Planning the lingerie chest II

[Derek Cohen]

The forum is a little slow, so I thought I'd post the developments in designing the lingerie chest.


The overall height has dropped to 51" since I plan to incorporate a hidden mirror into a swing-up lid. The lid will look like a moulding, and the hinges will be hidden at the rear. I would like to fit a secret catch that will also unlock the top drawer (this will replace the keyhole mentioned early on).


The base is 25" wide and the top is 20". The moulding/lid is 22" wide.


The lid is planned to be a breadboard construction to minimise movement. Any comments?


I drew the front elevation to scale with blue tape representing the actual thickness of the carcass:





There are 8 drawers. These taper in depth, although the top two are the side, both 4 1/2". Then comes 5", 5 1/2", 6", 6 1/2", 7", and 7 1/2".


The drawer rails are 1/2" high and will be hidden behind each drawer front. The top of each drawer front lies flush with the underside of the rail, and then drops to cover the rail below. The rail then doubles as a drawer stop.


At this stage I am undecided whether to curve the drawers as this may cause it to be too busy (too many curves). If they are, they will have a very shallow convex (curve to the front). It is difficult to visualise this, and so I will leave that aspect to later.


The rear elevation will repeat the lower curved rail. Construction of the rear and sides will be frame-and-panel. The panels will be flush to the side rails, creating a flat surface.


The sides look a little bland in this elevation, but visualise that they curve outward. The depth of the chest is 16 1/2". The lid adds another 1" at each end. This dimension enables the chest to fit neatly into the alcove in the bedroom. Any comments on this depth? The last chests I made were 17" deep, which does not seem to me to be significantly different.





The side panels are expected to be 1/4" thick and rebated into the curved side rails. The interior of the side panels will be reinforced by the side rails for the drawers.


From these elevations I began making templates ..








These are also needed to determine how to use the wood I have. I would like to use the Makore. I fear it will not be sufficient. Either I will need to find more - which will be difficult, especially since the boards I have are from the same tree - or I need to change to a different wood.


My thought is that I will mix the Makore with Jarrah. It should compliment each other really well as the tonal colours are the same brown-red.


Below is a wood stack. The second-from-the-bottom shelf is the Makore (4 boards), and the remainder is Jarrah.





Three of these boards are 7' long and 2" thick. Two are 11" wide.





The drawers and panels could be Makore, with the frames and rails in Jarrah, or vice versa. Comments?


Regards from Perth


Derek

[Jim Koepke]

The overall height has dropped to 51" since I plan to incorporate a hidden mirror into a swing-up lid.

My thought on a chest built for lingerie is there should be a full length mirror that folds out from one of the sides.

At this stage I am undecided whether to curve the drawers as this may cause it to be too busy (too many curves).

Isn't the point of lingerie to accentuate the curves?


jtk

[David Weaver]

I like the updated lines/curve and taper from top to bottom. The proportions are very nice!

[Dave Bless]

Really cool design. I've always wanted to build one of these. A couple of thoughts... I thought a lingerie chest was supposed to have 7 drawers, one for each day of the week? Also, it's just me, but I'd do a modern take and make the drawer fronts out of one wide board with continual grain running up and down. Non traditional to be sure. You could put a convex curve on that as well.

[Bill McDermott]

You are taking the use of blue tape as a design tool to new heights. This is another great improvement of a very old process, using new materials. I like the lines, proportions and overall design. I would try to make the drawers from a silky smooth material, using the courser wood for the frame. For some reason I envision your unfamiliar woods (to me) to be splintery. Don't want those delicate, silky contents getting snagged. Or maybe you can line the drawers with blue tape.

[Mark Kornell]

Derek, I think you know that breadboard ends don't do anything to change seasonal wood movement. So I'm thinking you meant something else, like inhibit cupping?

Apart from the difference in aesthetics, why go with frame and panel construction on the sides? Why not do a solid (laminated) side, top and bottom? Seems to me that would be more straightforward to shape than a F&P approach. Plus, if you turn the rails between drawers into full panels joined to the sides with full-length sliding dovetails, you can ensure the unit maintains that delicate curve in the sides even if the wood wants to change.

I also think convex drawer fronts would look good. The geometry is interesting - you'd have to decide if you want the fronts to have a constant radius or a constant projection, but either way, maintaining continuity from the bottom of one drawer to the top of the next will be challenging. I'd vote for constant radius.

I'm really liking the look of the subtly curved tapered sides.

Totally off-topic, but I'm curious. I thought Australia is fully metric, yet you are using imperial scale. Nothing wrong with that - I'm Canadian and while the country is officially metric, we tend to be pretty schizophrenic with using the two systems. Is Australia the same way?

