Secondary surfaces in 18th century work

[Kees Heiden]

We have had this discussion before, did the grand masters of the golden age of furniture making (18th century) pay a lot of attention to no-show surfaces or not? Well, it seems that even Thomas Chippendale didn't really care. Just like we don't care much about the quality of the timber or the surface of the studs behind drywall panneling, they didn't seem to care at all about undersides, insides behind drawers or back panels. As long as it keeps the piece together and doesn't interfere with the function, it is good enough. No smoothing, tear out all over the place, planks full of knots and cracks, glue squeeze out, splinters and what not.

These pictures I lifted from an auction site about a special Chippendale sale. Have a look, very nice pictures. https://www.christies.com/salelanding/index.aspx?lid=1&intsaleid=27986&dt=28620182347&saletitle=

389047

389048

[Doug Dawson]

We have had this discussion before, did the grand masters of the golden age of furniture making (18th century) pay a lot of attention to no-show surfaces or not? Well, it seems that even Thomas Chippendale didn't really care.

Chippendale was struggling, wasn't he. Paint it pack it ship it is not entirely a modern concept. Not to mention that good help is hard to find, then as now.

[Kees Heiden]

Yeah, really struggling :D

It was also the frame of reference of that time. When nobody polishes the bottoms of a carcasse, nobody will expect it either. Wide belt sanders hadn't been invented yet (probably), and paying too much attention to secundairy surfaces just hurted the bottom line without gaining any extra respect.

[Doug Dawson]

Yeah, really struggling :D

It was also the frame of reference of that time. When nobody polishes the bottoms of a carcasse, nobody will expect it either. Wide belt sanders hadn't been invented yet (probably), and paying too much attention to secundairy surfaces just hurted the bottom line without gaining any extra respect.

It's amazing how shoddy these things were. You could pull them apart with your bare hands.

[Brian Holcombe]

By process of making reference surfaces, I rarely end up with a surface that isn’t passable. Occasionally if one area doesn’t clean up when it gets done to thickness then they side goes to the inside and is hidden away. This is quite rare.

Chippendale was practically a factory, IIRC 450~ workers, they were processing an incredible volume of work and I can’t imagine they were particularly concerned with hidden surfaces. I’m certain they wanted a high quality finished product, that functioned accurately. Royalty aren’t going to inspect the bottom of the table, that’s the cabinermaker’s business.

[Kees Heiden]

Of course there are always degrees of rough. How about this one?

389055

[Frederick Skelly]

This is an interesting topic. Thanks for raising it! George Wilson or Warren Mickley could certainly educate all of us on this.

I used to say "good enough" on parts that wouldnt show, and still do when I make throw-together stuff like shop furniture. But Krenov's books changed my view on that. His idea that ALL of it should be of highest quality just resonated with me. BUT I'm a mere hobbyist. I can spend as much time as I like on each and every piece I make. Different story when every day is a race to make enough to feed your family.

Fred

[John Kananis]

Kees, thanks for those pics.


George Wilson...

Ok, anyone know what happened to George? Haven't seen him around in a while.

[James Pallas]

I'm always interested in these threads. I have my own opinions on this subject. I think it is easy to criticize the work of past years. I believe that if we actually had to work with the tools that were available we may have a different take on what was done. I tend to look at it just like machines. Do you expect your table saw table to be fully machined on the underside? When Brian said about using a surface for reference that's different. Workers of the past were capable of thicknessing very accurately when needed. If not necessary why do it? If it didn't add value it just wasn't done. The same to me as your table saw table bottom side. No quality added no additional usability. Where the table bolts down to the base or trunnions that's important. Look under your vehicle for reference.
Jim

[Graham Haydon]

Thanks, Kees. Always good to see work from this period. In terms of shoddy, it might be worth considering that when instructed to produce work of the highest order, they did just that. I hate to link to videos, but the following is superb https://youtu.be/DE7BbpzWdik?t=5m15s. Get to 6:50 ish for the now coined "piston fit drawer".

Expanding on the point, there were not that many super wealthy patrons who could have the absolute best. I think it likely that Chippendale, and many more anonymous cabinet makers would still make pieces of the time, but they would be more budget friendly, to suit the middles classes. These are often described as "country furniture".

Chippendale's contribution was unique, innovative and a superb part of furniture making history. If I was ever able to design and make work to the standard shown in Kee's photos, all by hand (no "I use machines for the grunt"), I would be delighted.

[Brian Holcombe]

There is another point to add with respect to period pieces. It’s difficult to know, without taking it apart, which parts are original and which are repairs. Period work of note is repaired and restored very often. Chippendale’s workshop may be taking the blame for something done 100 years later.

[Doug Dawson]

I think it is easy to criticize the work of past years. I believe that if we actually had to work with the tools that were available we may have a different take on what was done.

You're apologizing for them. :^) It amuses me when people say "ooooh, look at what primitive tools they had, it must have taken them so long to do that!" Well no, they took the same amount of time to do stuff, they just did it crappier. Doing stuff like that, if hand tools are all you know and you're good at it, can be a very efficient process. The tools weren't all that primitive, they just didn't use electrons.

[Kees Heiden]

Brian, I think you would be hard pressed to find a picture of s period cabinet or chest with bottom boards that have seen a smooting plane on the underside.

[Frank Drew]

It's amazing how shoddy these things were. You could pull them apart with your bare hands.

And yet museums and mansions across the world are filled with countless examples of these "shoddy" pieces of furniture.

[Brian Holcombe]

Brian, I think you would be hard pressed to find a picture of s period cabinet or chest with bottom boards that have seen a smooting plane on the underside.

Yeah, I’m not making an argument against that.

[Kees Heiden]

I think that we can safely assume that an 18th century cabinet maker, rural or working for the upperclass, didn't have the same ideas about secundairy surfaces as mr. Krenov. What we do with such knowledge is something else alltogether. But when we make a copy of an original piece, or something inspired by the old examples, then we need to take this fact in mind.

For example, I make a joined chest at the moment, based on 17th century examples. It's a frame and panel construction. The panels are flat on the show side, beveled on the back to fit in a groove. Those bevels are usually out of sight, but even when they are visible when you open the chest, they are never very uniform. No panel raising planes were employed at that time. Sometimes they were so crude that you can't believe anything beyond an axe was used. It would have been a gross error if I would have made those panels perfectly symetrical with crisp 45 degree miters in the corners.

Another thing, when you make a contemporary piece with handtools, without the use of planers/thicknessers, then it would be completely apropriate to work along the same lines as those ancient masters, if you choose so. No need to look down on such work and call it shoddy.

[Brian Holcombe]

Maybe not, but those photos don’t look that bad to me. That’s likely quick work with a try plane. The parts that stood out were the rough sawn bit and the glue drips. Those raised an eyebrow for me and looked like they may be repairs.

