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

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. ...

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?

... 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.


On _The Antiques Road Show_ I've seen many antiques with poplar or
white pine secondary wood appraised at several tens of thousands
of dollars. But any part that showed in normal use, like drawer sides
were well-executed.

I've also seen antiques in a store with quarter sawn sycamore for
the interior drawer sides and one had birds' eye maple plywood for
drawer bottoms.

I've read that at one time bird's eye was considered to be a defect
and sycamore has poor dimensional stablity--it would almost
have to be quarter sawn to be acceptable for drawer sides. So
maybe both of those were examples of 'cheap' wood being used
where it wasn't usually seen!!

--

FF

"foggytown" wrote in message

But I just feel that an exceptional piece should have exceptional (but
not necessarily the same) standards throughout.

Spoken like a man who never turned a hundred fifty year old antique around
to look at the backside to witness the 19th century cultural equivalent of
breast augmentation ... it's appearance that counts.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

wrote in message

On _The Antiques Road Show_ I've seen many antiques with poplar or
white pine secondary wood appraised at several tens of thousands
of dollars. But any part that showed in normal use, like drawer sides
were well-executed.

Incubator of the MBA mentality ... the master did the parts that showed, the
apprentice the remainder.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

"foggytown" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


I know what you mean, but the nicest furniture we own is quite scary looking
inside. As you say - almost pallet material.

--

-Mike-

"foggytown" wrote in message
oups.com...
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?

IMHO an heirloom is a piece that is functional and built well enough to last
generations. Appearance has nothing to do with it.
There are many people that do not appreciate the inner workings of
furniture, they simply care about how it looks on the outside. Have you
been in to the common furniture store lately? Open a dresser drawer and see
if is even 2/3's as deep as the dresser caucus. If it has DT's, were they
sanded smooth?

"Leon" wrote in message
There are many people that do not appreciate the inner workings of
furniture, they simply care about how it looks on the outside. Have you
been in to the common furniture store lately? Open a dresser drawer and
see
if is even 2/3's as deep as the dresser caucus. If it has DT's, were they
sanded smooth?

For commercial furniture anyway, I'd guess it's a time and material cost
cutting measure.

Upscale wrote:
"Leon" wrote in message
There are many people that do not appreciate the inner workings of
furniture, they simply care about how it looks on the outside. Have you
been in to the common furniture store lately? Open a dresser drawer and
see
if is even 2/3's as deep as the dresser caucus. If it has DT's, were they
sanded smooth?

For commercial furniture anyway, I'd guess it's a time and material cost
cutting measure.

Sometimes you find drawers with the back inserted into
a dado so that the sides extend an inch or more past the
useable space in the drawer. I figured that was so that when
the drawer was open 'all the way' it wouldn't fall out of the
carcass.

Other than that, I agree it makes no sense to make the drawer
shallower than the carcass.

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...
Sometimes you find drawers with the back inserted into
a dado so that the sides extend an inch or more past the
useable space in the drawer. I figured that was so that when
the drawer was open 'all the way' it wouldn't fall out of the
carcass.

Other than that, I agree it makes no sense to make the drawer
shallower than the carcass.

The longer sides to keep the drawer from falling out very well could be the
reasoning. Unfortunately if that is the case that practice is to make up
for the wide margin of tolerance in the fit. When I build drawers there is
no over hang and they will not fall out unless you pull them all the way
out.

It has to be a cost savings measure.

In article ,
"Swingman" wrote:

"foggytown" wrote in message

But I just feel that an exceptional piece should have exceptional (but
not necessarily the same) standards throughout.

Spoken like a man who never turned a hundred fifty year old antique around
to look at the backside to witness the 19th century cultural equivalent of
breast augmentation ... it's appearance that counts.

I like the way you bring a discussion about 'pallet-like' interiors
around to tits. Good job!
;-)

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

My dad used to deal in european antiques -- a lot of the high
end furniture was like that.


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?

Leon wrote:

IMHO an heirloom is a piece that is functional and built well enough to last
generations. Appearance has nothing to do with it.

Then we disagree. To me, an heirloom piece is an above-average example
of craftsmanship and attractiveness. It goes beyond utilitarian. Take
pocket watches, for instance. The best examples look as good inside
the case as they do from the outside. Why? Nobody looks at the
insides to tell the time.

FoggyTown

wrote in message
oups.com...


