3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.

Thanks!

Larry

On 1/17/2013 8:06 PM, Gramp's shop wrote:
3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.

Thanks!

Larry

1/2 always

3/4 looks like crap... 1/2 looks right.

--
Jeff

On 1/17/13 7:06 PM, Gramp's shop wrote:
3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.

Thanks!

Larry


1/2" (7/16") is plenty.
3/4" would be way over kill.
You'd lose space and add weight.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/17/2013 7:06 PM, Gramp's shop wrote:
3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.

Thanks!

Larry



Swingman and I actually used 3/4" maple for a high end kitchen/bathrooms
remodel year before last. There must have been close to 50 drawers
total. All dovetailed or rabbeted with added domino reinforcements.
They looked rich.

That said, for kitchen or bathroom cabinets for a normal budget job I
prefer 1/2" Baltic Birch.

If I were dovetailing absolutely 3/4" solid stock.

Here they are

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb1121...7622991960362/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb1121...57622991960362

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
On 1/17/2013 7:06 PM, Gramp's shop wrote:
3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local
Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.

Thanks!

Larry



Swingman and I actually used 3/4" maple for a high end kitchen/bathrooms
remodel year before last. There must have been close to 50 drawers
total. All dovetailed or rabbeted with added domino reinforcements. They looked rich.

That said, for kitchen or bathroom cabinets for a normal budget job I
prefer 1/2" Baltic Birch.

If I were dovetailing absolutely 3/4" solid stock.

Here they are

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb1121...7622991960362/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/lcb1121...57622991960362

And some mo

http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-TQ...-09-17_987.jpg

http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4j...5_12-13-53.jpg

http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-DS...-10-41_964.jpg

http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-0U...-55-41_578.jpg

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

"Gramp's shop" wrote:
3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local
Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.

Even smaller drawers with 3/4" sides can be gorgeous:

http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-AR...038CDD7265.JPG

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

Gramp's shop wrote:
3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the
local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.

Either one but one may be preferable depending...

The 7/16 is fine as long as it is ample for whatever joint you intend to
use.

The 3/4 is fine regardless of the joint. Especially if you intend to get
max usefulness from the drawer. I almost always partition drawers by
cutting 1/4" evenly spaced "V"s into the sides. That lets me easily make
moveable partitions.

I also very frequently fit drawers - even very shallow drawers - with
sliding trays. I do that by using 3/4" sides and making a wide 1/4" rabbet
along the inside top of them. The rabbet is slightly wider than the tray
will be deep and the bottom supports the tray. The rabbet also removes the
top portion of the "V"s for the bottom part of the drawer. The trays can be
either lift out (same size as drawer inside) or sliding (one half or less
than the drawer inside); I generally do the latter.

"A place for everything and everything in its place" :-)

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 1/18/2013 7:25 AM, dadiOH wrote:
Gramp's shop wrote:
3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the
local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.

Either one but one may be preferable depending...

The 7/16 is fine as long as it is ample for whatever joint you intend to
use.

The 3/4 is fine regardless of the joint. Especially if you intend to get
max usefulness from the drawer. I almost always partition drawers by
cutting 1/4" evenly spaced "V"s into the sides. That lets me easily make
moveable partitions.

I also very frequently fit drawers - even very shallow drawers - with
sliding trays. I do that by using 3/4" sides and making a wide 1/4" rabbet
along the inside top of them. The rabbet is slightly wider than the tray
will be deep and the bottom supports the tray. The rabbet also removes the
top portion of the "V"s for the bottom part of the drawer. The trays can be
either lift out (same size as drawer inside) or sliding (one half or less
than the drawer inside); I generally do the latter.

"A place for everything and everything in its place" :-)

+1

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Jan 17, 8:06*pm, "Gramp's shop"
wrote:
3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? *The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local Menards. *Drawer size is approximately 18" square.

Thanks!

Larry

This isn't an answer to your specific question, and I have read all
the other posts about 3/4" being fine, but I'll tell you my story:

I built 2 slide out boxes for all of our plastic containers, one for
the covers, one for the containers themselves. They each take up 1/2
of one base cabinet, i.e. one above the shelf, one below it.

I used 3/4" ply and bullnosed the top edges. They always look bulky to
me when I extend them. Maybe it's because they aren't holding any
"visual weight" but they just look overbuilt. 2 years later and I
still wonder if they would look better had I gone with 1/2" stock.

I may be building all new drawers for my kitchen soon, so I am very
interested in this issue. My current drawers, in 1950's stick built
cabinets, are 1/2" stock. I do not plan on replacing the cabinets,
just building drawers and doors.

On 1/18/2013 10:51 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

I may be building all new drawers for my kitchen soon, so I am very
interested in this issue. My current drawers, in 1950's stick built
cabinets, are 1/2" stock. I do not plan on replacing the cabinets,
just building drawers and doors.

Actually, it pretty simple. Go with what does the job, both cost
effectively for your budget, and attractively for you and your design.

I use whatever is spec'ed by the client.

Many high end kitchens these days have a professional designer involved
in the initial design and almost to a man/woman, they go with 3/4" thick
drawer sides/components. There is something to be said for that in both
looks and function once you see a well designed kitchen with well
executed drawers of that thickness ... it does convey a sense of above
average _custom work_ to a kitchen in the upper price range.

That said, I used 1/2" poplar for my own kitchen drawers and they do the
job just fine and fit nicely in my budget at the time. Pretty cheesy by
today's designer standards.

I've also built a ton of drawers for others using 1/2" pre-finished stock.

My choice is to "split the difference", and use 5/8" stock, which is
what I generally put in the kitchens in the homes I build.

5/8" drawer thickness, IMO, gives you the best of both worlds, so is
worth considering for your new kitchen drawers.

YMMV ...


--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 1/18/2013 10:51 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

I may be building all new drawers for my kitchen soon, so I am very
interested in this issue. My current drawers, in 1950's stick built
cabinets, are 1/2" stock. I do not plan on replacing the cabinets,
just building drawers and doors.

On 1/18/2013 11:09 AM, Swingman wrote:

5/8" drawer thickness, IMO, gives you the best of both worlds, so is
worth considering for your new kitchen drawers.

I meant to add that you will certainly want to consider, before you make
a decision about your drawer side thickness, the type of drawer slides
you will be using.

While it is possible to use just about any thickness you want with some
drawer slides; manufacturers of the modern undermount, self/soft close
drawer slides will make it much easier for you to dimension your drawer
widths for your cabinet opening if you stick to standard 1/2, 5/8 and
3/4 ... but be sure to double check.

In many cases, you may have to buy a specific submodel of the same slide
for the corresponding thickness, so don't assume anything in that regard.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:17:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:

I meant to add that you will certainly want to consider, before you make
a decision about your drawer side thickness, the type of drawer slides
you will be using.

Unless the drawers are to handle heavy loads, I see no need for any
drawer slides at all. A traditionally fitted drawer is much better.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On 1/18/2013 1:49 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:17:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:

I meant to add that you will certainly want to consider, before you make
a decision about your drawer side thickness, the type of drawer slides
you will be using.

Unless the drawers are to handle heavy loads, I see no need for any
drawer slides at all. A traditionally fitted drawer is much better.

Better for what?

My reply was directed to someone who was talking about kitchen drawers,
not furniture drawers.

IME, "traditionally fitted" drawers are not going to be well received
by the modern kitchen user these days.

Folks want soft/self closing drawers, and doors, in their kitchens now,
often with other sliding components, none of which they are going to get
with "traditionally fitted" drawers, at least not without the time and
expense that would make it prohibitive to begin with ... they will want
to put their money somewhere else where they get more bang for their buck.

Perhaps for some areas in the kitchen, but certainly not for the
majority of the drawers in a moern kitchen, which, when loaded with the
myriad of utensils and heavy cooking items these days, the friction
sliding of a "traditionally fitted drawer", even with nylon runners,
will have a very short life span.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 1/18/13 1:49 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:17:15 -0600, Swingman wrote:

I meant to add that you will certainly want to consider, before you make
a decision about your drawer side thickness, the type of drawer slides
you will be using.

Unless the drawers are to handle heavy loads, I see no need for any
drawer slides at all. A traditionally fitted drawer is much better.


gross.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/17/2013 7:06 PM, Gramp's shop wrote:
3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the
local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
....

I personally prefer the thinner drawer sides aesthetically plus if one
is using a side-mount slide one loses an inch of opening for the typical
and 3/4" stock costs another 1-1/2" -- that's a lot of space to give up
unless there's just unlimited room available.

