We began day 2 by being greeted with a display of some of Binh Pho’s work.  This was a great inspiration.  Binh’s work is truly magnificent and the pictures definitely do not do it justice.  The detail and intricacy of the work is something that can only be fully appreciated in person.  In the following pictures,  you can see the display that we were ale to look at for ideas and inspiration.

I had left off after day one – when we did thin-walled turning of face-grain-oriented bowl forms.  Day two started with a demo by Binh turning a taller end-grain-oriented hollow vessel.  The techniques here are very similar to those for turning a thin bowl.  However, since you are turning end-grain some different tools are used and the light used trick to measure thickness looses a bit of its effectiveness due to the depth of the vessel and amount of chips limiting your view as you turn.  Binh has a way around this that I’ll discuss later.

Binh uses a variety of hollowing tools for end-grain vessels.  These include: a spindle gouge, a Hunter Tool, a Rolly Munro hollowing tool and a Hugh McKay Boring Bar.  The first three tools are all readily available at woodturning outlets. The Hugh McKay tool is very unique and it allows Binh to turn his famous vessels with a vertical slab extending out of the top of the piece.  This tool allows the cutting head to be inserted straight through a hole in the top of the vessel and then bumped to angle it at either 45 degrees or 90 degrees from the shaft.  The original Hugh McKay patent has since been acquired by Deryl Duer (who assisted Binh during the week) and tools can be purchased directly from him.  Unfortunately, this tool is fairly expensive to manufacture and so the end customer cost s fairly high as well – still the tool does allow some very specific hollow turning that is not able to be accomplished as easily with any other tool.  Binh does not specifically favor any of these tools but uses all of them in particular areas  where they are most useful.

The hollowing is started by drilling a hole to the desired finished depth.  Material is then removed from the center out toward the rim – exactly opposite how you would turn a bowl because we are working on end grain for these forms.  This again is done in sections to the desired thickness as you move down the vessel.  One thing that Binh does to help with the measurement of wall thickness on these forms is to drill several 3/16″ holes into the form down one side.  Then as light is shined into the fom when stopped you can determine whether the walls are where you would like them.  Of course, this is only possible if you plan to pierce the piece later and some concept fof the design must be know so that you will drill into the right area.

The remainder of day two consisted of the class turning their own end-grain hollow forms.

For the rest of the week we moved on the surface design of turned pieces.  Binh uses three main techniques as part iof his surface design: piercing, texturing & burning, airbrushing and gilding.  Many of the initial techniques were demoed for us on a flat 1/16″ aircraft birch plywood panel.  These are very useful for prototyping designs and can be attractive in their own right.

Airbrushing was first as it is the most foreign to most woodturners.  Binh uses a dual-action airbrush that allows for separate flow of air and regulation of the amount oif paint applied.  The motion and hand control can be quite a challenge since you are moving your hand in fluid stokes while pushing doen the airbrush trigger for and and simultaneously pulling it back to regulate the amount of paint – let’s just say that I need to practice.  In the photos you can see Binh working on a demo panel.

There is a lot of masking and/or template shielding done for an airbrush design.  Things like masking tape and a clear tacky matt material called Frisket are used.  Every element of a design that requires a different color and/or treatment must be cut out with an X-acto knife and removed one at a time as paint is sprayed on.  Since we used transparent colors, darker colors are sprayed first and then lighter colors are added on top.  Needless to say, it is a time consuming process.

Binh often burns a thin outline around each element that he is going to airbrush or pierce.  This is done with a standard wood burning pen with a fine skew tip and minimal heat.  The desire is to just burn a faint line to define that part of the design.  Once the entire piece id designed and burned, then the painting and then piercing can begin.

Piercing is done last to keep the most integrity in the vessel or bowl while it is being handled for painting.  This is done with an air-powered dental NSK Presto tool that is actually used for dentistry – in fact the only difference between this tool and a dentists drill (which can also be used to pierce) is the form factor.  The NSK Presto is held like a pencil to allow you to almost draw on the wood.  The tool uses 1/16″ burs to pierce and/or carve the wood.  In addition to piercing through the wood the round-head burs can be used for various stippled effects on the surface.

In the pictures you can see the demo panel that Binh did during the class as well as a demo bowl that he did to show techniques on a round rather than flat surface.  The lower portion of the bowl is a peacock feather that is gold-leaf gilded in the center – a characteristic element of many of Binh’s designs.

After all of the turning during the first part of the week, I chose to work on a single panel and bowl design.  I tried to incorporate several of the techniques into both the panel and bowl for practice as well as future reference.  Below you can see several pictures of my work to the extent that I could complete it during the week.  The final bowl still needs the piercing to be completed at home.  Finally there is a class picture with everyone holding up their creations for the week.

I tend to agree with this.  From my perspective, when we design, we should  start with a blank canvas and design from the top down, thinking about the statement we want a piece to make as well as its function, as necessary.   We should design from the top down without undue constraints (as much a possible) and when we build (the implementation phase) that  should be done from the bottom up.  This is where we must exercise our skills and problem-solving abilities as we endeavor to realize the design that we desire.  For me, tools do not enter the picture until the implementation phase.  If I do not have the tool for the job, then I have to try to find a way to execute the design by some other means. or in rare cases by purchasing a tool.  However, I try to never let the tools that I have on hand limit what I design.  I posted a comment on Doug’s blog in response to his post that I’ll reproduce here:

Doug,

Interesting thoughts…I agree with what you have said.

I am constantly amazed while reading at woodworking blogs and message forums about all the new tools and gizmos that woodworkers are buying with reckless abandon – often times with no real need!

It sometimes seems that tool acquisition (and display) is the goal as opposed to the use of the tools in pursuit of our craft. I routinely see shops full of all manner of new tools (both hand and power) and purchased jigs and often very little production of woodworking objects.

It is interesting to see woodworkers frustrated and avoiding building pieces that they perceive to require a specialized tool to complete. Ironically, many times all that is needed is to build a simple and quick jig or fixture to accomplish the task.

Woodworkers are missing out on an important aspect of the craft that requires developing skills of problem-solving and design when they avoid creating simple jigs and fixtures as part of their build process. As you stated, without the ability (and/or desire) to do this, our designs will become limited by what we have in our shops and/or what we think we can buy at the nearest woodworking tool outlet.

So, I thought I’d take the pulse of the internet woodworking community regarding this topic.  Please let me know what you think by responding to the poll.   More importantly, expand on your thoughts in the comments of this post.  This is an interesting topic regarding design that I think deserves some discussion.  So, don’t hold back, let’s hear your thoughts!

The dark floors in the house drove me to choose Hard Maple as the main wood for the project.  My first thoughts were to start with traditional Shaker styling due to its simple lines and to modernize the look from there.  Adding some curves was a consideration and with Maple as the primary wood, I also considered some other types of embellishment or accents for the piece without deviating too far from the clean modern lines.

In the picture, you can see the initial sketches for the piece.  I incorporated tapered legs that are traditionally found on Shaker pieces but, I decided to also splay them by 2 degrees to each side to give the piece a more modern and graceful look.  I also added gentle curves to the aprons and replicated those curves on the ends of the top to accentuate the more modern styling for the piece.  As you can see in the sketch, I also explored adding some darker inlay to follow the curves. My thinking was that this detail provided a bit more of a more modern look.as well as potentially providing some embellishment to the bland Maple.

Armed with these rough sketches, I moved on to Sketchup to further develop my ideas.  As you can see in the Sketchup drawing, I changed the side aprons to provide a more open and modern look.  I also simplified the inlay to avoid competing too much with the simple lines of the piece.

As shown, the piece is 28 1/2″ high, 48″ wide and 12″ inches deep.  This sizing should allow it to work either as a hall or a sofa table.  The designed height allows for the surface of the top to sit just below the top of most sofas.  The width fits nicely centered oalong the back of a standard 84″ wide sofa and also works well for a spot along a wall.  The depth is  enough to allow things to be displayed on the table top in either setting while not occupying too much space in a typical hallway.

This design effort is not unlike most where there are certain constraints and desires to be balanced in the resulting piece.  Rarely is a design effort for a functional piece of furniture an open book.  However, with the basic constraints in mind we are free to explore any alternatives for the form.

Next up I’ll work on roughing out the pieces for the table and commiting the design to wood.

