Toward a philosophy of joinery.

[James Waldron]

There was once a time, including the 17th, 18th, 19th and some parts of the 20th centuries, when one could rely on the fact that friends and neighbors visiting in the home would not be poking about inside one's drawers or peering at the bottom of one's tables and cabinets. For the poor cabinet maker struggling to feed his kids, over-cut dovetails that make things go faster was quite acceptable and the owner of the piece had no concerns other than the outward appearance, function and cost of the work. All was good even with over-cuts, scrub planed undersides and secondary parts. In fact, using secondary wood itself is testimony of the lack of "perfection" given to unseen parts of the work. The proud new owner might never see the over-cuts, the scrub planed areas, the secondary wood. After all, those who ordered bespoke furniture had servants for opening and filling or emptying drawers, cabinets, etc.

If, in today's world, over-cut dovetails are unacceptable to you on your work, take the time and care to avoid the overcuts. Please yourself. Plane away on the underside of the table tops and the backs of cabinets and case work. And so on. It's your work, it's your time, and your kids are already well fed and the pressure is off. Go to it.

Just stay the hell out of my drawers! That's private territory.

[James W Glenn]

I tried this logic with one of the talented and successful furniture makers I worked for. I slipped with the palm sander and left a little track in the veneer inside the knee well underneath a desk.. Or shall I say I kept talking as I backed slowly out of the shop.....

[James Waldron]

I tried this logic with one of the talented and successful furniture makers I worked for. I slipped with the palm sander and left a little track in the veneer inside the knee well underneath a desk.. Or shall I say I kept talking as I backed slowly out of the shop.....

Well, hell, if you're going to use a palm sander on veneer, ....

And if you're going to put finish veneer on a secondary surface, you've got to know you're working for one of the more hysterical types.

Next time, you might get yourself a scraper and stay away from sanding altogether.

And if the veneer was done properly, it should be reasonably easy to repair. You did use hide glue, right?

[george wilson]

Veneer has gotten so ridiculously thin these days,it's a miracle if anything can be done to it! I used the last of my 1/28" thick veneer on the large harpsichord when I was first in Williamsburg in 1970. I did not order more,and discovered later that it was a thing of the past.

[James W Glenn]

I didn't just put the "talented and successful" part in incase he's a forum lurker........

[Art Mann]

I know this won't make you happy but I think it is absolutely awful craftsmanship. You are rationalizing the technique by saying it was done in centuries past. So what? There have been craftsmen who take shortcuts and produced shoddy work ever since there have been woodworkers. I don't think it is a worthy goal to copy them.

I don't think the practicing ever ends. Even when building the piece if one is striving for perfection.

And I think this is the crux of it. I'm a perfectionist by nature and extremely self critical. I remember a carving I did once I was pointing out a couple mistakes to my wife she kept asking me "where, I don't see it?".

I love ww'ing and I'm learning to accept the little mistakes surprised like Doug said when they don't even see them!

My philosophy has changed now I don't sweat it as much. The nitpicking little oversaws and gaps I now see they prove the joints were man-made!

I'm not justifying sloppy work I'm in awe of you guys who do it to near perfection. Like just about anything in life requiring skill, there are some more talented than others no matter how much I practice I will never hit a ball like Barry Bonds, right?

For the perfectionists among us who get frustrated I'm just saying relaxing and celebrating your imperfect humanity sure takes the pressure off and makes ww'ing much more enjoyable.

Getting back to craftsmanship of old, how many of you would consider this poor craftsmanship?

Attachment 345577

[James Waldron]

I know this won't make you happy but I think it is absolutely awful craftsmanship. You are rationalizing the technique by saying it was done in centuries past. So what? There have been craftsmen who take shortcuts and produced shoddy work ever since there have been woodworkers. I don't think it is a worthy goal to copy them.

I would suggest that we're talking at cross purposes here. No one is suggesting shoddy work or awful shortcuts as a goal. Much of the debate depends on how one defines good craftmanship: is leaving scrub planed surfaces on the lower face of table tops shoddy? Is a flattened, straightened, smoothed and scraped bottom of a table top a sign of worthy or superlative craftsmanship? Perhaps it would help if there were a few more museum visits to see what passes muster among the masters of the trade of 200 years or so ago. Or, I guess, we could ask George; he was there, you know.

On the other hand, if you wish to use Burmese teak as a secondary wood and spend your shop time perfecting the finish of table top and drawer bottoms and remaking every piece that has overcut half-blind dovetail pins, there's no one stopping you. And no one is going to criticize you for wasting your time on such matters, since no one is ever going to see your effort or those details - unless you make a big fetish of showing off the bottoms of your drawers or some such. (I suspect however that your significant other will put that to a stop without much delay. His or her bridge club won't be very interested and neither will he/she.)

[Warren Mickley]

There was once a time, including the 17th, 18th, 19th and some parts of the 20th centuries, when one could rely on the fact that friends and neighbors visiting in the home would not be poking about inside one's drawers or peering at the bottom of one's tables and cabinets. For the poor cabinet maker struggling to feed his kids, over-cut dovetails that make things go faster was quite acceptable and the owner of the piece had no concerns other than the outward appearance, function and cost of the work. All was good even with over-cuts, scrub planed undersides and secondary parts. In fact, using secondary wood itself is testimony of the lack of "perfection" given to unseen parts of the work. The proud new owner might never see the over-cuts, the scrub planed areas, the secondary wood. After all, those who ordered bespoke furniture had servants for opening and filling or emptying drawers, cabinets, etc.

