What timber for front door?

[Doug71]

It's because the door stile is square above the lock rail but chamfered below it. If the shoulder on lock rail tenon was just square down it would have caused problems between the intersection of the chamfer on stile and bottom edge of lock rail (which I think from memory was just square). It's a bit of a mix of stopped chamfers and continuous ones, should have stuck to one or the other.

I agree it looks wrong, I guess when it was made and freshly painted you would not see it but now it really stands out.

I would make a new door.

 

[Jacob]

.....
Maybe it's because I'm a furniture man rather than a joiner, but the intersection between the lock rail and the stile looks visually strange to me. Can someone help me out with what's going on? Here's what I see, so please correct any errors I make.

Visually, it seems to me that the stile isn't truly diminishing at the lock rail point

It isn't literally, you are right, but the angle shoulder line performs the same function as the more usual gunstock stile; bringing different details into alignment. So it looks a bit like a gunstock stile. Could have avoided it by instead repeating those stopped chamfers seen above the rail, or doing a masons mitre.
I don't think it looks wrong at all - it's just a little stylistic flourish, somebody showing off a bit of skill.
In fact it's a very nice piece of classy joinery, designed and made at a time when joinery skills were at an all time high, before the end of "the age of wood".

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Thanks for your thoughts, both Doug71 and Jacob. When I looked at the picture I came to the conclusion that probably what was going on was what you've both described, i.e., essentially it was a means to bring together edge mouldings or treatments that either didn't match, or edge mouldings that ran only part way along a member's length, e.g., the inside edge of the stile, where there's a stopped chamfer above the lock rail, but a through chamfer below it (which is stopped above the bottom rail).

It all just seemed odd to me, and unlike Jacob, I don't think it's an attractive "little stylistic flourish ... showing off a bit of skill", rather the opposite, it being unattractive. But on that front, i.e., aesthetic attractiveness, there's nothing to to say my taste or preference is right and Jacob's is wrong.

In reality, what most struck me when I looked at that photograph of the door in page 2 of this thread, was how similar the lock rail/stile intersection was in appearance to a similar exercise undertaken by bench joinery apprentices in their college based training. Over the last couple of years I've done some part-time teaching on both citb and C&G validated bench joinery courses at local colleges. In both cases the apprentices had to put together miniature architectural doors with what I could only describe as 'false diminished stile doors'. Again, the main reason seemed to be to make discordant edge mouldings or treatments, plus glass rebates come together. It all seemed a bit artificial to me, in the sense that I couldn't imagine anyone would really set out to make a door that gave a superficial appearance of being a diminished stile type, but actually wasn't.

In addition, it was all more difficult to execute than doing a real diminished stile door. I know that because for a bit of fun I had a go at doing both forms of joint in a miniature form, i.e., the citb false diminished stile, and a true diminishing stile ... the latter form was easier, and in my opinion, visually more attractive. In addition, made for a full architectural door, it would have increased the glazed area to let in more light, which I strongly suspect is the main reason for such a door pattern.

Anyway, I appreciate the thoughts of you both. Thanks. Slainte.

 

[Trevanion]

In reality, what most struck me when I looked at that photograph of the door in page 2 of this thread, was how similar the lock rail/stile intersection was in appearance to a similar exercise undertaken by bench joinery apprentices in their college based training. Over the last couple of years I've done some part-time teaching on both citb and C&G validated bench joinery courses at local colleges. In both cases the apprentices had to put together miniature architectural doors with what I could only describe as 'false diminished stile doors'. Again, the main reason seemed to be to make discordant edge mouldings or treatments, plus glass rebates come together. It all seemed a bit artificial to me, in the sense that I couldn't imagine anyone would really set out to make a door that gave a superficial appearance of being a diminished stile type, but actually wasn't.

It wasn't so long ago I did my C&G training so I had to do this exercise. I think the main reason for the gunstock was the transition between grooved panel and glass rebate (Which if I recall was a 10mm rebate) since it was all square with no mouldings, the other face of the door had mitres where the rail met the stile. It was a right PITA to get spot on because both faces of the door were completely different which made it difficult to lay out everything properly and get all the cuts perfect. As you say, you'd never actually encounter that style of joint anymore in an actual work setting. It was probably the most difficult thing to do in the 3-year course, including the minature gothic style door with the little piddly bars :lol:.

