Face side

[RobinBHM]

Different workshops will chose different conventions and face and edge marks are used for different reasons.

In joinery face and edge marks are chosen for machining reference. For example a pair of door stiles will be paired up with any bow mirrored and the face and edges marked. Consistency is key so that the mark on a component will always face the same way each time the machining operations for a job is done. That way the face mark will always face the morticer fence, or down onto the spindle moulder bed, or down to tenoner bed.

Consistency is the key, it is one less thing to think about and get wrong! For example, when I write cutting lists for veneered boards, the first dimension is always grain direction not the longest dimension. Window and door frames are width x height.

 

[David C]

It seems to me that the accurate square surfaces of a table leg need to be inside.

If not the rails are less likely to be square and the shoulders less likely to fit nicely.

External surfaces are for show, but require less accuracy.

David

 

[rwyoung]

It seems to me that the accurate square surfaces of a table leg need to be inside.

If not the rails are less likely to be square and the shoulders less likely to fit nicely.

External surfaces are for show, but require less accuracy.

David

The original postscripted question was asking for an example where the true face was the same as the show face (i.e. on the outside) and the recent discussion of The Essential Woodworker put W.R.'s terminology and this marking out example to mind.

Yes, to have a square table, one needs accurately sized legs (at the top) and opposite aprons to have matching lengths shoulder-to-shoulder.

But it would seem from W.R.'s marking out convention, he prefers the true face and true edge to be the outside of the leg. Which must mean he intends that the leg be accurately dimensioned and properly squared all the way around. Otherwise the table would be wonky. For visual appeal, the aprons should be reasonably closely dimentioned too but certainly the thickness can be a bit off from one to another. And the inside faces of the aprons can be left as rough or as finished as pleases your delicate sensibilities.

I obviously don't have insight into W.R.'s though processes or teaching methods. As written in his book, they seem reasonable and I've used his method for making several small tables. Works just fine. Other methods do exist and do work, no argument from me on that point.

Also no argument that W.R.'s marking out method is the among the best. As an untrained amateur, it's the one I've latched onto because it works for me. Simple and effective with a minimum of fuss. And certainly less confusing than the ad-hoc methods I've seen others use. Cabinet maker's triangle, the fancy F, the V, good knife and gauge technique goes a long way.

By the way, here's the illustration to which I am referring. p59 of the PDF from L.A.P.

(some edits for clarity)

 

[rwyoung]

Thinking some more about the face side / show side, if one was to make something with flush aprons such as anything "Chipendale" or "Queen Anne" it would be advantageous to have the face side of the legs to the INSIDE when marking out. Likewise the aprons (but maybe less so). Then when it comes time to clean up the legpost and flush them to the apron, you just work one down to the other.

And again, the leg stock would be reasonably square and equal all the way around. But certainly when tracing on the pattern for the cabriole leg, the pattern would be referenced to the inside corners and those should be square.

Leads me back to making sure one thinks through the entire process before beginning and doing those things during the marking out and layout that minimize headaches later.

 

[David C]

"Leads me back to making sure one thinks through the entire process before beginning and doing those things during the marking out and layout that minimize headaches later."

Very sound advice.

David

 

[Bluekingfisher]

... snip to address only the postscript ...
PS Now Wearing says some constructions have face side out, and some in. I would like to hear about ones which are better with face sides out, please.

In "The Essential Woodworker", R.W. makes it a point to call it the "true face" to distinguish it from a "show face" or "show surface". Same goes for "true edge".

I think this terminology eliminates most of the confusion about the purpose of the edge/face.

Later in illustrations showing how to layout for a mortise and tenon in a small table, he has the true face and true edge of the leg facing out so they are the show faces. As this is a table with a small reveal between the leg surface and the apron, it makes some sense.

The legs should obviously be very CLOSE to the same size (if not identical but hey, whose counting molecules anyway?). Otherwise the aprons would be of different length shoulder-to-shoulder and that can't be good practice!

In his illustrations, the aprons would also have their true face out (and I would have though true edge up to meet the table-top but it is shown DOWN). Now the absolute thickness of the aprons isn't critical as any variance is thrown to the inside. However it would look odd to have one aprons 1/2" thick and the rest 7/8" thick. Throwing the waste to the inside isn't an excuse for being excessively sloppy either.

Is this the absolute, be-all and end-all method for preparing stock and laying out? Probably not. But it does work. As with most methods, one must engage brain before engaging the work. Thinking through the process is the key.

(I shall go find a comfy chair in which to sit while being politely eviscerated by David C. and others.)

((edited to clarify remark about face edge orientation))

The above is my recollection of instruction given by my old school woodwork teacher. The face side would have been the eventual show side. In the example given, the table apron face side would have faced out with the face edge directed towards the floor rather than up toward the table top.

Of course the accuracy of non referenced face/edge would not have been relevant, we were not allowd to progress until the remaining faces/edges were accurately referenced and prepared from the face side/edge. Of course I understand teachings given to school childred would differ from the commercial world where time is money. Perhaps the time taken to accurately reference the eventual show face is not necessary at the prep stage.

David

 

[Trafalgar]

It is certainly helpful if the two faces of the legs which are to be mortised are dead square to each other. When I do these, one face is Face1 which is the first one treated. The next is Face2 and made square to Face1. I check cosmetics to make sure the faces that should show to the world are the best looking ones and then prepare and mark Face1 and Face2 accordingly.

 

[custard]

I think there's a more significant truth behind all this.

You apply marks to furniture components for six main reasons,

1. Indicating location of components in a finished piece (all these drawer components are for the left top drawer, and this is the right drawer side).
2. Indicating the most attractive layout (a cabinet maker's triangle on a table top before jointing)
3. Indicating true face side and a related true edge (interestingly, if you use a Domino machine you may well want to add a mark for a true end)
4. Indicating the direction for planing or feeding through a machine
5. Indicating the location of a fastening or a joint (i.e. a mortice "squiggle" so you don't mix things up)
6. Indicating a master reference position (in jointed chairmaking, especially with curved components, you'll often have a datum position marked from which all measurements are taken)

Depending upon individual circumstances you might need all, or none, of these marks. So just apply some common sense, they're conventions that are there to assist, not iron rules that mustn't be broken.

As Sgian Dubh pointed out, in the machine age having square components is almost free of cost and therefore standard practise, so there's less requirement to be fussy about marking. In a hand tool workshop square faces are expensive in terms of labour costs, so you have as few as necessary and mark them carefully.

 

[David C]

Point 4 is crucial to my mind and not often mentioned.

I have a modified version of face mark, which gives planing direction of that surface. It is combined with a "Fibre" mark, which represents the lie of the tubes in that surface.

Thus all information for the component is store on face and on edge. If one is planed or machined away it can be replaced without having to squint at the grain "Tubes" again.

This is explained in my third book.

David

 

[Trafalgar]

The act of hand planing to a certain thickness essentially produces the equivalent of a machined board if one registers the gauge to the true face when marking to thickness (as of course one should).

I always mark the direction of the grain as best as it can be determined, especially on panel glue-ups.

I'm not so sure that the militant cap iron crowd wouldn't assert this as totally unnecessary, since one can *supposedly* plane in any and all directions with nary a bit of tearout if one 'learns the capiron.' :roll:

 

[David C]

That's funny..

David

 

[Trafalgar]

I guess the folks who claim to have not used sandpaper or a scraper in 40 years just pick a board up and go. They'll tell you that grain direction doesn't matter if you have a cap iron equipped hand plane so one assumes that in their shop it really doesn't, and therefore determining grain direction is a quaint relic of the past.

So David you can strike No. 4 off your list. :wink:

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

?

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

I'm not sure it qualifies as a crowd, I thought there were only three people in the world who are initiated in "the secret of the capiron",

 

[D_W]

If there are only three, i'm certainly not in that group (though I recognize the effectiveness off it). Of all of the things that could be planed without sanding or scraping though, I would think drawer fronts would be at the top of the list.

Panels, etc, with poorly arranged grain....certainly you'd rather be able to plane everything with the grain (only sanding will make those uniform at the joint - scraping won't unless the wood is relatively hard).

 

[Sgian Dubh]

I always mark the direction of the grain as best as it can be determined, especially on panel glue-ups.

I'm not so sure that the militant cap iron crowd wouldn't assert this as totally unnecessary, since one can *supposedly* plane in any and all directions with nary a bit of tearout if one 'learns the capiron.'

Yes, and all those planing masters apparently finish straight over their planed perfection - never a need for a scraper or a bit of abrasive paper. Which suggests to me they might live in some sort of dream world, or they're good at spinning a yarn to those of a credulous disposition. I've yet to witness a woodworker actually achieve such planing nirvana in a commercial setting. Slainte.

 

[D_W]

Richard, stop in my side of the States if you come over here again.

I will say, it's not something I can claim I've done on curved surfaces, but that's fine. Otherwise, anything flat that's not veneer (perhaps that would be fine, too) is fair game for plane and then nothing.

We're talking about drawer fronts in this case. To not be able to plane them, they'd have to be something really awful. And it takes longer to do something else other than plane them, that's the part I don't get about why sanding is such a winning strategy.

