Tonight I start building the "Limbert Tabourette" featured in 11/03
Pop. Woodworking. This table has to surfaces, one 16" round and one
10.5" square.

Of course I am going to have to edge-join several boards together to
get that width. My question is what would be an appropriate width to
cut the boards for maximum happiness with regard to strength and appearance.

(For instance, a 16" table top made of 2 8" wide pieces may look
strange, and a bunch of 3" wide strips will most likely end up looking
like a cutting board).

Should I try to have all the "slats" the same width? Why or why not?

This piece will be made of plain-sawn red oak (not the more
traditional q-sawn white oak) if that makes a difference.

Thanks for any ideas

Jim Helfer
Pittsburgh PA

Jim Helfer" wrote in message

Tonight I start building the "Limbert Tabourette" featured in 11/03
Pop. Woodworking. This table has to surfaces, one 16" round and one
10.5" square.

Of course I am going to have to edge-join several boards together to
get that width. My question is what would be an appropriate width to
cut the boards for maximum happiness with regard to strength and
appearance.

(For instance, a 16" table top made of 2 8" wide pieces may look
strange, and a bunch of 3" wide strips will most likely end up looking
like a cutting board).

There is nothing wrong with using two, 8" boards ... although you would do
much better to have them total over 16" so that you have some wiggle room
for cutting off the excess.

Should I try to have all the "slats" the same width? Why or why not?

I think you will find that random width's will please the eye and look less
like your "cutting board". Normally, I simply match the grain as best I can,
without regard to annular ring orientation, using 2 or more, random width,
boards.

For a 16" wide table top, I would generally use three or four +/- 6" wide
boards totaling around 18" and cut off the excess when done. Among other
things, this extra width lets you clamp without worrying about clamp marks.

You shouldn't have a problem with that width, but in the event that you need
to run it back through a planer because of a glue-up problem or
non-flatness, it is nice to be able to make a single cut where the now two
parts are not so wide that they can't be run through your planer
individually, then be re-glued, making it necessary to clean up only one
glue line.

This piece will be made of plain-sawn red oak (not the more
traditional q-sawn white oak) if that makes a difference.

Shouldn't make any difference.

Got a biscuit jointer? If so, use it for aligning your boards ... biscuits,
and good cabinet clamps, make a flat panel glue-up much easier to
accomplish.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/13/04

generally anything over 6" is starting to ask for trouble. there are
exceptions of course. Since you are using Red Oak 4" is even better. The
major decision on size is your boards. How wide are they, which ones have
defects that need to be removed? As to variations in width it will matter
greatly on design and aesthetic intentions. If you want to emphasize the
"bread board" effect then varying widths and coloration is what you want.
If you want it to look solid, then more even widths (although minor
variations wont matter.), and even color is your goal, with this remember
the grain too. I say this because you may have to cut a board down a bit to
get a grain direction that works. also remember because it is round/oval you
don't want thin strips at the edge leaving a strip 5-6" long a 1" wide (for
instance)
really it is largely based on What looks good to you?
I can post you pictures of one of my projects if you are curious about panel
matching techniques.

--


"Jim Helfer" wrote in message
...

Tonight I start building the "Limbert Tabourette" featured in 11/03
Pop. Woodworking. This table has to surfaces, one 16" round and one
10.5" square.

Of course I am going to have to edge-join several boards together to
get that width. My question is what would be an appropriate width to
cut the boards for maximum happiness with regard to strength and
appearance.

(For instance, a 16" table top made of 2 8" wide pieces may look
strange, and a bunch of 3" wide strips will most likely end up looking
like a cutting board).

Should I try to have all the "slats" the same width? Why or why not?

This piece will be made of plain-sawn red oak (not the more
traditional q-sawn white oak) if that makes a difference.

Thanks for any ideas

Jim Helfer
Pittsburgh PA

"Jim Helfer" wrote in message
...



Tonight I start building the "Limbert Tabourette" featured in 11/03
Pop. Woodworking.

Have fun. I just finished up mine last weekend. Was an enjoyable little
project, for me.


cut the boards for maximum happiness with regard to strength and
appearance.

Dunno how strength plays into this - but I doubt it's much of a factor.
Appearance (and convenience) were my two big drivers. My table top was 3
pieces of stock about 6 1/2" wide. My bottom shelf was from two pieces.