[Brian Hale]

Derek... I may have missed it but have you considered tilting the front back a bit so the bottom is an inch or two deeper than the top? A bit more complex to build but it would add some visual weight to the cabinet when viewed from the side . When I look at the side view the cabinet looks a bit tippy.

Keep in mind my design skills are abysmal

Brian

[Derek Cohen]

Derek, I think you know that breadboard ends don't do anything to change seasonal wood movement. So I'm thinking you meant something else, like inhibit cupping?

Hi Mark

Yes, I was referring to cupping. I was thinking of a solid top, and concerned in this respect.

Apart from the difference in aesthetics, why go with frame and panel construction on the sides? Why not do a solid (laminated) side, top and bottom? Seems to me that would be more straightforward to shape than a F&P approach. Plus, if you turn the rails between drawers into full panels joined to the sides with full-length sliding dovetails, you can ensure the unit maintains that delicate curve in the sides even if the wood wants to change.

Laminating a curved panel about 20" wide is a little daunting. I am not sure that it would be stable in respect to controlling spring back. A thinnish panel that slides down and is shaped by a curved frame is the idea. I would be happier with a 3/8" thick panel, and will test this beforehand. It all comes down to what can be bent.

I also think convex drawer fronts would look good. The geometry is interesting - you'd have to decide if you want the fronts to have a constant radius or a constant projection, but either way, maintaining continuity from the bottom of one drawer to the top of the next will be challenging. I'd vote for constant radius.

My plan is to bandsaw the drawer fronts and then plane/scrape them. Laminating was an option but the curve is shallow and it is easier to shape than laminate.

The plan is to dovetail flat tapered sides, which will be coped to fit the curved inside of the carcass, and then plane the outside of the drawer face to a curve. I am thinking of leaving the inside straight rather than bandsawing and scraping this to a complementary curve - comment?

Here is a rough side elevation I made to show how the dovetailing might proceed ..

Totally off-topic, but I'm curious. I thought Australia is fully metric, yet you are using imperial scale. Nothing wrong with that - I'm Canadian and while the country is officially metric, we tend to be pretty schizophrenic with using the two systems. Is Australia the same way?

You know, I was brought up with both - I was in primary school when metrification came in around 1960. Now I use both - sometimes inches are easier to use and sometimes mm. My plans include both!

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

Derek... I may have missed it but have you considered tilting the front back a bit so the bottom is an inch or two deeper than the top? A bit more complex to build but it would add some visual weight to the cabinet when viewed from the side . When I look at the side view the cabinet looks a bit tippy.

Keep in mind my design skills are abysmal

Brian

Hi Brian

I did consider this early on but recognised that one would then be forced to lean over the top.

It occurred to me once again when I was drawing up the side elevation. What changes things is that I realise that the drawing of the side elevation is not an accurate representation of it - the sides curve and also have a curved lower rail. They will not look bland when done.

The cabinet also fits into an alcove (on one side), and this establishes that the depth is correct. As it is, the depth is average for such cabinets.

Thanks for your comments.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Mark Kornell]

Derek,

Yes, I was referring to cupping. I was thinking of a solid top, and concerned in this respect.

My opinion on breadboard construction is that the walls of the mortise in the breadboard end are typically too thin to prevent the captured panel from cupping. You want to build the panel so it won't cup - usually quartersawn laminations. Not that I've seen a lot of free breadboard tops like you're proposing, so I have no idea if my opinion has any basis in fact

Laminating a curved panel about 20" wide is a little daunting. I am not sure that it would be stable in respect to controlling spring back. A thinnish panel that slides down and is shaped by a curved frame is the idea. I would be happier with a 3/8" thick panel, and will test this beforehand. It all comes down to what can be bent.

I'm looking forward to seeing how that comes together. Truly. That is one the most technically interesting woodworking ideas I've seen.

The plan is to dovetail flat tapered sides, which will be coped to fit the curved inside of the carcass, and then plane the outside of the drawer face to a curve. I am thinking of leaving the inside straight rather than bandsawing and scraping this to a complementary curve - comment?

Your side elevation shows the amount you'd take off is up to 10mm (of 25mm), or 40%, over each half of the drawer width (9" to 11.5"). That seems pretty significant, might look odd from the top. It would certainly give the drawer a heavier look (vs. shaping the inside) when open.

