I recently agreed to make a midsized entertainment center for a buddy.
Normally I am wary of commission work as this is a hobby of mine, but it met
my criteria:

Asking me has nothing to do with money, they asked because they have looked
at quality pieces for a year and can't find anything they like on the
market. They appreciate quality and have a realistic view of what it costs.
That, and he is a very good friend.

I figured the project to be about 100 hours and 100bf of cherry (allowing
for 30% waste). I conservatively estimated my out-of pocket expenses to be
$1K after I rented a delivery van for a weekend (he lives out of town) and
I include hardware and maybe a few shop consumables like a new set of planer
blades. Although he was ready to pay $5K I could not feel right about it.
It's a hobby and he is a good friend. I figured that $2K would be more than
fair and keep my conscience clear.

Sadly, my wife did not see it that way. On ethical grounds, my wife forbade
me from charging more than cost of materials/rental. On the other hand,
Glenn said that the deal was off if he could not pay me *something* of
significance.

The other commission that I did for a buddy netted me a gift of a Starrett
Combination square with the protractor head and center-finding head. The
wife argued that that wasOK as it was a gift. I saw a loophole in the
impasse.

Since Glenn is a guitar player with whom I have shared my musical
indulgence for the last 22 years said.... so you want a toy? How about that
Fretless bass we keep saying you should buy?

I think everybody wins.

Glenn lives in Pennsylvania and is tastes lean heavily toward natural
cherry, shaker influence, and traditional design. This sounds all very
doable as I am wrapping up a series of smaller pieces for my living room
which are essentially that.

Yesterday, I was thumbing through the latest Ethan Allen catalogue just to
look at the design elements a new project always inspires me to see if there
is a new or different way that I ought to approach something. Looking at
commercial furniture can provide ideas.

It seems to me that traditionally, design elements are either functional
(e.g., M&T joint ) or aesthetic (a carving). Some could be argued that they
are a bit of both. Frame and panel construction is clearly functional, but
the raising a of a panel might be aesthetic to crate a shadow line or to
lend some addition heft to a panel that might otherwise be a tad light in
stature.

Over time many people have come to regard functional components as a part
of the aesthetic, simply because we are used to seeing them, for instance
dove tails.

What I find kind of offensive is the presentation of simulated functional
elements, for example a peg commonly used to secure a mortise and tennon
joint used to "dress up" a cope and stick joint (suggesting that there is
actually a tennon berried in there).

While looking over the latest Ethan Allen offerings, I noticed that almost
all of the sides of cases are flat. That is, not fame and panel, but
probably plywood made to resemble a glue-up. Is there *any* historical
precedent for this in solid wood furniture design, or is this simply the
evolution of design enabled by the invention of plywood?

Steve

"Stephen M" wrote in message

While looking over the latest Ethan Allen offerings, I noticed that almost
all of the sides of cases are flat. That is, not fame and panel, but
probably plywood made to resemble a glue-up. Is there *any* historical
precedent for this in solid wood furniture design, or is this simply the
evolution of design enabled by the invention of plywood?

Both ... the product of the modern furniture factory is no different from
what factories have always done ... figure out a way to deliver style at an
affordable price. Not everyone can afford handcrafted pieces

I find that catalogs and magazines are great places to come up with design
ideas, but you definitely need to follow your own muse as to when, where,
and how "elements of style" are incorporated into your own designs.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/12/05

Stephen M wrote:

....
Yesterday, I was thumbing through the latest Ethan Allen catalogue just to
look at the design elements a new project always inspires me to see if there
is a new or different way that I ought to approach something. Looking at
commercial furniture can provide ideas.

It seems to me that traditionally, design elements are either functional
(e.g., M&T joint ) or aesthetic (a carving). Some could be argued that they
are a bit of both.

Well, it would be hard to not be one or the other methinks, "tradition"
or no...

....
What I find kind of offensive is the presentation of simulated functional
elements, for example a peg commonly used to secure a mortise and tennon
joint used to "dress up" a cope and stick joint (suggesting that there is
actually a tennon berried in there).

