Wood Magazine Mission Dresser

[Dan Gill]

I've been waiting for the Dec./Jan. issue of Wood Magazine for a long time, as I want to make a new tall and low dresser in the Arts and Crafts or Mission style. But when I got the issue I was a little disappointed and I came up with more questions than answers. I don't intend this as a slam against Wood for this plan. It is very detailed and up to their usual high standards. But some things bother me. I've never built a dresser before, so let me lean on those of you with more experience:

1. The legs are just 4/4 stock, and this seems out of proportion for the piece.

2. The corbels seem way too large and flamboyant. Perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps it's just a personal preference.

3. Here is the biggest problem, as I see it. This dresser is basically a plywood case with QSWO sides, top, and drawer fronts. This doesn't strike me as a typically Arts and Crafts way of making a dresser. Am I wrong? I think this method would work, and it might be the simplest way to do it, but I am not sure it's terribly authentic to the style. That's okay, but I'm not sure it's what I want to do.

Is this a good way to make a dresser? If not, can you point me to plans for a better way? I suppose I can change some of the details, such as the corbels, but if I change the entire way the dresser is constructed, I might as well design my own from scratch. I like designing, but maybe not for a first effort.

I look forward to hearing your comments and ideas.

[Jamie Buxton]

3. Here is the biggest problem, as I see it. This dresser is basically a plywood case with QSWO sides, top, and drawer fronts.

Lemme see...If there's QSWO for top, sides, and fronts, that leaves only the back and the bottom (if it has one) to be plywood. Me, I'd call that a lumber case, with a little hidden plywood.

A little more seriously, you might want to think about whether you want to build a Mission-style dresser, or a reproduction of an antique. The reproduction would be built exactly like the antique. It might even have a distressed finish so that it looks like it is 100 years old. The Mission-style piece would be built in the style of the antique, but it would be clear that it is a newly-constructed piece. It would have a non-antique finish, and might have modern materials like plywood in some places.

[Jim Becker]

Magazine's often use plywood for carcass construction, especially when the project is aimed at the beginning and intermediate woodworking...it makes for quicker and easier construction with (hopefully) less issue with wood movement. Most of these projects are also designed so that someone lacking a jointer and planer can still build them using "readily available" materials in "standard" thicknesses and sizes. Properly done and with careful matching/finishing, it will look nice. But it may not be less expensive than using solid stock if you buy the "good stuff" in your sheet goods!

As to the project itself, consider it a "Mission style" project. If you like the general design, but would be happier with more traditional joinery and materials just use it as a guide to develop your own version. For the legs being 4/4 (3/4" finished thickness) material, do keep in mind that the dresser matches the hightstands from the November issue in that respect. They tend to do this when making a series of projects that are meant to coexist. Personally, I'm not overwhelmed by this series, but that's ok. It's a very subjective thing.

If you like Mission, be sure to get a copy of the Stickley catalog (must have in your library!) and check out Bob Lang's books of drawings for more ideas.

[Dan Gill]

Lemme see...If there's QSWO for top, sides, and fronts, that leaves only the back and the bottom (if it has one) to be plywood. Me, I'd call that a lumber case, with a little hidden plywood.

Actually, I probably would call it a plywood dresser with very thick QSWO veneer.


I'm not opposed to plywood and I don't necessarily want a period piece. I think it's more that I want to learn to do this in another way. I'm willing to learn, or to change my way of thinking. I just don't see this as being the best way to do it. For one thing, it's going to be pretty heavy.

Thanks for your input. I'm still pondering . . .