Plan here

Woodworking is an exercise in problem solving. There are two kinds of problems, the ones that life pushes on you, and the ones that you create for yourself. The later is usually the more difficult to deal with.

I started to plan and build a wall cabinet inspired by James Krenovs work, a little outside the sphere of work that people have come to expect from me. Taking a shot at it is one part prove to myself I can, one part prove to the world I can, and one part "because I just want to, thats why." The inspiration was a pair of pine boards I found in a pile at the home store and immediately visualized as doors for this kind of cabinet.


In my own way, I decided to build the doors first. You can read about them HERE. Standard logic says you should build the carcass first and fit the doors to it. As Ive said before, here at the Oldwolf Workshop we follow the standard substandard logic. Now my logic had forced me to reverse engineer the carcass.


I had a nice 5/4 cherry board with some great grain, a little interesting but not in a crazy way, and I thought it would make a nice compliment to the wildness of the pine doors. At a little over eight foot of board I had just enough to squeeze the four sides out of the one board.


I planed and worked the boards flat and square on all surfaces. Not killing for a universal thickness. hand work allows you some freedom in millimeters of variation one board to another, just working for surfaces as true and square as possible.


One of my personal challenges for this build is to work without taking measurements. That is to say, Im not interested in using numbers to size things. Im trying to work more by eye and with a sense of proportion rather than follow out a plan of known measurements from a scaled drawing. Ive been reaching for story sticks, sectors and dividers instead of my folding rule and tape measure.

The cabinet is to be as wide as the doors with through dovetail joints in the corners. I laid out the doors with a couple coins in between to help set the gap, and laid the roughly sized carcass end on top. I squared one end and used a pencil to scribe the width of the doors onto the blank. Scribing with a sharp pencil can come close but will still leave a couple thousandths of an inch wide. This was OK with me and I knew there would be sanding and more surface removal to do on the carcass after it was assembled so its a planned overshoot.

If the end result of the carcass is more narrow than the doors, I will plane the doors down a little more to get the fit and look Im after.

I re-marked the pencil line square with a tri-square. (It wasnt really off much more than a wiggle of the wrist) and sawed down, splitting the pencil line. Then I took the other carcass end and sized one to the other until they matched.


With the ends done I began on the sides. I laid out a door and the carcass ends and butted the side to them. The ends are included because in the final idea the top and bottom of the carcass have a curved profile that moves out proud of the doors and the carcass sides will snuggle behind them.

I marked this set up on the side, squared the line, cut down the side and sized the other carcass side to the first.

The most difficult part of all. Having to wait until I completed all the joinery (dovetails, rebates, and dados) before I could find out if I had done things well.

Ratione et Passionis.
Oldwolf

I was just beginning to stick my toe into the ocean that can be the online woodworking community. I had found some forums, I had started to write this blog, and by consequence, I had started to get a look at other woodworking blogs out there. One of the first and best I have ever found was Joiners Notes by Peter Follansbee.

For me, a woodworker with a deep interest in history and by combining default historical woodworking, Peters blog is the perfect storm of interest and content for me, his writing is straightforward yet scholarly. He is so well versed and studied, truly an expert and master with a soft spoken delivery. If you dont know his blog or his work I suggest you go and check them out.

The most obvious thing that sets Peters work apart from other guys out there is the carving that covers every one of his pieces. I also harbor an interest in decorative carving, Ive added it to a lot of trunks and other things Ive built, usually Celtic Knot-work designs. I started carving using a rotary tool and burr, and I always wanted to work with the real deal carving tools but I had no idea how to work or how to start. Peters blog was a great first instruction on the basic tools and how to use them.

