Built in bench seat with storage

[dance]

Hi

I'd like to build a bench seat with storage for our kitchen ostensibly out of 'oak'. Because I'll be using oak (£££), and because I can't go and SEE the timber before buying, I wanted to run it by someone if possible?

So I've found SL Hardwoods who seem to have a reasonable range and good pricing compared to many places. Their delivery charges seem reasonable, too.

Basically I think I'm building a box frame out of pine 2x4 (is this overkill? would 2x2 do the job just as well?) and then attaching my oak veneered plywood to this frame...then tacking genuine oak PSE to the oak veneer to give the impression of oak panelling.

In my basket at SL Hardwoods I have:-

Oak Crown Cut Plywood MR Veneered 1 Side Only 9mm 2.4m x 1.2m
Oak American White Planed All Round Board 19mm Thick x 140mm

I've telephoned to check and the American White matches the type of oak used in the veneer. The plan is to rip the 140mm length down the middle to get 65mm wide lengths to use as the panelling.

What do you reckon?

Thanks

P.S. I am going to model it in sketchup first to check on the amount of oak needed so I'm not really asking "Am I buying enough", more "will this work?" and "Is this a cost effective way of doing it?"

 

[custard]

Planting "fake" stiles and rails on a ply sheet to simulate panelling can go horribly wrong.

It's unlikely your 9mm veneered ply sheet will be completely flat, you don't say how you plan on preparing the stiles and rails but getting them totally flat and then keeping them that way after jointing isn't something that can be taken for granted (if you're buying PAR timber thinking it'll be flat and true then you'll be disappointed, I guarantee it won't be).

Even small gaps will scream "bodge job", especially as in a few months time dirt will gather in the crevasses to further draw attention to any shortcomings in construction.

Why not just do the job the way it's supposed to be done, with the oak veneered ply floating in grooves in an oak frame? I'm guessing it's because you believe the traditional way is more complex, ironically I think the way you're proposing is actually more difficult, at least it is if the objective is a first class result!

Good luck.

 

[rafezetter]

Where to begin.... As custard said the PAR timber will be very hit and miss as far as flat and true is concerned - even more so if not hand picked by you.

I would look at buying thicker than 19mm rough sawn stock to allow you to trim and true properly, you could even do it on your router table with a straight cutting bit - rough sawn is usually cheaper too. Jointing on a router table is more common than you might think.

The 2x4 well... I would personally say it is overkill - you could use some 2x4 for the front legs and rear legs / back rest, but the rest 2x2 would be fine, especially if it's going to have plywood attached which will give it added rigidity.

Doing a floating panel isn't quite as hard as it sounds - a router and slot cutting bit will do the job, and tbh you can be a bit sloppy in the width of the slot compared to the ply (which is not always totally uniform in thickness either) - a 10mm slot bit would be fine and all you would need to do is pop a couple of wood shims each side of the panel (on the inside obviously) to make it flush with the front - then trim off with a sharp knife so they are mostly hidden. Obviously not ideal but I'm trying to think of ways to give you some margin of error.

 

[Jacob]

Sounds like you need a design. There are plenty out there if you do a bit of research.
Why go to so much trouble to fake it?
NB American white oak is horrible stuff and doesn't look much like British oak.
Plywood looks like plywood even if it's veneered in oak.
Basically I'd give it 0 out of 10 so far.
Back to the drawing board!

PS there's a bit of a thing about oak as though it is somehow special and better than other timbers. I'd try to get free of that delusion first.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

NB American white oak is horrible stuff and doesn't look much like British oak.

That's an interesting comment Jacob. I've worked a lot of both, and it's my experience the two are usually virtually indistinguishable in a superficial side by side visual examination. In fact, I've used both in the same piece of furniture quite a number of times and no-one has ever noticed, or known about the mix of species, unless I revealed the information.

The only way I know to positively distinguish one of the many white oaks from each other and/or from the European oaks is through microscopic examination of small samples. I suspect if I put a sample selection of machined American white oaks and European oaks side by side you'd get the identification wrong more often than not: there's always the fifty/fifty option meaning you could get some right through simply tossing a coin. On the other hand, American red oak is usually relatively easy to pick out when set side by side with either the American white oaks or the European oaks. Slainte.

 

[Jacob]

I could be wrong! I've had both in my workshop (as far as I know) and the american white was distinctly horrid - pale and splintery etc. Perhaps it was something else.

 

[James C]

I've used timber from SL Hardwood before. Admittedly Poplar and not Oak, and although whilst relatively flat after delivery, it certainly wasn't two weeks later!

Not knowing much about grain and the different ways logs could be sawn at the time I didn't know what I was in for. Their "choice" board was flat sawn and very close to the centre of the log. So much so that I could have drunk tea out of the cupping that resulted.

Much better off in choosing your own board methinks.

 

[Sgian Dubh]

I could be wrong! I've had both in my workshop (as far as I know) and the american white was distinctly horrid - pale and splintery etc. Perhaps it was something else.

I've seen both European oak and American white oak that had that sort of appearance. The identification challenge is because there are about eight Quercus species that go into what's sold as American white oak, e.g., Q. alba, Q. lyrata, Q. Montana, etc. Similarly, English oak, which is really just a European oak grown in England might be, for example, Quercus robur or Q. petraea.

In each case, apart from the general similarity in the structure and grain pattern of the wood produced by all these different oak species there are other factors to take into consideration that can significantly affect the wood's appearance - geography, elevation, climate, etc. For example, Quercus alba grown in the colder mountainous north-eastern USA or Canada is generally of lighter weight, milder working, and with closer set yearly growth rings than the same species grown in south of the country.

It all goes to making it virtually impossible to tell (from a superficial visual inspection, anyway) a good quality sample of one species from an equally good sample from another species, wherever each was grown, and whatever each sample's species name. The same surely applies to trying to identify two poor quality examples. I suspect in your case you were likely comparing a poor quality piece of American white oak to a decent, or better quality European oak. Slainte.