Table Top Design

[Rob Russell]

On a shaker side table (roughly 20" x 20" x 25/26" tall), any thoughts about which way would look better for the tabletop grain to run? The table may end up being a little deeper than wide.

Let's say you resawed wide boards and bookmatched for the top - running front to back would make the bookmatch obvious, but you'd see the end grain on the front.

Running the grain side-to-side means you wouldn't see the end-grain from the front, but any fancy grain-matching wouldn't be as obvious.

Any thoughts?

Rob

[Jamie Buxton]

What's the matter with seeing end-grain? To answer my own question -- nothing! If you have beautiful wood which you can book match, dispaly it at its best!

[Kirk (KC) Constable]

If it's square, it seems like if you finish all the aprons and such the way it won't matter...it can be turned whichever way. If it's not square, it would always look 'wrong' to me if the grain didn't run 'left to right' as you looked at the front. That close-mindedness may be what keeps me from being an 'arteest'.

KC

[Bill Arnold]

With book-matched panels, I'd rather see the grain front-to-back for better presentation. The appearance of the end grain can be improved by sanding to a higher grit before and during the finish process.

[Rob Russell]

I should add that this will have a single drawer, so - if it does end up square (vs. "a little deeper than wide") - it will have a definite front.

I sort of like the idea of bookmatching the stock so the grain runs front-to-back because it would mean I could use slightly narrower stock which will be easier to find. If I end up with the grain running left-to-right with the bookmatch front-to-rear, it means finding somewhat wider stock. As you can imagine, trying to find 8/4 figured cherry that's 11-12" wide with no sapwood or sapwood only on 1 side isn't easy and it's darn expensive (although this stuff is going to be rather dear no matter what).

[Jamie Buxton]

With the top's grain running side-to-side and a drawer beneath, you'll need a taller piece of apron above the drawer than if the grain direction were the other way. Even so, I vote for pretty wood.

[Lee DeRaud]

With the top's grain running side-to-side and a drawer beneath, you'll need a taller piece of apron above the drawer than if the grain direction were the other way.

Bear with me, I'm getting old, but...HUH?!? You lost me completely with that one.

(Brief pause while Lee dusts off his forehead for the slap that is soon to follow. )

[Tim Sproul]

With the top's grain running side-to-side and a drawer beneath, you'll need a taller piece of apron above the drawer than if the grain direction were the other way. Even so, I vote for pretty wood.

I think Jamie's post should read more like if the grain of the top is running parallel with the drawer movement, you'll have less depth of drawer available given everything else equal. You'll need a stick running perpendicular to the top grain at the front of the stand to prevent splitting the top if any weight is placed on the top. IMO, there are plenty of ways around this without sacrificing outside/show proportions.....but to do so I can only imagine ways that would sacrifice usable drawer height.

[Lee DeRaud]

I think Jamie's post should read more like if the grain of the top is running parallel with the drawer movement, you'll have less depth of drawer available given everything else equal. You'll need a stick running perpendicular to the top grain at the front of the stand to prevent splitting the top if any weight is placed on the top. IMO, there are plenty of ways around this without sacrificing outside/show proportions.....but to do so I can only imagine ways that would sacrifice usable drawer height.

The good news: I (almost) understood that.
The bad news: it sounds almost exactly backwards of what Jamie said.

We may have to write this whole thing off as a case of me being more-than-usually dense today.

[Rob Russell]

I've been thinking about the grain - weight - drawer height issue and think I understand it.

The weakest part of the tabletop will be just on either side of the glueline, assuming a single glueline in the middle of bookmatched stock. That weakness could cause the top to split along the grain lines if a heavy point load were put on the table.

If the tabletop grain runs side-to-side, then the top will be supported by the full depth aprons on the side.
If the tabletopgrain runs front to back, then the tabletop would only be supported by whatever strip of wood runs above the drawer. To "properly" support that top, you'd need to increase the depth of the strip of wood above the drawer. Doing so means either increasing the overall depth of the aprons (maintaining drawer depth) or decreasing drawer depth and shifting some of the apron depth to the strip above the drawer.

At least - that's what I think Jamie meant.

[Lee DeRaud]

I've been thinking about the grain - weight - drawer height issue and think I understand it.

The weakest part of the tabletop will be just on either side of the glueline, assuming a single glueline in the middle of bookmatched stock. That weakness could cause the top to split along the grain lines if a heavy point load were put on the table.

If the tabletop grain runs side-to-side, then the top will be supported by the full depth aprons on the side.
If the tabletopgrain runs front to back, then the tabletop would only be supported by whatever strip of wood runs above the drawer. To "properly" support that top, you'd need to increase the depth of the strip of wood above the drawer. Doing so means either increasing the overall depth of the aprons (maintaining drawer depth) or decreasing drawer depth and shifting some of the apron depth to the strip above the drawer.

At least - that's what I think Jamie meant.

Ok, that made sense...I don't think it's what he actually said, but I've been having that problem most of this week with various people.

[Bill Arnold]

I should add that this will have a single drawer, so - if it does end up square (vs. "a little deeper than wide") - it will have a definite front. ...

Rob,
Whether the table is a little deeper than wide should have no bearing on the grain direction. If necessary, you could add a support in the center.

Another thing you might consider is the way I did the drawers in a pair of end tables I built. The front apron is the drawer front. There is no pull and I left no more than 1/32" clearance on each side and the top so it looks like the apron. I used sliding dovetails to join the aprons to the legs; the narrower front support is about an inch high. If the photos don't show enough detail, let me know and I'll fill in the blanks.

Regards,

[Rob Russell]

Bill,

Nice job on your table.

What method did you use for attaching the tabletop? Buttons in slots, screws through the top drawer guides?

Rob

[John Hart]

If it were me...(and it's not)...Because the tabletop is square, I would cut triangles and have no endgrain showing at all.

[Jamie Buxton]

With the top's grain running side-to-side and a drawer beneath, you'll need a taller piece of apron above the drawer than if the grain direction were the other way. Even so, I vote for pretty wood.

Aiee... Sorry, my fingers typed faster than my brain. Tim wrote what I meant.