Proportion

Proportion is an interesting element of design.  Not all people can develop good proportion in designs much like most musicians do not have perfect pitch.  However, in both cases most know when they are viewing pleasing proportion in a design just as they can discern when an instrument or voice is performing on pitch in a musical performance.  Of course, this is good news for all of us because just as one does not need perfect pitch to play music, we also do not need a perfect eye to develop good proportion in our designs.  Just like a hand plane or table saw, there are tools that we can use to develop the proportions in our designs.

Balance and Symmetry

Some additional concepts that are related to proportion and useful in design are those of Balance and Symmetry.  Typically, good design will always have balance.  However, a design can have balance and either be symmetrical or asymmetrical.  Contrary to what you might think, both can be pleasing to the eye.

As an example of this, look at the two pictures.  The one on the left is both balanced and symmetrical, the one on the right is balanced but asymmetrical. Just as these simple examples depict, our furniture designs can be either symmetrical or asymmetrical and look appropriate to the eye.  However, it is more rare that an unbalanced design will have the same visual appeal.

Phi and the Golden Rectangle

As described in my previous post on proportion, there are several concepts that are of use when developing the proportions of a design. As discussed in that post, the Golden Rectangle, Phi (1.618) and the Fibonacci Series are primary design paradigms that can be used.

What’s interesting about these concepts is that they seem to be central to the way the universe is put together – everything from astrophysics and the way the planets orbit the sun to particle physics and the atomic weights of particles contain aspects of these relationships. While that concept may make your head hurt just to think about it, it is important to realize that though not absolute dogma, these tools can be used to help develop or check the proportions of your designs.

Applications of these paradigms are not only structural in nature, but can also be used to relate the dimensions of the parts of a design to one another. The example from Blackburn shown in the picture, depicts dimensions of the fillet, the table top, the apron and the leg which are all roughly related by Phi.

The important thing to realize here is that design paradigms can be mixed together. Furthermore, they do not have to be followed blindly or implemented exactly.

Geometric Shapes

Another way to develop a design or elements of a design is through the application of basic geometric shapes. Circles, squares, triangles and rectangles can be assembled to produce interesting and pleasing design concepts.

There are many examples of this especially in architecture. Many of the old cathedrals (when viewed from above) are actually a collection of square elements often assembled together in the form of a cross. The relations of some of the elements of the cross are often found to be related by Phi.

Another example is the structurally sound Gothic Arch. As seen in the picture, this design element is actually composed from the intersection (shown in red) of three perfect circles . Their intersection forms the Gothic Arch that is found in many examples of ancient architecture.

Common Integers

It is often best to avoid unrelated differences between the sizes of components in a given design. To explain, consider an example design for a furniture component, say a door. Rather than sizing the door’s various components to include fractions of an inch, it is often easier as well as visually balanced and pleasing to size the individual components using multiples of common integers. In the picture you can see a door where the components are sized in this manner.

Hambridge Solution

Yet another technique for relating parts of a design is by using the Hambridge Solution. Like the Fibonacci Series, this technique is often used to develop things like the size of individual drawers in a bank of drawers by relating them to one another. In the Hambridge Solution, different elements of a design are related to each other by the square root of 2.

This is best shown in a graphical example. In the picture, you can see a series of rectangles that represent a set of shelves or a bank of drawers. By drawing a diagonal and then swinging an arc from one rectangle, then next appropriately sized rectangle can be constructed. The only caveat here is that the first rectangle must be higher than it is wide (even if you later cut a portion of it off – to create a Golden Rectangle, of course!).

I think what’s important to take away from this discussion of the Three Pillars of Design is that these are things that fill a toolbox of paradigms and techniques which can be useful as we develop designs for furniture projects. I don’t believe that this information should be taken as gospel and applied blindly but rather, it should be used like any other tool to potentially help effect the outcome of a project. Many of the great designs in history (in art, architecture and furniture) make use of these paradigms either directly or indirectly. It’s helpful to explore these applications as they may relate to things that we are working to see if, by their application, we may strike upon something that is beneficial in our designs.

Construction

From Graham Blackburn’s perspective, construction is not just focused on joinery but, rather a combination of: Techniques, Joinery and Material Knowledge.

Some examples of construction techniques would be:

• Building completely with solid wood (i.e. large pieces or glued up panels) – this produces results that are prone to split and crack especially when housed in modern heated structures
• Frame and Panel construction – in contrast, this technique is used for dimensional and planar stability and helps avoid the problems of wood movement encountered with all solid wood construction.  As an example, the stiles in a frame and panel door are made narrow and usually run the entire height of the door because wood moves very little in length therefore the height of the door will remain fairly consistent.  For the same reason, the rails of a door are usually arranged between the stiles so that there will be a minimal change in the width of the door (mainly due to small changes in the width of the stiles)
• Cabinet Making – In Blackburn’s parlance this is actually veneering to create larger panels without the need for frame and panel construction which offers no real advantage in many cabinet applications.  The use of veneers allows different wood species to be used to create stable panels and also conserves potentially rare materials used for veneers
• Other construction techniques include turning, lamination, coopering and a host of others.

The takeaway here is that the technique of construction is one of the elements that contribute to the design of a piece.  One interesting point that Blackburn shared on construction techniques was that in historic times, the various guilds (i.e. Turners Guild, Joiners Guild, Cabinetmakers Guild, etc.) actually drove the design in particular styles of funiture due to the limits of what they were allowed to do within their respective guilds.  Therefore, a piece with all turned elements would only come froma member of the Turners Guild.

Closely related to the technique of construction are the qualities of the material to be used.  In Blackburn’s view, one can never know enough about that materials used in the construction of furniture.  One great source of information on wood and its properties is available online by searching for “Wood Handbook”.

The most common characteristics of a wood are its shrinkage and expansion rates.  Many woodworkers know that wood moves with moisture more across the grain than with it but, did you also know that it will move more when harvested from toward the outside of the tree?  As a result, quartersawing wood (where the growth rings are nearly perpendicular to the face of the board) produces the most stable boards because the outside of the tree is the smallest possible dimension of the board (its thickness) – thus a quartersawn board expands and contracts mainly only in thickness.

While the aforementioned charactistics of wood are important, there are many others to consider when choosing a piece or species of wood for a furniture design.  Figure, color (and the possibility for change), cost, hardness, strength, workability, desnsity, flexibility, toxicity, etc.  – all of these things can contribute significantly to the design choices in a piece of furniture.

Last, but not least to be considered, is the joinery used in the construction of a piece of furniture that is being designed.  For the best possible designs we need to know as much as possible about various woodworking joints and joinery techniques so that we can choose the best joint for the intended purpose.

Unfortunately, most woodworkers tend to have a limited joinery vocabulary. This is mainly due to more prevailant machine use in woodworking today.  Machines were generally not designed to produce joinery.   Most woodworking machines are designed for and best suited for a single purpose.

The strongest woodworking joint is the one with the least amount of material removed from each part. Many of the best joints for specific purposes are necessary to make or, at least fit by hand.  So, in order to produce the best furniture designs BLackburn feels that it is important for all all woodworkers to study woodworking joints and to develop this joinery vocabulary. Also important, is the development of efficient accurate methods for creating these joints either by machine, by hand or via a hybrid approach.

In a future post we’ll explore Blackburn’s third Pillar of Design: Proportion.

According to Blackburn, there are three pillars of design: Function, Construction, and Proportion.  I’d like to explore these one by one, giving each it’s own post here.  So, let’s first explore the how the function of a piece relates to its design.

Function

The function of a piece is sometimes hard to define even for what you would think is a straightforward item.  However, it’s very important to define its function completely before you design any piece of furniture.

As an example, if you were asked to define a table, how would you do it?  Is it something that you sit at in a chair?  Does it have storage for things like a desk would?  How about a stand to hold something like a plant or vase…is that a table?  How high should it be?   Round or rectilinear?  What makes a table a table and not a chair? You can sit on a table, can’t you?

A lot of these questions may seem silly.  However, at the workshop, Mr. Blackburn had us go through a brief discussion on the definition of a table in order to illustrate a point.  There was no one correct answer.  The definition of a table depends on its intended application.  Size, shape, etc. are dictated by how, why and where it is likely to be used.  Similarly, the intended use could dictate certain design decisions like how big or what shape it should be.  It’s also possible that the environment in which it will be used may also dictate some of the elements of its design.

