Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, Noel, Charley, CHJ

 Reply
User avatar
By AndyT
#1193820
I think they look really classy. Well done!

As for pinching other people's ideas, I'd say that was the best thing to do.
"Originality" in design can easily mean misunderstanding the fundamentals.

And I'm not the first person to say so on this forum!
User avatar
By custard
#1193823
nabs wrote:A mixed success I think: there are enough similarities between the side and coffee tables so they seem part of a set


I think you're being a bit harsh on yourself. The ebonised legs echo the woodburner, and the table tops echo the flooring, so your furniture sits harmoniously within the room and looks like it really belongs.
User avatar
By custard
#1193827
AndyT wrote:I was looking in Robert Wearing's Essential Woodworker last night and for haunches he shows what is probably a more conventional technique. He marks everything out on the full piece. Then he saws down the tenon cheeks. Next he cuts the haunch. And only then does he saw the cheeks off.
Possibly more accurate than my workaround for marking them after sawing the cheeks, but it's worked for me.


The problem with haunches is you want them to fill the corresponding mortice cavity as completely as possible, but if you're too ambitious in this respect, and make them a whisker too long, then they'll hold the joint apart. This is an asymmetric risk, the benefit of a completely filled haunch cavity is tiny compared to the nightmare of a gappy mortice and tenon joint. So there's a general convention in cabinet making that even on first class work a tiny gap on the haunch is acceptable.
User avatar
By nabs
#1196840
thanks all - the coffee table has grown on me after a couple of weeks and I quite like the simple design now.
By ScottGoddard
#1197063
Great table....Just wondering did you stick to your change in plan and angle the legs from the aprons or do something different? i cant tell from the photos.....Which is probably from a good build.
User avatar
By nabs
#1197067
the taper starts below the apron, so I just had to angle the shoulders on the aprons to splay the legs.

I am not sure how much more difficult it would be to have the taper go right through to the top of the legs but I think you would have to mark out the taper on the legs exactly to get a good result.

Having said that, you would have to look very closely to notice - no doubt it would be more apparent if the legs were not so narrow.
User avatar
By custard
#1197085
nabs wrote:I am not sure how much more difficult it would be to have the taper go right through to the top of the legs but I think you would have to mark out the taper on the legs exactly to get a good result.


That's an interesting question.

Retaining a square, un-tapered section at the top of the leg is the traditional way. There are two main variants, square section at the top with a taper on the inside of the legs commencing below the apron rail; and secondly a square section at the top with a taper on all sides of the legs below the apron rail, in the Hepplewhite/Sheraton style. In this second version the centre of the leg remains plumb to the ground.

However, as soon as you introduce a full length taper (i.e. no square section at the top) you immediately give a piece of furniture a much more contemporary look. Compare for example these two side tables, the first is notionally "Shaker" but it could equally be a country version of an 18th century piece. The second side table has through tapers with a splay and is unmistakably modern,

Shaker-Side-Table.jpg


Side-Table-English-Walnut.jpg


You can see at a glance that incorporating a drawer would become trickier with a through taper, as the drawer would have to have angled sides. I've done it a few times and it's by no means impossible, but elements like the drawer slips need a bit of thinking about. One option is to inset the drawer into the front apron rail, which then means you can keep the drawer straight sided. In addition a through taper adds complexity when it comes to fastening the top to the base, plus if there's a full width drawer you've then got figure out how to construct the joinery for the two rails that run above and below the drawer. The traditional way is with a dovetail above and twin tusk tenons below, as shown in this photo,

Small-Shaker-Cab-03.jpg


These two joints are straightforward enough when everything's at 90 degrees, but life gets a bit trickier when you have to incorporate a few degrees of angle into them.
By ScottGoddard
#1198694
Custard - if you were to put a draw on the front rail, use the above joinery and have square draw how would you deal with the space between top and bottom rail (as you wouldn't be able to have full width draw due to the angle)
User avatar
By custard
#1198763
ScottGoddard wrote:Custard - if you were to put a draw on the front rail, use the above joinery and have square draw how would you deal with the space between top and bottom rail (as you wouldn't be able to have full width draw due to the angle)


You can have a drawer with angled sides, it's a little inconvenient to use and it's a bit of a pig to make, but it's perfectly do-able.

However, the more common approach, as you suggest is to cut a rectangular drawer front out of the apron. I'm struggling to find a photo of examples that I've made but here's something that goes at least part way there,

Hall-Table-small.jpg


Hall-Table,-English-Cherry.jpg


These legs slope on the inner edge, but as it's only by a degree or so it's difficult to see but you get the general idea.

You can go further and have the drawer entirely surrounded by the apron. The usual way of achieving this is to make two rip cuts to separate the upper and lower rails from the drawer front, then make two cross cuts to separate out the front, then you re-glue the upper and lower rails to the end pieces.