Contemporary aesthetic is partially determined by the reception if it. If you’re doing it for yourself, then you can use any method you want. I’m not saying it would be received poorly, I have no idea how it would be recieved.

[Kees Heiden]

You are probably right about those glue drips. Hard to tell from a picture of course.

Quick work with a tryplane and leaving large amounts of tearout seemed to have been custom practice. Or leaving scalloped jack plane tracks. Or not doing anything if the sawn surface was "flat enough".

[Tom M King]

I built these shutters a few years ago. I was particularly not particular. They match fairly closely to other woodwork that we know is from the original 1850 date of the house. The smoothing plane texture is not as deep as it looks in this harsh sidelight, but matches old ones there fairly closely.

[Kees Heiden]

You have shown that picture before and I have admired it back then too. This looks like a bit more camber then we use on a smoother in typical furniture work but not as much as a jackplane of course.

And we are now in the realm of "shody" work in plain view. Like deep tearout in show surfaces, even on more upscale work. Or nails driven through and clinched over in full view. Or lock plates nailed to the front of a chest without regards to any symmetry. Mostly on the more mundane kind of work for the middle classes. Folks just didn't have the same idea about what looks pleasing and what not as us modern ones.

[James Pallas]

The workers of the past were capable of some very fine work. They could thickness accurately, i.e. Fronts and backs of doors, lids, legs, drawer parts clock cases where necessary etc. They either found some work unnecessary or not required. We probably won't know for sure what the mind set was at the time. We do the same things. The backs of many things are left not finished to the front quality, clothes, furniture, vehicles, airplanes, rockets, cell phones, computers, houses, nearly everything. The backsides of a piece of furniture seems trivial to me. As far as Kenov, he was a premier woodworker and produced wonderful work. He did however make a living with teaching along with his other work. Many other woodworkers are doing the same today.
Jim

[Mel Fulks]

Some of the 17th century stuff is really rough on the back. I've wondered if that was done to show the wood was "riven"
like the guilds had required.

[Frederick Skelly]

I recently modified a piece of high end furniture for a friend's Mom. This piece was Ethan Allen-class furniture (good quality, expensive, but still factory made). It was probably 10 years old. It was rough and unfinished inside where no one would usually see. It had stain spatters and planer marks/ridges. It had some tear out. Why was it like this? Because most people will never see these parts and if they do, they'll say "No problem, that's on the bottom." So the builder saved some time and money and left it rough.

I suspect the same was true for some of the antique pieces that were made for wealthy customers. From what I've read, many rich people (or their retainers) haggled over prices with craftsmen the same way I would today. The King/Duke/Baron who could say "price is no object" was probably an exception to the rule. So a craftsman cut a few corners on parts not readily seen, to let him hit a price point, driven by what their customer agreed to pay.

[Dave Anderson NH]

Quality is subjective. What I am saying is that 20th and 21st century standards do not apply to 18th and 17th century pieces. One of the definitions of "Period Furniture" doesn't mention anything about styles such as "Pilgrim", "Queen Anne", Chippendale, Federal, Etc. It simply uses the definition "Pre-industrial". This means crafted without the use of machines. Based on this, it is easy to see why hidden surfaces were only refined enough so that the piece could be completed. It added a major commitment of unbillable time to refine these areas. I have had the opportunity to examine in detail the undersides and interiors of pieces in the collections of Colonial Williamsburg, Historic Deerfield, Boston's MFA, and the Peabody-Essex. Much of this work was from full time professional urban cabinetmakers. Almost uniformly no time was wasted smooth planning or coloring and finishing hidden surfaces. One specific John and Thomas Seymour dressing table with mirror was exquisite. The bottom of the lowest drawer however had bark and wane on its underside.

[Graham Haydon]

Without making this an existential crisis on the way of "making things" I think this post is a welcome reminder that there is more than one way to make a piece of woodwork. I think there is a huge draw for those that like to work using high quality machines, and then produce things with the accuracy of a pattern maker. A way that is often overlooked is the way Kies describes fitting panels on a 17th century chest. I think many would enjoy and benefit from making a piece in that way. I often find a degree of frustration with the degree of "perfect surfaces" that are expected. I wish I could find the time to spend in the workshop with small pile of deal and work in a direct way by hand, making a few simple pieces.
Likewise, I'm not taking a dump on the high art and perfect surface vibe, it's just no the only way.

[Warren Mickley]

A lot of workers today concentrate on having flawless execution while neglecting the weightier matters of style, charm, daintiness, gracefulness and the like. Their dovetails are tight, but their mouldings are bland. Their sanding is flawless, but their turnings are doughy. Their staining is uniform, but it obscures the liveliness of the wood. If a piece has no life to it, is that shoddy work?

I was looking at a moulding recently. It was made in 1752. There was tearout in two places in a 20 inch moulding. But the moulding had the kind of style and exuberance that is almost never seen today.

[Jim Koepke]

My wife insists that undersides and back sides need to be sanded.

My response is, "if you want that then you can do it."

jtk

[Doug Dawson]

A lot of workers today concentrate on having flawless execution while neglecting the weightier matters of style, charm, daintiness, gracefulness and the like. Their dovetails are tight, but their mouldings are bland. Their sanding is flawless, but their turnings are doughy. Their staining is uniform, but it obscures the liveliness of the wood. If a piece has no life to it, is that shoddy work?

I was looking at a moulding recently. It was made in 1752. There was tearout in two places in a 20 inch moulding. But the moulding had the kind of style and exuberance that is almost never seen today.

Because what you see today is dominated by self-proclaimed professionals? Maybe you're looking in the wrong places.

The fantasy of the domination by machines continues. We live in a diverse society, and we're not all like that.

[Darrell LaRue]

The method of work where one uses face sides/edges for layout and fenced cuts generates exactly this kind of end result without any extra work or planning. It just works out that way. Even when I want a smooth surface on an off-face it usually doesn't end up parallel to the reference face.

Darrell

[Brian Holcombe]

The perfect surfaces of the machine age moving forward are a result of a necessity to minimize error, they are not an end goal. One makes a reference face, then a uniform thickness because machine processing often requires the use of multiple references on the same part. Hand tool work can work off of single reference faces or corners and so uniformity is not a requirement in the same fashion.

You can gauge off of your single reference (or corner) for practically any straight line cut you need to make.

