Leuf wrote:

snip

I thought that'd how you were supposed to do a breadboard end. The
middle peg is fixed while the outer ones have elongates holes that
hold it in the proper plane while allowing movement.

The breadboard end, basically a deep tongue and groove but
with grain at 90s rather than parallel, is what holds the top
in the proper plane, the peg in the center holds the breadboard
end to the top's core. Unless the breadboard end crooks it
won't pull away from the ends of the top, opening the joint.

Using modern glues - you only apply glue to the center of
a breadboard end - no pegs or any other fastener needed.

2. "Ebony pegs" that are actually caps to cover screws

A choice. You could cap the screw with a plug carefully chosen to
match the grain or you could not try to hide it, make it a feature.
Once you've made the choice to use a screw instead of a more
traditional joint there's nothing wrong with doing something like
that.

Interestingly enough I just read an article on a Shaker community
that used exposed nail heads in some of their mortise and tenon
joinery. To some this sounds blasphemous. But them Shakers
were a pretty adaptive group when it came to making furniture.
They often used state of the art (for their time) machines and
adopted electricity when it became available - only in the shop
of course.

As for using screws and showing off, as decorative elements
of course, that things are screwed together - that'd be in
keeping with the "honesty" part of the A&C philosophy. But,
with the exception of pocket screw joinery, most screwed
together stuff doesn't stay screwed together over time and
use.

3. chamfered "tenon ends" that aren't actually the ends of
tenons but mere appliques - design elements - and the
joint it implies may or may not be a mortise and tenon.

I don't know whether this stuff is found on the originals, I doubt
it. Obviously it's cheating.

OR - it could be "a design element"

snip

I have no doubt there's plenty of Japanese furniture with your snazzy
mitered corners that are just that, plain ol mitered corners with some
kind of mechanical fastener for reinforcement. I'm sure they do it
too.

I don't think mitered corners are snazzy, nor are they common
in Japanese furniture - but quite common in Chinese furniture.
All oriental furniture does not look alike. Chinese joinery is often
complex - inside - yes - outside quite plain - but, IMHO, effective
in the overall design.

I think it's a Western vs Eastern approach to the visual arts,
furniture being functional visual art. The Eastern approach
is evocative, providing just enough information to imply the
rest, the viewer filling in what isn't actually there. The Western
approach is more provocative - "I'm showing you EXACTLY what
I want you to see.". We Westerners have a tendency towards
details and specifics and dislike ambiguity and not proned to
nuances. But in cultures where your life, and the lives of your
family can be jeopordized by saying the wrong thing to the wrong
person, nuances and ambiguity are necessities of existence.
Ambiguity and nuances then spill over into other things - furniture
design being one example?

I'm told that in Japanese, there are numerous ways to say "no"
by using variations of what sounds like "yes". Both the speaker
and the listener know that what is being communicated is "no",
but both parties may "save face" by appearing to agree.

snip

I think having the grain running all the way from top to bottom on the
stiles gives your eye direction, it defines the corner. If you've got
miters everywhere then you've got a bunch of rectangles stuck
together. If the top is a frame and panel I like miters there, but on
the sides give me my trusty butt joints.

see above Evocative vs Provocative regarding eye direction.

"a bunch of rectangles stuck together" - that's basically what
furniture is. The trick is to integrate them in a pleasing manner
while maintaining the functionality. Doing a nice piece where the
pieces flow together is the goal, be it via The Golden Rectangle,
Graduated Drawers, edge treatments, grain selection and orientation,
contrasting woods, etc..

It's a different world now with modern glues and hardware. If the
point is that everything serves a purpose, well then what is the
purpose if you could have made something 'strong enough' with
something simpler? The yankee in me says that's wasteful, and more
about stroking the woodworker's ego. If they had all that we have
today would they have made things the same way?

You've raised several intersting issues.

If they were doing mass production work I'm betting that is
probably true. Almost by definition, mass production has
a designed for "an expected lifespan" and styles come and go.
Why build for things that will last for centuries when they
will probably be in a land fill - or fire place - in 20 or 30 years?

As for the woodworker ego - it doesn't go with their culture.
Ego can get you in trouble - "it's the proud nail that gets hit
again". I think Chinese joinery is more about the seamless
blending of form and function. Why in the world would one
go to all the trouble of making these kinds of joints when
no one will ever see them. I suspect there is more ego in
A&C joinery - though couched in "honesty" and "design elements",
you must admit there is a little bit of "look what I can do -see".

Then there's the Western "over design" thing. If you examine
most Chinese furniture, there's a minimalist quality about
them - using just enough to do the job, and then making it
seem like there's less there than there actually is. Western
furniture typically over designs then emphasizes that it's
over designed - but stout and solid. Ironically, "clouds" are
often added to lighten the piece up a little, in a purely
decorative way.

As usual - I've wandered WAY off the path I was trying to
follow. It's not about "A" is better than "B". It is about
really looking at and studying a piece you like and maybe
indentifying some of the subtle things about it that make
it special to you and worth noting/describing. A surprise
perhaps, an edge treatment that makes or breaks the
design of the piece. The orientation or parts and how
they come together with adjacent parts in an interesting
and pleasing way. A surface that just begs you to run
your hand over it.

You clearly know about A&C furniture and no doubt have a
favorite piece. Have you really studied it and if so, what
have you found that isn't apparent at first glance? There
must be things that folks that aren't familiar with Stickley
or Greene & Greene don't, out of ignorance, appreciate.

The fact that most of it is in oak must dictate some of the
joinery requirements and grain selection for some of the parts,
quarter sawn "moving" less than riff sawn, . . . What are
some examples you've noted?

Is ebony often used because it provides stability where oak won't?

Is the closed grain, takes a nice polish, of ebony used to contrast
with oak's open grain, and relative coarseness the reason for
going with ebony?

I know that square pegs produce a stronger, more durable joint
than round ones. Is a square peg oriented with its top and bottom
parallel to the ground better than when they're oriented like a
"diamond"?

Pick your favorite piece, really study it and share some of
what you discover - please.

charlie b