Penny Wise, Pound Foolish?
 

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish

How many times have you seen a a well proportioned, well executed and
beautifully finished piece - that’s just not quite right - because of -
frugality?

For the beginner and even intermediate amateur woodworker, there’s a
tendency / temptation to use as much as possible of each board. And
it’s understandable, given the price of wood these days and the
difficulty of finding furniture grade stock. Or it could be that we buy
only what we’re going to need for the current project - and not a board
foot more. OK - so maybe we go with the 15% Rule - get 15% more wood
than your Cut List says is required.

And when it comes to cutting the parts for a piece, it’s easy to worry a
lot about dimensions and efficiency - and overlook the grain of the
wood. That’s understandable because it’s pretty important that parts
that are supposed to be the same length are in fact the same length, and
that parts that are supposed to be the same width and thickness - are.
There is a reason for the maxim Measure Twice, Cut Once. In order to
make parts with the same dimensions, it’s best to cut ALL those parts
with one machine set up, the same fence set up for rips, the same stops
for cross cuts, the same angles for miters, the same setting for the
marking gauge when laying out mortises, tenons, etc..

With all the things to keep track of it’s so easy to fall into The
Forest For The Trees trap - the grain in the WHOLE piece and how they
work together being the forest, the trees being all the individual parts
and the machine operations for cutting them - not just rips and cross
cuts, but the cuts the joinery necessitates. There are a lot of
operations and details that go into even the simplest of pieces - it’s
understandablenot surprising that the look and flow of the grain is
often overlooked. If I can make all the parts, including the joinery -
that fit together as they should - without the loss of a body part, or
even some blood - well THAT my friend is a SUCCESS. If the finish is
even half way decent - THAT is a MIRACLE!

And then the Post Project Critique begins - that joint should be
tighter, that sapwood is distracting, why did I narrow down this part
just to avoid a knot or a sap pocket when I had the wood to make a
better part? The list goes on and on - but often does not include - the
look of the grain for the whole piece and so I end up with a piece that
doesn’t flow, doesn’t look quite right - that leg is quarter sawn - and
this one isn’t, those two boards don’t go together in that door panel, .
.. .

And I suspect that the overlooked but critical part of the process of
making the piece - the grain and the flow of the grain - didn’t get the
attention it deserved in order to avoid “wasting wood”. Why cut off 6
or 8 inches, maybe even foot or more of a fairly good board just to get
a part with nice grain that goes with what will be around it. Don’t I
have enough cut offs stashed around the shop I’m certain I can use -
someday. “In a pinch, maybe I can use ALL of this cherry board.” might
not be such a good idea - in the Big Picture.

Would you take a 26” x 32” rectangle, diagonally, out of a 4x8 sheet of
birdseye maple if that’s what the piece required? How about ripping am
8”wide part - out of the middle of a 12” wide mahogany board?

Are you Penny Wise - Pound Foolish?

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish?
 

True. So true.

Barry.

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish?
 

yes... and no.

I certainly agree that when I see a well-executed project with a glaring
asymmetry if grain, I find it off-putting.

When I select material for the parts of a project, I start with the most
prominent pieces first. Typically, this is drawer fronts, followed by
panels, then top. I try to select like components, or paired stiles from the
same board.

For a side that has two panels, I will try to resaw stock for a bookmatched
pair. For a single panel side, I'll bookmatch and glue up a panel to achieve
the same symmetry. When choosing stock I aim for symmetry and balance, more
so than "sameness". By boomatching, off-axis grain becomes pleasingly
balanced.

My point is that by being really picky where is counts, and not so picky for
the less prominent components, you can make 20% waste look pretty darned
good.

I suspect that the most glaring grain errors come when people are just
focussed on size and shape and not thinking of grain at all.

-Steve






"charlieb" wrote in message
...
Penny Wise, Pound Foolish

How many times have you seen a a well proportioned, well executed and
beautifully finished piece - that's just not quite right - because of -
frugality?

