Makin' Trays

User avatar
Paul Atzenweiler
Deshi
Contact:
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:37 pm

Re: Makin' Trays

Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:20 pm

That is one very nice finish!!! I had already used the tung oil though which I may regret. Here is the finished box.
Attachments
finished 4.jpg
finished 4.jpg (185.67 KiB) Viewed 6467 times
finished 3.jpg
finished 3.jpg (237 KiB) Viewed 6467 times
finished 2.jpg
finished 2.jpg (168.67 KiB) Viewed 6467 times
finished 1.jpg
finished 1.jpg (188.67 KiB) Viewed 6467 times
finished 5.jpg
End view with handles.
finished 5.jpg (168 KiB) Viewed 6467 times
User avatar
Chris Hall
Site Admin
Contact:
Location: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:46 pm

Re: Makin' Trays

Wed Nov 26, 2014 6:16 pm

I think that came out very well - appreciate the honesty of the close-up pictures.
User avatar
Brian
Deshi
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Makin' Trays

Sat Nov 29, 2014 4:04 pm

Very fine work Paul!
User avatar
Chris Hall
Site Admin
Contact:
Location: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:46 pm

Re: Makin' Trays

Wed Dec 24, 2014 7:38 pm

An interesting piece which I think well supports your use of un-glued dovetails:

http://www.akeda.com/documents/DovetailAngle.pdf
"An unexpected result was that the failure point was lower when the joints were glued than when they were assembled dry. This appears to be due to the wedging action of the dry joints, where the joint is allowed to slide partially apart, putting the tails into compression across the grain, and thus increasing the shear strength of the wood fibers."
indranil
Lurker
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 9:53 pm

Re: Makin' Trays

Thu Dec 25, 2014 7:45 am

Paul Atzenweiler wrote:That is one very nice finish!!! I had already used the tung oil though which I may regret. Here is the finished box.
Superb craftmanship. I wish I had even a fraction of your talent!
User avatar
Paul Atzenweiler
Deshi
Contact:
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 204
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:37 pm

Re: Makin' Trays

Thu Dec 25, 2014 5:05 pm

Mr. Indranil, thanks for the compliment but if I can do it . . . .
I hope the dovetails on my trays aren't subjected to the stress they put on the test joints. In reality the strength of my trays lies in the wedged tenons. I found it fascinating that not gluing the joint actually had some advantages (even though it was short lived). I've seen some test results that showed glued finger/box joints were stronger than glued dovetails (I'm sure for the reasons pointed out in this article). Thanks for posting that article.
De
Dennis

Re: Makin' Trays

Fri Dec 26, 2014 10:30 am

Unless an exercise in the technique, or perhaps seen as an unavoidable compromise for the way something is desired to be built with the structural integrity that is obtained from so many through wedged tenons, I find the visual effect rather confusing to the eye, and much detracting from the overall appearance of the work. Design requires prioritising the desired effects from the visual details, in combination with the appearance of the wood. Subtlety and restraint can be very positive influences that say more about mastery than a lot of elements going on.
User avatar
Chris Hall
Site Admin
Contact:
Location: Greenfield, Massachusetts
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 12:46 pm

Re: Makin' Trays

Fri Dec 26, 2014 11:21 pm

Dennis,

it's a study project, the point being to work on through tenons primarily. So, yes, an exercise in technique. This is after all the 'Joinery Study' section of the forum. The toolbox was Project 1.

Comments about the aesthetic merits of this piece are rather unwarranted in my view. It's really besides the point. The toolbox was my design, and I accept your observations. However, if you wish to critique, then perhaps you might also wish to put forward your own design for an all wooden joined toolbox employing no glue or metal fasteners. Let's see what you come up with, given those constraints.

I remember receiving this same critique from you in the past ("I find it confusing...") in regards to the very first (and only) chairs I had ever built. You are thrown off by seeing joinery, or at least a lot of joinery - it rubs you the wrong way. I guess you find exposed tenons and joinery confusing or something, which I find puzzling, but okay, it's how you look at things or were taught to look at things I guess. To each their own. That chair has remained good to sit in and has maintained perfect integrity in structure since it was made. Were I to make another one, I'm sure I would evolve the design, and i would love to have the opportunity. By the way, what did your first chair look like? How might you critique it?

Now, on questions of aesthetics - - well, everyone has an opinion. '10 people, 10 opinions', as the Japanese say. If this were the year 1850, then sure, I recognize that joined work with no overt joinery mechanisms visible is evidence of a high class of work. Does such work make sense for a toolbox?

I agree with the idea of clean lines, letting the wood do the talking, etc. However in this day and age, when I see no joinery in evidence on a piece, I expect the work, in 99 cases out of 100, to be connected with dowels and 'nasty wafer' joints, etc. The trappings of mass production. So, such an aesthetic now signifies quite the opposite for me: run of the mill junk. What signified one thing in 1850 (no joinery) no longer signifies the same thing today I'm afraid.

It is also the case that the simpler expressed joints are generally stronger than the variations where material is apportioned in the joint to hide the mechanism. And I like expressed joinery. I think a lot of people do as well. Through-tenons are challenging in that you can't fudge the mortising work or it will show. Hence the choice. It pushes the student to do clean cut out, unlike blind tenons.