At first glance his reproduction carving work looks like some insanely complicated patterns, something I believed would be beyond me, but then I started to catch some videos out there on Peter and his technique. Like THIS one posted on You Tube by The Village Carpenter, but even better is his appearance on The Woodwrights Shop where he talks about making "bible boxes" That episode you can watch online HERE. He gave me enough to get started, I picked up a couple carving chisels to get started, a "V" tool and a shallow gouge, and using some of what I learned watching him I did the carving on the front of my Medieval Hutch Chest.
I wanted to get more in depth into learning how Peter carries out his work, then Lie-Nielsen came out with an announcement that they were producing a video featuring Peter and his carving techniques. I dont buy many woodworking videos, I just happen to prefer books, personal preference, but this was one I was gonna pick up.
It is everything that you come to expect from Peter. Packed full of information and a detailed and thoughtful breakdown of every aspect of carving in his style. The patterns are broken down into simple steps and you are shown how to draw them out simply with a compass so you can adjust them for different width boards. In this video you are not just given a fish, as in here is two patterns you can carve if you do it this way, you are taught to fish, so you can take the lessons learned here and adapt them to other patterns and projects. I have found that since this video I look at carvings in a different way than I used to. I am not overwhelmed by the over all effect of them anymore because now I can see the different steps and stages that go into them, and in my mind I can start to break that down into a series of moves.

On the disk there are also a couple of .pdfs that can be printed out. One shows in full scale the impressions of the chisels used in the video, so even in the confusing world of carving chisel numbers and names, you can print the sheet off, take it into your friendly neighborhood woodworking store and score the same thing. There are other sheets that illustrate the starting moves for arches and a break down of the step of carving the pattern.

Heres my admission, this video is less than stimulating for people who are not interested in learning about Peters specific techniques. My wife can only watch around 5 minutes or so before she has had enough and needs to find something else to do. I love that there is no cut away, no time elapse, there is just Peter pounding out a carving in real time, and he does make quick work of it. Honestly, the first time I tried to watch the video I was excited that it had arrived, but I had finished a long day at work and life and I wasnt completely in the right frame of mind to sit and learn. I just wanted to pop it in because it was new. In about 20 minutes Peters smooth, soft spoken voice had me dozing off in my chair. (In his defense, I can fall asleep during an action movie if the days been long enough, so I blame myself for this, not Mr. Follansbee)

A couple of days later I returned to the culprit chair and the DVD remote in different circumstances, this time I watched the whole thing, and I have watched it in whole and in part several times since. If you pick up this video I would think about bringing it right into the shop with you, on your laptop or portable DVD player, so you can work right alongside it. Figuring out the work while you watch it and creating some muscle memory to go along with it.

For my part I find Peter Follansbee very inspiring and motivating and this video only adds to that. I have read books on carving and there is something to them that bogs down, that gets lost in translation. Carving is an art of motion, it is one of the few things I believe translates best on video. Turning may be the the other thing that comes to mind first. If you are looking to expand your skill set and add hand carving to your repertoire then I suggest this video as a good place to start. It has convinced me that the level of work that peter does is not only accessible and achievable, but in a lot of ways (in my humble opinion) preferable to other methods of achieving such a look.

It did inspire me into one big purchase with the tax return money this year. before I owned the video I owned these two carving chisels.
After the video I felt like I could justify a few more chisels, at an area antique mall I had been watching this set in its case for a couple years, always surprised when I went in and found them there. Well they arent there anymore, theyre in my shop now.
I have to clean them up a little and they all need some sharpening or honing, but Im excited to break wood with these babies soon.

If you havent seen it there is a preview of video Lie-Nielsen posted on You Tube. You can watch that preview HERE

Cheers
Oldwolf

The roof framing is done!

Next, it was time to begin the sheathing.  I sheathed & sheathed, until I ran out of sheathing . . .

Given that the weather here is a constant -2˚C (around 28˚F) and we havent seen the sun in weeks, it is not conducive to working in my shop, which, in case you were unaware, is currently located on the balcony of my apartment. Thankfully, we are moving into a new residence and I will be able to return to sawing, chiseling, and in general, whacking away on wood by the end of next month.

As I currently cannot spend time being intimate with a hand tool, I had to figure out something to keep my brain functioning and keep myself moving forward in my quest to master the art of putting two pieces of wood together so they stay that way. I could; of course, while away my hours cruising the web looking for more technical information, but the creative juices are humming so I must find a “fix”.