For the beginner and even intermediate amateur woodworker, there's a
tendency / temptation to use as much as possible of each board. And
it's understandable, given the price of wood these days and the
difficulty of finding furniture grade stock. Or it could be that we buy
only what we're going to need for the current project - and not a board
foot more. OK - so maybe we go with the 15% Rule - get 15% more wood
than your Cut List says is required.

And when it comes to cutting the parts for a piece, it's easy to worry a
lot about dimensions and efficiency - and overlook the grain of the
wood. That's understandable because it's pretty important that parts
that are supposed to be the same length are in fact the same length, and
that parts that are supposed to be the same width and thickness - are.
There is a reason for the maxim Measure Twice, Cut Once. In order to
make parts with the same dimensions, it's best to cut ALL those parts
with one machine set up, the same fence set up for rips, the same stops
for cross cuts, the same angles for miters, the same setting for the
marking gauge when laying out mortises, tenons, etc..

With all the things to keep track of it's so easy to fall into The
Forest For The Trees trap - the grain in the WHOLE piece and how they
work together being the forest, the trees being all the individual parts
and the machine operations for cutting them - not just rips and cross
cuts, but the cuts the joinery necessitates. There are a lot of
operations and details that go into even the simplest of pieces - it's
understandablenot surprising that the look and flow of the grain is
often overlooked. If I can make all the parts, including the joinery -
that fit together as they should - without the loss of a body part, or
even some blood - well THAT my friend is a SUCCESS. If the finish is
even half way decent - THAT is a MIRACLE!

And then the Post Project Critique begins - that joint should be
tighter, that sapwood is distracting, why did I narrow down this part
just to avoid a knot or a sap pocket when I had the wood to make a
better part? The list goes on and on - but often does not include - the
look of the grain for the whole piece and so I end up with a piece that
doesn't flow, doesn't look quite right - that leg is quarter sawn - and
this one isn't, those two boards don't go together in that door panel, .
. .

And I suspect that the overlooked but critical part of the process of
making the piece - the grain and the flow of the grain - didn't get the
attention it deserved in order to avoid "wasting wood". Why cut off 6
or 8 inches, maybe even foot or more of a fairly good board just to get
a part with nice grain that goes with what will be around it. Don't I
have enough cut offs stashed around the shop I'm certain I can use -
someday. "In a pinch, maybe I can use ALL of this cherry board." might
not be such a good idea - in the Big Picture.

Would you take a 26" x 32" rectangle, diagonally, out of a 4x8 sheet of
birdseye maple if that's what the piece required? How about ripping am
8"wide part - out of the middle of a 12" wide mahogany board?

Are you Penny Wise - Pound Foolish?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish?
 

charlieb wrote:

Would you take a 26” x 32” rectangle, diagonally, out of a 4x8 sheet of
birdseye maple if that’s what the piece required? How about ripping am
8”wide part - out of the middle of a 12” wide mahogany board?

Sure!

There's always a need for glue blocks, back parts, braces, drawer guides
& slides, pulls, stops, dust cover frames, internal stretchers, bottom
parts... G

I didn't always, though. I did exactly your described beginner and
intermediate technique.

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish?
 

Stephen's resawn to get bookmatched pairs method of getting the
best out of an asymetric grained board is a great idea - if you start
with stock thick enough - which most of us don't - AND have a band
saw and know how to use it. And he's right - a single ugly guy is
just ugly. But a pair of identical twin ugly guys - well they're cute.

Interesting how important symetry is to our built in sense of what
looks good and what doesn't. Something to add to "design consider-
ations".

His prioritization of where the grain really matters and where it
isn't as important is obvios - if you think about it - which we're
not able to do early on in woodworking - every bit of what we
start with has to be used somewhere in the piece.


And Barry is right - cut what you need for THIS piece. The rest
WILL get used - in time (assuming you don't get too oral anal
retentive and run out of places to put it - and all it's cousins)

SO - Keep The Grain In Mind.

charlie b

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish?
 