On the subject of size, at the workshop we discussed different sizes based on standards, ergonomics and specific individuals.  Of course the ergonomics of a piece will vary by function as well as the size of the person that may use it.  Taller individuals may want a higher table due to their physical stature. Or, due to its intended function, a table might be designed to be much taller or shorter – for example to be used while standing up or for displaying something next to a chair.  Mr. Blackburn highlighted a reference text for standard sizes of all kinds of furniture and cabinetry, etc. called Architectural Graphic Standards.  He stated that any edition of the text is a valuable resource for details on standard sizes and determining efficient ergonomics.

So, defining the function of a piece of furniture is essentially just an application of common sense.  The theory is that that the form of a piece should follow the function of its intended use.  It’s important to ask and answer the necessary questions relating to the use of a piece of furniture before designing it.  Unless we are simply designing abstract art, the esthetics, style, joinery, color, finish, etc. should all be secondary considerations.   Of course, the material and joinery choices can become important based on the intended function of a piece as well.  That will be the subject of my next post on Blackburn’s second pillar of design: Construction.

Graham has an interesting background.  Born in London, England into a family of woodworkers (father and grandfather), his parents wanted him to pursue a “professional” career as a lawyer or a doctor.  Much to his parents dismay, he spent his summers in London working for a local cabinetmaker learning various techniques and woodworking skills and ultimately ened up in the fields of art, music and woodworking.

When Graham first came to the United States he settled in Woodstock New York – this was prior to the famous concert held there in 1969.  He is a musician and ultimately attended the Juliard School in New York City on a music scholarship.  He also subsequently played flute and saxophone for Van Morrison for several years.  During this period he built his first house in Woodstock and wrote his first book about that process (he has now penned more than a dozen books).   All the while he made furniture for himself as well as for others.

Still interested in woodworking, after his years in the music scene, he attended art school and learned the principles of design. Throughout the subsequent years he continued his woodworking, design and writing.  He has been a frequent contributor to numerous magazines including Fine Woodworking and was the editor of Woodwork Magazine for several years.  Many of his articles have centered around the history of various furniture styles as well as aspects of furniture design.

Graham took us through a slide show of various pieces that he has designed and built and discussed the good an the bad of each.  Most notably he pointed out his evolution as a designer and how he had missed the mark in some of his early pieces.  Given his background in art and training in design, Graham brings a sound perspective to furniture design.  This is something that is somewhat unique as not a lot of woodworkers are formally trained in art and/or design.  During his discussion, Graham stated that:

“Function is only half of the story, what makes a good design is a combination of balance rhythm and proportion”

The aspect of proportion is something that I have have written about here before, citing one of Graham’s past articles in Fine Woodworking. The balance and rhythm of a piece are closely related aspects that I think are worthy of some further exploration.

Graham also spoke about what he called the “transparent arts” of design.   He described these as the elements of a furniture design that when done just right are not specifically noticed but, if done wrong make a piece look awkward and/or unattractive.  These transparent design elements center around proportion, balance and rhythm and can be found in even the finest details of a piece.

Graham was here to discuss both design and the use of hand tools in the modern shop.  I was fortunate enough to attend his workshop on the following day discussing these topics in a bit more detail than in the general lecture.  I plan on following up with a post or two to discuss more of the details of what was covered.  So, stay tuned!

Even if you do not care for Wendell Castle’s work, it’s hard to argue with his affect on the crossover from furniture to art in wood. His work is a curious mix of form and function, furniture and sculpture at the same time.

For me there’s an interesting coincidence with Wendell Castle. His studio is located in Scottsville, NY which is a suburb of Rochester, NY and about half an hour from where I live. Mr. Castle also taught at the Rochester Institute of Technology, School for American Craftsmen. I’m an RIT grad, though in a completely different discipline. Had I had it to do over again, I would have loved to attend the School for American Craftsmen.

In Neil’s interview with Mr. Castle, some interesting points were brought out. Not the least of which is that Mr. Castle sketches designs every day! His approach is that he thinks and works with a pencil – in his eyes, design is work and it requires that time be spent working through and developing ideas. Makes sense if you ask me!

There were many, many things covered but, a couple of significant things from the interview struck me. The first is a quote from Mr. Castle where he said:

“If you are hitting the bullseye every time, then the target is too close.”

This is interesting. What these points say to me are that he that design is work but, we need to push ourselves beyond our comfort zone in order to reach our potential. They were stated regarding design yet, I think they also hold true for various aspects of craftsmanship and new techniques, as well. If we aren’t trying new things in our woodworking or design we are not growing as woodworkers, artists or designers.

Something else that Mr. Castle said that struck a chord with me relates to the thoughts I expressed in a previous post “In design, simple is elegant”. Mr. Castle did not agree with going for extremes in design, craftsmanship, materials, price, or whatever. Instead he stated that rather, the design should be the focal point of a piece – it should not be obscured or overpowered by either the material or the craftsmanship. In his words:

“The best pieces live on their own…not because of the craftsmanship or the material but, what they are – their presence.”

This is interesting. Mr. Castle is not disdaining craftsmanship or spectacular materials – quite the contrary, he also spent some time speaking about how he learned to appreciate that exquisite craftsmanship also set pieces apart. However, what he is saying is that the elegance of the design of a piece is what sets it apart and/or makes it unique and valuable. To me this is quite enlightening – a piece need not be ornate or wild to be noticed or to command attention. In it’s design, it can be simple or complex but, it’s the design that should speak apart from how it’s built or what it is made from.

Mr. Castle says that throughout his career, he has made a lot of mistakes. However, he hopes that they have been made in the pursuit of something worthwhile…probably a good lesson for all of us working to develop our skills.

I’ll leave you with one final quote from Wendell Castle:

“If you’re not making mistakes, you’re not making anything.”

“…there is nothing new under the sun…” and “…if a piece is meticulously crafted but is lacking in design, and detail, it will still be something less than a masterpiece.”

I agree wholeheartedly with the concept that in the design of furniture (and most other things, for that matter), much of what is done today is built on the shoulders of what has already come before. Most proportions and design elements of furniture are based on architectural elements of ancient times. Methods of joinery developed and perfected long ago are used to execute these designs and as a result, the designs themselves are somewhat influenced by these chosen methods of implementation.

This is not to say that there are not new takes on old ideas…some recent masters like Maloof and Krenov (whether you like their styles or not) are evidence that refinements on the ideas of past can lead to very different and new implementations. The results are modern masterpieces, in and of themselves. It’s interesting to contemplate just why the designs of these pieces, new or old, are desirable while others may not be.

I tend to believe that what make certain designs great are the basic elements and proportions on which they are built. Whether it is a modern piece, an antique, or a reproduction, certain elements and proportions are always there in a well-designed piece. I also contend that in design: “Simple is Elegant”. The most basic proportions and details can yield designs that are stunningly beautiful and extremely functional. Yet, an over-embellished piece may appear gaudy or contrived. All of the elements of the design need to work together in harmony in order for the suite of elements to sing.

The works of Stickley and Harvey Ellis or the Shakers are probably some of the best examples of an understated elegance (the first picture is a reproduction of an Ellis dresser design that I built, the second picture is a beautiful Shaker Rocker by Kerry Pierce). Have you ever seen a Shaker piece that did not have a simple balance and beauty to its design? I have not. Although often simple in design, Arts & Crafts pieces from the past usually have pleasing proportions and functional details that make them stand out. Likewise, a design that lets the beauty of the material itself speak is often much more appealing than one in which the embellishments overwhelm the material (and the design for that matter).

Again, building on what Chuck discussed: it’s not the details of how something was built but rather all of the elements taken as a whole that, in my mind, determine the merit of a design. Perfectly executed dovetails on a box with dubious proportions do not satisfy the requirements of good design – better to have a box with appealing proportions and simple rebates to join it at the corners. Taking this a step further, what if the box has good proportions, but the dovetails do not? My point here is that the concepts of detail, proportion and design can be examined iteratively from a more and more focused perspective.

At some point you probably do have to consider the craftsmanship with which a piece is built. However, I always remind myself that exquisite craftsmanship will not make up for poor design. Similarly, good design will not reach its full potential with substandard craftsmanship. I like to look at this as a kind of harmony between the object and its maker – much like the harmony between the design elements of the object. In my view, simple is elegant here as well. The methods by which a piece is constructed and/or finished should be simple and functional. Going beyond this certainly has the potential to compete with and/or overwhelm the elements of the overall design.