You think the "old masters" never used a "trick" for effect????

While looking over the latest Ethan Allen offerings, I noticed that almost
all of the sides of cases are flat. That is, not fame and panel, but
probably plywood made to resemble a glue-up. Is there *any* historical
precedent for this in solid wood furniture design, or is this simply the
evolution of design enabled by the invention of plywood?

In production casework today, it's likely not plywood substrated but MDF
or some variant thereof...

The precedent is, of course, veneer work over inexpensive substrates
which goes back to the Egyptians if not before.

Is there *any* historical
precedent for this in solid wood furniture design, or is this simply the
evolution of design enabled by the invention of plywood?

In production casework today, it's likely not plywood substrated but MDF
or some variant thereof...

The precedent is, of course, veneer work over inexpensive substrates
which goes back to the Egyptians if not before.

True. But let me clarify where I was going with the question. In the absence
of any experience with veneers, I would assume that provided that a backing
veneer is present, the veneered solid panel would behave (from a seasonal
movement perspective) just like a solid/glueed up panel. Therefore, from an
structural design perspective, a veneered solid is the same as a solid,
which is very different from modern dimmensionally stable sheet goods.

So if I may try to reword the question a little better: When constructing
casework, were sides always frame and panel construction prior to the 20th
century?

-Steve

All good stuff to think about.

Yes, flat panel frames are a classic element. In the Stickley furniture
at the turn of the last century you could order casework pieces with
solid wood or flat panel sides and backs. Of course their typical
furniture did not have raised panels on doors per se but the flat
panel frame is still a classic case side element and often paired with
raised panels in the doors.

I too do not like the faux joinery for the sake of the asthetic.
However when something like a through tenon is so identifiable, it's
hard to discount the addition of a faux through tenon in a lower cost
piece to add some classic appeal.

In fact, the Mission style had non-esential, seemingly required
joinery. Consider the gussets added from legs to table tops. Clearly
not a joinery requirement but seem to recall some element of classic
architectural design. From a structural perspective, pure window
dressing.

Thanks for the opportunity for some pleasant musings

BW

Stephen M wrote:

Sadly, my wife did not see it that way. On ethical grounds, my wife forbade
me from charging more than cost of materials/rental.

You've got more serious problems ("my wife forbade me") than what to
charge your friend. do you interfere with her activities in the kitchen
as she does with your woodworking?

Dave

Hey! I rule the kitchen....except when it come to baked goods.

She's working on her masters in religion and philosophical thought... so the
wields a pretty big stick when it come to issues of ethics.

Sadly, my wife did not see it that way. On ethical grounds, my wife
forbade
me from charging more than cost of materials/rental.

You've got more serious problems ("my wife forbade me") than what to
charge your friend. do you interfere with her activities in the kitchen
as she does with your woodworking?

When she does cook, I have *try* to restain myself not to meddle.

As far as woodworking is concerned, She does not meddle and I have learned
not to ask.... it goes soemthing like this:

Me: Sweetie, should I put one knob or two on this drawer front?

Her: I think the drawer should be wider.

Me: Mutters and walks away.

Stephen M wrote:
Hey! I rule the kitchen....except when it come to baked goods.

She's working on her masters in religion and philosophical thought... so the
wields a pretty big stick when it come to issues of ethics.


Sadly, my wife did not see it that way. On ethical grounds, my wife

forbade

me from charging more than cost of materials/rental.

You've got more serious problems ("my wife forbade me") than what to
charge your friend. do you interfere with her activities in the kitchen
as she does with your woodworking?


When she does cook, I have *try* to restain myself not to meddle.

As far as woodworking is concerned, She does not meddle and I have learned
not to ask.... it goes soemthing like this:

Me: Sweetie, should I put one knob or two on this drawer front?

Her: I think the drawer should be wider.

Me: Mutters and walks away.


I've got the opposite problem with my SWMBO. She doesn't provide many
suggestions for design changes. Design the biggest bugaboo of my
woodworking endeavors. Not sure if it's the left or the right side of
my brain that's been on permanent hiatus. I can execute things just
fine, but the design phase elicits much angst.