But if they are pulled out so the inside of the back is flush with
the face frame (which of course is a lot farther than they need
to pulled out ot get to whatever is in them) that puts a lot of
stress on the back uppercorners of the sides and on the lower
lip of the face frame. Leaving some overhang in the back would
distribute that better.


This is true but I tend to overbuild to start with.

"Robatoy" wrote in message

"Swingman" wrote:

"foggytown" wrote in message

But I just feel that an exceptional piece should have exceptional (but
not necessarily the same) standards throughout.

Spoken like a man who never turned a hundred fifty year old antique
around
to look at the backside to witness the 19th century cultural equivalent
of
breast augmentation ... it's appearance that counts.

I like the way you bring a discussion about 'pallet-like' interiors
around to tits. Good job!
;-)

Hehe ... All roads lead back to Rome. When you think about it, mother nature
gave us eyes for two basic reasons: so we can find something to eat more
easily, and to look at something that makes us want to procreate ...
everything else is extraneous.

That's the coonass version, and I'm sticking to it ... it's appearance that
counts.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

Swingman wrote:

Hehe ... All roads lead back to Rome. When you think about it, mother nature
gave us eyes for two basic reasons: so we can find something to eat more
easily, and to look at something that makes us want to procreate ...
everything else is extraneous.

That's the coonass version, and I'm sticking to it ... it's appearance that
counts.


THREE basic reasons. You forgot watching football.

FoggyTown

"foggytown" wrote in message
oups.com...

Leon wrote:

IMHO an heirloom is a piece that is functional and built well enough to
last
generations. Appearance has nothing to do with it.

Then we disagree. To me, an heirloom piece is an above-average example
of craftsmanship and attractiveness. It goes beyond utilitarian. Take
pocket watches, for instance. The best examples look as good inside
the case as they do from the outside. Why? Nobody looks at the
insides to tell the time.


If you like to think that. I don't know of any watch that does not look
pretty darn good in side. They have to be pretty darn close to perfect to
actually function. Furniture is an entirely different matter with tolerance
requirements that are quite lax by comparison.




n.
A valued possession passed down in a family through succeeding generations.
An article of personal property included in an inherited estate.
..
The noun heirloom has 2 meanings:
Meaning #1: (law) any property that is considered by law or custom as
inseparable from an inheritance is inherited with that inheritance

Meaning #2: something that has been in a family for generations

"Leon" writes:

"foggytown" wrote in message
oups.com...

Leon wrote:

IMHO an heirloom is a piece that is functional and built well enough to

[...]

.
The noun heirloom has 2 meanings:
Meaning #1: (law) any property that is considered by law or custom as
inseparable from an inheritance is inherited with that inheritance

Meaning #2: something that has been in a family for generations

.... or a mispelled weaving tool owned by a woman
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"foggytown" wrote in message

But I just feel that an exceptional piece should have exceptional (but
not necessarily the same) standards throughout.

Spoken like a man who never turned a hundred fifty year old antique around
to look at the backside to witness the 19th century cultural equivalent of
breast augmentation ... it's appearance that counts.

I don't care much for antiques, but I look them over at auctions to kill
time. It is amazing how poorly made some them are; yet they go for
thousands.

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 12:47:40 -0600, Frank Boettcher
wrote:

[snip]

In fact, I like
the contrast between the cherry and the poplar at the dovetails when I
open the drawers.

Me too.

In article ,
Juergen Hannappel wrote:

... or a mispelled weaving tool owned by a woman

That's pretty oblique, Doc.

Funny... but oblique.

Yes, forget watching football. Now we're back to two.

"foggytown" wrote in message
THREE basic reasons. You forgot watching football.

FoggyTown

"Wes Stewart" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 12:47:40 -0600, Frank Boettcher
wrote:

[snip]

In fact, I like
the contrast between the cherry and the poplar at the dovetails when I
open the drawers.

Me too.

What are you doing in Frank's bedroom when he's opening his drawers?

--

-Mike-

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 20:25:49 +0100, Juergen Hannappel
wrote:

... or a mispelled weaving tool owned by a woman

Oh, the irony...

--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

Meaning #2: something that has been in a family for generations

As a practical matter, for something to be handed down between generations
it must both survive multiple generations and appeal to multiple
generations.

Therefore, by corrolary, an heirloom but be of high quality, and have
aesthetic appeal which is able to transcend periodic trends. To me that
generally means classic design elements.

