That's okay Dennis, you were late to the party I guess. Forgive my grumpiness. The topic of the toolbox is broken up into multiple threads so finding such info is not straightforward, and in truth I don't always take time to explain the rationale behind the joinery choices in this situation. I figure that the project is complex enough without adding in a discussion of technical options - though I do have some discussion of such anyway.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 critique is indeed unwarranted, so my apology to Paul as well.
I struggle with the issue of whether to expose joinery or not in every piece of furniture I make, pretty much. Largely what drives the decision making process in recent years and months has been to configure the joinery on the basis of no adhesive and placing a high value on demountability/repairability. This has moved me away from the type of concealed joinery work the sashimono-shi like. But they don't build things with an idea of making them last as long as possible, now do they? They also make products within a culture where one may expect the handling of the piece to be more gentle over time than in the west.
I place the joinery choice very high in importance, however overall form would be more important. In other words, find the joinery to solve the problem, not find the form to suit the joinery. The good thing is that overall form can often be achieved with a number of different joinery options. My first choice is generally towards a demountable connection, where a pin can be driven out and the parts disassembled. Next is a connection where the mechanism is obvious, but the pin or wedge would need to be excavated. Next in preference are connections, like hell tenons, which cannot be taken apart except destructively - these connections I try to restrict to sub-assemblies. Least preferable are connections which are concealed and require glue to hold together. In the last to preferences mentioned, the problem is that the joint is concealed, so someone coming to repair the piece down the line cannot be expected to discern that a concealed connection can even be reversed. For example, a carcase corner using secret mitered dovetails - even with the use of a reversible glue, I suspect that a person looking at the assembled joint would simply presume that it was fastened with non-reversible glue and was simply connected with one of the more common expediencies used these days.
My admiration for classic Chinese furniture is greater than for any other, and their combination of using very hard woods and demountable construction is something I want to emulate.