And all of this aesthetic consideration is perhaps moot since 99% of the non-woodworker observers of a piece will not notice these details in any case or will misunderstand their meaning. And I've had plenty of woodworkers come by and look at my chair and other joined pieces and they are largely oblivious to the details. I watch people and see what they look at, what they notice. They don't notice what I hope they might - ever. So, who is the audience then who cares about these matters? It boils down to in the end: did the student find a challenge and meet it? Did the construction of the toolbox prove to be a rewarding project? The only person who needs to be satisfied, in the end, is the maker, it seems to me.

I am delighted if any student even makes it through the project frankly - only two or three so far have done so. I may well have made it too difficult a project, but I am also learning as I go in my role here, and trying to meet the students at the halfway point, providing just the right amount of difficulty and interest. It's not an easy task, and I would seem to fail more often than not.

Dennis, if you were to come up with an organized process of study for joinery, would you proceed from simple to complex, or do something different? Consider that I could have chosen to make most or all the joints in the toolbox concealed, employing hell tenons and so forth, but given that it was the very first study group project - and simply a toolbox - well, it seemed challenging enough I thought. I consider the higher class concealed joinery to be something to save for later on in the study process. I would hope this makes sense to you.

I could have done the usual nailed-together simple Japanese toolbox, but that is offered elsewhere, in ample abundance, and, well, isn't much of a joinery exercise. I don't much care for nailed-together construction of any kind - I don't care if the Japanese goddess of carpentry commands such methods to be the 'Way' -she can fly a kite for all I care....
De
Dennis

Re: Makin' Trays

Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:40 am

Sorry, Chris, i wouldn't begin to think of criticising an assigned project, and it is clear from your response that your criteria was attained in an excellent way by Paul. Before I posted, I read the thread closely and couldn't seem to find where the layout was specified with the degree of exposed joinery that is shown in the completed project. I didn't properly ascertain the concept. The first posts showed the design, but it didn't seem clear that entirely through dovetails were the assignment. I might have well missed something, but I wanted to make no mistake. I figured the aesthetic was an individual choice. A critigue is indeed unwarranted, so my apology to Paul as well.

Yes, I do recall our communication about exposed joinery before. Frequent use of exposed tenons does catch my eye in what I feel is a negative way, and I also can concur that such things are in the eye of the beholder. That being said, I trust my own eye, one has to if you get out there in the world and try to make a living based upon it, sometimes the need to install your own confidence honestly into perspective clients. There isn't much survivable room for a lack of a certain degree of self assurance. A maker asking himself what he wants to have the work reveal in terms of the order of visual effects, seems like a simple and good question to have in one's mind when approaching design, something once told to me by a professional photographer in Japan many years ago, by the way. I thought that it could be helpful to mention that about an order as a part of seeing. A mute point in this thread as you point out. An abundance of exposed joinery is soften seen in newer work. Having looked at a lot woodwork, a library of books and years of work work first hand at museums to contemporary exhibitions, one gets opinions. To clarify, when it comes to design, I don't get confused by exposed joinery, just what I consider the use of too much of it in the visual sense, where it makes your eye bounce around not knowing where to land. Perhaps a consideration in part from seeing Edo sashimono woodwork, where exposed joinery was considered crude, exposed end grain in general, with very highly perfected skill eliminated the need for it to be seen.

It certainly would require an investment of time to see if there is another solution to the problem that you have posed in the assignment, strong construction without an adhesive. You are obviously very thoughtful and thorough about such an exploration. Visual harmony holds equal importance to me to construction and durability, but that is my own concept, and as I say, inappropriate for me to mention it here as applying to the project. Yes, everyone has their own slant on design. There are some good books on it too if still in print, by the recognised experts, if anyone is curious. It's interesting to see if you agree, based upon the photos comparing the same design done by different approaches.

My first chair, some kind of early design Windsor I believe, a copy, and not my own specs, something assigned to bring up some history for a lecture that someone gave. Naive can add a good quality over lack of skill in some cases where the work isn't too demanding, perhaps my own minimal experience along similar lines to the person that made the original, though he likely resided in the Beech woods in a peasant's hut, where my hut had electricity.

Your project makes very clear sense, Chris. Thanks for illuminating.
Last edited by Dennis on Sat Dec 27, 2014 10:32 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Brian
Deshi
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Makin' Trays

Sat Dec 27, 2014 9:59 am

I use a good deal of exposed joinery but quite frankly people do not migrate to that first, they first look at the overall aesthetic. If they look further and start to notice the details they will notice the exposed joinery and usually ask me what they're looking at.

Most do not know what they are looking at, and thus consider joinery to be a design choice rather than a structural choice, so we are left to determine wether to show the joinery or not.

I'm a consumer as well as a craftsman and I do very much care for what goes into the object I'm purchasing. I do a great deal of research on manufacturing processes and material choices before purchasing and will not buy something that is poorly constructed for the sake of aesthetic since I believe that something must be built well in addition to being good looking.

My personal requirements hinge on the intended use, and for more formal pieces I will use less exposed joinery. For pieces that I want to 'look' strong in addition to being strong I will expose more of the joinery. This piece, goals aside, is intended for shop use and in my opinion is right at home using exposed joinery.

Return to “Project 1: The Tool Box”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests