Are parallel edges necessary?

[James Pallas]

When gluing up panels is it necessary to parallel all of the glued edges? When working with hand tools it would seem to be counter productive to rips all tapers instead of squaring the edge do the glue up and then square and parallel the whole panel. I have seen several pieces now that were done in this fashion.
Jim

[Brian Holcombe]

Not really, but I do like my glue lines to be on center or proportioned.

[Mel Fulks]

If it's not going to be painted I think they look better parallel. The modern eye is picky. Once an employer who had always been most complimentary of my panel matching ,told me they all looked great except for one,and pointed to one "joint".A
straight natural line and slight color change in a SINGLE BOARD. The very straightness of the line made him perceive a nonexisting joint. I think you have to look for flow more than flaws.

[Mike Allen1010]

Jim, yours is a good, practical neander question; if you rip with TS/ bandsaw, getting parallel edges prior to glue up is no big deal, but if you rip by handsaw could add up to some serious work, especially with dense woods. IMHO, like most things, more of a matter of work style preference, rather than "right or wrong". I try to focus on tight/invisible glue lines- parallel or not.

I think it's worth checking parallelism before glue up, especially if it's several narrow boards. If it's more than about 1/4" out of parallel, I fix it before glue up, otherwise I leave it and just square the panel after glue up. If you don't check for parallelism before GU, watch out for rough cutting the length too close to final dimensions. In wider panels (like table tops), a little bit of out of parallel multiplied over several boards could mean you need several extra inch of length in individual boards to yield a square, parallel panel of the desired dimensions (don't ask how I know that:))

Just my 2 cents. I know you asked about GU panels, but in general when I'm lax about getting boards 6 way square (which includes parallel edges), is usually about the time joints don't fit and carcasses end up out of square. It's way easier for me to be able to safely assume all like furniture parts have identical dimensions, than to have to individually fit each component to those adjoining it, but that's just my preference.

Cheers, Mike

[Allan Speers]

This is much like asking if hand-cut dovetails look better or worse than machine-cut.

Personally, I prefer the look of precision. (in both DT's and glued panels.) - I just wish I could achieve this by hand! I need more practice.

[Frank Drew]

James,

How much out of parallel are you talking about? 1/4" over 4', or an inch or two over 4'?

[Leo Passant]

The backboards of chests of drawers, bureaus and high dressers are often a bit skew-whiff.

321315

[Harold Burrell]

The backboards of chests of drawers, bureaus and high dressers are often a bit skew-whiff.

321315

Did you make this?

[Paul Saffold]

Boards maybe, it depends on their alignment, universes yes...or so I'm told.

[James Pallas]

I have seen this a few times and thought about it. Those that worked by hand had a need for speed as we often do. I don't think that long rips were anymore a favorite than they are today. How often do we read here "I planed one edge then used my band saw for the other edge". There would be no need to parallel for veneer work for example. Seeing it just made me wonder about it. I thought maybe some of the historians may have an answer for it.
Jim

[Leo Passant]

No. It is a couple of hundred years old.

[Robert Engel]

Sorry, it maybe worth a lot of money, but my initial impression is with all the time already into the piece they couldn't rip some parallel boards?
Maybe that was the way they did it in their area, but I've seen other hutches of he era done better.

[Brian Holcombe]

That's due to thriftiness.

[Patrick Bernardo]

Most of you guys could answer this better than I could, but it does seem to me that it's at least possible that the boards on that hutch split into those shapes while on the hutch. If you look at it, you can see that there are some wide board-like cuts, and the splits run through those boards. On the top left you can see a split developing.

[Brian Holcombe]

The second one from the right looks like a split, but the others are too straight to be splits (IMO).

[James Pallas]

This is the side of a dresser that peaked my interest about this point. There are 5 boards and they taper from1/4" to about 1". I know some of the history of this dresser. It has been mine for 60 years more or less. I believe it to be a factory made piece from sometime around the turn of the 20th century. It was given to my family by my Great Aunt along with a twin bed set and a high dresser. I still have the bed frames also. I don't think it is or was a very expensive set probably a bit above average knowing the history. Dove tailed drawers and drawer blades and such and it is still good after 100 years give or take. The original finish was a maple glaze dark enough to disguise the joints. My Mom had the set refinished for my homecoming from my vacation in Southeast Asia in 1968. Since noticing the tapers I have seen more of the same in other pieces. Whether hand made or machine made it would be a time saver, a couple of swipes on the jointer glue up and then square up the outside instead of 10 long rips.
Jim

[Chris Friesen]

I know you asked about GU panels, but in general when I'm lax about getting boards 6 way square (which includes parallel edges), is usually about the time joints don't fit and carcasses end up out of square. It's way easier for me to be able to safely assume all like furniture parts have identical dimensions, than to have to individually fit each component to those adjoining it, but that's just my preference.

On the other hand, one could argue that you're just wasting time thicknessing/smoothing areas that will never be seen. There's no real reason why the inner faces of a table apron needs to be smoothed (or even parallel to the outer face), or why the aprons all have to be the same thickness. The same holds true for all sorts of other members where only some aspects are critical. The key is to use appropriate reference faces and dimension everything else from them rather than requiring them to have machine-like precision.

Now, in the specific case of backboards and other boards in a panel, I wouldn't get anal about it, but I'd prefer them to be parallel to the eye. Something that hasn't been mentioned is that it's likely quicker to true up the edges of a board using a scrub/fore plane than doing a long tapered rip cut.

