Subject: Once more into the breach....

From: [email-masked] (Tom Perigrin)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:58:49 GMT

You would think that I'd learn... but no, I guess I'm too old.    Everytime
I dare to make critical comments about Norm Abrams technique I get flamed
up one side and down the other.  But being an iconoclast is partly it's own
reward.

So, once more into the breach dear freinds, once more into the breach.

This weekend I watched NYW....  Norm was building some sort of dough chest
(I tuned in halfway and missed the introduction).   The thing was a horror
of cross grain construction.   Now, that situation can be historically
accurate.  Many country items that would see hard usage would be made
cheaply, on the thought that it would be used up in a few years anyway - so
why spend a lot of time making it "well".   But then again, I wonder how
many people following the NYW knew that the thing is well designed to tear
itself to broken boards?

Anyway, about half way through the program Norm made a few comments about
"cross grain construction".  "Kewl", thinks I, "He is going to deal with
it".  Nope,  he mentions it, and then (how shall I say this to avoid
flamage?  Ah, bugger 'em)  he ****s up.

For example...  the front and back boards.  Nice WIDE glued up boards, over
a foot wide or horizontal grain.   These are attached to the endpieces,
which are vertical grained.  Precisely the sort of cross grain construction
that will cause problems.   How did people deal with this in the past? 
Well, they either made the furniture to be expendable (see above), or they
used an attachment only at the bottom and sliding dados up the sides, or
they used buttons on the inside.   How did Norm deal with it?  He used
Bisquicks.  Now he made some comment about "putting each biscuit in the
middle of the board".  Okay, so he only has 6" between the bisquicks...
that means that the boards will only move (3/16"/foot) about 3/32" of an
inch.   Either that will tear out the bisquicks, or it will split the front
and back boards.   OH WELL.

How about the bottom?  This shouldn't be such a problem, since the
expansion of the grain on the bottom is the same way as the expansion of
the grain on the ends.  BUT, Norm decides to use a cross grained cleat to
support the bottom, thus CAUSING a cross grained problem.   However,
acknowledging the cross grained problem, he says "I will only put glue in
the middle".  I wasn't sure how sturdy that would be,  and I think Norm
wasn't either... because he immediately uses his blow gun to bang in
"brahds" in the middle, and on each end.   So much for expansion!   Them
nails on the end will have to pull out (followed by the cute sound of the
bottom dropping out, and the contents hitting the floor.  Do NOT store your
crystal in this puppie!).  

Now, historically how would this have been dealt with?  Well, if Norm had
just used two short blocks on each corner, then there would NOT have been a
cross grained problem.  Or, one can run a dado across the end, and set the
bottom into the dado.  OR, I have seen some lovely old chests (including a
14'th C one in Kulturen Museum in Lund, Sweden), which has cross bars M&T
joined into the front and back sides, which carry the bottom.   The bars
are secured on the front and free to expand and contract through the M&T on
the back.  Very good construction.  Many ways to deal with this...   a
cross grained cleat affixed at ends and middle is NOT one of them.

Finally, I liked the idea of using a "dutchman" to fix the imperfections in
the wood.  Much better than the armoire he made a month or so ago where he
filled the hole with some horrible plastic that never matched the stain
color.  But WHY didn't he make the tiniest effort to match grain?  The
board was flat sawn, and he used what was essentialy a quarter sawn patch. 
It was very noticable.  Oh well, thats just personal preference... maybe he
wanted the patch to be noticed as a design element.

Don't order his "measuhed drahings", unless you want to make something that
will tear itself apart with humidty changes.  

Tom

------

Due to the increasing prevelance of bulk mail senders that automatically
extract names from newsgroup postings, I have had to "bugger" my e-mail
address.   To send email directly to me, please remove the "*" in my e-mail
address.

---

From: "Casey " <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Feb 1997 21:41:52 GMT

No, Tom, please. Don't hold back...
I tend to agree with your observations. Norm is relying on the fact that
this thing is literally steeped in polyurethane, and is "hermetically
sealed" against changes in humidity. That's the only thing that may keep it
>from  tearing itself apart. If he'd made it as a two-piece (chest on base)
it would have been possible to engineer in some better details, and looked
better, I think. Norm declared at the end that this
three-coat-varnish-stain was to become his "preferred finish" for pine, now
that he'd discovered it. 
BTW, to my ears it sounds like measured "drahwring".
Casey

Tom Perigrin <[email-masked]> wrote in article
<[email-masked]>...
> of cross grain construction