It will be interesting to follow Chuck’s blog on this and to also take this discussion further here. I’d be interested in your thoughts on design and what makes certain pieces great and others not so. Please leave me a comment here using the comments link that the end of the post or send me an e-mail at thecraftsmanspath@gmail.com.

When I last posted about this table, the construction was complete and I spoke about the possible options for a finish. In the end, I went with a finish schedule consisting of: Boiled Linseed Oil, Garnet Shellac and General Finishes Arm-R-Seal as a top coat.

I started the finishing process by first thinning the BLO by about 25% with Naptha. This thinned mixture was applied liberally with arag and wet sanded in with 400 grit wet/dry paper. After the oil had some time to soak in I wiped off any excess with a dry rag. The wet sanding with the oil made for a silky smooth base to which I could apply the shellac and top coats. In the picture you can see the table after the BLO was applied.

As I mentioned in the previous post, I elected to use some Garnet shellac to add a bit of color to the table and to also act as a sealer coat between the oil and the top coat (though that’s oil-based too, so there was no real issue except for the BLO possibly not being fully cured). In the pictures, you can see the materials and the pad that I used to apply the shellac. The pad is just composed of an inner ball of a loose cotton material and an outer skin of cotton T-Shirt material. I first charged the pad with denatured alcohol and then squirted shellac onto the pad using the little squeeze bottle shown in the picture (you can also see how I store the pad between uses in a sealed plastic bag).

I applied the shellac quickly in a straight motion where possible slightly overlapping my strokes. Shellac dries quickly so I let each coat dry and then the let next coat dissolve into the previous coat to cover any areas that were not evenly coated. I applied three light coats of shellac in total and rubbed lightly with 0000 steel wool after the last coat to smooth the surface. In the picture you can see the table with the Garnet shellac applied over the BLO.

For the top coat I used General Finishes Arm-R-Seal, Semi-gloss. I thinned this just a bit with Naptha to get very thin coats. The top coat was applied with a paper-towel folded into a small rectangular applicator. I rubbed with steel wool before the third coat of finish to get as smooth a base as I could for that final coat. After vacuuming the table surfaces I went over the table with a towel an Naptha so that it was as clean as possible for the final coat. With all of the coats applied I let the table cure for about two and a half weeks. Then I rubbed the entire table vigorously with 0000 steel wool to even it out for a satin finish. Finally, I applied paste wax with steel wool as an applicator and buffed the dried wax with a rag.

The hardware for the table came from Horton Brasses. I ordered two pulls and a matching escutcheon in brass with a semi-bright finish. As you can see in the the picture, the style is reminiscent of Queen Anne styling. I centered the two pulls vertically on the drawer face and aligned them over the center points of the scroll work left and right of center. The escutcheon was applied in the center of the drawer, about 1/16″ below the edge of the detail at the top of the drawer, just slightly higher than the pulls.

I’ll leave you with a few different views of the table (click for a larger view). I decided to take the pictures outside on a nice spring day. There are a couple of close-ups of the drawer, the knee and knee block and the pad foot. I really enjoyed this project. Working on a period piece was interesting and allowed me to develop some new skills. I guess all that is left is to decide which period to reproduce next!

I spent a considerable amount of time scraping and sanding all of the parts of the table. There were areas on the legs where the knees transition into the posts that needed some cleanup. I carefully worked these first with a card scraper and then followed up with hand sanding. Of course, the rest of the table also required a bit of sanding as well. Because all of the parts had previously been smoothed with a plane and/or and scraped, my sanding schedule for the table started with 150 grit and finished with 180 grit. I tried going to 220 grit but, it seemed to be burnishing the Cherry so, I do not think I will continue to that fine a grit. When all of the sanding is complete, I will give the table a thorough vacuuming and then a final rub down with Naptha to remove all traces of sanding dust and to determine if any areas need further attention.

In the picture (click for larger view) you can see the Queen Anne Side Table in its current state. All that remains for the construction is to put a decorative edge on the top, attach the top to the base and add the hardware. Speaking of hardware, I recently ordered a set of drawer pulls and a matching escutcheon from Horton Brasses. The style is reminiscent of the hardware typically on antique Queen Anne furniture and should work nicely on this piece.

I have also started to consider how I will finish the table. Most Queen Anne furniture that you see is stained dark. Generally for Cherry, I like to use a natural finish allowing the wood to oxidize over time with exposure to sunlight, darkening naturally to a rich patina. However, for this table I am considering adding just a slight bit of coloring with Garnet shellac to even out the tone all of the components.

A quick primer on shellac:

Shellac is a universal binder and a very good finish in its own right. The substance is made from refining and drying the secretions of the Lac bug which is found in India and Asia. Essentially, any finish will adhere to shellac and shellac will adhere to almost anything. Additionally, shellac serves as a perfect sealer between different stages of the finishing process. For example if a dye or stain is used and then sealed with shellac, none of the dye or stain will be removed when the topcoat is applied. One important thing to realize is that only dewaxed shellac will support all topcoats. Most pre-mixed shellacs (aside from Zinsser Seal-Coat) contain wax and will cause problems with adhesion when another topcoat is applied. Shellac that is purchased as dry flakes is dewaxed and must be dissolved in denatured alcohol to produce the finish. Because alcohol is used as the solvent, shellac has the benefit of drying in minutes. Also, shellac has the properties of dissolving into previous coats effectively creating one single thicker coat when multiple coats are applied.

Shellac solutions can be mixed to different strengths or concentrations. This is referred to as the “cut” of the shellac – the premixed stuff is usually about a 3 lb. cut which would equate to 3lbs. of shellac flakes by weight mixed in 1 gallon of alcohol. I usually mix to around a 1 or 1 1/2 lb. cut. This produces a good workable consistency and fairly light coats. I only mix what I will use within about 6 months because shellac in the liquid form has a limited shelf life after which it will have a tendency to not dry or harden. For me, this means a 1 lb. cut is 2 oz. of shellac flakes (by weight) mixed with 16 oz. of alcohol (by volume).

There is nothing real scientific about mixing shellac – it will work no matter what strength you mix it to. It’s easier if the flakes are ground to a fine consistency before dissolving in the alcohol. Using an old coffee grinder would work well, or you can do what I do – put the flakes in a plastic bag, seal it and then hit it with a rubber mallet until you have very fine pieces left. Put the alcohol in a glass jar, add the shellac and seal the jar. Swirl the mixture around every half hour or so for about the first four hours and then let it sit over night. The next day it should be ready to use. The last step before use is to strain the shellac mixture through paint strainer or coffee filter to remove any impurities left after the refining process.

I took some time to create some finish sample boards from scrap Cherry following the same sanding schedule as the table. On the left half of the top board I used Watco Natural Danish Oil followed by two coats of Garnet shellac and then a top coat of General Finishes Arm-R-Seal. The other half of that board did not receive the Watco. On the lower board I used Boiled Linseed Oil followed by the same sequence of Shellac and Arm-R-Seal with the right half of the board not receiving the BLO. Sorry for the picture – it does not really show the variations too well. I am considering the using BLO/shellac sequence because it is not showing the blotching that the Watco seems to. Some of the Cherry on this table is a bit curly and may be prone to blotching – I do not want to obscure any of the curl in the boards.

It’s very easy at this stage of a project to speed through the final finish preparation steps and finish process in an attempt to get the thing out of the shop. I always find myself battling this. In the long run it’s always best to spend the necessary time to prepare the surfaces as well as possible and to test all of the finish steps to assure a desired end result. Of course, this takes more time and delays moving on to the next project but, in the end it yields the best results.

The design for this drawer includes an overhanging lip on the top and sides so, the blank for the drawer front needed to be 7/8″ thick. This allows for a substantial drawer front with about a 3/8″ overhanging lip and half-blind dovetails at the front of the drawer. The back of the drawer has through dovetails and is designed to allow the drawer bottom to slide into groves in the sides and front while being secured to the back with a single screw. During the previous milling operations for the table I had already created a blank for the drawer front. So, the remaining components (sides, back and bottom) were still remaining. For the drawer sides and back, I chose some Soft Maple stock that I had in thicknesses just over a 1/2″ – my aim was to have the drawer sides and back all milled to a finished 1/2″ in thickness.

