The coffee table my son is making requires mitering corners
of two boards of different widths. Posted several ways of
solving that problem, along with one method often used in
Chinese furniture, to a.b.p.w.

Since then I've been studying just one of the twenty or so
pieces of Chinese furniture I inherited from my folks -
72" long, 20" deep and 34" tall - frame and panel top,
four side by side drawers over two pairs of doors all
on "horse hoof" feet -all in rosewood.

It was the triple mlitered ends that got my attention since
it involved mitering an 1 1/2" "apron" to a 1 3/4" "leg" - and
a triple mitered corner at that.

I guess with a 5,000 year wodoworking tradition,
and a penchant for evolving designs and techniques over
hundreds of years, refining in tiny increments, the finesse
(sp?) of today's pieces shouldn't be that surprising. Unlike
Western styles which come and go in a decade or two,
Chinese "styles" last long enough, in many cases several
centuries, to become truly refined and elegant, both in
design and execution.

Now by elegant I don't mean froo-froo, fancy smantzy,
rococco (sp?), baroque or Louis XIV (or was it XV?)
swirls, inlays, marquetry or "gold" leaf elegant. By
elegant I mean that every line, every curve, every
relation of one surface to another, every joinery
selection, is there for a purpose - to make a beautiful,
strong, functional, coherent piece of furniture.

I'd previously noticed, when trying to put the four
drawers back in the "carcase", that each one would
only fit one opening properly. On close examination
I notices there was a small saw cut on the bottom
inside edge of one drawer front, and a corresponding
small saw cut on the inside edge of the drawer opening.
Drawer #1, opening #1 with one saw cut, drawer #2
and opening #2 with two saw cuts, etc.. Much more
subtle than numbering them with a Sharpe pen, or
stamping "1", "2", "3" etc. on the parts that go together.

But now I'm REALLY examining this piece, taking some
measurements and doing some drawings. I'm just
starting to understand the interaction between the
design elements and the fabrication techniques that
went into this one piece. The rounding over of edges
to blend together the parts, the use of a bead to
transition one part to another, curves going from
concave to convex, subtle shadows making surfaces
that interest the eye but don't grab its focus - for
long, all blending into one another in a pleasant flow.

I contrast this design/exectution appproach with that
of the current "HOT STYLE" - Arts and Crafts -
fumed oak with "honest" visble joinery as design
elements -shaped ends of through tenons (real or not),
chamfered pegs (real or not) and visible "ebony" splines
on bread board ends, lots of only eased sharp corners
and edges - horizontal grain colliding with vertical
grain square on, rail to stile, apron to leg, the eye
jumping around like a flea on a hot skillet, contrasting
colored details yelling "LOOK AT ME" and "honest" joinery
that may in fact be fake, hiding perhaps a screw or
two - or maybe strictly there as a decorative element.

The Chinese piece I'm studying has no visible joinery.
In Western furniture would be added cock beading, is
an intergral part of the "adjacent" piece rather than
an added piece of trim. The top's frame and panel
construction, with its mitered corners, allows the
top's "panel" to move - without any "spline" showing
or grain bumping into each other square on.

What impresses me more is that the structural
elements are only as big as they need to be for
strength and then made to appear more delicate
by subtley rounded edges and other edge treatments.

This particular piece is at least 35 years old, has lived
in both humid and dry conditions, has been moved
numerous times - and still hangs together nice and
tight - no joints opening/failing, no splits or cracks,
no runs, no hits, no errors - no man left on base.

So back to the question
D'ja ever REALLY study a nice piece of furniture?

If so, can you share a discovery?

charlie b

Could you post or link us to some nice close-up photos, perhaps???

charlie b wrote:
The coffee table my son is making requires mitering corners
of two boards of different widths. Posted several ways of
solving that problem, along with one method often used in
Chinese furniture, to a.b.p.w.

Since then I've been studying just one of the twenty or so
pieces of Chinese furniture I inherited from my folks -
72" long, 20" deep and 34" tall - frame and panel top,
four side by side drawers over two pairs of doors all
on "horse hoof" feet -all in rosewood.