[Derek Cohen]

That is a good point, Brian. The shenanigans I have gone to dovetailing the angled sides for the apothecary chest were made practical or easier because I have multiple references surfaces after thicknessing on a machine. These reference surfaces are available as a result of the machining process. In the days before machines, it was necessary to find alternative methods, or not just attempt such angled work. If anything, the machined surfaces (from a planer/thicknesser), as much as modern materials, make it possible to do more advanced designs. While it is possible that others way have used similar techniques, I very much doubt that this piece would have appeal for a professional, either today or in the 18th century - it would require too much time and not be economical to build this way. I do it because I can and because I am an amateur for whom time does not have a monetary cost factor. The pre-machine age professional would have thought very strongly about the time-effort-return. Finishing is about expediency.

Krenov may have argued for the finishing of all surfaces, but he was an amateur, too. He did not have deadlines or even sell his work (and when he did, he asked a token amount for it).

Equally, the use of modern day methods (of creating traditional joinery) and materials should not necessary be a criticism of modern work; it simply reflects a different era of woodworking. There were no doubt plenty of 18th century builds that came in for criticism as there are 21st century builds that do so.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

I very much doubt that this piece would have appeal for a professional, either today or in the 18th century

Not sure if that is right. All those Bombe chests have some crazy curves for example. Or how about a simple serving tray with splayed sides? Millions have been made of those. Just the fact that you found a workable solution to hand cut these in reasonable time, means that a professional who churns them out daily would be able to get them down real quick.

[Kees Heiden]

Jus think about it, if someone took it upon himself to make this, would he been afraid to tackle your apothecary chest?

Made in late 17th century in Antwerp.

389173

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Kees

I am very aware of these pieces. I researched these, and the construction of bombe chests, intensively when planning the Lingerie Chest I built a few years ago (which I view as a modern version of a bombe). These were not run-of-the-mill pieces of furniture. There were no doubt a number of furniture makers who were willing to do the work, and would charge commensurately. What I was indicating before was that relatively few professionals would be willing to undertake such task-intensive designs. A simple search on Google will throw up designs which I refer to as "pseudo bombe" - that have the appearance of curved sides but the drawers are actually straight lines. This is an example of simplifying construction.


Just the fact that you found a workable solution to hand cut these in reasonable time, means that a professional who churns them out daily would be able to get them down real quick.

I think that is the point we have all made - the aim of all is to find an efficient method of construction. One aspect is knowing where to take short cuts, such as not finishing underneath the drawer. Another efficient method may be the ease of construction if one does, in fact, finish under the drawer - it just depends on how one is working.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Maybe I didn't understand you well enough. In these sentences you seem to imply that modern machinery is needed to make the angled dovetail contruction of your drawers:

The shenanigans I have gone to dovetailing the angled sides for the apothecary chest were made practical or easier because I have multiple references surfaces after thicknessing on a machine. These reference surfaces are available as a result of the machining process. In the days before machines, it was necessary to find alternative methods, or not just attempt such angled work. If anything, the machined surfaces (from a planer/thicknesser), as much as modern materials, make it possible to do more advanced designs.

But, accurately thicknessing these drawer fronts wouldn't have been a problem at all for a pre industrial woodworker. Thicknessing to a line was well known and often used, if neccesary!

[Derek Cohen]

Kees, sure they (anyone) could thickness to a line with a handplane. That is not the point. The point is that there are different forms of efficiency, and strategies are decided accordingly. Not all approaches will be agree by all, since getting there may require different methods. Not everyone works the same way. Can you say which is right?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[James Pallas]

I can't see a single process on Derek's build so far that can not be fixtured or jigged and done by machine. I believe the real issue is to make it appear done by hand. The difference in size and shape of the dovetails and such. There was a lot of angled and curved work done by hand in the past. When the work required meeting surfaces on two sides it was done. If possible errors were put to the side that did not need to match up with another surface. From what small amount of work I've been able to see up close even glue blocks had 90s on the mating surfaces the other side may have been hatchet chopped. We have a choice now. We can surface everything with machines and sometimes the machine requires that. When working by hand we have a choice, when can do all the extra work which has no effect on the longevity of the life of the piece or its usability or we can leave it. Our choice.
Jim

[Bob Glenn]

My wife insists that undersides and back sides need to be sanded.

My response is, "if you want that then you can do it."

jtk

How's that working out for you Jim? :-D

[Warren Mickley]

Not sure if that is right. All those Bombe chests have some crazy curves for example. Or how about a simple serving tray with splayed sides? Millions have been made of those. Just the fact that you found a workable solution to hand cut these in reasonable time, means that a professional who churns them out daily would be able to get them down real quick.

Of course it is not right. Stuff like this was made in the 18th century and is made today. I used to make silverware trays for the wholesale market. Dovetailed with splayed sides. The pine trays I did for $12 a piece. Here is a walnut example, a left over from thirty years ago. It was on the floor filled with dust and old nails. There is not a right angle anywhere except for the bottom. The very bottom is a little rough and has no finish.
389186

[Jim Koepke]

How's that working out for you Jim? :-D

We have reached some compromises. After my work is done building a piece, she paints it.

jtk

[Jim Koepke]

We can surface everything with machines and sometimes the machine requires that.

How much of the modern manufacturing process has wood being surfaced on all sides due to the wood being milled before the face/show sides are chosen?

jtk

[James Pallas]

Derek, I thought that I watched your video paying attention to how you referenced your layout. I would have to go back and watch again to be absolutely sure. Did you not reference all of the layout work from the inside face and 1 edge? You may have referenced the blind depth from the front curve mark, not sure on that but even so it would not affect the joinery if the rest was from the inside.
Jim

[James Pallas]

I have great respect for those workers of the past and some of those of the present. I had the distinct pleasure of working with some excellent carpenters that could neither read nor write. How did I know, they made their mark to get their pay envelope. They could somehow operate a framing square and accurately cut a roof just looking at the marks. They also did angles, curves, compound angles with an ease that I could not match for a long time. I can't say for certain that that was the case for furniture makers, do to the timing, 18th century, they did it with their knowledge of the proceedure. I didn't work in the 18th century of course. Started in the late 50s still many that could not read or do basic arithmetic.
Jim

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, I thought that I watched your video paying attention to how you referenced your layout. I would have to go back and watch again to be absolutely sure. Did you not reference all of the layout work from the inside face and 1 edge? You may have referenced the blind depth from the front curve mark, not sure on that but even so it would not affect the joinery if the rest was from the inside.
Jim

Jim, I work from a inside reference edge and side, regardless of whether the boards are prepared on a machine or by hand.

In the case of the angled dovetails, I worked from each drawer side and the drawer back. However, because the boards had been thicknessed on a thickness-planer, it was possible to work from either both sides of each end. This was especially helpful when scoring the marks for the acute angled side. To be clear, all marking, per se, was done from the reference sides. The parallel nature of the piece allowed for the use of a gauge from the non-reference side to deepen lines on the drawer front, which was convenient and practical in this instance.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Brian Holcombe]

Of course it is not right. Stuff like this was made in the 18th century and is made today. I used to make silverware trays for the wholesale market. Dovetailed with splayed sides. The pine trays I did for $12 a piece. Here is a walnut example, a left over from thirty years ago. It was on the floor filled with dust and old nails. There is not a right angle anywhere except for the bottom. The very bottom is a little rough and has no finish.
389186

Beautiful work, Warren.

