Newport style bureau

[Mike Henderson]

I'm new to the forum so I hope that I'm posting in the right place.

Attached are some pictures of a Newport style bureau that I completed recently. I emphasize the word “style” because I did not try to re-create a piece from that era but used John Townsend’s 1765 bureau, now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, as inspiration for my piece. For example, I used cherry for my bureau rather than mahogany and made the feet and the top overhang a bit bolder than the original.

The bureau was a project for a class at the Cerritos College woodworking program. The carcass and drawers were made as part of one class while the carving was done as part of a second class. I had also taken a finishing class earlier at Cerritos and used what I learned to apply the final finish. I used machine tools whenever I could but, even with that philosophy, there was still quite a bit of hand work.

Prior to building this bureau, I had never done a dovetail nor any carving. It was quite a learning process.

I documented the building of this bureau on my web site (in reverse chronological sequence) at http://members.cox.net/h-h.woodworks/Townsend%20chest.htm

I’d like to also thank Alan Turner for the valuable assistance he provided via e-mail during the building of the bureau.

Mike Henderson
Tustin, CA

[Steve Evans]

What can you say but WOW!. Very, very impressive.

Steve

[Jim Hinze]

Stunning... simply stunning.

I have to say, I like your version better than the original. I think the more pronounced feet give it a bit more of an elegant look.

[Bruce Page]

Jim Hinze took the words right out of my mouth. Obviously, you passed the class... :eek: :eek:

[Don Baer]

Michael,

Very impressive piece. And welcome to the creek.

[Jim Becker]

Outstanding!! I cannot imagine the patience you must have to take on this kind of intricate project...it's absolutely wonderful. Although this is not a style I know much about, I really like how the lines flow through the whole structure. It's very fluid.

And...welcome to SMC!!

[Alan Turner]

Michael,

I am glad you decided to share your piece with the SMC family, and weldome aboard. This a warm and wonderful forum, where support is king, and sniping (except occassionally on a maladjusted planer) is not customary.

Thanks for the kind remarks. But, it was you who stood at the bench in that horrible California climate and executed this wonderful piece. May you and your family enjoy it for many generations.

[Steve Wargo]

Welcome to the Creek and a really great piece.

[John Scarpa]

WOW! Nice work! Cerritos might have provided the classes but you obviously brought quite a bit of talent to the task. :)

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Absolutely gorgeous! Welcome to the Creek! What a great first post!

[Mike Henderson]

Thank you all for your very kind words. Althought building the chest was a long process, it was really enjoyable. Reminds me of the story of the woodworker who had a chair for sale for $50 at a local show. A potential customer came up, admired the chair and said that she wanted a set of four chairs just like that one. With some thought, the woodworker said "That'll be $300." The customer thought about that for a minute and said, "One chair is $50 but four are $300? How do you get to that price?" The woodworker replied, "Heck, building the first one was fun!"

Mike Henderson
Tustin, CA

[Mark Singer]

Hi Neighbor! Great work!!!!! Love the explination and welcome to the SMC Forum...

[Jules Dominguez]

Awesome design and work.

[John Shuk]

Absolutely excellent execution!

[John Miliunas]

Mike, to say that's a beautiful piece wouldn't be giving enough credit!:) Absolutely wonderful workmanship and, for no previous DT or carving work, that's astounding! Great job, to say the least!:) Oh yeah...And a warm welcome to the Creek, as well! Hope to "see" you around more often!:D

Hey Mark, isn't Tustin where Ryan and Jessica live???:) :cool:

[Tom LaRussa]

Hi Mike,


Prior to building this bureau, I had never done a dovetail nor any carving. It was quite a learning process.


The only non-blasphemous comment I can think of is
HOLY MOLY!

[Mark Stutz]

Beautiful execution. The carving is what sets this apart from the ordinary...and in cherry, no less.

[Vaughn McMillan]

Mike, I only traipse over to the Neander forum every once in a while, but I'm sure glad I did tonight. The bureau is absolutely stunning. Welcome to the Creek, and thanks very much for sharing. If this is typical of your work, share MUCH more. (Even if it's not typical...)

- Vaughn

[Dave Anderson NH]

Very nicely done Mike. I am very partial to Queen Anne and Chippendale furniture and the Goddard-Townsend styles are particularly nice. It's also good to see someone make some minor adaptations to the style in both wood choice and in the base variation. I'm sure you will treasure it for years to come.