It was the triple mlitered ends that got my attention since
it involved mitering an 1 1/2" "apron" to a 1 3/4" "leg" - and
a triple mitered corner at that.

I guess with a 5,000 year wodoworking tradition,
and a penchant for evolving designs and techniques over
hundreds of years, refining in tiny increments, the finesse
(sp?) of today's pieces shouldn't be that surprising. Unlike
Western styles which come and go in a decade or two,
Chinese "styles" last long enough, in many cases several
centuries, to become truly refined and elegant, both in
design and execution.

Now by elegant I don't mean froo-froo, fancy smantzy,
rococco (sp?), baroque or Louis XIV (or was it XV?)
swirls, inlays, marquetry or "gold" leaf elegant. By
elegant I mean that every line, every curve, every
relation of one surface to another, every joinery
selection, is there for a purpose - to make a beautiful,
strong, functional, coherent piece of furniture.

I'd previously noticed, when trying to put the four
drawers back in the "carcase", that each one would
only fit one opening properly. On close examination
I notices there was a small saw cut on the bottom
inside edge of one drawer front, and a corresponding
small saw cut on the inside edge of the drawer opening.
Drawer #1, opening #1 with one saw cut, drawer #2
and opening #2 with two saw cuts, etc.. Much more
subtle than numbering them with a Sharpe pen, or
stamping "1", "2", "3" etc. on the parts that go together.

But now I'm REALLY examining this piece, taking some
measurements and doing some drawings. I'm just
starting to understand the interaction between the
design elements and the fabrication techniques that
went into this one piece. The rounding over of edges
to blend together the parts, the use of a bead to
transition one part to another, curves going from
concave to convex, subtle shadows making surfaces
that interest the eye but don't grab its focus - for
long, all blending into one another in a pleasant flow.

I contrast this design/exectution appproach with that
of the current "HOT STYLE" - Arts and Crafts -
fumed oak with "honest" visble joinery as design
elements -shaped ends of through tenons (real or not),
chamfered pegs (real or not) and visible "ebony" splines
on bread board ends, lots of only eased sharp corners
and edges - horizontal grain colliding with vertical
grain square on, rail to stile, apron to leg, the eye
jumping around like a flea on a hot skillet, contrasting
colored details yelling "LOOK AT ME" and "honest" joinery
that may in fact be fake, hiding perhaps a screw or
two - or maybe strictly there as a decorative element.

The Chinese piece I'm studying has no visible joinery.
In Western furniture would be added cock beading, is
an intergral part of the "adjacent" piece rather than
an added piece of trim. The top's frame and panel
construction, with its mitered corners, allows the
top's "panel" to move - without any "spline" showing
or grain bumping into each other square on.

What impresses me more is that the structural
elements are only as big as they need to be for
strength and then made to appear more delicate
by subtley rounded edges and other edge treatments.

This particular piece is at least 35 years old, has lived
in both humid and dry conditions, has been moved
numerous times - and still hangs together nice and
tight - no joints opening/failing, no splits or cracks,
no runs, no hits, no errors - no man left on base.

So back to the question
D'ja ever REALLY study a nice piece of furniture?

If so, can you share a discovery?

Charlie, nice post. It would certainly make interesting and
educational reading to have a pictorial dissection of that piece of
furniture.

R

On Mon, 29 May 2006 10:54:28 -0700, charlie b
wrote:

Since then I've been studying just one of the twenty or so
pieces of Chinese furniture I inherited from my folks -
72" long, 20" deep and 34" tall - frame and panel top,
four side by side drawers over two pairs of doors all
on "horse hoof" feet -all in rosewood.
snip
I contrast this design/exectution appproach with that
of the current "HOT STYLE" - Arts and Crafts -
fumed oak with "honest" visble joinery as design
elements -shaped ends of through tenons (real or not),
chamfered pegs (real or not) and visible "ebony" splines
on bread board ends, lots of only eased sharp corners
and edges - horizontal grain colliding with vertical
grain square on, rail to stile, apron to leg, the eye
jumping around like a flea on a hot skillet, contrasting
colored details yelling "LOOK AT ME" and "honest" joinery
that may in fact be fake, hiding perhaps a screw or
two - or maybe strictly there as a decorative element.