[James Pallas]

Derek, Having done a good bit of angle work I've run into the same thing you did with wheel gauges. I have to say that I'm not being critical of your work here because it may sound that way. The wheels are just not large enough in some cases. I tend to use a cutting gauge in those cases. I think I did hear somewhere that there are larger wheels available. That would be handy in this case. It is fun to explore the unknown and figure out how to get things to work as you have been doing on your build. It's almost as much fun to watch as it is to do it.
Jim

[James Pallas]

Of course it is not right. Stuff like this was made in the 18th century and is made today. I used to make silverware trays for the wholesale market. Dovetailed with splayed sides. The pine trays I did for $12 a piece. Here is a walnut example, a left over from thirty years ago. It was on the floor filled with dust and old nails. There is not a right angle anywhere except for the bottom. The very bottom is a little rough and has no finish.
389186
Very nice Warren. A little more to it than just a dovetail marker and it shows.
Jim

[bridger berdel]

I can't see a single process on Derek's build so far that can not be fixtured or jigged and done by machine. I believe the real issue is to make it appear done by hand. The difference in size and shape of the dovetails and such. There was a lot of angled and curved work done by hand in the past. When the work required meeting surfaces on two sides it was done. If possible errors were put to the side that did not need to match up with another surface. From what small amount of work I've been able to see up close even glue blocks had 90s on the mating surfaces the other side may have been hatchet chopped. We have a choice now. We can surface everything with machines and sometimes the machine requires that. When working by hand we have a choice, when can do all the extra work which has no effect on the longevity of the life of the piece or its usability or we can leave it. Our choice.
Jim

It's faster and cheaper today to rip out a section of wood for glue blocks then chop it to length with a table saw and miter chop saw. Those tools leave surfaces more refined than necessary just by default and accurate angles by default. Modern work is not made to that standard because it's necessary or even because it's better- it's done because it's cheaper.

[Kees Heiden]

That sums it up nicely. Machined work is flawless all around because it is cheaper. Handtool work was not flawless inside because it was cheaper.

[Brian Holcombe]

Its not cheaper or more expensive, it's required. You can't process things very well without uniformity and accuracy, that is why so much effort in machinery is geared toward consistent return.

It actually helps to work with some machinery to understand this, when you chase out the demons from your processing you start to realize that machine precision is a sliding scale (not a given) and that consistency and accuracy is an important thing for it all to work well.

It's similar in some ways but it's a totally different animal than making accurate hand tool work with some overlap. That is why there are so many processes which are better done by hand, and so many better done by machine....blind dados, for example.

[steven c newman]

Note to self: One of the "selling points" of the first machines for factory made furniture....was the fact they could be set up to do all four surfaces at the same time.....and simply by changing a cutter or two, even doing any molding needed...Machines could be adjusted for what ever size stock was needed....think about that, sometime......

[Brian Holcombe]

Those still exist, newly made. Martin T90 is a seven head machine, does that and costs 145k and is run by 55hp in electric motors.

[steven c newman]

Far cry from the overhead line shaft belt-driven "wonders"....

[James Pallas]

Machines are wonderful things. When set up and adjusted correctly they are great. When you have a problem with one they can be disastrous. Also when you expect too much out of them. You pay extra for straight one edge or 4s material and end up using your own machines to make it right. One little adjustment can make you nutso. I like them still and if I was in need of them I would definitely have a jointer and planer. For the 25 to 50 feet I use in a month the upkeep just is is not worth it. If you are going to use machines don't let your squares get rusty expecting the machine to check your work for you.
Jim

[Derek Cohen]

Its not cheaper or more expensive, it's required. You can't process things very well without uniformity and accuracy, that is why so much effort in machinery is geared toward consistent return.

It actually helps to work with some machinery to understand this, when you chase out the demons from your processing you start to realize that machine precision is a sliding scale (not a given) and that consistency and accuracy is an important thing for it all to work well.

It's similar in some ways but it's a totally different animal than making accurate hand tool work with some overlap. That is why there are so many processes which are better done by hand, and so many better done by machine....blind dados, for example.

Brian, we are on the same page. The default of boards prepared on a modern jointer/thickness-planer is to flatten and smooth both sides. Perhaps the default in the 18th century was to do one side, since a second side was double the work. I do not see one process "better" than the other, just a reflection of differnt eras. This part of the build is not what I consider the important element in furnituremaking. It is like sharpening - they are early gateway stages. Design, proportions, type of joinery, balance/integration ... and how they are executed. These are the important features and the ones I look for when rating a piece of furniture.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

That’s what I mean Brian. If you don’t 4s your stock in a modern facility, it would turn out crazy expensive. If the factory would like to emulate some rough inside panels they would have to do that afterwards.

[Kees Heiden]

Derek, for me the typical handmade look is vital. It’s not easy to define what makes it look handmade, but when done right it adds a lot of charm.

[Derek Cohen]

Kees, finishing with handplanes and using handtools for edges, mouldings etc, will provide that look, regardless of how the stock was prepared. I am not so sure that it is a guarantee of "charm", however. Charm will come from good design. Still, I know what you are saying. It is the little irregularities that come from hand work versus the possible sterility of a machined, perfect surface. But, again, good work aims for perfection - we just do not expect to find it.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[matteo furbacchione]

By process of making reference surfaces, I rarely end up with a surface that isnÂ’t passable. Occasionally if one area doesnÂ’t clean up when it gets done to thickness then they side goes to the inside and is hidden away. This is quite rare.

Chippendale was practically a factory, IIRC 450~ workers, they were processing an incredible volume of work and I canÂ’t imagine they were particularly concerned with hidden surfaces. IÂ’m certain they wanted a high quality finished product, that functioned accurately. Royalty arenÂ’t going to inspect the bottom of the table, thatÂ’s the cabinermakerÂ’s business.

I happened upon an invoice from the late 1700s once that gave a break down on the times estimates for a variety of furniture being ordered. It's been a couple decades since I saw that document but what stood out was they could be produced relatively complex pieces in days, rather than what I'd have thought would have be weeks. At the time the industrial revolution was only getting started so for the most part the pieces were made by hand, same as with Chippendale at that time... So the only way they could achieve such time frames was to have many bodies dedicated to the process. I also got the impression from the document that some of the parts were mass produced and stockpiled to be used in a variety of other pieces. The one thing I have gathered from looking into history is the more things change the more they stay the same. Whether it be 300 years ago or today deadlines were always tight and thus you found a way of achieving them. Today a single 24 inch planer and 12 inch jointer takes the place of 50 people 300 years ago, so to think Chippendale employed 450 people makes sense... Just as today, I suspect there were up times and down times in the construction industry (Chippendale, as far as I know did the entire fit out of a building as well as the furniture) so he as others do today capitalised on these cycles and thus his employee numbers fluctuated with the business cycle of the time.