This piece will be made of plain-sawn red oak (not the more

So was mine - except for the top. I "splurged" on QSWO for the top.

My finish was a "walnut-is" aniline dye then several coats of Arm-OR-Seal
semi-gloss.

Those "captured joints" (not sure what the correct name for them) gave me
some trouble. I had to finesse the fit on them several times before I had
all four legs snug and level.

The project I had built last fall called for 4 6-inch boards for a total of
24". I had cut them too early in the process and when it was time to glue
them up, they were warped. I re-cut those boards and had other scrap and
made 6 4-inch surface. I'm glad I did...the table top looks great.

"Young_carpenter" wrote in message
.. .
generally anything over 6" is starting to ask for trouble. there are
exceptions of course. Since you are using Red Oak 4" is even better. The
major decision on size is your boards. How wide are they, which ones have
defects that need to be removed? As to variations in width it will matter
greatly on design and aesthetic intentions. If you want to emphasize the
"bread board" effect then varying widths and coloration is what you want.
If you want it to look solid, then more even widths (although minor
variations wont matter.), and even color is your goal, with this remember
the grain too. I say this because you may have to cut a board down a bit
to
get a grain direction that works. also remember because it is round/oval
you
don't want thin strips at the edge leaving a strip 5-6" long a 1" wide
(for
instance)
really it is largely based on What looks good to you?
I can post you pictures of one of my projects if you are curious about
panel
matching techniques.

--


"Jim Helfer" wrote in message
...

Tonight I start building the "Limbert Tabourette" featured in 11/03
Pop. Woodworking. This table has to surfaces, one 16" round and one
10.5" square.

Of course I am going to have to edge-join several boards together to
get that width. My question is what would be an appropriate width to
cut the boards for maximum happiness with regard to strength and
appearance.

(For instance, a 16" table top made of 2 8" wide pieces may look
strange, and a bunch of 3" wide strips will most likely end up looking
like a cutting board).

Should I try to have all the "slats" the same width? Why or why not?

This piece will be made of plain-sawn red oak (not the more
traditional q-sawn white oak) if that makes a difference.

Thanks for any ideas

Jim Helfer
Pittsburgh PA

I'm sure you are going to get all kinds of advice about maximum and minimum
widths, reversing grain, etc. Everyone has their own rule of thumb so I
won't bother throwing mine it.

However, I will comment on jointing panels and appearance.

Regardless of what rule of thumb you subscribe too and how wide or narrow
the stock being joined is you should, unless it is the look you are after,
spend more then a little time laying out your stock for the best match of
grain pattern and strive to make the panel looking like it is made up of one
board and not have a cutting board appearance.

When you are going to make a panel is to lay the stock out in front of you
and spend as much time as is necessary shifting it around, flipping it,
matching color, and in general puzzling it together so that that panel looks
as much like it is one board as is possible with the stock available, even
if it means wasting a little.

Once you have it laid out then you mark it. Some prefer a big triangle, some
other type of marks. I favor one line for the first two on the left, two for
the other side of the inside board and the board next too it, three for
....etc.

The time spent on this task will pay will pay you back ten fold in the
appearance of the finish project. .

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"Jim Helfer" wrote in message
...

Tonight I start building the "Limbert Tabourette" featured in 11/03
Pop. Woodworking. This table has to surfaces, one 16" round and one
10.5" square.

Of course I am going to have to edge-join several boards together to
get that width. My question is what would be an appropriate width to
cut the boards for maximum happiness with regard to strength and
appearance.

(For instance, a 16" table top made of 2 8" wide pieces may look
strange, and a bunch of 3" wide strips will most likely end up looking
like a cutting board).

Should I try to have all the "slats" the same width? Why or why not?

This piece will be made of plain-sawn red oak (not the more
traditional q-sawn white oak) if that makes a difference.

Thanks for any ideas

Jim Helfer
Pittsburgh PA

listen to him he's a smart guy.
--
Young Carpenter

"Violin playing and Woodworking are similar, it takes plenty of money,
plenty of practice, and you usually make way more noise than intended"

{Put the fiddler back "on" the roof to reply}

--


"Mike G" wrote in message
...
I'm sure you are going to get all kinds of advice about maximum and
minimum
widths, reversing grain, etc. Everyone has their own rule of thumb so I
won't bother throwing mine it.

However, I will comment on jointing panels and appearance.