You make something out of solid rosewood and you get out of the wood's
way. You make something out of oak and you gotta give it a little
help. Try copying that Japanese piece in oak and see if it still
engages you the same way.

The eye doesn't jump around on a well designed arts & crafts piece and
a poorly designed Japanese piece would be dull and odd looking.

Heaven forbid we have horizontal and vertical grain meet each other.
We ought to make everything out of a solid block of MDF so there's no
joints at all.



-Leuf

Leuf wrote:

You make something out of solid rosewood and you get out of the wood's
way. You make something out of oak and you gotta give it a little
help. Try copying that Japanese piece in oak and see if it still
engages you the same way.

The piece is out of "rosewood" - which in Chinese furniture may
be several different woods with characteristics similar to each
other. It is not like Brazilian rosewood - not as dense or resinous.

But your point is well taken - stabile wood lends itself to more
options than stuff like oak, which requires quite a bit of
"accomodation" - though quartersawn doesn't suffer from
the range of movement that other sawing types produce.

You beg a question - how does the selection of wood define.
to a greater or lesser degree, design constraints?

The eye doesn't jump around on a well designed arts & crafts piece and
a poorly designed Japanese piece would be dull and odd looking.

Would you say that most Greene & Greene or Stickley pieces are
examples of well designed A&C pieces? If so, please explain the
following:

1. Breadboard ends table top - with three or more pegs "fixing"
the top to the breadboard end. Were they ALL to be actual
pegs through the breadboard end into multiple tenons on the
ends of the table top and back through the bottom of the
breadboard ends the top would cup or tear the breadboard
ends apart or snap the pegs. I don't mean a peg in the middle
of the breadboard end and pegs in the breadboard end to hold
the "ebony" splines on the ends.

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

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.

As for a poorly designed Japanese piece, haven't seen many
of them. Haven't seen a poorly designed Chinese piece.


Heaven forbid we have horizontal and vertical grain meet each other.
We ought to make everything out of a solid block of MDF so there's no
joints at all.


To my eye, a mitered corner like (a) flows better than the
butt joint looking joint like (b).

(a) (b)
---------+ ---------+--------+
--------/| ---------| | | |
------/ | | ---------| | | |
----+ | | | .. ---------| | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |


charlie b

professorpaul wrote:

Could you post or link us to some nice close-up photos, perhaps???

Put two over in alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking

charlie b

charlie b wrote:
To my eye, a mitered corner like (a) flows better than the
butt joint looking joint like (b).

(a) (b)
---------+ ---------+--------+
--------/| ---------| | | |
------/ | | ---------| | | |
----+ | | | .. ---------| | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |


charlie b

Hey Charlie, I know this is probably impossible to determine from a
finish piece, but if the Chinese use lots of mitered corners, do you
know if they reinforce them somehow?

And do you know the type(s) of glue they employ?

Any mechanical fasteners commonly found in those pieces?

Sorry 4 all the Q's.

Thanks,
Phil

RicodJour wrote:

Charlie, nice post. It would certainly make interesting and
educational reading to have a pictorial dissection of that piece of
furniture.


Have started on that. When it will be finished is anyone's
guess. IF I actually get it done I'll put it up on my site -
easier to integrate text and illustrations and easier than
doing it in a.b.p.w.

Have a book or two on chinese furniture with some illustrations
of joinery and have found a few sites with Chinese furniture
joinery.
Will have to guess as to the joinery for this piece since none of
it is visible from the outside of the joint. But there are joints
that are favored for specific applications so the universe of
possibilities should be narrowed down a little. I WILL NOT attempt
to disassemble any part of this piece just to verify the joinery.

Will post here when I've made some significant progress.

charlie b

wrote:

Hey Charlie, I know this is probably impossible to determine from a
finish piece, but if the Chinese use lots of mitered corners, do you
know if they reinforce them somehow?

Chinese joinery can be deceptively complicated. For instance, this
joint involves a leg, two aprons, and a table top. From the outside it
looks like a simple miter joint, but it's also got two sliding dovetails
and a pair of tenons as well.

http://www.chinese-classical-furnitu.../joinery11.gif

Chris

Chris Friesen wrote:

wrote:

Hey Charlie, I know this is probably impossible to determine from a
finish piece, but if the Chinese use lots of mitered corners, do you
know if they reinforce them somehow?