[Mike Waddell]

Mike,

Excellent work. The carving work really stands out on this piece.

Mike

[Matt Meiser]

WOW!

And welcome!

[Roy Wall]

Mike,


THe piece is stunning!! Beautiful finish and joints..........

Your carving is flawless...

THanks for sharing you talent.....and tell us any details about the project!

[Charlie Kocourek]

Hi Michael,

The chest is OUTSTANDING! I can't believe this is your first carving project! Is the concave shell carved directly into the drawer front or is it carved separately and glued on? If it is glued on, then how did you get it to fit so well?

[Roger Fitzsimonds]

Welcome Michael,

That is a stunning piece. Please keep bring you talent to the creek to share. that school must be something to inspire you to this level. totally WOW.

Roger

[Mike Henderson]

Is the concave shell carved directly into the drawer front or is it carved separately and glued on? If it is glued on, then how did you get it to fit so well?

Thanks for your kind words. The concave shell is carved directly into the drawer front. The convex shells are applied. I wasn't sure of my carving ability so I bought a board long enough that I could re-do the drawer front if I screwed up the carving the first time. I used that same board to cut the pieces for the convex shells so that the wood would be the same and would age (change color) evenly.

Before I carved the concave shell onto the drawer front, I did a practice concave shell in a piece of cherry. It's actually easier to carve than the convex shells. The shadow line around the concave shell is the really difficult thing for that shell. The space between the shell and the shadow line must be even and the shadow line must not vary in width. I tried to do it with a V-tool on my practice piece and couldn't do it - the line wound up jagged. I finally did it by using a narrow gouge, maybe a #2 or #3 (don't remember), to plunge into the wood at the outside of the shadow line, then came back and cut down towards the previous cut with a narrow #2 gouge to create a V-cut for the shadow line.

I learned a lot about period furniture in doing the research for this piece. One thing you have to keep in mind is that our cabinetmaker ancestors were business people. They had to work quickly and be economical in the use of their materials. For example, they applied the convex shells because it would have taken a much thicker board to carve them from the solid, and lots of work to waste the wood back. On the blockfront drawer faces, a piece of wood is applied behind the "innie" portion of the blockfront to provide strength, rather than use a thicker piece of wood.

Mike Henderson
Tustin, CA

[Tom Stovell]

Beautifu work, Mike. So many talented artists/craftsmen out there that set a standard for us all.
Thanks for sharing.

Tom

[lou sansone]

excellent work. I love the style and size of the piece. Great color on the finish as well. welcome to SMC. I have some some carving myself and you have a great hand at it. I currently trying to finish up a 18th century tall case clock and then I might build a newport style secretary... lots of shells. BTW connecticut also used shells quite extensively and not just RI.... for those who care.

regards
lou

[Alex Yeilding]

Very impressive! And great documentation of the process on your web site. Thanks for taking the extra time to document your "journey" and share with us.

[Mike Wenzloff]

Well a heck of a way to introduce yourself, Mike!

Very nice work.

Mike

[Dan Forman]

Has anyone used spectacular yet? This is just beautiful. Welcome and hope to see much more of your work.

Dan

[Carl Eyman]

That is a wonderful piece. Glad to have another 18th century retread on the forum.

[Alex Yeilding]

A couple of questions:

On your web site, you have a discussion of modern drawer guides versus tradtional methods, and seemed to be regretting accepting advice to stick with the later. Has your subsequent success at getting the drawers to fit and operate properly changed your opinion?

I didn't notice this, but a friend who I pointed to your site asked about it. Your drawer dovetails have a half pin on top and a half tail on bottom. Is that a tradition of this style, or is there some structural reason for avoiding the half pin on the bottom?

[Mike Henderson]

On your web site, you have a discussion of modern drawer guides versus traditional methods, and seemed to be regretting accepting advice to stick with the later. Has your subsequent success at getting the drawers to fit and operate properly changed your opinion?Reply: I had a discussion with Alan Turner about that just recently. I think that the drawer glides would have made the drawers work easier. No matter what you do, a wide drawer without a guide (or glide) tends to rack. Also, even with wax on the drawers and web frames, the drawers don't work as easily and smoothly as drawer glides do.