To the OP, I often leave a little wane on the underside of a tabelop
glue-up. It doesn't bother me and I doubt that it will be a consideration
for my ancestors.

-Steve

"C&S" wrote in message
...
Meaning #2: something that has been in a family for generations

Therefore, by corrolary, an heirloom but be of high quality, and have
aesthetic appeal which is able to transcend periodic trends. To me that
generally means classic design elements.


It may only have a practical usefulness or simply sentimental value.

Leon wrote:
"C&S" wrote in message
...
Meaning #2: something that has been in a family for generations

Therefore, by corrolary, an heirloom but be of high quality, and have
aesthetic appeal which is able to transcend periodic trends. To me that
generally means classic design elements.


It may only have a practical usefulness or simply sentimental value.

Yes, in terms of quality it merely needs to be durable to survive, or
even if it is not, the family just needs to take care of it.

A friend has a keeping box that has been in his family for more than
a century. It is quite crude, but it is also a family heirloom.

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...
Yes, in terms of quality it merely needs to be durable to survive, or
even if it is not, the family just needs to take care of it.

A friend has a keeping box that has been in his family for more than
a century. It is quite crude, but it is also a family heirloom.



Many people are mistaking the definition of heirloom as something that
possessed quality or beauty, which it may or may not be.

"Leon" wrote in message

"C&S" wrote in message

Meaning #2: something that has been in a family for generations

Therefore, by corrolary, an heirloom but be of high quality, and have
aesthetic appeal which is able to transcend periodic trends. To me that
generally means classic design elements.


It may only have a practical usefulness or simply sentimental value.

And over time the original meaning of "heirloom" has been subverted.

Under early English law (and it still may be so), an estate was generally
handed down to the oldest son, was considered "entailed" by this custom, and
items in that estate (heirlooms) stayed with the estate from generation to
generation and could not generally be bequeathed away separately.

Tools (looms) were entailed to the estate, so for wooddorkers of early days
it paid to be the eldest son, otherwise, under law, that vintage Unisaw went
to your older brother and you were SOL.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

"Swingman" wrote in message
news
wrote in message

On _The Antiques Road Show_ I've seen many antiques with poplar or
white pine secondary wood appraised at several tens of thousands
of dollars. But any part that showed in normal use, like drawer sides
were well-executed.

Incubator of the MBA mentality ... the master did the parts that showed,
the
apprentice the remainder.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

Thats not the way I remember it when I was an apprentice.....

wrote in message
ups.com...

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. ...

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?

... 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.


On _The Antiques Road Show_ I've seen many antiques with poplar or
white pine secondary wood appraised at several tens of thousands
of dollars. But any part that showed in normal use, like drawer sides
were well-executed.

I've also seen antiques in a store with quarter sawn sycamore for
the interior drawer sides and one had birds' eye maple plywood for
drawer bottoms.

I've read that at one time bird's eye was considered to be a defect
and sycamore has poor dimensional stablity--it would almost
have to be quarter sawn to be acceptable for drawer sides. So
maybe both of those were examples of 'cheap' wood being used
where it wasn't usually seen!!

--

FF


Antiques are generally considered to have been made before 1830 . The reason
being production machinery for the most part was not available before then
so pieces were basically hand made .

By the way plywood [drawer bottoms] surfaced a long time after 1830

Antique has nothing to do with how something was made. If it's more than 100
years old, it is considered antique. There are a few antique people still
running (walking?) around.
"mike hide" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

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. ...

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?

... 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.


On _The Antiques Road Show_ I've seen many antiques with poplar or
white pine secondary wood appraised at several tens of thousands
of dollars. But any part that showed in normal use, like drawer sides
were well-executed.

I've also seen antiques in a store with quarter sawn sycamore for
the interior drawer sides and one had birds' eye maple plywood for
drawer bottoms.

I've read that at one time bird's eye was considered to be a defect
and sycamore has poor dimensional stablity--it would almost
have to be quarter sawn to be acceptable for drawer sides. So
maybe both of those were examples of 'cheap' wood being used
where it wasn't usually seen!!

--

FF


Antiques are generally considered to have been made before 1830 . The
reason
being production machinery for the most part was not available before then
so pieces were basically hand made .

By the way plywood [drawer bottoms] surfaced a long time after 1830

"CW" wrote in message
Antique has nothing to do with how something was made. If it's more than
100
years old, it is considered antique. There are a few antique people still
running (walking?) around.

