Secondary surfaces in 18th century work

[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.
Attachment 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.