[Derek Cohen]

My opinion on breadboard construction is that the walls of the mortise in the breadboard end are typically too thin to prevent the captured panel from cupping. You want to build the panel so it won't cup - usually quartersawn laminations. Not that I've seen a lot of free breadboard tops like you're proposing, so I have no idea if my opinion has any basis in fact

Hi Mark

How about the breadboard ends on this lapdesk - the top is 1/4" thick ...





The lid for the chest is going to be 1" thick.

Your [drawer] side elevation shows the amount you'd take off is up to 10mm (of 25mm), or 40%, over each half of the drawer width (9" to 11.5"). That seems pretty significant, might look odd from the top. It would certainly give the drawer a heavier look (vs. shaping the inside) when open.

I have an idea for the drawers that - hopefully - will be "interesting".

What you are commenting on is the bottom drawer, and - yes - that will have a strongish curve. I have not yet calculated the curve but this weekend will draw up a template.

The idea is to retain the same curve for all the drawers. This means that the drawers will have less overt curve as they go up the chest since most of the visible curve is at the sides of the drawer front (and this is cut away as the carcass tapers).

I have an idea for a tapering chamfer for the inside of the side rails that will combine with the increasing curve of the drawers. This is still inside my head.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Gary Muto]

Derek,

I like the design and I think the rectangular sides will be fine since they are curved from the front view. I also think the 51" height is better proportioned.

As far as the wood selection, I don't know much about either but the differences appear subtle in raw form so go for it. You've always had an excellent eye for wood/grain selection.

Regarding Breadboard ends; I've had good luck with the few pieces I've used them. I can see the seasonal movement since the ends are stable and I haven't seen any cupping. The fit I had was pretty tight too. My opinion on breadboard end are that while they may not stop cupping they will certainly slow it down (i.e. restrain it). I like the look of breadboard ends too.

[James Conrad]

It's tough sometimes to get a good feel for a project observing from a 2D perspective, however here are my observations from your front mockup: the sides are too heavy/thick at 35mm, 1" would lighten it up maybe less. I'd still like to see you try a bow front, it would have to be subtle, perhaps continued and blended into the sides. The bottom drawer size is a bit off, due to the increased curve of the sides at the bottom, that 1/2" difference from the one above makes it appear larger and out of proportion in comparison to the others. The graduation of the drawers in general is very close to having a good feel, but seems a touch off, can't quite put my finger on why at the moment other than the bottom drawer issue. I'd try playing with the drawer sizes a bit more to get that nice "graduated feel." Bowing the front will add some complexity to other elements other than the drawers, but would be well worth the effort in the end. Sometimes positive design decisions come when actually working on a project. Looking forward to the progress.

[Derek Cohen]

The design continues to evolve.

I've dropped the height to 48 1/2" (from 51"). This was for two reasons. Firstly, Lynndy is 5'4" and the new height makes it easier to look into the top drawer. Secondly, she gave me hell for not making the top drawer slimmer (than the 4 1/2" it was) - it is intended for jewellery, and her idea was to make this thin. I tried several configurations, but they looked odd unless there was a progression of drawer heights. Eventually I came up with one she accepted. I also had to explain to her that the insides of the drawer was not as high as it appeared on the outside (overlapping drawer fronts and drawer bottoms taking up some of the apparent height)

The 8 drawers start at 3 3/4" (external height) and increase in 1/2" increments to 7 1/4" for the bottom drawer.

To accommodate the lower height I changed the front thickness of the side rails from 35mm to 30mm (The side faces will be either 40 or 45mm wide). Overall the proportions look the same as before ...



The drawers will be curved. I've been playing with dimensions and cutting out bits of MDF to get a feel for what it will look like.

This is a very poor drawing, not exactly to scale and does not have the mouldings ...



What I discovered is that it is extremely complex to curve and taper drawers at the same time.

The problem is - based on a drawer front 1" thick - that the tapering sides does not permit a curve at the front that remains uniform. As the drawer shortens, so the ends thicken. In the end I decided to hold the curve constant, however then the drawer fronts cannot remain the same width at the dovetail ends.

To counter this, I decided to curve the inner faces of the drawer front. Now the issue is that, since the curves are constant, the plan widths differ. To deal with this, the inside curves will be shaped to match at the top, and then can taper to the original flat. It is either this or curve the entire inside - the issue then is that the lower side is intended to act as a stop against the drawer frames. Let me know if you have a different idea.


From the front, the drawers will be most curved at the bottom and least so at the top. In other words, the effect will be that the curve will flatten as it moves up the front of the drawers.

That is largely where the design is currently.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Sean Hughto]

It seems odd to me that you increased the drawer sizes at a uniform 1/2 inch. Did you try a function that increased them more and more proportionately as you moved down? In other words a curved rather than linear increase?