On 3 Mar 2006 05:27:21 -0800, "foggytown" wrote:

I know there's no hard and fast rules on this subject but I think
common sense should have some bearing. The other week Norm built an
absolutely gorgeous highboy from tiger maple. One look at the
wonderfuly figured wood, gleaming brass fittings, elegant shape said it
all: heirloom piece for sure - greatgrandkiddies will still be
displaying this one.

Then Norm pulled out a drawer and you got a good look inside. It could
have passed as a crude example from a pallet factory's seconds pile!
How can anything so lovely have such an ugly and utilitarian interior?

Maybe I'm being hyper fussy but my inclination (were I able to craft to
that standard to begin with) would be to take a great deal of care with
the "hidden" components and make them almost as much a joy to behold as
the exterior. OK, using good hardwood for cleats and dust frames and
runners, etc. will cost more than ply or poplar. And maybe the
economics of putting the NYW show together are tighter than we think.
But I just feel that an exceptional piece should have exceptional (but
not necessarily the same) standards throughout.

FoggyTown


Whats wrong with Poplar? I built a complete bedroom set out of soid
cherry and all the interior dust frames and drawer sides were poplar.
My kids will be fighting over it. It looks great if you join, sand,
and seal as if you were going to see it all the time. In fact, I like
the contrast between the cherry and the poplar at the dovetails when I
open the drawers.

Frank