In the discussion with Alan, I worried about the mounting bracket for the drawer glides, which is a piece of steel maybe a foot long that attaches to the side of the chest (on the Blume underdrawer glides). I planned to inset this into the side of the chest so that the drawers would look "traditional" when opened but was worried that it might crack the sides since the steel does not expand and contract while the side does. Alan pointed out to me that I could make the holes in the rear of the mounting bracket oblong to avoid this problem.

Alan objected to the use of drawer glides because they would eventually fail and the ones I would use would be out of production. I responded that some other glides would be available, perhaps even better than today's, and they could be retrofitted to the chest. And in the meanwhile, you would have had 40 or 50 years of improved drawer operation.

I wish I had used the drawer glides, mostly for the challenge of fitting them in an invisible fashion so that the drawers worked better but you didn't see them. But I understand people's reaction to using things like glides in period furniture. You just don't expect it and it's jarring when you encounter it.

I didn't notice this, but a friend who I pointed to your site asked about it. Your drawer dovetails have a half pin on top and a half tail on bottom. Is that a tradition of this style, or is there some structural reason for avoiding the half pin on the bottom?Your friend has a sharp eye. According to Greene in "American Furniture of the 18th Century", p 132-133, both techniques were used. The problem is that you have a 1/4 inch groove 1/4 inch from the bottom edge. If you put a half pin at the bottom, you have to make it quite small or accept the groove showing in the pin (ugh!). Since I am a just learning, I choose to do the simple thing and put a half tail at the bottom. Please pass my respects to your friend - s/he really knows dovetails!

(Added note): I didn't think about this at the time - just thought of it now - but I suppose I could have put a normal size half pin at the bottom because of the way I cut the groove for the bottom. I cut the groove using a router bit with the drawer assembled. This technique would not have cut the groove through the half pin so it wouldn't have shown. I'll have to try that next time.

Mike Henderson
Tustin, CA

[Jack Hogoboom]

Wow. I was lucky enough to see the Townsend Exhibit at the Met. I also bought and read the book. I can't even begin to imagine how either you or he did this. It is so far beyond anything I can comprehend.

If you want to try it again, let me know. I have a feeling you'd have no trouble selling a second one.....

Thanks for sharing such an awesome piece.

Jack

[Mike Henderson]

I can't even begin to imagine how either you or he did this. It is so far beyond anything I can comprehend.
Actually, when I started this project, I had no idea how I would do it. I was taking the 102 class at Cerritos College taught by Robert Thornbury. I discussed the project with Robert and asked him if he could help me with it because I had no idea how I was going to do some of the things required. Robert is not an expert in 18th Century furniture but he looked at the picture and my plans and said, "Sure, I can help you." What he recognized, which as a new woodworker I didn't, is that all woodworking is made up of steps, or increments. And as an experienced furniture maker, Robert could see the steps, while I couldn't. He had me prepare a "Plan of Procedure" which laid out the steps I would take to build the chest. Some of the steps were easy, but some required discussion with Robert to figure out how to do it. Every time, Robert would have a (safe) way to do the step.

So that's all a complex piece really is - just a bunch of individual steps (or processes) - and if you tackle the individual steps, you find out that you can solve the problem.

That's a long way of saying that any reasonably competent person can do complex projects. You just need to break them down into small steps and figure out how to do each step.

Also, I discovered that there are lots of experienced people who are willing to help. I queried the Society of American Period Furniture Makers (I'm a member) and somehow met Alan Turner online who provided much advice.

So if you really want to build complex furniture I say "Go ahead!" You'll figure it out as you go.

Mike

[Alan Turner]

Michael,

What an elegant description of how to build something "over your head".

[Pam Niedermayer]

Reply: I had a discussion with Alan Turner about that just recently. I think that the drawer glides would have made the drawers work easier. No matter what you do, a wide drawer without a guide (or glide) tends to rack. Also, even with wax on the drawers and web frames, the drawers don't work as easily and smoothly as drawer glides do.

In the discussion with Alan, I worried about the mounting bracket for the drawer glides, which is a piece of steel maybe a foot long that attaches to the side of the chest (on the Blume underdrawer glides). I planned to inset this into the side of the chest so that the drawers would look "traditional" when opened but was worried that it might crack the sides since the steel does not expand and contract while the side does. Alan pointed out to me that I could make the holes in the rear of the mounting bracket oblong to avoid this problem.

