Two questions regarding Gustav Stickley drop-front desk #732

[dzj]

Can anyone shed some light on the purpose of the 2 small rails?
Decorative? No obvious function on any other pictures I found through Google.

Also why were these indentations/ depressions made in the top edges of the drawer sides?
Again, was there a functional side to them or just decorative?
I see the Stickleys gave up on it in later years.

 

[Brentingby]

The 1910 Gustav Stickley catalogue shows those rails not only on the #732 desk, but also on #720, #728, and #731. In all cases they are there but unused. Perhaps they supported an optional tray with an inkwell.

I didn't find anything in the catalogue showing it so it's just a guess. Gustav Stickley did offer a double inkwell that looks like it might have fit into the opening.

As for the detail on the drawer sides, they would make fitting the drawer much easier at the factory. They would also prevent the drawer from sticking badly if the drawer sides swelled with seasonal humidity changes. The drawer front, being made from quarter sawn oak, wouldn't change dimension much but the drawer sides could expand. Even if it did stick, you'd only need to pull the drawer out a couple of inches to get it loose.

 

[dzj]

Yes, an ink well might be a clue. Perhaps the ledges are for storing dip pens and such.

 

[Brentingby]

I was thinking that the inkwell would sit on those rails. I doubt they'd make such narrow rails for holding the pens. Maybe there was a metal tray to hold pens and the inkwell slid into the bottom.

 

[dzj]

Sure, that's possible. I see in their catalogue they did metalwork also.
Maybe they had standard sized products...

 

[Brentingby]

The inkwell in the photo I shared is listed as 11” l x 7” w x 3-1/4” 11" wide for that opening seems about right.

 

[AndyT]

On the drawer sides - I agree with Brentingby that this looks like a simple approach to making the fronts fit well when the drawers are closed, while leaving the drawers loose enough never to jam when partly opened.

I have seen something similar on an English chest of drawers (1920s) that my parents had. The drawer fronts fitted nicely, but the drawer sides were only full thickness at the front - behind the lap dovetails, the thickness diminished by 2-3mm on each side. The profile looked as if it was done with a big belt sander.

 

[Brentingby]

Some makers cut the drawer backs 2-3 mm shorter than the fronts so the drawer box tapers so it doesn't bind at the back.

 

[dzj]

I read somewhere that Stickley made drawers 1/8" smaller than the front on each side, so fitting the drawer would be easier even for a not so
competent workman. A tight fit was made possible via a center rail affixed underneath the drawer.

 

[custard]

Interesting about the drawer sides. Here in the UK, with a relatively stable maritime climate, we sometimes forget the truly massive humidity swings that need to be allowed for when selling furniture right across the continental USA. I have noticed that overlap drawer fronts were that bit more common in American antiques than in British antiques, and I've wondered if it was to allow the maker to construct drawers with a looser fit, but without big unsightly gaps at the drawer top? Maybe it was an automatic reflex for an American manufacturer to assume that if they don't have the luxury of overlay drawer fronts then they'll definitely need a device such as these reduced drawer sides to prevent customer complaints?

 

[AndyT]

That's a good point, Custard, and a useful reminder to anyone following US books, videos, blogs etc - they go on about movement a lot, but their challenges are greater than we face over here. (Except for Phil in Cornwall, of course!)