Chinese joinery can be deceptively complicated. For instance, this
joint involves a leg, two aprons, and a table top. From the outside it
looks like a simple miter joint, but it's also got two sliding dovetails
and a pair of tenons as well.

http://www.chinese-classical-furnitu.../joinery11.gif

Chris

Great GIF animation of that complex joint. Doesn't show the
mortise and tenon on the top mitered corners. This would
be difficult to make with power tools, maybe a CNC machine
could - if you could do the CAD file necessary.

Not that the apron part includes, as an integral part, what
would likely be a separate trim piece to transition from the
top of the apron to the bottom of the table top - which -
though the animation doesn't show it, is actually a frame
and panel - the panel not being shown.

This other page on the same site illustrates more examples of
chinese joinery

http://www.chinese-classical-furnitu...e-joinery.html

Michael Fortune has come up with a modern solution to a strong
triple miter joint by using "L" shaped loose tenons out of plywood.
Mortise the three parts and slip in the two "L"oose tenons and
it's done. Simple - and elegant - and invisible from the outside.

Chinese joinery often relies on mechanical connection which don't
require glue to hold them together. Yueng (or it could be Yeung)
Chan, a terrific woodworker here in the SF Bay Area, made a
Chinese chair which he sometimes brings to his demonstrations.
The parts are in a box that couldn't possibly hold a chair, even
in parts. After he assembles the chair it appears so delicate
and, only dry fit, couldn't possibly support a person. Now Mr.
Chan is by no means rotund. In fact he's probably 125 to maybe
130 pounds - if his hair is wet. But when he begins to sit in
his chair you hold your breath, assured that a disaster was
about to happen. This concern was, of course, groundless -
Mr. Chan not being a fool by any means.

Chinese furniture may be the earliest knock down furniture
- light years away from Ikea in quality, and appearance.

But I don't want to get bogged down on my specific example,
but rather get into exploring nice pieces and how they were
put together and getting others to share their discoveries.

charlie b

On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:23:41 -0700, charlie b
wrote:

Would you say that most Greene & Greene or Stickley pieces are
examples of well designed A&C pieces? If so, please explain the
following:

1. Breadboard ends table top - with three or more pegs "fixing"
the top to the breadboard end. Were they ALL to be actual
pegs through the breadboard end into multiple tenons on the
ends of the table top and back through the bottom of the
breadboard ends the top would cup or tear the breadboard
ends apart or snap the pegs. I don't mean a peg in the middle
of the breadboard end and pegs in the breadboard end to hold
the "ebony" splines on the ends.

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.

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.

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.

As for a poorly designed Japanese piece, haven't seen many
of them. Haven't seen a poorly designed Chinese piece.

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.

Heaven forbid we have horizontal and vertical grain meet each other.
We ought to make everything out of a solid block of MDF so there's no
joints at all.

To my eye, a mitered corner like (a) flows better than the
butt joint looking joint like (b).

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.

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?


-Leuf

charlie b (in ) said:

| Great GIF animation of that complex joint. Doesn't show the
| mortise and tenon on the top mitered corners. This would
| be difficult to make with power tools, maybe a CNC machine
| could - if you could do the CAD file necessary.

Looks like a good candidate for CNC production. The CAD file isn't
necessary - given an appropriate machine and good fixturing, a
hand-coded part program for each part wouldn't be a major challenge.
It would probably not be a bad idea to build a rough model with balsa
first, though.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto

"charlie b"
snip
I guess with a 5,000 year wodoworking tradition,
and a penchant for evolving designs and techniques over
hundreds of years, refining in tiny increments, the finesse
(sp?) of today's pieces shouldn't be that surprising. Unlike
Western styles which come and go in a decade or two,
Chinese "styles" last long enough, in many cases several
centuries, to become truly refined and elegant, both in
design and execution.