Alan objected to the use of drawer glides because they would eventually fail and the ones I would use would be out of production. I responded that some other glides would be available, perhaps even better than today's, and they could be retrofitted to the chest. And in the meanwhile, you would have had 40 or 50 years of improved drawer operation....

Please add my voice to the chorus of praise. As to drawer glides, you can always use wooden ones, essentially sliding dovetails (Rockler sells an example at http://www.rockler.com/findit.cfm?page=198 ). I've got a very good dresser that's 50+ years old that uses this type glide, no failures yet, very smooth operation.

Pam

[Jason Tuinstra]

Mike, I don't make it out of the Gen. Woodworking that often, but I'm glad I did today. This is a fantastic display of craftsmanship and detail. Outstanding work. I'm a lover of the Shaker style myself, but I love looking at the attention to detail that others put into the various other furniture styles. Great job, welcome to SMC, and thanks for the eye-candy!

[Steve Schoene]

A belated comment on your wonderful achievement. I want to second the opinion the modern drawer glides would be inappropriate for such a fine piece. (They are not even appropriate for gallery quality modern furniture in my opinion. I would't have any thing else in my kitchen, but kitchens are only designed to last 20 years or so.)

Your struggle with fitting the drawers may shed some light on the technique actually used by Townsend. According to the Michael Moses book, Townsend did not use grooves to float the drawer bottom. He ran the drawer bottom across the drawer sides and back. Some times the drawer ran directly on its bottom, though often runners were nailed over the drawer bottom. Did drawer bottoms split--I'm pretty sure they did, but with the nailed bottom the drawer would have much less tendancy to rack.

By the way, the Metropolitan Museum would likely have let you arrange to examine the construction. I did this for another item several years ago. Long way from California though.

[Mike Henderson]

I want to second the opinion the modern drawer glides would be inappropriate for such a fine piece. (They are not even appropriate for gallery quality modern furniture in my opinion. I wouldn't have any thing else in my kitchen, but kitchens are only designed to last 20 years or so.) . Steve - Thank you for your kind words. Why do you feel that drawer glides would not be appropriate? I have some commercial furniture in my bedroom that my wife and I bought when we were first married and they have a single commercial glide in the center-bottom of the drawer. And so far, they don't even show any real wear. And we've been married about 35 years.
Why would you choose not to use commercial glides? Do you think they would wear out or do you think they are just out of place on an early American piece?


Your struggle with fitting the drawers may shed some light on the technique actually used by Townsend. According to the Michael Moses book, Townsend did not use grooves to float the drawer bottom. He ran the drawer bottom across the drawer sides and back. Some times the drawer ran directly on its bottom, though often runners were nailed over the drawer bottom. Did drawer bottoms split--I'm pretty sure they did, but with the nailed bottom the drawer would have much less tendency to rack. .I don't understand why not putting the bottom in a groove would improve racking. The drawer does not move internally, it racks in the chest slot. If I take a drawer out, set it on its side, and attempt to rack it, it doesn't move. And even if the drawer was that shaky, you could glue the bottom into the groove to lock it into place.


By the way, the Metropolitan Museum would likely have let you arrange to examine the construction. I did this for another item several years ago. Long way from California though.I wish I could have done that. Maybe next time I travel to New York I'll try to arrange an appointment before I go. It'd be a thrill to be able to do that, even if I never build another piece.

[Steve Schoene]

Its purely a matter of personal opinion, but it is also an indication of level of craftsmanship. Making drawers that slide like pistons into their opening is a real challenge, as you discovered. Frankly, I associate metal drawer slides with kitchen cabinets, which have a design life of 20 years or so, and not on high-end period furniture whether Krenov and Maloof or Townsend or Seymour and which should survive for generations.

Everyone has different views about how much of the original construction to follow. Personally, I would make the reproduction using the same construction as the original, even if it meant that the drawer bottom were likely to split. I probably would not use that for a customer (if I had any) unless it was entirely clear that was what was desired.

I misunderstood what you were saying about the racking, though with solid wood you won't want to glue the bottom in the groove. The racking is usually avoided by having a snug but not binding fit--easier to say than to do.