[matteo furbacchione]

You're apologizing for them. :^) It amuses me when people say "ooooh, look at what primitive tools they had, it must have taken them so long to do that!" Well no, they took the same amount of time to do stuff, they just did it crappier. Doing stuff like that, if hand tools are all you know and you're good at it, can be a very efficient process. The tools weren't all that primitive, they just didn't use electrons.

I don't think they made "crappier" furniture at all. If they had, the furniture wouldn't have lasted as long as it has. By comparison a 300 year old plane is quite primitive compared to what LV produces today. But a good craftsman can't blame his tools as is attested by those who came hundreds of years before us and what they were able to produce. I contend the modern minimalistic furnishings of today are partly driven by the lack of skilled craftsmen today. There are simply very few who can produce such works that Chippendale et al were producing on a regular basis. And if you look at the Ipad/phone weaned generation that's coming to adulthood the future for craftsmen looks very bleak.

[matteo furbacchione]

As far as Kenov, he was a premier woodworker and produced wonderful work. He did however make a living with teaching along with his other work. Many other woodworkers are doing the same today.
Jim


I've been in this game for 35 years and have always said show me a successful furniture maker and I'll show you a well paid supportive spouse. One of the most satisfying jobs you can do that is also the worst paying...

[bridger berdel]

Kees, finishing with handplanes and using handtools for edges, mouldings etc, will provide that look, regardless of how the stock was prepared. I am not so sure that it is a guarantee of "charm", however. Charm will come from good design. Still, I know what you are saying. It is the little irregularities that come from hand work versus the possible sterility of a machined, perfect surface. But, again, good work aims for perfection - we just do not expect to find it.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I made a fireplace mantle recently. The client wanted a rough hewn timber. I was unable to source such locally. Purchased a cull from a local lumberyard as it had been sitting around long enough to be well dried. Worked it over with a #40 scrub plane, cleaned up a bit with carving gouges. A little judicious wire brush and light sanding, finish applied, installed. Client loved it.

[Doug Dawson]

I don't think they made "crappier" furniture at all. If they had, the furniture wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.

Then why did they need so many repairs? It wasn't just a lack of understanding of wood movement, they knew about that back then as well.

Look at the X-rays of joinery in Peart's G&G book (Design Elements, not the Projects book.) The work of what appear to be abject beginners.

BTW, Chippendale died nearly penniless, because people had issues with paying him for his work. He had serious justification for cutting corners.


By comparison a 300 year old plane is quite primitive compared to what LV produces today. But a good craftsman can't blame his tools as is attested by those who came hundreds of years before us and what they were able to produce. I contend the modern minimalistic furnishings of today are partly driven by the lack of skilled craftsmen today. There are simply very few who can produce such works that Chippendale et al were producing on a regular basis. And if you look at the Ipad/phone weaned generation that's coming to adulthood the future for craftsmen looks very bleak.

The level of craftsmanship today, I contend, is quite extraordinary. Some of those craftsmen even participate in this forum. The problem is, once again, the matter of getting paid. That's a separate issue.

[Kees Heiden]

Hey Doug, you are certainly right. Some construction details of these old furniture pieces are appalling to modern standards. Tenons are often quite loose, dovetails with gaps and severe overcuts, crossgrain issues where for example drawer bottoms are glued in without any thought to the grain direction. It's a wonder any of these things survived.

Now the real miracle is, they survived in astonishing numbers! So, those "errors" fall clearly in the category of good enough. And that comes back to the topic of this thread: They put all their skill into the things you can see, and the rest they worked as quickly and cheaply as possible while still making it sturdy enough to survive a few centuries.

So, who is the better craftsman, the one who gets stuff out of the door with a profitable margin, or the one who has to live on his partners salary because he spends too much time on unimportant details? Not being a business type, I can't really answer that question.

[Doug Dawson]

Hey Doug, you are certainly right. Some construction details of these old furniture pieces are appalling to modern standards. Tenons are often quite loose, dovetails with gaps and severe overcuts, crossgrain issues where for example drawer bottoms are glued in without any thought to the grain direction. It's a wonder any of these things survived.

Now the real miracle is, they survived in astonishing numbers!

Did they? So why are they so rare and valuable that they are consigned to high-end auction houses, going for significant sums. I counter with their rarity (the examples that survived without significant repair.)


So, those "errors" fall clearly in the category of good enough. And that comes back to the topic of this thread: They put all their skill into the things you can see, and the rest they worked as quickly and cheaply as possible while still making it sturdy enough to survive a few centuries.

So, who is the better craftsman, the one who gets stuff out of the door with a profitable margin, or the one who has to live on his partners salary because he spends too much time on unimportant details? Not being a business type, I can't really answer that question.

I think you're mistaking craftsmanship with commercial viability. Wow, Ikea is great, it's unimportant that everything is made of veneered particle board, huh? Would a lot of it survive for a long time in the museum-like environment that we have in today's homes, cared for like heirlooms? Probably.

BTW, I would never try to undercut somebody who is producing as a commercial enterprise. I think it's immoral, it's a race to the bottom and it's just wrong. Fie on whoever would do that. That's how we got here in the first place. Again, two different issues.

[Kees Heiden]

Ikea doesn't survive centuries, I moved my daughter from one students house to the next a few times and everything had to be replaced. And yes there are tons of antique furniture preserved. You should visit France or England some day and rumage around a bit. Only the very rare and super high end stuff like the Chippendale stuff in this thread fetches rediculous high prices. Today much of the lesser furniture is out of vogue and the market has colapsed considerably compared to the 80's-90's. Remember, the 18th century is now 200 to 300 years ago. That's a very long time for wooden stuff.

The reason a lot of it didn't survive is due to changing fashion, not because it fell apart.

[Doug Dawson]

Ikea doesn't survive centuries, I moved my daughter from one students house to the next a few times and everything had to be replaced.

Did you treat it like a Chippendale heirloom? Probably not. We fulfill our own expectations.


Remember, the 18th century is now 200 to 300 years ago. That's a very long time for wooden stuff.

Yes of course. There are entire businesses devoted to repairing it, and they make good money.

The one area where older solid wood furniture carries an advantage, is if you are wealthy cat lady, the scratch damage is easier to repair and hide.

[matteo furbacchione]

Then why did they need so many repairs? It wasn't just a lack of understanding of wood movement, they knew about that back then as well.