Now by elegant I don't mean froo-froo, fancy smantzy,
snip

But now I'm REALLY examining this piece, taking some
measurements and doing some drawings. I'm just
starting to understand the interaction between the
design elements and the fabrication techniques that
went into this one piece.
snip
I contrast this design/exectution appproach with that
of the current "HOT STYLE" - Arts and Crafts -
snip
colored details yelling "LOOK AT ME" and "honest" joinery
that may in fact be fake, hiding perhaps a screw or
two - or maybe strictly there as a decorative element.
snip
This particular piece is at least 35 years old, has lived
in both humid and dry conditions, has been moved
numerous times - and still hangs together nice and
tight - no joints opening/failing, no splits or cracks,
no runs, no hits, no errors - no man left on base.
snip
If so, can you share a discovery?

Charlie, I do believe in the axiom that form follows function. One also
has to consider the local materials available as well as the competency of
the labor force. In a area where exotic timber is plentiful, you could
expect common use pieces to be made from what we would consider un-common
woods.

As for joinery, I would suppose the ancient woodworkers depended on the
joints mechanical connection for the lions share of the strength where
currently we have glues that surpass the strength of any wood. I love to
build projects that challenge my design and joint making ability. However,
when all I need is a functional item, I can bang one out using modern
methods and products.

I'm sure that should we have a shop full of willing apprentices and a
limitless supply of exotic wood even you or I could build some pretty nice
stuff.

Dave






Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

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

On Tue, 30 May 2006 10:14:05 -0700, charlie b
wrote:

Unless the breadboard end crooks it
won't pull away from the ends of the top, opening the joint.

Right. If the end wants to warp and there's nothing holding it on the
ends the joint will open up. You want to fix the joint in two axes
while allowing the third with the cross grain to move.


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.

I didn't say that well. I meant it would be like you took a
cube/rectangular solid and stuck picture frames on 5 sides. It just
doesn't seem right to me, though I've only seen the closeup

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".

Well you go back to the past and you have a time where people did not
move as much, furniture was more expensive compared to the wages of
the day. The builder's reputation was I think more important to him.
Regardless of culture the thing just had to not fall apart. When you
can say I built your father's furniture and my father built his
father's, and they are all still together you don't really need to
show off your skills. So that guy can do whatever he wants that no
one but him will ever know was there, and it's not about his ego. But
for me, if I do that then I'm just showing off for myself. And if I
enjoy doing it that's fine.

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.

Well I think you compare a typical Western and Eastern home and the
Western home is full of "stuff" and so the furniture needs to shout a
bit to be noticed amongst the clutter.

You clearly know about A&C furniture and no doubt have a
favorite piece. Have you really studied it

You must have me confused with someone else I only really have a
vague understanding. And don't ask me about Queen Anne or anything
like that, I have no clue whatsoever.

Mostly what I like about the style is that it can be done without a
million router bits, and it's extensible. Sort of a blank slate. You
can keep it the way it is and it works. You can add twists and
embellishments and it still works.

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?

Not so much in terms of joinery, but I think that oak being what it is
in terms of appearance, which unless it's QS is pretty dull and
coarse. As I said in the beginning, I don't think subtle design
features and oak really work. Not that the design shouldn't have some
subtleties, just that it's got to have 'something' to it.


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

Well I do mainly jewelry boxes, it's rare for me to do a full size
piece of furniture. So I'm going to pick out this jewelry box:

http://jewelry-chests.com/index.cfm/...&product_id=21

What I like first and foremost is that it looks good with 'ordinary'
wood. Okay they are showing it there in some really nice cherry, they
show it in birdseye too, though you can't see the eyes at that size
picture and it still looks good. They also show it in a really wild
cocobolo, and honestly I think it looks better plain despite the
gorgeous grain of the cocobolo. I think there is too much reliance on
fancy woods and mouldings in jewelry boxes, so it's nice to see a
design that works without relying on that.

The open sides - never would have occured to me. I wonder about the
practicallity of it, doesn't it allow dust in? But it gives it a
feeling almost like it's a little table with the drawers hanging in
space below it.

The drawer slides are structural.

I'm curious about how the 'legs' are attached to the top. They
specifically mention something about it in the comments, but don't
give any details. I'm assuming one pair is fixed and the other is
allowed to slide.

I wish I could get away with those prices...


-Leuf