[Mike Henderson]

I misunderstood what you were saying about the racking, though with solid wood you won't want to glue the bottom in the groove. The racking is usually avoided by having a snug but not binding fit--easier to say than to do.
Thanks for your reply. Regarding the drawer bottoms, I used Baltic birch plywood, which is another no-no for those who really hew to the traditional philosophy. Of course, you could glue plywood since it doesn't expand and contract any significant amount.

I understand and appreciate your position about using traditional construction techniques in traditional furniture. I suppose it’s a matter of degree. I would suppose that you would not object to using any modern technique or tool as long as it would not be obvious in the final product. But anything that is obvious, such as commercial drawer glides, and perhaps plywood, you would object to. I guess I’m just a bit further along the continuum and don’t object to plywood and maybe even drawer glides. But I’m fairly new to woodworking and may change my position as I learn and build more. Thanks again for your comments. I appreciate hearing different views.

[Pam Niedermayer]

Just which continuum do you think you're further along?

Pam

[Jerry Palmer]

Yep. That one is most definitely a WOW!

[Javier Gonzalez]

Definitely a Wow!! You're a natural and I'm Slightly jealous.I think

it will continue to look even better as it ages and the cherry darkens. ;) ;)

[Mike Henderson]

Just which continuum do you think you're further along?

Pam
This is just my opinion, but I find that people who build reproductions of period furniture have different opinions about how the furniture should be built.

On one side, the belief is that everything should be done as much as possible the way it was done when the original was built. Even if the design technique has shown to have problems (such as splitting due to cross grain construction), they advocate building the reproduction the same way. These people usually also advocate that the stock should be prepared by hand because the tools leave distinctive marks on the wood, and molding should be cut with wooden molding planes.

In the middle are people who modify the design to avoid design problems in the original design and use power tools to prepare stock and to cut molding. These people aim for a final product which still looks like the original, even though it was built with modern tools. These people would avoid any techniques or materials (like plywood) which would announce that the piece is a modern copy.

On the other end, are people like myself who believe that the product is not a reproduction but a modern piece inspired by the original piece. These people will use modern tools and techniques, will change the design, and will use materials that obviously were not available at the time the original piece was made (such as plywood and drawer glides).

The three points I outlined are, in my opinion, simply points on a continuum – everyone will have their own beliefs and few will fall exactly on the points I described above. Of course, this is all just my opinion.

When I built my chest, I communicated with a number of people who build period furniture and was quite surprised at how strongly some people hold their opinions, especially those who fall on the side that I first described.

Mike Henderson
Tustin, CA

[Mark Singer]

Michael,

I appreciate your response...many things have influences , inspirations, can one paint a better Mona Lisa? It would never be the original. Why not accept, as you have , the knowlege of what we have learned and incorporate , as you have , methods and materials that make it a better piece? I think the masters would accept new techniques that don't compromise the quality...There is something I love about solid wood though....

[Erin Raasch]

Mike,

That piece is absolutely stunning! Looking at the finished product, it does indeed seem like a daunting undertaking, but as you so eloquently pointed out, it is simply a series of small steps. I am still a very novice woodworker, but I recognized this important perspective early on. While it's essential to have some sense of the big picture, I easily feel overwhelmed when I try to hold the entire project in my head. It is then that I remind myself of this basic truth and am able to move forward.

I spent some time perusing your website and found your write-up of this project quite fascinating. I haven't done much study of period furniture-making, but just reading your log I learned quite a lot.

I sincerely hope you continue to post your projects, along with the process - they serve as great inspiration!

Erin

[Steve Schoene]

Michael,

Why not accept, as you have , the knowlege of what we have learned and incorporate , as you have , methods and materials that make it a better piece? ....

One purpose of the accurate, as opposed to interpretative, reproduction is to create an object that reflects more of the material culture of that historical period. Its about attempting to achieve a better understanding of an era.

To me, changing the methods and materials to "make it better" almost feels like trying to copy a factory imitation of of the original and just like audio recordings the further removed from the master a copy is, the more degraded the sound.

On a practical basis, building a piece that would fit in a setting with period pieces almost requires use of some of the original techniques. For example, factory furniture made with today's production technology leaves surfaces that are much too flat, and reflect light very differently than surfaces which have been hand planed and scraped. Factory pieces can be seen from across a wide room if there are also originals or handmade reproductions. Besides, bring a machined surface to being ready to finish is probably done faster with hand planes and scrapers than with ROSs.

