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/salelandin...347&saletitle=

Chippendale2.jpg

Chippendale1.jpg

[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

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

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?

back-of-mulliner-chest.jpg

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.