After cutting the thicknessed stock to rough size, I measured the pieces directly in the recess for the drawer. I offset the side pieces from the runners with a some scrap pieces of laminate to result in a consistent offset from the runners with minimal side-to-side play in the finished drawer. With the drawer components cut to finished length it was time to start the process of marking and cutting the dovetails.

As I mentioned, the front of the drawer has half-blind dovetails and the back of the drawer has through dovetails. I chose to use two tails at the back of the drawer and three at the front. The first step in marking out the dovetails was to set a marking gage to the thickness of the drawer stock. Then a line was scribed on both the faces and edges of the tail boards. For the pin boards, only the faces of the boards needed to be scribed. These scribe lines do two things: they give you a visual place to stop your saw cuts and they also give you a starting point to achieve crisp edge while chiseling out the waste between tails and pins. I usually scribe the lines with my Japanese marking gage and then go over the scribed lines lightly with a pencil so that they can be seen easier.

As you probably know there is almost a religious war over whether you should cut the pins or tails of the dovetail joint first. The fact of the matter is that it is absolutely possible to do it either way and get beautiful dovetails as a result. Both methods have their merits and shortcomings. Here, I chose to do the tails first. This is mainly because I am self taught and that was the way I started. So, I tend to get better results that way. I have used both techniques before but, as it has been over a year since I last cut any dovetails, I wanted to give myself the best shot at success!

The layout of the tails was done using a set of dividers, a bevel gage and a small square. For the drawer back, I used equal sized tails. For the drawer front, the center tail is slightly larger than the two outside tails to add some visual interest. To do this, I started by marking a point on each end of the tail board to denote the outside pins I then set the divider to a distance that I thought would equal the width of one tail and one pin and starting at one edge of the board I stepped across the end of the board trying the get the divider to land exactly at the pine line on the opposite edge of the board. This took a few tries, adjusting the divider accordingly. Once I had this setting, I stepped off the tails leaving dimples in the end of the board. Then with the same setting, I started from the opposite edge of the board with the same technique. The resulting dimples marked out the locations of the ends of the tails. I squared these lines across the edge of the board and then used the bevel gage to extend them on each face down to the baseline. I did the front dovetails the same way, except I used the same setting on the divider and only stepped of once from each edge leaving a larger tail in the center.

With the tails marked, I started the cutting operations at the back of the drawer. There were two reasons for this: first, because I have not cut any dovetails in a while, hiding any mistakes back there was preferred and second, the back of the drawer has through dovetails which are a little more straight forward to cut. The cutting process is the same as I performed on the top rail in a previous post. I clamped each drawer side into my vise at an angle so that the line of the cut was vertical and sawed to the baseline with my Japanese dovetail saw. I sawed all of the cuts on one side, then repositioned the board and sawed the other side to maintain consistency. I did this for both ends of the tail boards. The next step was to remove the waste between the tails so that the pins could be marked from the tails. This was done by using the coping saw to first remove the bulk of the waste while staying clear of the baseline and then chiseling down half way from each face at the baseline.

The process of marking the pins from the tails is straightforward. I put the pin board into the vise on my bench getting it perfectly square to the bench top. I then placed the tail board on top of my bench plane which was on edge on the bench. With the pin board in the vise at the same height as the plane I carefully aligned the tail board to the top edge of the pin board until I saw a consistent sliver of light coming through between the boards at each dovetail recess. With the boards aligned I held the tail board in place and marked the pins with a knife along the edges of the tails. I then used the square to extend this lines down the faces to the baseline. The use of the plane in this operation helps to direct the pressure to the end of the tail board keeping it in place while marking as opposed to having pressure get directed to the center of the board while on the bench potentially allowing the tail board to move.

Having marked the pins on both the drawer back and front, it was time to saw the pins and then remove the waste material. For the drawer back, this was straight forward, first cutting the pins with the dovetail saw and then using the coping saw and chisels to remove the waste. The drawer front was a bit more of a challenge. This was because of the 3/8″ lip that I created with the table saw and planed smooth on three sides of the blank.

The pin cuts for half-blind dovetails can only go part way through the drawer front. So, the saw needs to be held at an angle sawing along the waste side of the line until the saw kerf meets both baselines. In this case I had the added complication of the lip which kept me from sawing completely to the baseline at the front of the drawer blank. To protect the lip, I used some masking tape along the lip and sawed as far as I could without cutting into the lip. From there, the rest of the work to remove the waste was done with chisels paring to the marked lines. With all of the tails and pins completed the initial dry fits caused me to do a bit more paring along the pin faces before the joints would seat. I did this by very lightly paring across the grain of the pins until I had met the scribed lines.

Next, using the table saw I cut grooves into the drawer front and sides to receive the drawer bottom. I milled the stock for the drawer bottom from some leftover Poplar that I had. I thicknessed this stock to about 5/16″ and glued up the blank such that the grain ran from side to side in the drawer. I marked and planed a bevel on the three sides of the bottom that are to be housed in the grooves. Because the drawer back is shorter than the sides, the drawer bottom sits underneath the back and is affixed with a single screw in a slot to allow for wood movement from front to back in the drawer bottom.

With the bottom completed, I glued up the drawer box assuring that it was both square and also sat evenly on a flat surface without rocking. The last step will be to flush up the tails and pins on the drawer sides with a plane. I’ll do this when I do the final fitting of the drawer. As I stated, I had not cut dovetails in quite a while. These certainly are not prize winners but, they are definitely functional. Many woodworkers seem to get hung up on perfection with dovetails. Due to the way the joint works they there is both a mechanical linkage as well as a glue bond so there is no need for perfection beyond mere aesthetics. If we wanted things to look perfect and exactly uniform, we would simply cut dovetails with a router. We cut them by hand precisely to avoid this production look and to allow the world to see the path of the craftsman that created the joint.

The table was glued up in stages in order to make the process manageable. What I have found to be the biggest benefit when doing glue ups is to have everything ready and available and to do a dry run rehearsal of the the entire process before every spreading any glue. This allows you to make your mistakes without the pressure of drying glue and stuck joints while trying to remedy a problem situation. By the time the real glue up occurs, all of the bugs are worked out, materials are at the ready and the process generally goes off without a hitch.

With that said, I started by gluing the back legs and apron as one assembly and the front legs and apron as a second assembly. Though not terribly exciting, in the pictures (click for larger view) you can see these two assemblies in the clamps. As I said, uneventful is a good attribute for glue ups! At this point I also took the time to glue up the boards for the table top. Because four boards make up the top, this too was done in stages. I glued two boards together at a time and then once they had dried, the two pairs of boards were glued together to complete the top.

With the front and back assemblies dry, the next step was to add the side aprons. However, because the drawer runner assembly still had to be installed, this too needed to be done in stages. The process was to first glue the side aprons to the front assembly only. This was done by assembling the entire table carcase to ensure that everything was square and true, while only gluing the front portions of the side aprons. This allowed for the assembly to be disassembled once dry so that the drawer runner could be installed from the back and then the remainder of the table carcase could be glued together.

The drawer runners are fairly simple and consist of an extension of the front apron with an L-shaped runner assembly on each side. There is a small mortise and tenon between the front extender and the L-shaped runners. The joints on these pieces were small so, I decided to mill the mortises with the router and to cut the tenons by hand. The back of the runners are mounted to the rear legs with screws.

You can see in the picture that the front extender was glued to the front apron after the side apron glue up had dried. At the same, time the drawer runner assemblies were glued so they would be ready for assembly once dry. The final glue up consisted of the two drawer assemblies being glued to the front extender and the two side aprons being glued to the back apron assembly that had previously been glued up. This step was the most complex part of the table glue up but, with a dry run everything went together very smoothly.

While the table carcase glue dried I spent some time working with the new (old) smoothing plane on the table top. With a sharp blade and after a bit of adjustment I was able to get some nice fine shavings and a very smooth and flat table top. That was very gratifying and made the previous time I spent restoring the plane all worthwhile.

I started with the work to add the top rail. I thought about this much like you would a mortise and tenon operation. I needed to cut a socket (much like a mortise) and then fit a dovetail (much like a tenon) to it. Without getting into a pins vs. tails first debate, doing the socket first in this case makes sense. Just as it is easier to size a tenon to an existing mortise, in this case it is easier to mark and fit a dovetail to an existing socket. I marked the top of the two front legs for the dovetail sockets using a square and a bevel gage. Because this joint was not going to be on display, I just set the bevel gage to a reasonable looking angle and marked the sides of the socket. Then I extended these lines vertically down the inside face of the legs a distance equal to the thickness of the top rail.

