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

I produce and sell a lot of "Mission" furniture, I use flat sawn red oak.
90% of the customers don't know the difference between 1/4 sawn and flat,
nor do they care. It's the style and proportions of your work that sells and
not the figure of the grain. Also, many customers consider the ray flake a
*defect*.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"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

I make my living making A&C furniture - 7 years now. Yes, I also see a rabid
desire for "lots of rays and flakes" and "tiger stripes"... my clients
terms... in A&C furniture, both on the part of crafters and buyers. I get
about one board in 15 that has a really frantic flake pattern. The rest of
the pile is quite average and looks just like the 100 year old originals do.

I was given the task of reproducing a piano (the first made, the prototype
from 1905) for the (Gus) Stickley Museum - the original is still owned by
Stickley's great-grand daughter. The original can be seen in the book
"Stickley Style". I picked out a few really great looking boards and saved
them for this special project. I ended up not using them.

I was surprized when I got to see the piano first hand. Being the first one
made for the old man, I expected that the boys in the shop would have
selected some prime, grade "A" boards. Nope. Very run-of-the-mill lumber,
just like the wood that I get. Nice rays and flakes, but not the frantic
"old growth" stuff used by Hile, Voohees, etc. (I hate when I hear someone
say old growth, when they mean "slow growth")

As with most things in America, we've gotten carried away.

Mitch


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

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

Yep, Ive found the same thing. Works about the same for "wormy maple"
I have a shop stool and a "first aid" cabinet in the shop that are made
of wormy maple and most people ask "What happened to that!?" but there
are a few that ask, "Can you get more of that wood?". I am building a
mission style glider rocker for display and using flat sawn white oak
because that will generate more general business. Many of the people
that know about figured woods will ask if you can make it that way or
have a specific wood in mind. I watch for those customers, they are the
jewels in a sea of sameness.

BRuce

Rumpty wrote:
I produce and sell a lot of "Mission" furniture, I use flat sawn red oak.
90% of the customers don't know the difference between 1/4 sawn and flat,
nor do they care. It's the style and proportions of your work that sells and
not the figure of the grain. Also, many customers consider the ray flake a
*defect*.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"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

But do you find that when you look at the old, original A&C furniture,
it doesn't feature as much ray fleck/flake as some of the reproduction
pieces do?

Drew

In article 1059922811.683016@sj-nntpcache-5,
Bruce wrote:

Yep, Ive found the same thing. Works about the same for "wormy maple"
I have a shop stool and a "first aid" cabinet in the shop that are made
of wormy maple and most people ask "What happened to that!?" but there
are a few that ask, "Can you get more of that wood?". I am building a
mission style glider rocker for display and using flat sawn white oak
because that will generate more general business. Many of the people
that know about figured woods will ask if you can make it that way or
have a specific wood in mind. I watch for those customers, they are the
jewels in a sea of sameness.

BRuce

Rumpty wrote:
I produce and sell a lot of "Mission" furniture, I use flat sawn red oak.
90% of the customers don't know the difference between 1/4 sawn and flat,
nor do they care. It's the style and proportions of your work that sells and
not the figure of the grain. Also, many customers consider the ray flake a
*defect*.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"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





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

No question that today "figure" it is hyped, I would say I see 3 kinds
of customers, those that look at figure as a defect; they want straight
grain and poly, those that want all 4 sides of a post to have figure and
those that know what the original looked liked and would like something
similar. problem is that the last category consists of mostly wood
workers that can build it them selves. :-)

I can't count the number of articles in the last year that show how to
"build" a leg so that all 4 sides have rays or figure. H*ll, 2 of the
sides don't show most of the time or are in the dark!

BRuce

Drew D. Saur wrote:

But do you find that when you look at the old, original A&C furniture,
it doesn't feature as much ray fleck/flake as some of the reproduction
pieces do?

Drew

In article 1059922811.683016@sj-nntpcache-5,
Bruce wrote:


Yep, Ive found the same thing. Works about the same for "wormy maple"
I have a shop stool and a "first aid" cabinet in the shop that are made
of wormy maple and most people ask "What happened to that!?" but there
are a few that ask, "Can you get more of that wood?". I am building a
mission style glider rocker for display and using flat sawn white oak
because that will generate more general business. Many of the people
that know about figured woods will ask if you can make it that way or
have a specific wood in mind. I watch for those customers, they are the
jewels in a sea of sameness.

BRuce

Rumpty wrote:

I produce and sell a lot of "Mission" furniture, I use flat sawn red oak.
90% of the customers don't know the difference between 1/4 sawn and flat,
nor do they care. It's the style and proportions of your work that sells and
not the figure of the grain. Also, many customers consider the ray flake a
*defect*.

--

Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


"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