Regardless of what rule of thumb you subscribe too and how wide or narrow
the stock being joined is you should, unless it is the look you are after,
spend more then a little time laying out your stock for the best match of
grain pattern and strive to make the panel looking like it is made up of
one
board and not have a cutting board appearance.

When you are going to make a panel is to lay the stock out in front of you
and spend as much time as is necessary shifting it around, flipping it,
matching color, and in general puzzling it together so that that panel
looks
as much like it is one board as is possible with the stock available, even
if it means wasting a little.

Once you have it laid out then you mark it. Some prefer a big triangle,
some
other type of marks. I favor one line for the first two on the left, two
for
the other side of the inside board and the board next too it, three for
...etc.

The time spent on this task will pay will pay you back ten fold in the
appearance of the finish project. .

--
Mike G.

Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"Jim Helfer" wrote in message
...

Tonight I start building the "Limbert Tabourette" featured in 11/03
Pop. Woodworking. This table has to surfaces, one 16" round and one
10.5" square.

Of course I am going to have to edge-join several boards together to
get that width. My question is what would be an appropriate width to
cut the boards for maximum happiness with regard to strength and
appearance.

(For instance, a 16" table top made of 2 8" wide pieces may look
strange, and a bunch of 3" wide strips will most likely end up looking
like a cutting board).

Should I try to have all the "slats" the same width? Why or why not?

This piece will be made of plain-sawn red oak (not the more
traditional q-sawn white oak) if that makes a difference.

Thanks for any ideas

Jim Helfer
Pittsburgh PA

Swingman wrote:
Jim Helfer" wrote in message

Tonight I start building the "Limbert Tabourette" featured in 11/03
Pop. Woodworking. This table has to surfaces, one 16" round and one
10.5" square.

Of course I am going to have to edge-join several boards together to
get that width. My question is what would be an appropriate width to
cut the boards for maximum happiness with regard to strength and

appearance.


(For instance, a 16" table top made of 2 8" wide pieces may look
strange, and a bunch of 3" wide strips will most likely end up looking
like a cutting board).


There is nothing wrong with using two, 8" boards ... although you would do
much better to have them total over 16" so that you have some wiggle room
for cutting off the excess.


Should I try to have all the "slats" the same width? Why or why not?


I think you will find that random width's will please the eye and look less
like your "cutting board". Normally, I simply match the grain as best I can,
without regard to annular ring orientation, using 2 or more, random width,
boards.

For a 16" wide table top, I would generally use three or four +/- 6" wide
boards totaling around 18" and cut off the excess when done. Among other
things, this extra width lets you clamp without worrying about clamp marks.

You shouldn't have a problem with that width, but in the event that you need
to run it back through a planer because of a glue-up problem or
non-flatness, it is nice to be able to make a single cut where the now two
parts are not so wide that they can't be run through your planer
individually, then be re-glued, making it necessary to clean up only one
glue line.


This piece will be made of plain-sawn red oak (not the more
traditional q-sawn white oak) if that makes a difference.


Shouldn't make any difference.

Got a biscuit jointer? If so, use it for aligning your boards ... biscuits,
and good cabinet clamps, make a flat panel glue-up much easier to
accomplish.



Thanks for the advice! Good post.

Jim Helfer
Pittsburgh PA

mttt wrote:

"Jim Helfer" wrote in message
...



Tonight I start building the "Limbert Tabourette" featured in 11/03
Pop. Woodworking.


Have fun. I just finished up mine last weekend. Was an enjoyable little
project, for me.


I started the other I'm excited.


cut the boards for maximum happiness with regard to strength and

appearance.

Dunno how strength plays into this - but I doubt it's much of a factor.
Appearance (and convenience) were my two big drivers. My table top was 3
pieces of stock about 6 1/2" wide. My bottom shelf was from two pieces.


This piece will be made of plain-sawn red oak (not the more


So was mine - except for the top. I "splurged" on QSWO for the top.



That's a great idea. I'm going to steal it.

My finish was a "walnut-is" aniline dye then several coats of Arm-OR-Seal
semi-gloss.

Those "captured joints" (not sure what the correct name for them) gave me
some trouble. I had to finesse the fit on them several times before I had
all four legs snug and level.



I'm cutting them now. I've already made one cut too deep, I think.
Oh well, first time on an unfamiliar tool.

Jim