I have in my possession a desk that has been in my family for seven generations. It has figured wood drawer fronts on 22 drawers, three plain hidden drawers and a modest amount of line inlay. The original owner was a prosperous farmer. It is doubtful that he had servants like you would suggest, because in 1800 census his county had 8000 residents and only six of them servants. Here is the upgrade (larger) house he built some years after purchasing the the desk. No room for servants. There was also a fancy clock in this house which is now in a museum
farmhouse.jpg

Many have seen this desk, but I am almost certainly the only one alive who knows whether there are overcuts on the dovetails or not. It is not an issue. As cabinetmakers we use secondary wood for three reasons: to save materials expense, to save labor, and to make the carcase lighter. Even if expense were not an issue, it would be desirable to make many parts from lighter woods for weight concerns alone.

Frankly I think farmers and tradesmen of the 18th century were able to buy good furniture, and cabinetmakers were prosperous as well, not "poor" or "struggling to feed their kids" as you suggest.

[Pat Barry]

I called it sloppy workmanship because I personally don't want that appearance inside my drawers, or inside my cabinets. Regardless, though, of who is going to look inside your drawers, I think you need to consider the "why" for overcutting. It obviously saves time for the maker. It no doubt helps to register the chisel vertically for the sidewall chopping that is still necessary. It doesn't help with regard to the end chopping though. For the sidewalls, the longer the overcut, the less sidewall chopping needs to be done. For those that use this approach, how much time / effort savings are there? I think in reality the answer is not much at all. By my estimation, overcutting each cut by 1/2 inch will only save you about 20% of the work involved with chopping out the sockets.. Overcutting by 2 inches might save you half the work. Its obviously a matter of diminishing returns. I don't have the time to do the math involved but I feel that any significant overcutting doesn't buy you much in time and effort savings and ;ooks less desirable.

[Graham Haydon]

The "Why". Trained professionals working at a comfortable but brisk pace, skills learned from other professionals who made many, many pieces by hand. They didn't need to do the math, it was the way things were done and unless one chooses to make as they did it's unlikely you'll appreciate the "Why".

[Jim Koepke]

it's unlikely you'll appreciate the "Why".

The "Why" is because before the 20th century workers were paid by how much work they did. If they could produce 20% more work by over cutting, that could be the difference between eating good or not eating.

jtk

[Robert Engel]

For those that use this approach, how much time / effort savings are there? I think in reality the answer is not much at all.

The reality is, after 10 drawers, for me there was much time savings. I now understand why they did it that way.

Whether I will ever use the technique again is debatable but I do think it will lend a sense of the old ways to the piece which is what I wanted to achieve.

[Prashun Patel]

I find more distasteful than the overcuts, the notion that people in the past could be reduced to a single opinion on this subject. Just as we have varied opinions on it, what makes you think users of furniture in the past had less variety in opinion? Add to that the fact that we spend proportionally far less of our income on furniture (or food) which means we tend to consume both with arguably less discretion than people at any point in the past.

200 years ago, when purchasing a desk may have been a large purchase of disposable income, I suspect some people scrutinized the workmanship inside and outside. And I bet were a variety of conclusions made based on the length of the over cuts inside the drawer.

Aspire to make more perfect joinery or do not. The fact is, while many may not care, it is objectively a shortcut taken. It is left to the maker, consumer, and internet viewer to make their own conclusion about what that signals.

[Ryan Mooney]

Lets get back to the title question as I think its still intriguing. Why pick a certain joint for a certain application?

There are a handful of decision points I've come up with, but I'm curious what others might add.

1. Is it strong enough? This is the overwhelming criteria for me (although usually not a huge problem except in some high stress cases).
2. Will is work with/against the movement of the wood? related to 1, but in some cases a join that would naively meet 1 fails here.
3. Is it aesthetically pleasing (basically the criteria that's been noodled on ad-nauseum here)?
4. Is it stylistically appropriate (i.e. clunky round M&T joints work well with a rustic log frame bed but not so much with a Louise XIV recreation)? This closely tied to 3, but there is room for wiggle here. Again overlaps with the discussion here to some degree.
5. Can I make it? Some fancy joinery is hits all of the above in spades but is frankly well past my abilities (or tooling, or..), so it gets a skip.
6. Will is survive long term IF that matters (no I don't really want to start the dowels vs M&T conversation but it may well be there..). If I'm building a fence outside where the post will rot out in 20 years anything past that is moot, consider appropriateness of use.

I think that the discussion here has thus far been primarily on point 3 with an overlap onto 4 and a bit of #5 (with some questions mostly resolved about #1). Whether or not 4 applies is a question for the historians, generally I'd take the tack that if you are making a piece in line with where the overcut technique was used then sure use it, if not then don't. if it offends your aesthetic (#3) then don't, but if it doesn't and helps point #5 then do.

I think breaking the point down into a set of selection criteria is generally useful to help decide if what you're doing "works" or doesn't (in the larger abstract concept of "works").