Look at the X-rays of joinery in Peart's G&G book (Design Elements, not the Projects book.) The work of what appear to be abject beginners.

BTW, Chippendale died nearly penniless, because people had issues with paying him for his work. He had serious justification for cutting corners.



The level of craftsmanship today, I contend, is quite extraordinary. Some of those craftsmen even participate in this forum. The problem is, once again, the matter of getting paid. That's a separate issue.


300 year old furniture will always need repairs. Glue doesn't hold up, finishes break down, sun damage, dry rot, wood borers, 300 years of seasons, sitting on stone or tile floors for decades or hundreds of years, moving untold number of times, decades of blatant abuse... It all takes its toll.

If the joint holds up for a few hundred years I don't think I would call it abject beginner work. Seen lots that was branded quality last for a lot less time...

The more things change the more they stay the same. Business cycles destroyed businesses over night in the 1700s just as they do today - especially in the building industry. We're the first ones to suffer from a down turn and the last to profit when the economy ramps up. Clients are always trying to screw the tradesman - nothings changed there in probably 4000 years... I've had a few clients try to screw me - doesn't mean I try to cut corners though. I am blessed, I have a wife with a government job and a desire to let me do what makes me happy so I can afford to walk away from scumbag or overbearing clients. But even so when you're surrounded by stiff competition you have to decide on where to cut costs or go under. And ironically, the competition gets worse as the economy picks up.

I could be mistaken but I don't think Chippendale died penniless. I think Chippendale's company at it's height did all the designing and execution of the joinery, furniture, furnishings, interior decorating, and possibly even the drapery and ultimately wasn't able to adapt to rapidly changing ways of doing business and styles. I'm pretty certain his son(s) took over the business for a couple decades before it finally closed.

I can only speak on my experiences... I've had the pleasure of working in 4 countries on 3 continents and all I can say is skill is at an all time low and getting rapidly worse. It is really getting hard to find people that have even basic hand tool skills (or the desire to acquire them) let alone do competent work. I've found American furniture makers strive for the highest on the skill front, Canadian and England a close second and autralia desperately struggling to find tradesmen that have basic skills.

[Kees Heiden]

Chippendale senior didn't die pennieless, he sold his business to his son Chippendale jr. It was him who went bankrupt, but that didn't completely put him down. He continued to work as cabinetmaker and upholsterer.

Mortice and tenon joints and dovetails in solid wood are incredibly strong, even when executed a bit sloppy. Dowels and screws in particle board are inherently weak.

[Doug Dawson]

Chippendale senior didn't die pennieless, he sold his business to his son Chippendale jr. It was him who went bankrupt, but that didn't completely put him down.

Yes, the family business continued to struggle on for a few more years after his death, under insurmountable debts. (Bankruptcy was a really big deal back then.)


Mortice and tenon joints and dovetails in solid wood are incredibly strong, even when executed a bit sloppy. Dowels and screws in particle board are inherently weak.

Here we get into the engineering of joints, and we can disagree on how strong a botched classical joint is. A joint need only be as strong as required. People have the same arguments today, with even more heated disagreements about what is "good enough", in spite of the fact that we now have good ways to quantify joint strength. I'm not defending Ikea or anyone else who uses intelligently designed joinery suited to the task at hand. There's a lot of prejudice involved, and I don't care to be a part of that.

[Kees Heiden]

Ikea has some great stuff. Especially for young people with little money. It’s just not made for eternity.

[glenn bradley]

I have the luxury of only doing one or two large pieces a year. This allows me the time to do things the way I like them done. Even still you will find internal structural elements in pieces I make for my own home made from random scraps. The fact that the piece is for myself is not an excuse to be lazy, it is an excuse to make good use of materials I will not use for clients.

Pieces made for others use new material throughout and although I don't go for a finished look on things like dust panels, they do get sealed and touch sanded. I can't let a piece go to a client in good conscience if there is a split, squeeze out or a ragged edge somewhere, even inside. They are paying for better than that.

[Kees Heiden]

A quote from the famous pegs and tails blog, about cross grain mouldings in this instance, but very applicable to the current topic at large:

Furniture, like people, can be riddled with flaws, but if they possess good character, then one is inclined to overlook the shortcomings. In most cases, pre-industrial furniture is stacked with character and so; one is often blind to the small splits, warps, ill-fitting drawers etc.
Having said that, cabinetmakers of the late seventeenth-century and early eighteenth-century knew that their cross-grained mouldings shrank across the grain and curled up slightly. They limited the effect by making the show wood as thin as possible and backing it up, at 90°, with pine. That they continued making furniture with ‘faulty’ mouldings for a period of over seventy years is an indication of the consumers’ appreciation of the whole and their ability to disregard any perceived imperfections.

[Brian Holcombe]

For structural ingenuity in solid wood, it’s interesting to look at furniture of the Ming dynasty. The furniture is entirely solid wood and it was made to be taken apart and moved regularly. It’s detailed and cut in rosewood, yet it was obviously made with efficient process given the scale of production.

There is an incredible amount of high quality work being produced right now. I’ll happily make the argument that the individual craftsman has more access to quality info, tooling and material than at any other time in history.

[Patrick Walsh]

If a schmuck like me can pull off making something of relativel respect that someone is willing to pay me for I’d say craftsman clearly have as much access to to quality tooling and materials.

Add incredible access to know how for those who prefer the self taught route. If not those that prefer a classrooom setting have unlimited resources for schools to private instruction. I can’t help but agree today’s craftsman has a staggering advantage.

I will also argue that there is plenty of high quality furniture being made today. Just maybe no so many interested or willing to buy it.

be it
For structural ingenuity in solid wood, it’s interesting to look at furniture of the Ming dynasty. The furniture is entirely solid wood and it was made to be taken apart and moved regularly. It’s detailed and cut in rosewood, yet it was obviously made with efficient process given the scale of production.

There is an incredible amount of high quality work being produced right now. I’ll happily make the argument that the individual craftsman has more access to quality info, tooling and material than at any other time in history.

[matteo furbacchione]

Wow! Could you play it down or negatively exaggerate any more? Lol. "Continued to struggle for A FEW MORE YEARS" (when a few universally implies roughly 3...) Honestly lol. I thought that was a bit off so had a look at Wikipedia and didn't realize you were waaayyy off! Try 28 years (roughly 25 years, if you weren't so inclined to do the math) before the business went into bankruptcy. Far longer than most furniture making businesses from then till now have lasted.

And honestly trying to bring ikea furniture as a comparison with Chippendale, or any high end maker, is ridiculous

Now don't get me wrong I'm not typing any of this with malice in my intention, I have a pretty big smirk on my face.

