Warren - need guidance for raised panel plane

[David Weaver]

Warren, I have the itch to build a raised panel plane, but want to get some idea on historical bevel sizes. I'm requesting your input because I know you make raised panels without the modern flat lip at the bottom of the bevel.

Can you give me an idea of what thickness your bevels are at the edge of a raised panel and how deep the grooves are in the rails on a typical cabinet sized door?

This seems like a rudimentary question, and I guess it is. I just want reasonably handsome proportions, and will probably make a plane with a sliding fence on the bottom (but not the side) so that it's relatively versatile.

[Warren Mickley]

I generally make doors that are 7/8 thick with 5/16 grooves (5/16 for a moulding, 1/4 for the back). The grooves are usually deeper on the stiles than on the rails, like 5/16 or 3/8 for the stiles, and 1/4 or maybe 5/16 for the rails. There are more expansion worries horizontally than vertically, and you have to leave more empty clearance for the stiles. I think some historic work has both grooves the same. If the rails grooves are shallow, the tenon can be a little wider. For a 5/16 groove I usually mark the edges of the panel at around 1/4 or 7/32. You can adjust the fit by taking more of the bevel or by bevelling the back.

I usually draw a diagram of the panel and stile meeting to set up the dimensions. I have not used a panel raising plane. I think that they were generally used for panelling in rooms or doors, architectural work. In making a piece of furniture it is nice to be able to adjust the various dimensions for the size of panel etc.. With your cabinets you are doing enough to begin to justify making a plane.

I have a rail from an 18th century walnut cabinet in my lap. The ovolo is 5/16, the groove 1/4, the back 1/4, thickness is 13/16. The groove depth is 1/4. The edge of the tenon is even with the bottom of the groove.

[David Weaver]

Thanks for the advice, Warren. I think you're right, it is sort of an indulgence. I probably need to make an effort to look at a few dozen older pieces. My parents have some very old furniture where the bevels are planed on the front, not perfectly, but in a way that looks nice, and the backs of the panels have been cut quickly with a draw knife.

I'm not sure what the right terminology is, maybe it's fielding - but the step that exists between the middle of the panel and the bevel is not there on their doors and I've made my kitchen doors that way - looking around, I don't see many similar panels. Unfortunately, my kitchen cabinets are about 2/3rds done and the doors are just router bit set cope and stick doors. The cabinets are permanent to the house, and my house is 1950s, so they're not really getting any special attention.

I'm making a plane partially for novelty, but I have a couple of pieces of furniture to put together for the house, and probably half a dozen doors.

I had an architectural panel raiser at one point made by John Bell, but it was far too large to do anything useful with cabinets, and it had a lot of erosion at the mouth.

Your advice will help me decide what I want to do for post-cabinet doors and how.

[steven c newman]

While I am not warren, I have done a few raised panels lately.

Except i just used a Junior jack plane, or a #4 sized plane. Used a 1/4" plough plane on the last set of grooves.

Might want to look up the screen door i built.

[David Weaver]

I need to look at a lot of things, but I'm hoping to look at stuff that was pre-widespread machine use and 150 years old or more. My parents have several pieces of that age, but they're fairly plain and maybe not a good representative sample.

It's proving not that easy to find much that isn't either old and ornamental or just new and machine done with very machine-like fixtures.

The idea of not fielding a panel with a step from the middle of the panel to the bevel is attractive because it allows finish planing the bevels. Of course, I wouldn't need a special plane for that, just any plane and held askew for the cross grain work.

[Sean Hughto]

I own an excellent Robbins panel raiser. And I've made severally raised panel doors with hand tools ... But, wait, I'm not Warren, never mind.

[David Weaver]

I own an excellent Robbins panel raiser. And I've made severally raised panel doors with hand tools ... But, wait, I'm not Warren, never mind.

Building a plane and raising a panel with it isn't much of a challenge. I'm not concerned about that part.

I want the panels to be accurate. I recall a discussion not that long ago of several people asserting that modern panels with a flat lip going into the groove were somehow superior to vintage panels that generally don't have them. Anyone who has ever looked at furniture a couple of hundred years old with pinned M&T and panels still in good shape knows that's hocum.

I don't want to make modern style panels, and figured that warren would have much more experience with period work.

If anyone else knows much about period raised panels or has examined a bunch of older ones and has input on "they're usually___", etc, I'm all ears.

[Sean Hughto]

Kay.

[Tom M King]

I've seen a few old ones, but never with a flat part that goes in the groove, like you're talking about. It would be interesting to get Graham's experience from over there too.

I've seen a lot of interior doors with flush panels on one side, and just flush with the groove(flat) on the other. I guess it would be fairly easy to make those flush panels into raised panels, and keep the "modern" tongue.

[steven c newman]

Seem to recall a Woodwright's Shop show on this subject. Roy even demostrated a few different planes, too.

pbs.org

As for my raised panelsBevel.jpgthe bevel part

IMAG0205.jpg
Fitted up. There is a 3/8
" wide rebate along the backsides of the panels, that matches the depth of the groove the panel sits in.

rebate plane.jpg
Cut with a #78.

[Pat Barry]

It seems kinda stupid to do the raised panel with an edge tapered all the way to the edge. Is it all that modern to use the taper and flat lip?

[Sean Hughto]

shhh, Pat! That's hokum! His priority is not learning how to build robust good looking doors, it is learning the "typical" measurements for 17th century doors.

[Joe Leigh]

It seems kinda stupid to do the raised panel with an edge tapered all the way to the edge. Is it all that modern to use the taper and flat lip?

I think his point is the flat lip section prohibits him from making the bevel with a hand plane.

To me it's just an illustration of inferior construction for the sake of being "historically" correct.

[Sean Hughto]

No, Joe. He understands that planes like this:

Can make the flat. He doesn't want to do that.

Frankly, I don't think the ancients make panels with bevels going all the way to the edge cause they determined it was superior. I think they were making work-a-day furniture of their time and didn't find the extra time or effort to do the extra step worthwhile. They could stop most of the rattling some strategic glue or a center peg at the top and the bottom.

[Pat Barry]

I wonder if historically they would have then made a matching slot for the beveled edge or if they would just have put a plane groove in there and lived with the expansion causing cracking of the front groove edge?