On the topic of cooking--I've learned to stay out of the kitchen when
she's cooking.

Dave

"Stephen M" wrote in message
As far as woodworking is concerned, She does not meddle and I have learned
not to ask.... it goes soemthing like this:

Me: Sweetie, should I put one knob or two on this drawer front?

Her: I think the drawer should be wider.

Me: Mutters and walks away.

LOL A woman can run more rabbit trails than brer rabbit ever thought about.
Just about the time I think I've broke SWMBO of hitting a point on meadow
larks instead of quail, figuratively speaking, she comes up with a response
just like the above ... gotta be the estrogen.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 9/12/05

Stephen M wrote:

: True. But let me clarify where I was going with the question. In the absence
: of any experience with veneers, I would assume that provided that a backing
: veneer is present, the veneered solid panel would behave (from a seasonal
: movement perspective) just like a solid/glueed up panel.
Therefore, from an
: structural design perspective, a veneered solid is the same as a solid,
: which is very different from modern dimmensionally stable sheet goods.


Nope. A veneered piece of plywood or MDF will not have the seasonal
changes in width that a solid does. Think about it -- what is plywood
itself made of?

-- Andy Barss

Therefore, from an
: structural design perspective, a veneered solid is the same as a
solid,
: which is very different from modern dimmensionally stable sheet goods.


Nope. A veneered piece of plywood or MDF will not have the seasonal
changes in width that a solid does. Think about it -- what is plywood
itself made of?

So you agree.... right? VS = S ply or MDF

Stephen M wrote:

I figured the project to be about 100 hours and 100bf of cherry (allowing
for 30% waste). I conservatively estimated my out-of pocket expenses to be
$1K after I rented a delivery van for a weekend (he lives out of town) and
I include hardware and maybe a few shop consumables like a new set of planer
blades. Although he was ready to pay $5K I could not feel right about it.
It's a hobby and he is a good friend. I figured that $2K would be more than
fair and keep my conscience clear.

Sadly, my wife did not see it that way. On ethical grounds, my wife forbade
me from charging more than cost of materials/rental. On the other hand,
Glenn said that the deal was off if he could not pay me *something* of
significance.


Now you've learned your lesson. Don't discuss the details of something
like this with your wife if you are too weak to stand up to her. Geez,
if my wife "forbade" me to make a measily $10/hour on a big project
like that, I'd just laugh at her and do as I pleased. Tell her that
you're already cutting your friend a break because the fair market
value is 5k.
Stop asking your wife for permission to do everything. You're a grown
man. Just do it. It amazes me that you made your friend go through
through this silly loophole thing with the "Gift" just to appease your
overdemanding wife.
Again, don't give her the details. Just tell her that you're building
something for Glenn. Don't mention finances. Don't ask permission, just
do it.

Stephen M wrote:
: Therefore, from an
: : structural design perspective, a veneered solid is the same as a
: solid,
: : which is very different from modern dimmensionally stable sheet goods.
:
:
: Nope. A veneered piece of plywood or MDF will not have the seasonal
: changes in width that a solid does. Think about it -- what is plywood
: itself made of?

: So you agree.... right? VS = S ply or MDF


Sorry -- I misread your original post -- thought you meant a veneered panel
with manmade substrate.

So, yes, I do agree. I suppose there *might* be a difference due to the
glue under the veneer blocking some moisture transmission, but that's
probably not going to matter much.

-- Andy Barss

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:18:39 -0400, Stephen M wrote:

Hey! I rule the kitchen....except when it come to baked goods.

She's working on her masters in religion and philosophical thought... so the
wields a pretty big stick when it come to issues of ethics.

So she should be familiar with "to the laborer his hire" and "bind not the
mouth of the kine that tread the grain".

I don't want to get between your wife and you. How you run your marriage
is NONE of my business ... at least not at this distance. But ethics call
for fair and just compensation for results / effort (whatever the agreed
upon metric), not for enforced martydom .... which is what being required
to donate your skills to an ideal you do not believe in (her sense of
ethics) amounts to.