[Doug Dawson]

Wow! Could you play it down or negatively exaggerate any more? Lol. "Continued to struggle for A FEW MORE YEARS" (when a few universally implies roughly 3...) Honestly lol. I thought that was a bit off so had a look at Wikipedia and didn't realize you were waaayyy off! Try 28 years (roughly 25 years, if you weren't so inclined to do the math) before the business went into bankruptcy. Far longer than most furniture making businesses from then till now have lasted.

I think you misread something. Chip Sr died in late 1799, and the firm went bankrupt and was liquidated in 1804. Did that mean that Chip Jr _DIED_? No. It did not render him _completely_ useless as a human being.


And honestly trying to bring ikea furniture as a comparison with Chippendale, or any high end maker, is ridiculous

Now don't get me wrong I'm not typing any of this with malice in my intention, I have a pretty big smirk on my face.

I never compared Chippendale with Ikea: my point was simply that craftsmanship and professional success are not the same thing, _that_ was the ridiculous notion that I was poking fun at. I don't have the time or the energy to _fully_ illustrate that context _here_. The posts are still up, you can look at them. I hope that makes it clearer.

BTW don't leave your Ikea stuff out in the rain.

[Kees Heiden]

In my eyes being professionally succesfull is part of being a craftsman. There are several ways of course to be succesfull and when you need to teach or use your partner's allowance to be succesfull, then that is a valid aproach too, of course. I was too harsh about that.

Edit: If you want to know more about Chippendale jr. have a look here: https://bifmo.data.history.ac.uk/entry/chippendale-thomas-jnr-1749-1822

He continued to be very succesfull after going bankrupt. And the bankruptency wasn't really his fault either.

[steven c newman]

Sometimes it happens...inconvenient facts are obscured, by the nose one is looking down with.....

[matteo furbacchione]

I think you misread something. Chip Sr died in late 1799, and the firm went bankrupt and was liquidated in 1804. Did that mean that Chip Jr _DIED_? No. It did not render him _completely_ useless as a human being.


BTW don't leave your Ikea stuff out in the rain.

Yes I get it now. You were implying that Thomas Sr. maintained an influence in the business after he retired in 1776 and Thomas Jr. took over... And thus the 4 years was suppose to be meaningful measure...

Also, don't leave your original chippendale out in the rain.

[David Myers]

The following link is to an auction of a cabinet (circa 1715) from the workshop of Louis XIV's favorite furniture maker, Boulle.

Scroll thru the pictures to image 6 to see the workshop stamp and relevant to the OPs original topic, a secondary surface.

https://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/storage-case-pieces/cabinets/stamped-boulle-cabinet-nicolas-sageot/id-f_1251228/

The are other similar pieces on that site, and some of image galleries include full pics of the backs of the pieces.

Disclaimer: I don't particularly care for these types of pieces; a recent trip introduced me to Boulle (from behind velvet ropes) and I thought of this thread. And although the piece linked above is nice, the $348,500.00 asking price is a bit steep.

[matteo furbacchione]

Here's a view of the bottom of a ~$110000 Chippendale style oxbow front slant top desk

[Brian Holcombe]

The following link is to an auction of a cabinet (circa 1715) from the workshop of Louis XIV's favorite furniture maker, Boulle.

Scroll thru the pictures to image 6 to see the workshop stamp and relevant to the OPs original topic, a secondary surface.

https://www.1stdibs.com/furniture/storage-case-pieces/cabinets/stamped-boulle-cabinet-nicolas-sageot/id-f_1251228/

The are other similar pieces on that site, and some of image galleries include full pics of the backs of the pieces.

Disclaimer: I don't particularly care for these types of pieces; a recent trip introduced me to Boulle (from behind velvet ropes) and I thought of this thread. And although the piece linked above is nice, the $348,500.00 asking price is a bit steep.

This is neither an auction site, nor is the cabinet from Boulle. :D

[David Myers]

This is neither an auction site, nor is the cabinet from Boulle. :D

Apologies for the mistakes. Nicolas Sageot was the maker, a contemporary of Boulle but apparently an independent craftsman.

[steven c newman]

Yeah, and it never occurred to the posters on here, that those repairs were done at a much later date......usually by someone trying to "conserve" them....sometimes 200 years AFTER the piece was made.

Of course, never entered their head. Maybe they assumed the original maker was making repair calls, under warrantee ? Or they just assumed this was how it was made? Just so they can claim, boast even, that the items they build will look "so much better" than these Antiques...

[Brian Holcombe]

Yeah, and it never occurred to the posters on here, that those repairs were done at a much later date......usually by someone trying to "conserve" them....sometimes 200 years AFTER the piece was made.

Of course, never entered their head. Maybe they assumed the original maker was making repair calls, under warrantee ? Or they just assumed this was how it was made? Just so they can claim, boast even, that the items they build will look "so much better" than these Antiques...

It did, i mentioned that on page 1 of this thread

[Kees Heiden]

I was browsing the pegs and tails blog lately. Jack Plane who writes this blog is a very knowledgable retired antique restorer with his specialty being the 18 th century. He was comenting somewhere on the build quality of these French pieces. It was truly horrible. Outside beautifull, inside total disaster. So, no, not just repairs. Original sloppy.

[steven c newman]

Hmmm....suppose we just come back in about 200 years.....and see how the "Modern Method of Furniture Making" is holding up.......

[Patrick Walsh]

The way things are going nothing is gonna be here in 200 years but ashes and ocean.

But yeah crappy dowels, laminate, epoxy, pocket screws conversion varnish = landfill...

IKEA even considered furniture. Not in my book.

[James Pallas]

Everyone has and is entitled to their own opinions of how to complete their work. I try to keep my opinions to be confined to practices that work on the basis of you may have future problems if you use butt joints and glue for a joint in example. Dowels, loose tenons, tenons and splines all work, just different methods. I tend not to worry much about the appearance of secondary pieces. On the other hand I'm a believer in putting finish on the inside of work. Even if I am replacing trim in or on my house it gets backed primed at least. The paint or finish may not be the same color for the inside. It is still done.
The picture is a console I built a few years back. The stretchers and even the drawer blades may no be the same width or thickness, as far as the stretchers, the drawer blades are thicknessed because they need to be. I have absolutely no fear that it will fall apart anytime soon. If the joinery is good and the components are sufficiently strong whether it's smooth to the touch or sized exactly on secondary items makes little difference to me.
Jim

[James Pallas]

I was browsing the pegs and tails blog lately. Jack Plane who writes this blog is a very knowledgable retired antique restorer with his specialty being the 18 th century. He was comenting somewhere on the build quality of these French pieces. It was truly horrible. Outside beautifull, inside total disaster. So, no, not just repairs. Original sloppy.
Dang it Kees, you did get me to show the backside after all.:p
Jim

[Kees Heiden]

It’s all good fun anyway.