As another practical point, today,with humidity controlled houses, heated and humidified in winter and air conditioned and dehumidified in summer, we have almost returned to the less variable moisture levels before the advent of central heating. Following original constructin practices will likely do less damage to modern reproductions than central heating did to the 18th century originals.

[Mark Singer]

Steve, That is certainly one approach. I did state there should not be compromises. If for example we have better adhesives today, should we use the ones from the 18th century for the sake of accuracy or chose the ones that will make for stronger joints? Ithink the hand planning , and avoiding metal drawer slides and hand dovetails go without saying...Maloof will use whatever method gives him he best result with the least effort . Since his work is original, he is free to chose his techniques without emulating the methods of yesteryear, and the results are without compromise.

[Mike Henderson]

One purpose of the accurate, as opposed to interpretative, reproduction is to create an object that reflects more of the material culture of that historical period. Its about attempting to achieve a better understanding of an era.

To me, changing the methods and materials to "make it better" almost feels like trying to copy a factory imitation of of the original and just like audio recordings the further removed from the master a copy is, the more degraded the sound.
A very good argument for building a piece of furniture using only the tools and materials of the period is to better understand and appreciate the era in which the original was made. To do this well requires a great deal of research and acquiring the right tools. I wish more people who follow this path would publish so those of us who choose not to follow that path could share their understanding, albeit vicariously.

A second good argument for taking this approach is because it satisfies the person doing it. Many of us are not doing woodworking for money but for personal satisfaction, and the use of hand tools only to build something could provide much more satisfaction than the use of power tools.

I have difficulty, however, understanding why some people object to modifying the design of period pieces, and feel that any change produces a degraded object. First, there’s no reason to believe that any particular period piece is the apex of design. I’m sure that the original makers would have made changes and attempted to improve the piece if they had made additional pieces.

Second, I feel that the modern woodworker who refuses to modify the design is missing half of the woodworking challenge. Many of the period pieces require great skill to build. The work must be very precise and they require a great variety of skills. If all you wish to do is build your craft skills, you should attempt to duplicate the original design.

But the other half of woodworking is the design. What makes many of these old pieces remarkable is their design – not their construction. And while I admire and respect those who have great craft skills, I have more admiration and respect for those who can create a new, beautiful design.

To someone building a reproduction of a period piece, I would say, “Pretend you are the original builder/designer. You have learned from your previous work and from your customers. How would you change this piece to make it better and more beautiful?”

Mike Henderson
Tustin, CA

[Mark Singer]

Michael,
Very well stated! The best reproduction is just that a reproduction. These pieces were and still are part of an evolving process of design....each one an improvement or another version....how do we decide where to stop this process. In a recent article on Maloof in FWW...he says, "there is nothing wrong with copying , but think how much more satisfaction you get when you know you designed that piece, it is your piece!"
If I built another Frank Lloyd Wrights , "Falling Water" , I am sure I would learn a great deal....it would never be as good as the original, and more importantly , it would never be mine.

[Alex Yeilding]

Wow, what a great discussion! Different opinions stated strongly, with good understanding and respect for other opinions. Adults on the internet--what a concept! Thanks, Sawmill Creek!

Moderators: Any way to move this to a separate thread? While Michael's chest makes a good example for this discussion, this is a rich philosophical discussion that extends well beyond a review of Michael's work, or Newport style.

[Alex Yeilding]

Michael,
Very well stated! The best reproduction is just that a reproduction.
While Michael's statement of his position is indeed well-made, I think the real genius of his contribution came earlier when he characterized the positions as points on a continuum. And the continuum is even broader than he characterized, from those who insist on rough dimensioning their lumber with adzes and wooden planes to those who want to build to a Walmart price point and do it with veneer on MDF and cast "carvings".

An individual's position on that continuum might well change, depending on the purpose for his building. Building for hobby/personal enjoyment of building will often be different from building for a living. Even building for a living will produce different answers for a commision from a wealthy collector, a commercial enterprise wanting high quality furniture for their boardroom, a store wanting 100 copies to sell to their upscale clientele, or dorm room furniture!

P.S. My own "position" on this is closer to Steve's, but if I were ambitious enough to try something on this scale, I would be building for my own enjoyment, not trying to earn a living wage!

