Secondary surfaces in 18th century work

[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.