays.

That's more dovetails than I want to cut.

[Pat Barry]

That's the application, a kitchen remodel.
Eleven drawers that will get overlays.

That's more dovetails than I want to cut.
I'd really be interested in how you tackle that project Jim. I hope you can post some pics and tell us about the project as you get going.

[Ryan Baker]

Anybody who made a living by churning out dovetails in volume all day every day would be able to churn out dovetails of reasonable quality just as fast as ugly, sloppy ones or they wouldn't be working there very long. It just doesn't make sense that they would intentionally produce ugly joints "to save time" or for lower cost furniture. (If you want cheap and easy, butt joint and nail it together.) I would expect that most commodity furniture at that time was indeed very similar to what David showed. I would expect also that most of that furniture was sold to folks in the upper middle class or higher, and it is unlikely that they would accept furniture with ugly, sloppy joints. Certainly there were plenty of examples of ugly joints, but most of those were probably made by less skilled workers.

Having to pump out these joints in volume to make a living also leads to a certain degree of "good enough" woodworking. The joints needed to be acceptably good (most customers don't care that much as long as it isn't sloppy), but didn't merit the extra care of producing really high-quality joints. Nothing wrong with that at all. Most of us do this for a hobby, not to churn out parts to make a living. That gives us the luxury of taking as much time and care as we desire to produce the type of joints we desire. I suppose it's all good as long as the pictures of other peoples' really sloppy joints aren't being used to justify one's own poor quality work.

David -- I don't understand your comment about Cosman's "thick" drawer sides look. From what I have seen of his drawer making, he uses sides that are 3/8-7/16 thick on a furniture size drawer. I wouldn't call that thick at that scale. He does use thicker fronts and backs, so maybe that is what you are referring to.

[David Weaver]

David -- I don't understand your comment about Cosman's "thick" drawer sides look. From what I have seen of his drawer making, he uses sides that are 3/8-7/16 thick on a furniture size drawer. I wouldn't call that thick at that scale. He does use thicker fronts and backs, so maybe that is what you are referring to.

You're likely right. I could be getting pictures of dovetails people made after watching his videos mixed up with the dovetails he's made.