The first step in cutting the sockets was to saw the side walls. These cuts had to be done at an angle, only partially cutting the socket – just until the point where the saw kerf met the baselines at both the bottom and back of the socket. This avoided any potential unsightly saw kerfs beyond the dovetail socket that might be seen. However, it also required a bit more chiseling to be done to remove the material from the sockets. I started this removal by chiseling a notch at the end of the sockets on the top of the legs as seen in the picture (click for larger view). From there I chiseled out chips from the face of the legs – repeating these two operations until the sockets were clear.

At this point it was necessary to mark the tails on the ends of the top rail piece. To do this I dry fit the table and clamped the top rail in position above the front legs until just a sliver of light was visible between the end of the rail and the sockets below. I then turned the entire assembly over on my bench and marked the tails with a knife. I removed the top rail from the clamps, continued the baselines around the rail with a square and then darkened all of the knife lines with a sharp pencil.

Next, it was time to cut the tails. I started this operation by clamping the rail into my bench vice at an angle so that while sawing my saw would be perpendicular to the bench top. I sawed the tails just leaving my layout lines, shifting the rails position in the vice accordingly as I cut cut each side. Next, I chiseled a notch along the knife line at the shoulders of the dovetails. This notch acted as a guide for my saw while I made the shoulder cuts. After cutting the tails I made a slight chamfer on the under side of the tails starting it just short of the end of the tails and continuing to the shoulders. This chamfer provides clearance for the tails as they are seated into the sockets. After a few dry fits and some trimming of the tails I had a joint that fit. There were a few small gaps but it was secure and I was not attempting to create a joint for show. The excess material you see on the side apron and front rail will be trimmed flush with a plane later once I have completed the glue up of the table carcase.

After completing this joinery, the next step was to complete the scroll work so that the carcase of the table could be glued up. I had previously made templates to replicate half of the symmetrical scrolls for both the side and front aprons. I used these template to trace a line for cutting at the band saw. A line was traced along the template on one side of the apron, the template was flipped about the center line of the apron and then another line was traced to complete the other half of the scroll. This technique assured perfectly symmetrical scrolls. The scrolls were cut at the band saw with a 1/4″ inch blade. For the long scroll on the font apron, I started by drilling a 3/8″ hole at the center in order to assure a perfectly half-round element there. After that, the remainder of the work was at the band saw. Because of the tightness of some of the curves, I had to make some relief cuts at 90 degrees to the cut line to allow small pieces to be cut away thus allowing me to get into tighter areas without any binding of the blade.

Once the scroll cuts were completed I cleaned up the saw marks using both hand tools (rasps, files and sandpaper) and the oscillating spindle sander with a drum sized appropriately for the inside curves. In the picture you can see the table, dry fit with the top rail and the scroll work complete. The next operations will be the glue up of the table carcase and table top and the construction of the drawer runners.

As always, if you have any comments or questions, please leave them here using the comments link at the end of the post, or email me at thecraftsmanspath@gmail.com.

I milled all of the stock for the aprons, top rail and drawer front in a single session at the jointer and planer. This assured that all of the apron stock would be identical in thickness. When cutting the pieces to size, I saved the offcuts to use for test pieces when cutting the tenons. The first step in machining the tenons was to make the shoulder cuts. This was done using the miter gage at the table saw. The tenons are to be 1/4″ thick from 3/4″ stock. So, the key here was to set the blade height just lower than 1/4″. This left a thin web to trim when fine tuning the tenon thickness and avoided cutting too deep into the tenons. In the pictures (click for larger view) you can see all of the aprons with the shoulder cuts completed.

With the shoulder cuts completed, it was time to cut the cheeks of the tenons. It took a bit longer to do this than I had anticipated – not because I had any issues in doing so but rather, I decided to make a new tenoning jig for the table saw in order to complete the task. A couple of years ago I made a tenon jig that used the miter slot as a reference point. It had a movable carriage on top that allowed for the workpiece to be moved closer to and farther away from the saw blade in order to vary the width of the tenon. This sounds like a workable premise for the jig however, in operation the carriage had too much play and did not always lock down parallel with the blade. The result was tenons of unequal thickness. This time I decided to take advantage of the accuracy of the Biesemeyer Fence on my table saw. The new jig rides on the fence body and has both a cam clamp and a quick release clamp to keep the work secure as it is moved through the blade. It was definitely worth the trouble to build this jig – it worked flawlessly and I had all of the tenon cheeks cut in minutes!

In the picture you can see my “micro adjuster” for the tenon thickness. As I mentioned earlier, I used cutoffs from the stock for my test tenons. After the initial setup, I cut a test tenon and tried it in a mortise – it was just a bit too thin. To micro adjust the tenon thickness, I clamped a block to the fence with two thicknesses of paper between it and the fence. Then I loosened the fence, removed the paper, butted the fence against the block and locked it down. After cutting both tenon cheeks in the new positon, the result was a tenon about 1/64″ thicker than before and a perfect thickness for some final fitting later.

Because of the height of the table aprons, solid tenons would be problematic for dealing with future wood movement in the table. The best approach here was to split the tenons into multiple smaller tenons to allow the aprons to move with future changes in humidity without cracking. I did this by measuring the tenon locations directly from the leg mortises and cutting the tenon shoulders on the table saw with the miter gage. In the picture you can see the divided tenons. This left a step of removing the waste adjacent to the tenons on the aprons. I did this by cutting close to the shoulders with a Japanese Dozuki saw for the outer pieces and a coping saw for the pieces in between the tenons.

The cuts with the Dozuki and coping saw left rough areas in need of some minor cleanup. This was accomplished by paring with a sharp chisel to yield clean tenon shoulders. With the tenons cut to size I needed to round their corners to fit the router-cut mortises. After some quick work rounding the tenon corners with a file, I was ready for a trial fit for the aprons. As expected, there was still a bit more fine tuning to be done as each tenon was fit to its respective mortise. The best tool for this job is the shoulder plane. With this tool I was able to sneak up on a perfect fit for the width of the each tenon by carefully shaving the cheeks of the tenons until they slid perfectly into their respective mortises. For the dry fit, the shoulder plane also excelled at shaving the tenon shoulders perfectly square so that the aprons fit tightly against the leg posts and the table carcass was square.

In this picture of the dry fit it looks as if there is a major color variation between the back and side aprons and the rest of the table – in reality these came from another board and they are a bit darker however, not nearly as much as it appears in the picture. I may try to get the other parts into the sunlight for a tanning session to give them a bit more color to see if I can even things out. Hopefully, I won’t have to wait until July for that opportunity…

As always, if you have any comments or questions, please leave them here using the comments link at the end of the post, or email me at thecraftsmanspath@gmail.com.

The first task was to mark and cut the mortises. I had left the tops of the legs sized to the full square dimension in order to make marking and cutting these mortises easier. Of course, doing this before the knee blocks were added also helped out with the ability to clamp the legs and to machine the mortises. There are four mortises on each of the rear legs and three on each of the front legs. These mortises will accept the tenons from the table aprons. The front legs will also receive a dovetailed recess to house the top rail above the drawer but, I have chosen to leave that operation until after I have the rail milled to size and the aprons completed.

Normally I would cut these mortises with my router mortising jig (see this post for info). However, when I tried to use that jig with these legs, I discovered that my router was extended too far away from the edge guide and it became unstable in that orientation. I contemplated using the drill press to rough out the mortises assuming that I would follow up with a chisel. However, after a practice run using that method I was not satisfied and returned to the router for another alternative. I opted to clamp each leg in my bench vice and to route the mortises using the edge guide alone. The only down side to this method was that I lost the assistance of the stops on the jig so, I needed to be careful to stop routing accurately at the ends of each mortise. The fact that I had left the tops of the legs at the full dimension made this process much easier. Once I got going, the routing all of the mortises went very quickly. While I have done mortises many times using more traditional methods, I really like doing mortises with the router. Once the process is nailed down it is very quick and accurate and the mortise walls are very smooth assuring a good glue joint. An added benefit is that with a shop vacuum connected to my router there is very little clean up to do!