[Leo Passant]

Sorry, it maybe worth a lot of money, but my initial impression is with all the time already into the piece they couldn't rip some parallel boards?
Maybe that was the way they did it in their area, but I've seen other hutches of he era done better.

Parallel backboards aren't "better" than non-parallel backboards, after all, they achieve the same objective. There wouldn't have been any less care taken in their production. In fact, working with non-parallel boards would have involved more work, which to me, speaks volumes about the craftsman and the lengths he went to to maximise the timber available to him.

Another consideration is that the plate racks on high dressers were dressed with plates and other kitchenalia so one wouldn't normally see the backboards.

[Gary Herrmann]

Depends on the grain, to some extent. I made a cherry table that had a lightly burled top. I used all hand tools. Glue lines were not parallel, and not a single person has ever commented.

Remember, we're hyper aware of any perceived "defect" in our work.

[Mel Fulks]

James, I think you have a good grasp of where that chest of drawers fits in the period it was made. Even today on factory made pieces a lot of narrow boards are used,especially on the sides. It's obvious that the management consensus is that narrow boards are ok, bad matches are ok, non parallel is not ok. My guess is if that chest had only three boards in the sides ...it would have not been accepted with non parallel boards.

[Pat Barry]

The second one from the right looks like a split, but the others are too straight to be splits (IMO).

Sorry about my late comment, but on that hutch they purposely chose the boards to make the pattern. Its basically a mirror image left vs right about the center board which is a parallel rip. Also note the end boards are parallel rip cuts. The second board from the right may have split but I think they left it that way on purpose at the time it was built. Its basically a mirror image of the board fourth from left (except for the split). I think they wanted to create a unique appearance. It took more work to make it this way than it would have to make it with all parallel cuts but it was an artistic call more than anything.

[James Pallas]

Mel I went and checked and the top of the piece is 4 boards and done in the same fashion. I would not want anyone to think that I am advocating this method. I just find it interesting as a method of work. I think I would use it in the case of a painted or veneered piece if working all hand tool. To me it is no different than not finishing the inside or the back of a piece to the same level as the face. My guess is that it is and was economy driven. I have seen older pieces that were done in the same fashion. I'm no expert on antiques so I couldn't say it was common practice.
Jim

[Brian Holcombe]

Sorry about my late comment, but on that hutch they purposely chose the boards to make the pattern. Its basically a mirror image left vs right about the center board which is a parallel rip. Also note the end boards are parallel rip cuts. The second board from the right may have split but I think they left it that way on purpose at the time it was built. Its basically a mirror image of the board fourth from left (except for the split). I think they wanted to create a unique appearance. It took more work to make it this way than it would have to make it with all parallel cuts but it was an artistic call more than anything.

I dont think it's an artist call so much as it is one in which they were using stock on hand. In my estimation I think they received a stack of lumber from their sawyer, or cut themselves, that tapered in that way....and why straighten it? Instead of straightening they flipped the boards end on end to match the angle and filled more space on the panel with less material.

It's my understanding that the paneling was often expected to split, since they would usually nail it at the corners, and so if it has no place to shrink...it splits in half...but it's not a problem.

Why worry about straight boards on a piece of furniture intended to go against a wall that will be, in no time at all, holding up various bowls/dishes, ect.

*edit*

They look like they might be tongue and groove on this, but often the boards are nailed to the back and expected to split.

[Daniel Rode]

Let's also not forget that every example we see may not be representative of what was typical for a certain type of piece from a certain era. Quality and skill varied widely and many things were made roughly by amateurs.

Even in the golden past we imagine, some things are done out of laziness, lack of skill or as Brian points out, expediency. We probably see the better examples more often because they were more likely to survive but every chest is not a treasure of ideal craftsmanship.

[Karl Andersson]

it is just possible that the backboards on the hutch Leo showed were slanted in opposite directions in order to make them as tight as possible so when they shrank seasonally, the gaps would be minimized. The three middle boards would have accomplished this, so the two slanted ones to the right shouldn't have been necessary, unless the builder ran out of length tightening the middle boards and had to come up with a second "expander" pair. Like using opposing wedges to set window casing, etc. Peter Follansbee shows this as a historical technique in the bottom boards of 17th-century chests in one of his older posts - they are tongue-and grooved coming in from each side, then the center board is slanted on both edges and tapped in last between two boards with opposing angles, pushing all the boards very tight. I have used the same technique in wall cabinet and it works very well. I could be wrong applying this idea to Leo's example because the angles used are usually not as "steep", and there shouldn't have been a need to do more than the center three boards unless a mistake was made. I haven't seen examples like James' in factory furniture unless it was maple furniture that had originally been covered with an opaque stain or veneered, but it doesn't look that noticeable.

Just my observations, of course

Karl

[Art Mann]

I think bad craftsmanship is bad craftsmanship, regardless of the century in which it was used. The only reason I would ever build something this way is to try to simulate the crude 19th century or earlier craftsmanship of a builder who is desperate for lumber.

[Karl Andersson]

here is what I was referring to- actually an excellent way to make T&G boards "insect proof" in an era when there weren't pipe clamps readily available. This has nothing to do with the OP's question, but more a possible explanation for the 3 middle boards in Leo's example. From Peter Follansbee's blog:
321645
The text of the blog gives some discussion as well about non-parallel board use on the floor where it doesn't show- not lack of craftsmanship, but more conservation of effort and materials. https://pfollansbee.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/joined-chest-floor-boards/


later,
Karl