I generally use either oak or soft maple to be stiff/strong enough and
go no more than 1/2"--often even 3/8" for smaller drawers. Even a deep
file drawer in oak is plenty stout enough w/ 1/2".

I also will round over the tops--I don't like the square edges.

Hadn't thought of the wide rabbet for the tray--that does handle the
visual problem nicely but not the total width loss. If I'm going to do
that I'll make a dado and inset a ledger strip and keep the same total
thickness.

--

On Jan 18, 12:47*pm, dpb wrote:
On 1/17/2013 7:06 PM, Gramp's shop wrote: 3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the

local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
...

I personally prefer the thinner drawer sides aesthetically plus if one
is using a side-mount slide one loses an inch of opening for the typical
and 3/4" stock costs another 1-1/2" -- that's a lot of space to give up
unless there's just unlimited room available.

I generally use either oak or soft maple to be stiff/strong enough and
go no more than 1/2"--often even 3/8" for smaller drawers. *Even a deep
file drawer in oak is plenty stout enough w/ 1/2".

I also will round over the tops--I don't like the square edges.

Hadn't thought of the wide rabbet for the tray--that does handle the
visual problem nicely but not the total width loss. *If I'm going to do
that I'll make a dado and inset a ledger strip and keep the same total
thickness.

--

Thank for your earlier post about using whatever stock "fits",
budgetwise, etc.

What are your thoughts on bottom vs. side-mount slides, in general?

At the risk of hijacking this thread, do you have a source that you
like for slides? I'll only need 5 sets for my kitchen.

On 1/18/2013 12:46 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
....

Thank for your earlier post about using whatever stock "fits",
budgetwise, etc.

Not sure that was me, but can't disagree w/ the point...

What are your thoughts on bottom vs. side-mount slides, in general?

Bottom has the aesthetics; see my reply to Karl regarding the
dimensions. They take a fair amount of depth which may (or may not) be
less of an issue than width as far as usability/loss of room.

At the risk of hijacking this thread, do you have a source that you
like for slides? I'll only need 5 sets for my kitchen.

There's hardly anywhere better for cabinet hardware than Woodworker's
Hardware

www.wwhardware.com

--

On Jan 18, 4:16*pm, dpb wrote:
On 1/18/2013 12:46 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

Thank for your earlier post about using whatever stock "fits",
budgetwise, etc.

Not sure that was me, but can't disagree w/ the point...

What are your thoughts on bottom vs. side-mount slides, in general?

Bottom has the aesthetics; see my reply to Karl regarding the
dimensions. *They take a fair amount of depth which may (or may not) be
less of an issue than width as far as usability/loss of room.

At the risk of hijacking this thread, do you have a source that you
like for slides? I'll only need 5 sets for my kitchen.

There's hardly anywhere better for cabinet hardware than Woodworker's
Hardware

www.wwhardware.com

--

You are right...it was Swingman's post I was referring to.

Thanks for the link.

On 1/18/2013 3:18 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

You are right...it was Swingman's post I was referring to.

Thanks for the link.

Check out KV's MuV (Knape & Vogt) premium undermount drawer slides.

Very nice slide, smooth as silk action, and I've found they perform
equally with any of Blum's comparable slides at a better price, and they
are easier to install.

I've used the MuV's in three full blown kitchens and one remodel now,
and I like them better then my old favorites that I used for years,
Hettich slides ... the MuV's are much less fussy to install, and a good
bit more forgiving with regard to fit.

The Hettich's are excellent slides, but are bears for requiring an
absolute perfect fit.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

dpb wrote:

I personally prefer the thinner drawer sides aesthetically plus if one is
using a side-mount slide one loses an inch of opening for the typical and
3/4" stock costs another 1-1/2" -- that's a lot of space to give up
unless there's just unlimited room available.

Check your math. That "costs another 1 1/2" above is only operative if
you're using no drawer sides at all.

With today's undermount drawer slides it's even less. You rarely see a
modern kitchen with sidemount drawer slides these days, particularly with
the dovetail drawers that many around here are going to shoot for.

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:
wrote:

I personally prefer the thinner drawer sides aesthetically plus if one is
using a side-mount slide one loses an inch of opening for the typical and
3/4" stock costs another 1-1/2" -- that's a lot of space to give up
unless there's just unlimited room available.