After the mortises were completed, I needed to finally cut down the upper posts on the legs to their final dimension so that the knee blocks could subsequently be added and shaped. With the extra material at the tops of the legs, there was no room for that shaping to be done. This was a simple operation at the band saw with one significant detail to be addressed. Because of the shape of the legs, the two faces of the posts needed to be cut in a specific order. In the pictures you can see that the leg was first oriented with the knee down toward the band saw table while making the first cut. After that cut was complete, the leg was rotated counter-clockwise 90 degrees to complete the second cut. This allowed for flat faces of the leg to be placed against both the fence and the table during both cuts. These two cut faces make up the outsides of the posts and will be smoothed once the aprons are cut and fit.

With the machining completed on the tops of the legs, it was time to cut, glue and shape the knee blocks. Knee blocks are typically attached separately at this stage because there is no good way to cut the entire leg (with the knee blocks) out of a solid piece of stock – even if they were cut from a solid block, a lot of stock would be wasted in the process. I started this process by examining the offcuts from the leg blanks that I had saved for suitable pieces to use. There are six knee blocks to be made in total (two for each front leg and one for each rear leg) . While examining the stock for these pieces, I tried hard to match the grain on the legs with the grain on the knee blocks. Of course, this was hard to do exactly, but attention to this detail will result in a better looking piece in the end.

With the stock for the knee blocks chosen and cut to rough size, I traced the pattern onto each piece using the template that I had made earlier. I chose to cut this pattern out first and to then scribe the leg profile onto the knee blocks. Because of the shape of the knee blocks I ended up having to create a template on a piece of paper to trace onto the profiled faces of the blocks – this was necessary because I needed to keep the flat side against the band saw table while cutting the leg profile. In retrospect, I should have made these cuts in the opposite order but, with a little thinking there was an alternative way to get the job done.

In the pictures, you can see the process of gluing, clamping and rough shaping the knee blocks. It turned out that clamping these pieces to the legs was a bit cumbersome – even trying to use the offcuts as clamping blocks did not work well. The resulting glue joints are not my best, but they are certainly adequate.

Shaping these curves followed the same process as the rest of the legs. Lots of rasping, filing, chiseling and a little sanding. In the picture you can see the shaping completed with the legs sanded to 150 grit. After the aprons are made there will be a bit more refining and sanding to be done, as well as cutting the dovetailed recess in posts for the top front rail but, for now the legs are complete.

I have started to the process of milling the stock for the aprons, the drawer front and the table top. The joinery on those pieces will be the next task at hand. Until then, if you have any comments or questions, please leave them here using the comments link at the end of the post, or email me at thecraftsmanspath@gmail.com.

You may recall that I had previously drawn some lines on each face of the legs to help guide me during the shaping work. The first set of lines started at the center of the leg near the ankle and then followed the curves up toward the knee at a consistent offset from the edges. The second set of lines also followed the curves from ankle to knee but, these were spaced about 5/7ths of the way from the edges to the first set of lines. The result, as shown in the picture, was four lines on each face. When viewed across a corner of the leg, the two closest lines to each corner denoted an area to be chamfered and the next set of lines helped to define the outer extents for rounding the corners of the legs.

The first step in the shaping was to create a chamfer along each corner between the first set of lines. This chamfer needed to be widest at the ankle and to taper to nothing as it approached the knee of the leg. I started these with a sharp chisel and then moved on to using a coarse rasp. These initial chamfers were done along each of the four corners of the legs.

Once all of the corners were roughly chamfered, it was time to continue the rough shaping with the rasp. The first area to work was the ankle. The idea was to roughly shape the ankle to a nearly round cross-section. Once the ankles were rough shaped, I continued with the rough shaping moving up the leg toward the knee. The round cross-section at the ankle gradually transitions to a square with rounded corners as you approach the knee. All of this shaping was first done with the coarse rasp, then it was repeated with a fine rasp and then a file – the pictures show this process at the ankle area. For now, the area from the knee up is left unshaped. Those areas will be further shaped later after the knee blocks are attached so that transition will be smooth.

Once the shaping with the rasps and files was completed, I took some time with a card scraper and some sand paper to smooth the shaped areas of the legs (you can see all of the tools that I used for the shaping in the picture). Overall, I liked what I had except for the area where the heel transitions into the foot. In the picture you can see the results of my initial efforts. I wanted a less abrupt transition at the heel than I had so, I set things aside for a couple of days and pondered the best approach to altering the legs. Of course, my concern in making any changes was that I have consistent legs when completed but, also to not remove too much material – once it comes off, you can’t put it back on! I did some sketches on paper of what I thought this area should look like and then attempted to mark the legs to reflect my sketch. With rasp in hand it was the moment of truth – I started again with a rough rasp to ease the transition at the heel. Once I started I began to be able to see my way through this process toward then end result and the anxiety lessened. After rasping, filing scraping and sanding I could see the results of my efforts: a much more gradual and pleasing looking transition.

Though the shaping of the legs is not yet completed, the next step in the process will be to cut the mortises into the upper leg posts to accept the aprons. Once the mortising is complete, I will be able to cut down the upper leg posts to their final dimensions and then I can attach and knee blocks and complete the shaping of the legs.

Until then, I’d like to wish everyone Happy Holidays and a healthy and prosperous New Year! As always, if you have any comments or questions, please leave theme here with the comments link at the end of the post, or email me at thecraftsmanspath@gmail.com.

The feet were turned on a my lathe after marking the rough legs for center on each end. Because the template that was used as a pattern for the legs was as wide as finished legs (i.e. not offset within the blanks) the centers were marked directly on the ends of each leg. The legs were mounted on the lathe with the foot toward the tail stock so that there was no chance in hitting the drive center when turning the feet. The tool rest was positioned so that the foot could be turned without the leg contacting it while it was spinning. Because of the offset shape of the legs, there was some whip as the legs turned so, I turned them at the lowest speed on my lathe, which is about 500 RPM.

The first step in turning the foot was to turn a cylinder down to the desired outside diameter. I marked a line at the top if the toe and then turned in slightly at that point with the long point of my skew chisel to define the top edge of the toe. Next, I started to rough in with a spindle gouge for the outer diameter of the foot. After turning in a little bit with the gouge, I needed to relieve a bit of the back of the ankle portion of the leg with a chisel so that the gouge would be able to reach where I needed it i order to to finish turning the foot. Now it was a simple matter of turning to the desired outer diameter of 2 3/4″.

Once the outer diameter was turned, a smaller diameter needed to be turned for the pad of the foot. I marked out for the pad with a pencil at about 1/8″ up from the bottom of the foot. When looking at foot at this point it seemed like height of the foot from the pad up to the toe was too large so, I also marked a line where I thought the toe should stop. I then proceeded to turn the pad of the foot to 1 3/4″ in diameter with a parting tool.

With the foot diameters now roughed in, it now needed to be turned from the toe down to the pad. I did this with a spindle gouge, gradually shaping the curve until I liked the shape. I also sanded the foot to 220 grit while on the lathe. At this point I created a small template of this turned foot by tracing its outline onto some paper and cutting it out. This template was used to match the other three feet to this first one. You can see in the picture that I also used the point of the skew chisel to define the new top of the toe. I removed this leg and then turned all three of the other legs to this point following the same procedure. Once the turning was competed, I paused to contemplate the next steps in the process.

After thinking about what was next in the process, I realized that to shape the foot down to the new toe line that I had defined, there would be a significant amount of material that would need to be removed. This would need to be done while trying to maintain the graceful curve from the ankle to the top of the foot, which I thought would be difficult to do consistently on all four legs. I thought this through and finally decided to trust my original template and to keep the foot dimensions as originally designed. This required me to re-mount each leg on the lathe and to remove the skewed line that I added and to also re-fair the curve from the toe to the pad. In the pictures you can see the finished turned feet.

Now that the feet were turned, some rough shaping was necessary to transition the ankles to the them and to remove some excess material from their sides. I started this by shaping the tops of the feet using the oscillating spindle sander. The large drum on this tool made quick work of this allowing me to rough a gentle curve from the ankle to the foot while keeping a nice crisp line at the top of the toe. There was still some excess material to remove around the sides of the feet so, now it was time to do some hand work.

In order to work on the legs by hand I needed a secure way to hold them. In the picture, you can see my solution using some clamps at the bench. I decided to try a Microplane to rasp around the sides of the feet close to the skewed edge of the toe. So far this tool seems to work well. It leaves a very nice surface – even with the rough blade I’m using at this point – and it creates small shavings rather than dust, which is nice. I’m hopeful that it will work just as well with the fine blades when I shape the remaining portions of the legs.