[Dave Anderson NH]

There is not a way as far as I know to split up part of a thread and make it into two or more parts. This is an excellant discussion and maybe someone would like to distill out the essence of the questions under discussion and start a new thread.

Hey Mark Singer, would this be a good candidate for the design forum?

[Mark Singer]

Alex,
You may be interested in tis older thread....there were other threads also..

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?t=13712&highlight=design

[Steve Schoene]

Its not self-conscious change in the design that leads to degradation, though modifying a well thought out design for the better is, by the nature of the problem, very difficult. The period styles that have survived are in fact pinnacles of design. The makers were constantly modifying the designs seeking improvement society changed. We have the advantage of seeing outcomes of that search. Chippendale became unfashionable and Adam, or Sheraton and Hepplewhite replaced it in the finest parlors. John Townsend made pieces in the later style though we look to others as the leaders.

There are many wonderful performers of chamber music, but very few successful composers.

The essence of late 18th century design is not about shells and ball and claw feet, it is about a system of proportion based on classical column orders and other "ideal" ratios. That's the design take away, the things that should influence new designs, not a particular set of decorations. And I am afraid that has been lost too many times. That's why I am concerned that trying to imitate imitators can lead to degradation. Its not change, but how considered and appropriate that change is.

New techologies and materials should find expression in objects whose design takes frank advantage of the new techniques. Plastic should be plastic and not imitate wood. Houses with more windows and light take advantage of the smooth surfaces and inlay of the Federal style, while the earlier furniture took advantage of carved and molded surfaces to make statements in the more dimly lighted homes of the 18th century. What are societies needs now?

I'm not very sanguine that going back to a highpoint of furniture design is the place to make better furniture through incremental changes. There have been thousands of workers laboring in that field for more than two hundred years. If design is the thing, start from the best of today, using the technology of today, but taking advantage of the lessons from the past. Be a composer however difficult that is. I admire composers, but reserve the right to not like the new music.

Personally, I would rather be a performer.

[Pam Niedermayer]

...

[color=black]On the other end, are people like myself who believe that the product is not a reproduction but a modern piece inspired by the original piece. These people will use modern tools and techniques, will change the design, and will use materials that obviously were not available at the time the original piece was made (such as plywood and drawer glides)....


Thanks for the elucidation, Michael. I think I see this difference of opinion between traditionalists and modernists a bit differently. First, if you'll be making a period piece and calling it such (vs calling it a period influenced design), I think it's important to adhere to period methods to the extent possible. More or less a truth in advertising situation. Sometimes it's just not possible to do so. For example, I'd be hard pressed to find a 10' X 24" board of the original mahogany; so in the period piece the use of a single board for a long sideboard would be impossible. I'd have to find a work around. Maybe I'd use a different wood, join two or more boards to get the width, etc.

Second, it does make a difference how the surface is treated, sometimes a big difference. Wood that is planed then finished produces a deeper, cleaner look than wood that's sanded. Moldings that are cut with various router bits at speed look different, less crisp than moldings cut with molding planes and/or H&R's. Since we can almost perfectly reproduce these effects, this is an area in which I'd try my best to replicate.

Third, whenever a new material is considered better, it's a good idea to know all the attributes of the old material that one is improving. For example, hot hide glue is still, imo, the best glue to use for indoor furniture. No other glue that I'm aware of provides the wonderful ability to break down a joint without destroying it and then reassemble. It's a glue for the ages. Maybe epoxy does hold better in some situations, but it would be disastrous for the restorer 100 years from now who had to repair the piece.

Fourth, good joinery is the same today as yesterday, the goal being to provide mechanical strength as well as chemical (glue). Anyone using biscuits and the like in furniture construction is not, imo, making period furniture. Similarly with plywood, the use of which almost certainly puts the piece in a period-influenced design category. Not because plywood is inferior, in some cases it's superior, but because sometimes it requires very different joinery that is, imo, inferior. Drawer bottoms are the only place it may be possible to use ply without compromising the joinery, and even that is questionable.

Fifth, using planes, rasps, etc. instead of sandpaper, much less machine sanders, makes the piece very uncrisp. I can't begin to testify to how many machine made chairs I've seen with definitely dull slipper feet. Now I love slipper feet, but the delicate, crisp slipper feet from yesteryear.

Sixth, the pieces we're copying today have managed to survive life for two or three hundred years, sometimes more. There must be something important in the build to have made that possible; so I'd be very, very careful. For sure those pieces must have been repaired during that period of time. How would I provide that ability?

