Joshua Klein's Banister-back chair

[Sheffield Tony]

Whilst waiting for the finish to dry on my lath back chair, I've been dipping in to Mortise & Tenon magazine, Issue 2. Particularly Joshua Klein's banister-back chair. For my not-quite-a-set off four chairs, I want four different back styles, so far I have a spindle back, ladder back and a lath back. Perhaps here's an idea for the fourth. Not the whole, rather imposing chair you understand, just this feature.

There are some pictures here from the magazine. He's making a reproduction of a museum piece. The back elements are slightly less than half a spindle, split in half lengthwise, with the flat face facing forwards against the back of the sitter, and the rounded surface at the back. If two were put back together, there would be about 1/4" missing from the centre of the round.

To make these elements, he uses hide glue to make a sandwich of two pieces of wood with a piece of sacrificial poplar, 1/4" thick, as the "filling". He then turns the lot on the pole lathe, and steams them back apart to get the half round spindles. Now, this is not how I would have assumed it was done. I would have assumed that you would simply turn a spindle and saw (or even rive) it in half the hard way. But he dismisses this, I think because of the risk of damaging the turnings during the sawing. But the turned surface is rear-facing, and as discussed in the article, imperfections are quite common on rear or downward facing parts of a spindle. And it's going to painted.


So, let's give my method a go:

Four half round back spindles, made by turning on the pole lathe and sawing in two (the other bits are the two curved back rails). My nerve wasn't quite up to riving them. Once the sawn face was planed smooth, the lost material is about the 1/4" mentioned. I find it very hard to believe that someone for whom time means money would be messing around gluing bits together then steaming them back apart, rather than doing it this way ?

 

[ED65]

Interesting to speculate on how this was done on the original. Although I think there's a 50:50 chance you're right these could easily have been glued, but not in the way Klein is doing it. If a paper joint were used instead of glueing wood to wood when the turning was completed the parts could simply have been prised apart with a chisel.

There is good supporting evidence for the use of a paper joint in production work since the method is still in use in places, including in Alpine-horn making.

 

[dzj]

Time-wise, I think that gluing/ steaming isn't much different than ripping by hand.
Might even be faster as once the ungluing is done, you're already at the joinery phase.
Also, sometimes a rip cut can release internal tension and the two halves
might deform.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Cut the two halves over length and screw the (sacrificial) ends together? Or just glue the ends? Probably safer.

 

[Sheffield Tony]

But in the article he is talking about using green wood for the parts turned on a pole lathe, the original being dated 1720-1800. In which case it could be riven quickly from a log, no flat faces to glue join. You would select and cleave the billet to minimise movement.

The glue together and turn seems to me the thinking of one used to working milled, seasoned wood.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Yes, of course. Although I suppose you try splitting it first then fixing the ends back - at least if it didn't split cleanly you wouldn't waste any work or time.

 

[dzj]

So basically, the question is whether greenwood can be glued with hyde glue
well enough that you are confident to turn such a piece?
Must admit, I don't know the answer.