Check your math. That "costs another 1 1/2" above is only operative if
you're using no drawer sides at all.

Yes, obviously that's the total out of the drawer opening, not the
difference. That's still quite a lot to sacrifice in smaller kitches.
Still a half-inch in a 12 inch drawer is noticeable and when added up
over more than one...

With today's undermount drawer slides it's even less. You rarely see a
modern kitchen with sidemount drawer slides these days, particularly with
the dovetail drawers that many around here are going to shoot for.

The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch...

I replaced a set of the old single undermount roller w/ the front side
rollers w/ a centermount slide type that is also able to fit in the 3/8"
bottom lip thickness as a trial here. It's pretty good excepting for
the 3/4 length pullout. I'm looking at the possibility of using an
overlong slide for the drawer to get extra extension but haven't gotten
around to actually doing it.

I've not done a new kitchen in over 20 yr where the sizes are so huge
any more--even in the old houses in Lynchburg often kitchens were very
small comparatively (many of them actually had the "real" kitchen in the
basement or an outbuilding for the staff rather than being in the house
as a full-fledged kitchen as we know it today so they had to be
scavenged room taken from other adjoining areas which generally meant
they were also small. The kitchen in the old farm house here which was
an add-on in the 20s to the house built in the early/mid-teens has only
about six feet of _total_ counter length and that includes that 4-ft of
it is around a 90 that has a lazy susan in it for storage. There si
space for only three drawers along the counter top row so even a half
inch is a loss.

--

On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:


Check your math. That "costs another 1 1/2" above is only operative if
you're using no drawer sides at all.

Yes, obviously that's the total out of the drawer opening, not the
difference. That's still quite a lot to sacrifice in smaller kitches.
Still a half-inch in a 12 inch drawer is noticeable and when added up
over more than one...


With today's undermount drawer slides it's even less. You rarely see a
modern kitchen with sidemount drawer slides these days, particularly with
the dovetail drawers that many around here are going to shoot for.

The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch...

Well, that's what you would think ... but, that is not necessarily
the case when it comes to modern drawer slides, as non-intuitive as it
sounds.

With the undermounts I've been using lately (KV MuV), you actually
deduct less from the width of cabinet opening, _the thicker the side
material_.

IOW, you actually make your drawers wider with thicker material. Here is
chart from the manufacturer that I use in my spreadsheets for
dimensioning drawer widths for the kitchens we've been building lately:

Drawer Width
DwrThickness DeductfromCabOpening
5/8" (16mm) 3/8" (10mm)
9/16" (14mm) 9/16" (14mm)
1/2" (13mm) 5/8" (16mm)

Max Drawer Height = Opening Minus 13/16" (20mm)

Note that that's total, NOT per side, and it illustrates that things are
no longer as they used to be with modern slides (IOW, no longer the
blanket 1" as with the sidemount you mentioned).

In effect, that means you can make your drawers wider and gain/offset
interior width with thicker drawer sides than previously possible with
the older style slides.

And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..."

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message
m...

On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:

And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..."

I replaced the drawers in my vintage built-in kitchen cabinets with solid
wood drawers that I put together with hand cut dovetails. I didn't use
drawer slides... rather I fit them to the casework like I would drawers in a
fine piece of furniture. It is the same approach Frank Klauz presents on his
dovetail DVD.

Because each drawer was built to properly fit the opening they slide in and
out just fine on a coat of paste wax. Old school perhaps but they work with
the kitchen and they function well. Also, to use slides I would have had to
build structure in the cabinet to which slides could be mounted--that would
have been an annoying venture.

John

On 1/18/2013 4:30 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:


Check your math. That "costs another 1 1/2" above is only operative if
you're using no drawer sides at all.

Yes, obviously that's the total out of the drawer opening, not the
difference. That's still quite a lot to sacrifice in smaller kitches.
Still a half-inch in a 12 inch drawer is noticeable and when added up
over more than one...


With today's undermount drawer slides it's even less. You rarely see a
modern kitchen with sidemount drawer slides these days, particularly
with
the dovetail drawers that many around here are going to shoot for.

The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch...

Well, that's what you would think ... but, that is not necessarily
the case when it comes to modern drawer slides, as non-intuitive as it
sounds.

With the undermounts I've been using lately (KV MuV), you actually
deduct less from the width of cabinet opening, _the thicker the side
material_.