[Brian Holcombe]

We can already see how modern methods hold up, many of them are over a century old. Very basic modern method can be quite fine, as example I have a small IKEA shelf holding up machine tool parts (a spare 5hp motor, wrenches and aluminum housings). The thing is treated poorly and 15 years old yet no signs of failure. It’s made with screws going into end grain on shelves housed with dado grooves.

[Kees Heiden]

Here is the blog entry I was writing about earlier

https://pegsandtails.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/french-mustard/

In These dovetailed drawers, the extra nails are probably a later repair. But you rarely see such repairs on 18 th century English stuff. The French menuisiers of that time must have been some serious slackers. Still, in the many brocante shops in France you still find tons of furniture like this despite some devastating wars and shifting fashions in the mean time.

[Brian Holcombe]

It provides plenty of insight into how sturdy a joint becomes once it is draw-bored.

[Kees Heiden]

Unless you split the tenon. Drawboring demands care too.

[Mark Maleski]

A lot of workers today concentrate on having flawless execution while neglecting the weightier matters of style, charm, daintiness, gracefulness and the like. Their dovetails are tight, but their mouldings are bland. Their sanding is flawless, but their turnings are doughy. Their staining is uniform, but it obscures the liveliness of the wood. If a piece has no life to it, is that shoddy work?

I was looking at a moulding recently. It was made in 1752. There was tearout in two places in a 20 inch moulding. But the moulding had the kind of style and exuberance that is almost never seen today.

What a great observation! Two summers ago I had an experience at a museum that sticks with me: I was at a regional (i.e., small, underfunded) museum that nonetheless had several nice objects (none particularly old). One of the objects was an 18th-century style tea table...rectangular, cabriole legs, pad feet. It's a form of the tea table that I absolutely love and intend to build for my own home someday (I've got a long list, as I bet most of you do). As I stood in front of it, I felt nothing...it didn't "sing." I couldn't understand why, as the form was exactly what you'd want in this piece. Next to it stood a style I don't particularly care for; a vernacular work table with drawer that nonetheless grabbed my attention and drew me in. After a few minutes of bemusement over why the work table "sang" but the tea table didn't, I looked at the placard and found the two tables were made by father and son. The vernacular work table was built in the early 1900s by the father using traditional methods; the tea table was built by the son in the 1970s (IIRC) using modern production methods (i.e., machines). As I looked underneath the tea table I saw perfectly finished and polished surfaces. Mystery solved.

My take-away is *not* that machine-made pieces can't sing...plenty of craftsmen disprove that notion every day. But I do think that when making a reproduction (of any era) it makes sense to reproduce it in all aspects as much as is practicable. If they didn't use machines, my reproduction shouldn't appear to either...and that can be as obvious as not finishing secondary surfaces, or as subtle as avoiding any process that leads to a uniform thicknessing of parts. And as Warren's post emphasizes, make no modern-day concessions on the details (moldings, turnings, shaping of cabriole legs, etc).

[Brian Holcombe]

Unless you split the tenon. Drawboring demands care too.

A loose mortise and tenon can remain sturdy and intact for hundreds of years through draw-boring. It says a lot about the practice. Probably a joint far more loose fitting than many would be comfortable with today.

We have a completely different comparison today than they did in the 18th century. The time consuming part of cutting joinery is fitting, so if you have workers making stuff quickly then you have them cut it slightly loose, especially if it’s going to draw-bore tightly in the end anyways.

Today a minor gap is often viewed as a failure, the result is that hand-made work is time consuming. We often don’t want to see gaps or pegs and so instead the time to fit a joint greatly increases.

[ken hatch]

A loose mortise and tenon can remain sturdy and intact for hundreds of years through draw-boring. It says a lot about the practice. Probably a joint far more loose fitting than many would be comfortable with today.

We have a completely different comparison today than they did in the 18th century. The time consuming part of cutting joinery is fitting, so if you have workers making stuff quickly then you have them cut it slightly loose, especially if it’s going to draw-bore tightly in the end anyways.

Today a minor gap is often viewed as a failure, the result is that hand-made work is time consuming. We often don’t want to see gaps or pegs and so instead the time to fit a joint greatly increases.

Brian,

Absolutely. Even a well fitted joint benefits from draw-boring. A draw-bored joint tells me the maker cared about the longevity of his work. In the "art" photography world there was a term "the hand of man". In furniture making I want to see the hand of man.

ken

[Mark Maleski]

We have a completely different comparison today than they did in the 18th century. The time consuming part of cutting joinery is fitting, so if you have workers making stuff quickly then you have them cut it slightly loose, especially if it’s going to draw-bore tightly in the end anyways.

That's not my experience. Cutting M&T by hand is my standard approach, and I mark the tenon to match my mortise chisel/drill bit and saw to the line. I am typically slightly fat after sawing (not sure why, now that I think of it) and a couple passes with a rabbet plane brings it to a tight fit. Quick(-ish), simple, and tight.

Drawboring is great on casework, but I haven't found a good way to do it on chairs due to their angled joinery. On those you must rely on good, tight fit. And unless you're doing production work, machines are too inefficient for chair joinery (too much jigging required).

[Brian Holcombe]

Time the entire process, including the ‘couple passes’ and I’d imagine the actual cutting will be about 6-8 minutes (mortise and tenon) and the additional time of knocking down the sides will likely be that time again. Since you must check, swipe, test fit and swipe again. Do the same again for a truly and completely zero gap joint, then check the time.

Both western and eastern makers historically insist on accuracy ‘off the saw’ or with just the mortise chisel, this is for efficiency of time. Fitting is time consuming well beyond that of the cutout.

An 18th century shop master is going to triple the time involved in joinery cutout for no practical reason?

[Mark Maleski]

In my experience, the actual cutting takes the majority of the time, the fitting is close enough off the saw that it takes just a fraction of the overall time*. But you're right that they worked incredibly fast in that era (they had to...no social safety net and business failure had dire consequences) and wouldn't make anything more stout than it needed to be. I imagine they knew where to take extra care (e.g., visible dovetails; M&T on chairs) and where they could cut corners (non-show dovetails, joinery on slip seats, surface treatment of secondary surfaces {the original subject of this thread}). I'm still doubtful that good casework had loose M&T compensated for by drawboring, but until we take several of them apart it's just speculation.

*what takes a lot of time is taking too many swipes and creating a too-loose fit. The best solution in that case is to glue veneer to the tenon and re-fit after it's dry.

[Frederick Skelly]

The time consuming part of cutting joinery is fitting.......

Today a minor gap is often viewed as a failure, the result is that hand-made work is time consuming.

Brian, you have just put my personal experience into words. This is the story of my life man.