Bill

Now you've learned your lesson. Don't discuss the details of something
like this with your wife if you are too weak to stand up to her. Geez,
if my wife "forbade" me to make a measily $10/hour on a big project
like that, I'd just laugh at her and do as I pleased. Tell her that
you're already cutting your friend a break because the fair market
value is 5k.
Stop asking your wife for permission to do everything. You're a grown
man. Just do it. It amazes me that you made your friend go through
through this silly loophole thing with the "Gift" just to appease your
overdemanding wife.
Again, don't give her the details. Just tell her that you're building
something for Glenn. Don't mention finances. Don't ask permission, just
do it.


Damn, did I cross post to rec.couplestheropy again?

Dude, lighten up!

When I used the term "forbade" I was embellishing. A less nuanced
translation: she felt strongly about it and I actually value her opinion.

My stepdaughter is 8. Sometimes she misconjugates or drops a preposition. In
the interest of desiring to see a more articulate North America, I have
declared myself the household grammar Nazi, yet there are no swastikas in my
home.

Would you think me an Arian racist *******?

That's OK; I'll get over it.

"W Canaday" wrote in message

She's working on her masters in religion and philosophical thought... so
the
wields a pretty big stick when it come to issues of ethics.

Questionable IMO.

But ethics call
for fair and just compensation for results / effort (whatever the agreed
upon metric),

Pretty much that simple If two parties willfully agree to a price it is very
ethical. Only when there is subterfuge on one side of the other that it
easily becomes unethical.

There is nothing wrong with doing 100 hours for free for a friend, but
neither it is wrong to accept some sort of payment in cash or some sort of
material compensation.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:_NAWe.15$i86.13@trndny01...

"W Canaday" wrote in message

She's working on her masters in religion and philosophical thought...
so
the
wields a pretty big stick when it come to issues of ethics.

Questionable IMO.

But ethics call
for fair and just compensation for results / effort (whatever the agreed
upon metric),

Pretty much that simple If two parties willfully agree to a price it is
very
ethical. Only when there is subterfuge on one side of the other that it
easily becomes unethical.

There is nothing wrong with doing 100 hours for free for a friend, but
neither it is wrong to accept some sort of payment in cash or some sort of
material compensation.

No there is nothing wrong with it. However, I came to feel that my original
thinking on the subject was flawed.

I felt awkward charging a good friend, so I figured it should be way below
fair market value. That was a cop-out. I should either charge FVM or not at
all.

Since I'm not comfortable with option A, it will be B.

_Steve

-Steve

Stephen M wrote:

Again, don't give her the details. Just tell her that you're building
something for Glenn. Don't mention finances. Don't ask permission, just
do it.


Damn, did I cross post to rec.couplestheropy again?

Dude, lighten up!

When I used the term "forbade" I was embellishing. A less nuanced
translation: she felt strongly about it and I actually value her opinion.

That's OK; I'll get over it.

Sorry man, it seemed from the original post that you really wanted to
do the project for cash but couldn't because your wife forbade you. I
guess the reality is that you really wanted to trade instead of accept
cash, and you're using your wife as an excuse, plus you got a good
story out of it? Don't take this as an attack, but I thought you
genuinely wanted to build this for money and was giving you practical
advice for the future.

Stephen M wrote:

While looking over the latest Ethan Allen offerings, I noticed that almost
all of the sides of cases are flat. That is, not fame and panel, but
probably plywood made to resemble a glue-up. Is there *any* historical
precedent for this in solid wood furniture design, or is this simply the
evolution of design enabled by the invention of plywood?

I had meant to reply to this back when the thread was started, but it
slipped by me. Now that it was "refreshed" today, I'll make my
contrib.

We have EA bedroom furniture. To the best of my ability to tell, the
sides of the carcass of our dresser IS a solid wood glue-up. Unless
these plywood panels you refer to (that are made to look like a
glue-up) actually have both veneer faces matched - i.e. when I look at
the carcass sides from both outside and inside, the joint lines are
consistant on both sides; that would be quite the attention to detail
if they are in fact plywood veneers.

Just FYI,
Chris


Steve