IOW, you actually make your drawers wider with thicker material. Here is
chart from the manufacturer that I use in my spreadsheets for
dimensioning drawer widths for the kitchens we've been building lately:

Drawer Width
DwrThickness DeductfromCabOpening
5/8" (16mm) 3/8" (10mm)
9/16" (14mm) 9/16" (14mm)
1/2" (13mm) 5/8" (16mm)

Max Drawer Height = Opening Minus 13/16" (20mm)

Note that that's total, NOT per side, and it illustrates that things are
no longer as they used to be with modern slides (IOW, no longer the
blanket 1" as with the sidemount you mentioned).

In effect, that means you can make your drawers wider and gain/offset
interior width with thicker drawer sides than previously possible with
the older style slides.

And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..."

That's 'cuz they sit in the corner of the frame opening and the distance
thereto is therefore fixed. If I were to use one for these very small
spaces, I'd likely make the bottom match the distance then essentially
take the rabbet idea previously mentioned and extend it the full
interior drawer depth to keep the outer dimension tolerances but still
have the thinner drawer side visible. Building it that way would
probably entail a glue joint of the two thickness pieces, then cut to
final width. _I_ really do not like the visual thickness whatever the
current housewife thinks!

For them back to the depth, I just looking at the datasheet--there's
1/2" min under bottom to drawer side bottom and 9/16 more to the rail
clearance. So there's 17/16" plus bottom thickness out of the opening.

The drawers here have 3/8" to drawer side + 1/8" above rail clearance a
net gain of 14/16" for same bottom thickness.

Now, granted, there's no self-closing feature and the centermount KV
isn't nearly what the MuV is in capacity but it works better in the
constrained spaces here...

_IF_ (the proverbial big if) I were in the business of satisfying
somebody else and selling in today's market, that would be an entirely
different animal...fortunately, I've been able to get out of that
environment for 10+ yr now...it's only Mom Nature and drought, plague,
input costs and farm program uncertainties that control now!

--

On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:30:23 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/18/2013 1:48 PM, Swingman wrote:


Check your math. That "costs another 1 1/2" above is only operative if
you're using no drawer sides at all.

Yes, obviously that's the total out of the drawer opening, not the
difference. That's still quite a lot to sacrifice in smaller kitches.
Still a half-inch in a 12 inch drawer is noticeable and when added up
over more than one...


With today's undermount drawer slides it's even less. You rarely see a
modern kitchen with sidemount drawer slides these days, particularly with
the dovetail drawers that many around here are going to shoot for.

The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch...

Well, that's what you would think ... but, that is not necessarily
the case when it comes to modern drawer slides, as non-intuitive as it
sounds.

With the undermounts I've been using lately (KV MuV), you actually
deduct less from the width of cabinet opening, _the thicker the side
material_.

IOW, you actually make your drawers wider with thicker material. Here is
chart from the manufacturer that I use in my spreadsheets for
dimensioning drawer widths for the kitchens we've been building lately:

Drawer Width
DwrThickness DeductfromCabOpening
5/8" (16mm) 3/8" (10mm)
9/16" (14mm) 9/16" (14mm)
1/2" (13mm) 5/8" (16mm)

Max Drawer Height = Opening Minus 13/16" (20mm)

Note that that's total, NOT per side, and it illustrates that things are
no longer as they used to be with modern slides (IOW, no longer the
blanket 1" as with the sidemount you mentioned).

In effect, that means you can make your drawers wider and gain/offset
interior width with thicker drawer sides than previously possible with
the older style slides.

And, as you said yourself: "when added up over more than one..."

Being a contractor you'll knock heads here on a few things. Being a
good contractor you give your clients choices. Some are doing a quick
turn, some are building a dream house, and some are on a strict
budget. Before I got hurt I was an electrical contractor and found
the best way to bid was to present the options as it sounds like you
do. That way at least if they went for the lowest price you might get
a chance to educate them. If they were't interested in discussion
they might not be a good customer. Every remodel brings problems.
Sounds like you do an excellent job of showing the customer their
choices.

Mike M

Mike M

On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:

The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch...

That's another thing that will surprise many folks about the modern
kitchen user, it did me at one point.

I've designed and built quite a few custom kitchens in the past 12 years
and, in doing so, one thing is notable ... when you sit down with
someone to discuss all the details of a custom kitchen _design_ , you do
so with the goal of finding out what is important to them, as
individuals ... and things are seldom what you would expect.