After the rough rasping, I needed to smooth the surfaces of the legs so that they could be marked for final shaping. I did this with a block plane and a card scraper, smoothing from the knees down to about the top of the ankles. Once smooth, using a pencil with my middle finger as a gauge I drew a line from the center of the ankle along the front edge of the leg and then again along the back edge of the leg. With those two lines drawn, I repeated the process drawing another line about 5/7th of the way from the edges of the leg to the first set of lines. These lines will serve to guide me during the next process of shaping the curves of the legs by hand.

As always, if you have comments or questions, please either leave theme here with the comments link at the end of the post, or email me at thecraftsmanspath@gmail.com.

This table is modeled after one done by Glen Huey of Popular Woodworking in the fall of 2004. As seen in the picture, Glen’s table is a nice example of Queen Anne styling with graceful legs and scroll work along the aprons. I have never done any hand shaped legs of this sort before nor have I done a period furniture reproduction. So, this project will be an interesting challenge in learning new styles and honing new skills.

To begin the project I determined what lumber I would need and set off to find the right stock. I knew that finding the correct stock, thick enough for the legs would be a challenge. I did not want to laminate the stock for them so, that was a priority. I went to a new local hardwood supplier G.W. Woods Inc. to see what was available there. I met the owner, Greg Wolfe and discussed what I had in mind. Greg showed me to a nice selection of 12/4 and 16/4 Cherry for the legs – these needed to be surfaced to 2 3/4″ square before any further cutting and shaping. I also found some nice 4/4 Cherry for the top, the drawer and the aprons. In addition, I brought home a piece of 4/4 curly maple that I was thinking of using for the drawer front, but I am not sure that I want to deviate from the typical characteristics of the Queen Anne period by mixing species so, that may get saved for a future project.

To get started I needed to create a template for the legs that could be used to transfer a consistent pattern to each leg blank prior to cutting them out on the band saw. I did this by drawing the pattern onto a piece of 1/4″ hardboard and cutting close to the pattern lines with the band saw. There are two pieces to the template, the main leg, and a small shoulder extension for the top under the aprons that is glued on and shaped later. Once these template pieces were rough cut, I smoothed all of the curves with a file and sanding block so that when transfered to the leg blanks the lines would all flow nicely.

Next, I had layout the leg cuts and rip the stock down to rough dimensions. I typically do this on my band saw as there is no risk of kickback with rough pieces. This also allows me to get the stock closer to finished dimensions before squaring it up with the jointer and planer – the benefit here is that if there is any bow or twist in the stock, it is more minimal when the pieces are shorter and therefore less stock is lost during the milling process.

Once the legs were ripped to size, I spent some time at the jointer and planer getting the stock to a finished 2 3/4″ square dimension. I did this in the typical fashion – first flattening a face and then squaring an adjacent edge on the jointer, then running the stock through the planer using those flat faces as a reference to obtain perfectly square leg blanks. Next, I cut the legs to length and saved the offcuts to use for the leg shoulder extensions later. At this point, it was time to transfer the patterns to the legs. This was done by tracing along the template on adjacent faces of the leg blanks. The important detail here was to do this so that the knees of the pattern meet at a corner of the leg. It is also typically desirable to have the growth rings of the leg running diagonal toward that corner – this gives the shaped leg nice straight grain instead of a series of concentric ovals. I tried to orient them for this detail as best I could while avoiding sapwood and other minor defects in the stock.

With the patterns transferred to the legs, it was now the moment of truth – time to cut out the legs. It was a bit nerve racking doing this for the first time after all of the time prepping and milling this stock – not to mention not wanting to make a mistake potentially ruining relatively expensive stock. I checked and double-checked the layout and decided it was time to give it a go. The first step was actually a cut at the shoulder just where the knee intersects the vertical post on the legs. This was done on the table saw with a stop block clamped to the fence behind the blade – this registered each cut at exactly the same location. This cut was made on the two faces that had the pattern traced onto them and only deep enough to intersect the vertical post portions of the legs. Next, it was time for cutting the curves on the band saw. The key to doing this was to cut the pattern on two adjacent faces of the leg blank while keeping the leg square so that the second face can be cut after the first. To do this I cut just outside of the pattern lines – on both the knee and back edges – on the first face leaving a little bridge so that face would remain intact during the cuts for the second face. The piece above the knee is too small to do this, so it was cut completely off and then temporarily reattached with some hot melt glue. Once all of this was done, the piece was rotated 90 degrees and the second face was cut completely through. All than remained was to go back to the first face and cut through the bridges and then to pop off the piece temporarily glued above the knee.

All of the prep work paid off, the rough legs turned out fine. The graceful shape of the cabriole leg is roughed in and ready for the next step in the process which will be turning the foot pads on the lathe and then shaping and smoothing the curves with rasps, files and scrapers. More new skills to hone!

Until then, and as always, if you have comments or questions, please either leave theme here with the comments link at the end of the post, or email me at thecraftsmanspath@gmail.com.

Construction Details

First, a bit about how the table was constructed. Unfortunately, I don’t have any pictures of the construction process, but I will walk you through the relevant details.

The legs were cut from 8/4 stock using a template that I made from 1/4″ hardboard. I traced the pattern onto the stock and used the bandsaw to rough out the legs within about 1/16″ of the line. The curves were smoothed with an oscillating spindle sander, a card scraper and finally hand sanding. I cut the joints into the legs before doing this shaping so that I could use square stock while executing the joinery – I’ll talk more about that a bit later.

All of the other parts of the table were cut from 4/4 stock. The curves on the both sets of upper and also the lower end stretchers were done in a similar manner to the legs, except I used double-stick tape between each two pieces and then cut and shaped each set together. For the upper end stretchers, I planed the stock down to about 5/8″. The notches in these pieces that fit over the legs were done on the table saw, nibbling away until I achieved a close fit.

The upper and lower curved stretchers and the legs were both mortised using the mortising jig I posted about here. These joints were assembled with loose tenons. I assembled the two end leg sections first. The top stretchers are attached into the tops of the legs with Miller Dowels. I had never used these before but, I thought that this was a perfect application for them. Once the two end leg sections were assembled, the cross stretchers were glued up to complete the base of the table. For the lower cross stretcher I again used contrasting Miller Dowels to join it to the end assemblies.

The top was glued up from three Walnut boards that I selected for a good grain match. The top needed to be assembled to the base while allowing for wood movement.. To accomplish this, a shallow stopped grove was routed into the upper end stretchers on their underside. These groves were drilled with an oversize screw hole to allow the top to expand and contract across the grain without splitting. The top was fastened to the base through these holes with four wood screws.

The entire piece was hand scraped and sanded with 220 grit. The finish is three coats of thinned General Finishes Arm-R-Seal scuff sanded between coats with 320 grit. The final coat was rubbed out with a piece of paper grocery bag to remove any remaining dust nibs.

The Design

My aim with this design was to create a piece in an Arts and Crafts style while adding some Asian influence. I was inspired by looking at some works in the Greene & Greene style as well as some James Krenov pieces.

I did not want too much ornamentation on the table because I thought that the wood could speak for itself without too much competing detail. As a result, I opted to use subtle curves repeated in the legs and stretchers. The only slight ornamentation was the use of a contrasting colored dowels to join the lower cross stretcher.

I like the way that Krenov’s cabinet pieces sometimes float above a base. In this vein, I attempted to create some negative space and lightness in this piece by raising the top off of the stretchers. My thought was that this would create some visual interest and along with the leg styling, offer some Asian influence to the piece. The edge treatment on the table top again was simple. Just a hand planed chamfer on all edges so as to not compete with the wood.

All in all, I’m happy with the way that the table turned out. I think that it generally conveys what I wanted when I set out to design it. The wood is beautiful in and of itself and I hope that the subtleties in the design allow that to come through. If there were anything that I might change on another version of this piece, I might try curving or tapering the legs on both outward facing sides rather than just one. That detail might create a bit more of a balanced look when viewing the table from the ends.

I’d enjoy hearing what you think about the design – good and bad. Do you think I hit the mark in obtaining an Asian/Arts and Crafts feel? Please let me know your thoughts – you can contact me at thecraftsmanspath@gmail.com or leave comments here using the comments link at the end of the post.