That depends ... Your definition generally applies to North America where it
may have some legal basis for customs and import duties. In Europe, England
and other countries an item may have to be much older to qualify as
"antique".

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

"mike hide" wrote in message
"Swingman" wrote in message

On _The Antiques Road Show_ I've seen many antiques with poplar or
white pine secondary wood appraised at several tens of thousands
of dollars. But any part that showed in normal use, like drawer sides
were well-executed.

Incubator of the MBA mentality ... the master did the parts that showed,
the
apprentice the remainder.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

Thats not the way I remember it when I was an apprentice.....

Maybe you're not "antique" enough?

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

"Swingman" wrote in message
...

"Robatoy" wrote in message

"Swingman" wrote:

"foggytown" wrote in message

But I just feel that an exceptional piece should have exceptional
(but
not necessarily the same) standards throughout.

Spoken like a man who never turned a hundred fifty year old antique
around
to look at the backside to witness the 19th century cultural equivalent
of
breast augmentation ... it's appearance that counts.

I like the way you bring a discussion about 'pallet-like' interiors
around to tits. Good job!
;-)

Hehe ... All roads lead back to Rome. When you think about it, mother
nature
gave us eyes for two basic reasons: so we can find something to eat more
easily, and to look at something that makes us want to procreate ...
everything else is extraneous.

That's the coonass version, and I'm sticking to it ... it's appearance
that
counts.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05


Tell that to any museum that will pay 1/2 million for an original and sell
copies of it for less than a thousand....

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:58:29 -0800, foggytown wrote:


Leon wrote:

IMHO an heirloom is a piece that is functional and built well enough to
last generations. Appearance has nothing to do with it.

Then we disagree. To me, an heirloom piece is an above-average example of
craftsmanship and attractiveness.

Actually, only time can accurately determine what is an heirloom and what
is dumpster fodder. But I like to think that pieces that are built
sturdily enough to withstand the ravages of much use or pieces so
attractive that others will desire to maintain them over time qualify for
the term when new. That is, if the piece was built with the intention that
it become an heirloom, then it may be referred to as one when new.

Jes' my two cents worth ... all goods worth price charged.

Bill

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 19:34:41 +0000, Toller wrote:


I don't care much for antiques, but I look them over at auctions to kill
time. It is amazing how poorly made some them are; yet they go for
thousands.

Could it be that their better-made cousins were pitched by their
better-heeled owners?

Bill

"W Canaday" wrote in message
news
Actually, only time can accurately determine what is an heirloom and what
is dumpster fodder. But I like to think that pieces that are built
sturdily enough to withstand the ravages of much use or pieces so
attractive that others will desire to maintain them over time qualify for
the term when new. That is, if the piece was built with the intention that
it become an heirloom, then it may be referred to as one when new.

Jes' my two cents worth ... all goods worth price charged.

Bill


So, :~) Because that newly built piece that you are talking about can be
called a heirloom before it actually qualifies as being an heirloom by
definition, it can equally as well be called an antique because it is
intended to become an antique.
Does that sound right? ;~)

On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 02:40:29 +0000, Leon wrote:


"W Canaday" wrote in message
news
Actually, only time can accurately determine what is an heirloom and
what is dumpster fodder. But I like to think that pieces that are built
sturdily enough to withstand the ravages of much use or pieces so
attractive that others will desire to maintain them over time qualify
for the term when new. That is, if the piece was built with the
intention that it become an heirloom, then it may be referred to as one
when new.

Jes' my two cents worth ... all goods worth price charged.

Bill


So, :~) Because that newly built piece that you are talking about can be
called a heirloom before it actually qualifies as being an heirloom by
definition, it can equally as well be called an antique because it is
intended to become an antique.
Does that sound right? ;~)

I dunno ... I just get toitally different vibes off "heirloom quality"
than I do off "antique quality".

How about you?
Bill

"W Canaday" wrote in message
news


So, :~) Because that newly built piece that you are talking about can be
called a heirloom before it actually qualifies as being an heirloom by
definition, it can equally as well be called an antique because it is
intended to become an antique.
Does that sound right? ;~)

I dunno ... I just get toitally different vibes off "heirloom quality"
than I do off "antique quality".

How about you?
Bill


Well more accurately put so to speak, we hope the piece will one day become
an heirloom and an antique.