Drawer _height_ is a perfect example.

I can't recall one client in ten years who has asked for taller drawers.

Almost without exception, modern kitchen users seem to prefer a
shallower drawer than the actualy cabinet opening will accommodate.

Deeper drawers hold more stuff, but in layers, and the modern kitchen
user will quickly tell you they would rather have more drawers, than
taller drawers, and without having to dig through layers of "stuff".

In short, drawer side height is not as big a concern when designing a
kitchen as it once was, and you rarely have to design to maximize for
the cabinet opening as you once did.

And that's a relief, since, as a rule, undermount slides require 1/2"
clearance at the bottom to operate, you can actually use thicker drawer
bottoms without fear of taking up too much drawer interior real estate.

Thicker bottoms make for a stronger drawer, and one that sounds so much
more "expensive" when the lady of the house first opens one ... I've
seen them stand there and open and close every drawer in a new kitchen
for thirty minutes, with a smile on their face.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://plus.google.com/114902129577517371552/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 1/18/2013 5:12 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/18/2013 3:08 PM, dpb wrote:

The tradeoff there is the depth, though. There's no free lunch...

That's another thing that will surprise many folks about the modern
kitchen user, it did me at one point.

....

I can't recall one client in ten years who has asked for taller drawers.

Almost without exception, modern kitchen users seem to prefer a
shallower drawer than the actualy cabinet opening will accommodate.

....

The loss comes in trying to get in more shallower in the same space as
fewer taller. In the layout I described earlier, there's one reasonably
deep one at the bottom that works well for dishtowels, etc., and two of
appropriate size above for utensils, etc.

If I were to do this one over again from scratch (I did the roughin
cabinetry for folks in the early/mid-80s when they redid the old house)
I'd likely do as the other poster above mentioned--just fit cabinet
drawers instead. It would be a pita now to add the internal casework to
set 'em on, but it could be done....I might give a rethink at least a
little before I do any more of the swap out of the worn out roller ones
Dad used...

--

Swingman wrote:

Thicker bottoms make for a stronger drawer, and one that sounds so much
more "expensive" when the lady of the house first opens one ... I've seen
them stand there and open and close every drawer in a new kitchen for
thirty minutes, with a smile on their face.

And that brings up a point with regard to material thickness and the use of
modern metal drawer slides, which most likely points to a key, subliminal
reason why professional designers go for the thicker materials in modern
kitchens.

Besides "fit and finish", and "look and feel", the sense/aspect that ties
both these together, as well as the overall perception of a magnificent
job, is often unspoken and not consciously realized in the mind of the user
.... the sound the components make in operation/use.

Thinner materials in drawers, in combination with modern metal drawer
slides, often leave a vague, unsatisfying impression of cheapness in the
mind of the user by the sound made when operating ... and I would imagine
painfully so by those well schooled in traditional woodworking methods,
like John G.

Many of us have experienced that cheap, hollow sound of a thin plywood
bathroom vanity drawer, with 1/4" plywood bottoms, and .99 cent side
mounted slides in homes with "builder grade" cabinets ... open a drawer in
an upstairs bath at the other end of the house and you can hear it on the
patio out back

A well made, "traditionally fitted" drawer, regardless of material
thickness, and sliding on wood, won't normally leave you with that
impression.

So, for those of us who must use modern methods and materials to make a
living, a drawer made with thicker material, say 3/4 sides and 1/2" bottom,
being heavier, and even when using less than top quality metal slides, will
give a decided impression of quality simply through the sound made during
operation because of its increased mass, something that is not often
experienced with the lighter drawers made from thinner materials

Scoff at the above thought at your peril ... It is the sum of the little
things like that that add up to you getting the big bucks, as well as the
satisfaction, for your hard work.

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:06:55 -0800, Gramp's shop wrote:

3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the local
Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.

I think it's a matter of preference. That said, my experience has been
that most folks think the 1/2" looks more to scale unless you're talking
very large drawers.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

"Gramp's shop" wrote:

3/4 inch or nominal 1/2 inch? The 1/2 inch is 7/16 alder from the
local Menards. Drawer size is approximately 18" square.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I like 9 ply (1/2") birch.

With a coat of shellac, the ply layers pop and they sure look purdy.

Lew