On Jun 26, 12:51 am, charlieb wrote:
Penny Wise, Pound Foolish

How many times have you seen a a well proportioned, well executed and
beautifully finished piece - that's just not quite right - because of -
frugality?

For the beginner and even intermediate amateur woodworker, there's a
tendency / temptation to use as much as possible of each board. And
it's understandable, given the price of wood these days and the
difficulty of finding furniture grade stock. Or it could be that we buy
only what we're going to need for the current project - and not a board
foot more. OK - so maybe we go with the 15% Rule - get 15% more wood
than your Cut List says is required.

And when it comes to cutting the parts for a piece, it's easy to worry a
lot about dimensions and efficiency - and overlook the grain of the
wood. That's understandable because it's pretty important that parts
that are supposed to be the same length are in fact the same length, and
that parts that are supposed to be the same width and thickness - are.
There is a reason for the maxim Measure Twice, Cut Once. In order to
make parts with the same dimensions, it's best to cut ALL those parts
with one machine set up, the same fence set up for rips, the same stops
for cross cuts, the same angles for miters, the same setting for the
marking gauge when laying out mortises, tenons, etc..

With all the things to keep track of it's so easy to fall into The
Forest For The Trees trap - the grain in the WHOLE piece and how they
work together being the forest, the trees being all the individual parts
and the machine operations for cutting them - not just rips and cross
cuts, but the cuts the joinery necessitates. There are a lot of
operations and details that go into even the simplest of pieces - it's
understandablenot surprising that the look and flow of the grain is
often overlooked. If I can make all the parts, including the joinery -
that fit together as they should - without the loss of a body part, or
even some blood - well THAT my friend is a SUCCESS. If the finish is
even half way decent - THAT is a MIRACLE!

And then the Post Project Critique begins - that joint should be
tighter, that sapwood is distracting, why did I narrow down this part
just to avoid a knot or a sap pocket when I had the wood to make a
better part? The list goes on and on - but often does not include - the
look of the grain for the whole piece and so I end up with a piece that
doesn't flow, doesn't look quite right - that leg is quarter sawn - and
this one isn't, those two boards don't go together in that door panel, .
. .

And I suspect that the overlooked but critical part of the process of
making the piece - the grain and the flow of the grain - didn't get the
attention it deserved in order to avoid "wasting wood". Why cut off 6
or 8 inches, maybe even foot or more of a fairly good board just to get
a part with nice grain that goes with what will be around it. Don't I
have enough cut offs stashed around the shop I'm certain I can use -
someday. "In a pinch, maybe I can use ALL of this cherry board." might
not be such a good idea - in the Big Picture.

Would you take a 26" x 32" rectangle, diagonally, out of a 4x8 sheet of
birdseye maple if that's what the piece required? How about ripping am
8"wide part - out of the middle of a 12" wide mahogany board?

Are you Penny Wise - Pound Foolish?

I dunno, Charlie, what do you think of this bit of grain? It became
much more prominent after finishing. The photo marked "drawer grain".
http://tomeshew.spaces.live.com/ I _could_ redo it, if necessary.
Tom

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish?
 

"charlieb" wrote in message
And when it comes to cutting the parts for a piece, it's easy to worry a
lot about dimensions and efficiency - and overlook the grain of the
wood.

Would you take a 26" x 32" rectangle, diagonally, out of a 4x8 sheet of
birdseye maple if that's what the piece required? How about ripping am
8"wide part - out of the middle of a 12" wide mahogany board?

Are you Penny Wise - Pound Foolish?

I've done both. At times it is tough to make that cut, but in your heart,
you know when it is the right thing to do. The pain last for only a moment,
but the beauty endures for generations.

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish?
 

tom wrote:

I dunno, Charlie, what do you think of this bit of grain? It became
much more prominent after finishing. The photo marked "drawer grain".
http://tomeshew.spaces.live.com/ I _could_ redo it, if necessary.
Tom

YANK! ( the sound of my chain being pulled)

OK - I looked closely at the picture in question - in PhotoShop and
there
seems to be the slightest indication of two rip cuts - but they
would have
to have been done with a thin kerf blade. And the bottom of the
drawer
seems to have been planed down just a little unevenly.