Seventh, aside from sanders, the use of power tools is no problem with me, as long as the joinery is not compromised. For example, router formed contemporary cope and stick doors are inferior to the old methods, and will be visible when that door fails in fairly short order.

Wow, way more than I'd planned to write, time to get back to the book.

Pam, who still thinks your chest is beautiful and a significant achievement

[Charles Stanford]

Very, very well said Pam.

If there is a folder for posts worth saving and referring people to in the future I hope your post is put there.

Wow, just a wonderful summary of the ethic of woodworkers who build authentic reproductions.

I've printed this for my files.

[Mike Henderson]

I think Pam hit the nail on the head when she defined the two ends of the continuum as traditionalists and modernists. The major difference, it seems to me, is not in the joinery used since both can have great craftsmanship, but in the willingness of the modernists to play with the design. The modernists would say, “That piece of furniture has already been built. What can I do to bring a fresh vision and perspective to the design?”

I certainly share that opinion. When I was building my chest, I began to think about the design of the top drawer face. The shells on this drawer resolve the three dimensional aspect of the lower portion of the case to the flat, straight across top.

How else can this be done? I thought about using a large single shell spanning almost the whole top drawer - rising from the low center portion of the case to the "outtie" portion of the blockfront - but when I drew it out, the shell looked too squished.

If I can come up with a good idea, I'll build another top drawer. This way, the owner of the chest can choose what they want - a traditional looking early American piece, or a modernistic piece.

If you have some ideas for the top drawer, please send them to me. When I find a good solution and build a new top drawer, I'll post the pictures here - and give credit for your idea.

Mike Henderson
<O:pTustin, CA

[Alex Yeilding]

Thanks for the elucidation, Michael. I think I see this difference of opinion between traditionalists and modernists a bit differently.
Actually, from what I'm reading here, it seems that you two see this difference of opinion very much the same, even though you take opposite sides as far as your own preferences.


First, if you'll be making a period piece and calling it such (vs calling it a period influenced design),
And the rest of your post, with which I strongly agree, is based on this premise. Not to put words in his mouth, but I suspect that Michael would agree. He has said very clearly that he intended his piece to be one inspired by the Newport chest, not a reproduction of it. And while I don't know the style, if the original is in mahogany and he chose to make it out of cherry, he pretty much said for all to see that this is not a reproduction.

As someone else here said, your post is a "keeper". Thanks for taking the time to document some important considerations in the choice of methods and materials.

[Pam Niedermayer]

One thing I forgot to mention: everything I said about tools, materials, and methods applies to contemporary fine furniture making as well, except the bit about lumber sizing. So I don't consider myself a traditionalist so much as a nit picking perfectionist. :)

Pam

[Barry Bruner]

Totally great work, that is my favorite piece of furniture of all time. I bought a out of print issue of Fine Woodworking on Period Furniture just for a article on that piece. Even bought the Nora Hall tapes to carve the shells. Then I figured out I`m not even close to being able to make something like this. I`m really impressed with your work. Thank you . BARRY BRUNER

[rick fulton]

Mike –

As noted over and over again in this thread, you’ve done a fantastic job on this project. Excellent workmanship. Don’t know how I missed this thread the first time around; maybe because it is in the neander forum.

In this month’s issue of “Woodwork”, Hank Gilpin talks about the Townsend and Goddard Newport style saying it “blew my mind.” “I don’t think you can make anything more perfect than this.”

I like your interpretation of the style, particularly the wider stance of your base. The dovetails and carving look outstanding. Never would have guessed they were firsts for you.

Thanks for sharing this very inspiring work piece and the thought-provoking dialog on the design process and how design and construction methods evolve over time. Well Done!

rick

[Chris Barton]

Michael,

First, let me say that this is one magnificent piece and I can appreciate it even more because I am also a "early American" period devote. Second, let me echo your conundrum regarding incorporation of modern techniques or materials into a period piece. This has haunted me for a variety of reasons. First, if the master woodworkers of yore were alive they would use every new technology they believed would improve their product and it's profitability. Second, sometimes doing something the same way just because that's the way they did it is not wise. We should be willing to embrace improvements that provide a better product without substantially changing the intent or "giest" of the piece. You did a very masterful job!