I don't think it looks wrong at all - it's just a little stylistic flourish, somebody showing off a bit of skill.
In fact it's a very nice piece of classy joinery, designed and made at a time when joinery skills were at an all time high, before the end of "the age of wood".

Joinery skills are still at an all-time high with the people at the top of their game, they've just changed in techniques somewhat and things are produced faster and to a better standard than ever before (Sometimes not to a better standard in some cases). You could call it "the new, mechanized age of wood". I don't see how it could be a stylistic flourish when it was supposed to be hidden behind paint :lol:

 

[Sgian Dubh]

It wasn't so long ago I did my C&G training so I had to do this exercise.

Interesting that you remember it pretty much as I recall that door making joinery exercise. I recall asking the person that lead the course why such an oddball exercise in a (seemingly) non-standard door joinery form was sanctioned by the awarding body for that bench joinery qualification. His response was along the lines that it was probably judged to be too difficult for the joinery apprentices to cut the diminishment in the stile from the section below the lock rail to the section above it. He did say the exercise had been like that for many years, and never updated.

That was a bit of a head scratcher for me. I, perhaps wrongly, came to the conclusion that the exercise was designed in CAD by someone that didn't understand joinery, and the awarding body were too embarrassed to admit their mistake, or couldn't/wouldn't change it for some other reason. It was either that in my mind, or they just wanted to set a particularly difficult challenge for the joinery apprentices, ha, ha. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

... As you say, you'd never actually encounter that style of joint anymore in an actual work setting.....

You would if the actual work setting is in period replacement/repair/restoration, of which there is a lot going on. I did little else and hardly touched any modern stuff at all.

....
That was a bit of a head scratcher for me. I, perhaps wrongly, came to the conclusion that the exercise was designed in CAD by someone that didn't understand joinery, ...

Quite the opposite. It's been in the C&G curriculum from the start, put there by people who did understand joinery, long before CAD was even thought of. People had to do things the graphic/geometric way and the skill is still amazingly useful and crops up all the time.

 

[Trevanion]

Absolute nightmare to produce, especially when you haven't actually got a lecturer that's originally trained in bench joinery but rather rough carpentry and brickwork so asking for advice was hopeless #-o.

 

[deema]

The joint is very useful if you don’t have a spindle moulder for any door with lights in which the panels sit in a groove rather than having beading / planted on mouldings to keep them in place. Before modern glues, sitting the panels in a groove produced a stronger door. Most of my doors don’t have diminishing styles, but I do sit the lower panels in grooves and I overcome the transition issue by running the scribing to halfway within the middle rail with the spindle. I couldn’t do this easily by hand.....but it can be done. I sit the panels in grooves even if it has planted in mouldings. When the beading for the glass is in place the styles should (if they aren’t diminishing) look once again straight and of consistent width.

I do make that very joint when making a design of gate out of oak. In this case it’s not to resolve a difference between a rebate and a groove, it’s to blend a groove into a straight style. I’m not sure why it’s considered difficult to make, it’s not IMO any more complex than cutting a standard tenon by hand.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

Thanks for all the information everybody. From what you all say the arrangement is apparently not as unusual as I was thinking it might be. I put that down to, as I said in my first post here, me being primarily a furniture maker rather than a joiner, and not really in the past having a regular need to deal with issues of this nature.

So, as I understand it, the need to cut an angled shoulder on one face of a lock rail occurs, for example, when the profile on the inside bottom edge of the lock rail and the inside edge of the stile is square, and something like an ovolo profile on the outside face of these two parts where, between, there's a groove to carry a panel. And on the upper side of the lock rail and the continuance of the stile above the lock rail on the inside of the door is a rebate to carry glass.

I'm assuming that all exterior doors normally have some sort of profile worked on the outer edge of rails and stiles, e.g., an ovolo, to help throw water off. On the interior face, the edge of these parts can be either square of profiled all depending on what's specified, and perhaps what equipment is available. For example, my house doors with two panels at the bottom, and glazed above above the lock rail, has ovolo mouldings on both the front and back face: those ovolo mouldings holding the glass in are nailed. In this case the shoulder of the lock rail is square both front and back, and the mouldings where the stile and bottom edge of the lock rail are scribed, as they are elsewhere in the door where mouldings meet, including the door's top rail that also incorporates a long and short shouldered M&T.

All interesting to me because it educates me about how different woodworkers tackle their problems and challenges. Slainte.