An azabeki could have been used for the rip cuts - but the cross
cuts
would be tricky - being to short.

Nice job, and once the grain is popped it'll be an even nicer job.

Oh, and cutting the part above the piece with the drawer in it from
the same board was a nice touch, as are the bookmatched cathedral
grain on each side of the rear of the corner cabinet. NICE!

So how'd YOU do it?

charlie b

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish?
 

On Jun 26, 10:18 pm, charlieb wrote:
tom wrote:
I dunno, Charlie, what do you think of this bit of grain? It became
much more prominent after finishing. The photo marked "drawer grain".
http://tomeshew.spaces.live.com/ I _could_ redo it, if necessary.
Tom

YANK! ( the sound of my chain being pulled)

OK - I looked closely at the picture in question - in PhotoShop and
there
seems to be the slightest indication of two rip cuts - but they
would have
to have been done with a thin kerf blade. And the bottom of the
drawer
seems to have been planed down just a little unevenly.

An azabeki could have been used for the rip cuts - but the cross
cuts
would be tricky - being to short.

Nice job, and once the grain is popped it'll be an even nicer job.

Oh, and cutting the part above the piece with the drawer in it from
the same board was a nice touch, as are the bookmatched cathedral
grain on each side of the rear of the corner cabinet. NICE!

So how'd YOU do it?

charlie b

Actually the part above the piece with the drawer is not from the same
board, but just a happy accident that the grain appears to flow from
each to each. You're half right about the drawer being uneven, still a
little fitting to be done (it was put together yesterday), but that
can wait. How did I do what, cut out the drawer front? And how would
you suggest that I "pop" the grain? Tom

Penny Wise, Pound Foolish?
 

tom wrote:

So how'd YOU do it?

charlie b

Actually the part above the piece with the drawer is not from the same
board, but just a happy accident that the grain appears to flow from
each to each. You're half right about the drawer being uneven, still a
little fitting to be done (it was put together yesterday), but that
can wait. How did I do what, cut out the drawer front? And how would
you suggest that I "pop" the grain? Tom

I suspect that it wasn't just an accident - you didn't just stumble
on
two pairs of bookmatched cathedral grain - by accident. Even if it
was an accident, take the compliment - and don't volunteer any
additional info.

popping the grain.

Normally the answer would be oil, thinned tung oil, watco "teak oil"
or even thinned BLO (boiled linseed oil). But to the left of the
drawer
you've got some grain that looks very proned to "splotching" because
it's coming straight up into the face of the board just like the
grain
on the cut off end of a board. Using the grain as soda straws
analogy,
oil, stains etc. won't go into the sides of the straws, just between
them.
But oil, stains etc. will get sucked into the ends of the straws -
and
become much darker than on the side grain / side of the soda straws.
You don't want that. Sand that area to a couple of grits finer than
you do the rest of the board. Then a "spit coat" or two of dewaxed
shellac, (half pound or one pound cut - eg half pound or pound of
ground
shellac flakes to a gallon of alcohol) the more colorless the better
- maybe super blonde or platina- will seal off the ends of the
"straws"
with a clear "cap". Very light sanding between coats and again
after the
last application - it doesn't penetrate very far and you don't want
to
sand off the "cap". When the oil is applied - flow it on, flood it
even.
it will darken everything a little but will kick up the contrast
between
the light and dark grain, making the grain "pop". Let it sit for a
while
to have time to soak in, then wipe off the excess - and keep wiping
'til a white paper towel stays white. Apply a second coat the next
day if need be.

Wait the suggested drying and curing time - plus a couple of days
- before a light sanding and then the final finish application.

But be careful, cherry is noted for its tendency to splotch. Exper-
iment on cut offs or someplace it won't show on the finished piece.

charlie b