(I sanded my kitchen cabinets, by the way, and I've sanded some small mouldings where I didn't feel like making a scraper, but they do look pretty dull compared to the adjacent surfaces. )

I'm a little bit baffled by all of you guys who are many times more accomplished than me ..but can't seem to regularly rely on planing to finish most surfaces (and all of the flat ones). If you don't want to, that's fine, but to say that it can't be done? Baffling.

 

[Trafalgar]

I'm not sure it qualifies as a crowd, I thought there were only three people in the world who are initiated in "the secret of the capiron",

It is certainly an elite group of people you've never heard of. This much is for sure.

 

[D_W]

I'm not sure it qualifies as a crowd, I thought there were only three people in the world who are initiated in "the secret of the capiron",

It is certainly an elite group of people you've never heard of. This much is for sure.

It's a pretty new (re-new) thing, eh? The only guy who is actually doing it makes a living off of his work. Certainly, he has no clue what he's talking about if he makes a living without needing subsidy from a spouse or museum or school/college/instructional job.

Brian Holcombe does a pretty good job demonstrating a planed surface that's been worked up with a double iron. Certainly he doesn't complain about how hard it is to be a member of the secret society. It was pretty easy to put two planes in his hands, because I knew he'd know how to use them.

The rest of you guys, I'm not sure if you could figure it out with the cap iron included and the adjuster excluded. Again...you guys are "so accomplished" but somehow you're in the weeds on something really simple. I don't get it, never will.

 

[Paddy Roxburgh]

David,
most of the boards I plane are just fine with a smoother, I also find that setting the cap iron close can help when the grain is unruly, however the last couple of days I've been planning loads of ash for a boat I'm fitting out. The boards are from quite small trees with many branches (loads of knots and swirl). The grain is often going in opposite directions on either side of the boards and there is no choice but to come from the other direction. Around the knots on some of the boards I revert to the no. 80 and sometimes the card scraper. Having read your threads lately about how you never get tearout because of some "new" development with the capiron placement I sometimes think of you when I encounter places of swirly grain that I cannot smooth with a no.4. I even watched your video about the capiron and as far as I could gather you said the same as I was taught at school in the early 80s, set it close but not too close. I never really turn to the belt sander in these situations, but the no.80 and card scrapers all the time. On the external decks we often use iroko which whilst being mostly knot free the grain is often alternating along the length of the boards, again there are bits that cannot be finished with a no.4.
Recently I built a bed and some shelves in a boat from oak and sycamore. Both timbers had knots and swirl but both were totally doable with a smoothable with a no.4 and the no. 80 stayed in the cupboard.
Up till now I have not commented on your threads, but it is just not realistic to claim that all boards can be planned without tearout, no matter how well the cap is set and how sharp the iron (this certainly seems to be what your claiming correct me if I'm wrong) some timber does not behave. Straight grained timber from large trees with few branches, fine, but that makes for some boring looking finished work. There are many on here (ukw) who are much more skilled woodworkers than me, I spend at least half my time at work shotblasting, welding and painting (although i really try, often unsuccessfully to avoid mechanics). All of them have strategies to deal with difficult timber, be it scraping, sanding, back bevels, high angle bevel ups. The reason for this is that they are dealing with timber that does not behave well. This is often the timber that is most attractive On another current thread Custard remarked that the no.80 doesn't work that well on softer hardwoods and pines, that made me reflect that on these timbers I generally don't need to scrape them as a well set sharp plane is usually sufficient. If you never need anything other than a number 4 to finish boards it is because the boards you are using are not problematic. The people you refer too I have never heard of, and the conversations on forums about capirons I have never read, until I started reading this form last year I had never posted on any internet forum of any description and not read many.
By the way I use stanley and record jacks and smoothers (two jacks with differing cambers, one is more like a scrub) and a wooden double iron jointer, I have no experience of premium planes and have never really believed they would make a big difference (although I do have a quangsheng block plane and it is very nice). I also prep most, but not all, of my boards on a planer thicknesser and have all the main workshop machines in big three phase versions. I do a lot of my work at the bench but it is not possible to do the work I do entirely by hand as sometimes great volumes of timber needs to be resawn and prepped. I am, in my limited free time making a ukulele for my daughter for Christmas and this I am resawing and planning by hand, 50 2 meter boards of ash for the boat fitout, no chance.
As far as subsidys go I am a single parent who works like a dog for sod all money, my only subsidy is I'm kind of used to being poor.

Believe me I would love to be wrong about this as never having tearout would be great, that said picking up a no. 80 is no great hardship.
All the best Paddy