Good topic, BTW.

I agree .. and disagree to a lesser extent.

While I've recently had the opportunity to closely examine many 100 year old
A&C pieces, and in every case the medullary rays were commonly prominent in
the boards with the face showing (providing the finish allowed), I do agree
that there is an unreasonable effort today to show the figure, particularly
when you see modern efforts to "quarter" the legs so that the rays show on
all sides ... totally unnecessary and unreasonable, IMO, but something the
magazine 'experts" seem to constantly harp upon as being important.

That said, use quarter sawn wood for its dimensional stability, which was
definitely a factor in its use during that time, and you are going to get
the rays whether you want them or not.

I buy QSWO for both its appearance and its dimensional stability, take same
time to put the best grain out, match it the best I can with what I have on
hand, and don't worry too much if the rift sawn grain you get in every load
show up in the projects.

IOW, I use what is on hand and available ... and would bet that _is_ in
keeping with the method, purpose, and tradition of the early A&C movement
.... regardless of how much figure shows in the end piece.

In the end, maybe the "finishing" side of the equation is more at the root
of what you perceive to be a problem?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/28/03



"Drew D. Saur"wrote in message
Hi, all.

I've recently gotten pretty interested in Arts & Crafts furniture (both
reproduction and antique) and am wondering something: in the recent
renaissance, have some A&C reproduction designers gotten too carried
away with "pure," extremely highly-figured quartersawn oak? It seems to
me, as I study older (original) A&C pieces, one would generally find
that pieces were constructed of a good mix of quartersawn and slightly
riftsawn lumber, even in quite prominent areas. This is true of both
"big name" (Roycroft, Stickley, Limbert) and "unsigned" pieces.

Today, some reproduction A&C furniture can be found that still uses such
a mix, while other, apparently "high end" pieces, are made of so much
highly figured oak that they don't resemble *anything* I have ever seen
from the distant past. The conspicuous ray flake in these pieces is
almost ridiculous. They don't really seem authentic to me when compared
against period pieces.

Is it possible that today's high-end craftsman furniture reproduction
"masters" have somewhat missed a point of practicality of the original
Arts & Crafts movement? Or am I missing something?

Thanks for any historical guidance anyone can offer!

Drew

--
__________________________________________________ _________________
The Mac Orchard - http://www.macorchard.com/
Essential Internet Applications since 1995