Before I get carried away in this writing and forget, did you see the latest video WoodTrek.com has posted? I don’t know anyone who isn’t fascinated by carving, whether actually doing it, or just looking at it. Keith’s latest video documentary has Brad Ramsay, of Irion Company, showing us more of his magic with a gouge, this time explaining how to hold it, motivate it and direct it. Definitely an informative filled 4 1/2 minutes.

All right, back to what I plan on doing with my next month.

Creating furniture, whether on a small scale like me, or pumping out whacking big armoires, all require an understanding of design. I have spent a lifetime in design, in one form or another; either in photography, graphic design, architecture and interior design, and have spent a lifetime studying the basis to ensure those designs have been commercially successful. The one thing I have never done, though, is put any formal thought into the in’s and out’s of designing furniture. This abundance of arrogance or lack of understanding has been proven time and again as I have never been completely happy with any particular piece of furniture design I have come up with. While I have never been completely happy with any piece of design I have done, I have noticed that I’m even less enthralled with my furniture pieces. Thinking about it, I feel this is because I have never taken the time to properly understand the design principles that furniture design is based on. I am not alone and I am sure this phenomenon of never being happy exists in all endeavors. I really don’t know any designer who is ever happy with what he or she has produced. This, I think, is a good thing. When you complete a design of something or other and you can find no fault in it, nor find a way to improve it - sell your pencils, your done. That second guessing of yourself and that pushing for something better is what keeps a designer motivated and striving for something a bit more “perfect”.

So here is what I have come up with as a way to challenge myself over the next month and improve my furniture design skills at the same time - I’m going to design a box. That’s it. A box. You can call it a Tea Caddy, or a Jewellery Box or even a Keepsake Box, but the bottom line is that it is just a box. I plan on using this simple object as a test to see where formal knowledge about design will take you. As I complete one element of design theory I’m going to take what I learned and apply it to this simple six-sided object to see if the theory works or not. Where will it take me, I have no idea, but I expect to have a hell of a time with it and enjoy the journey. So let’s get started.

The first “rule” is one that anyone who has even glanced at a woodworking article about design will recognize - “The Golden Ratio Rule”. Now there is a whole mathematical equation behind this basic rule and even a special name for it - “Phi”. Now I have never been one to get lost in the technical side of things, and given I have a difficult time balancing my chequebook, this is definitely not the one I’m not going to start getting technical with, so let me simplify it for you.

The Golden Ratio Rule, simplified, means; to give something a pleasing balance to the eye, its height should be 60% of its total width, or visa versa. (For those that appreciate the exact, this is a “rounded off’ value. If you must, the full value is 1.6180339887498948482)

Sounds simple, doesn’t it? So lets see if it works in practice.

Below are eight shapes, all based on one dimension – 10”  (I told you I wasn’t good at math). Two employ the Golden Ratio Rule. Click on it to enlarge it and remove the distractions and see if you spot which ones employ this rule.

When you read my answers, the first calculation is always the width and the second, the height.

1. 100% x 100%, or 10” x 10”
2. 100% x 75%, or 10” x 7.5”
3. 100% x 60%, or 10” x 6” (The Golden Ratio)
4. 100% x 35%, or 10” x 3.5”
5. 35% x 100%, or 3.5” x 10”
6. 60% x 100%, or 6” x 10” (The Golden Ratio)
7. 75% x 100%, or 7.5” x 10”
8. 100% x 100%, or 10” x 10”

Analyzing each shape, here are my observations.

Numbers 1 and 8 definitely do not work for me and I will admit that my opinion is tainted in this case from experience gleaned from other design applications. Squares, while used often in modern design, have no sense of line or balance on their own. They are just, well - there. To work, a square must rely on its surroundings to give the shape proportion. As this is a box all on its own, my opinion is that a square one just won’t work.

Number 2 is one I could live with, although it appears to me to be a bit bulky. If these dimensions were to work, there would have to be some accoutrements added to force it to appear, for lack of a better word, sleeker. Staring at it, I did have to acknowledge that its height is out of proportion with its width, yet it does project a certain power, which is what I like about it.

Number 3 does work, so the rule does have teeth. The balance between its height and width is right on the money. The one thing that struck me about it, however, is that it did not evoke any feeling in me. There was no jumping up and down, screaming, “That’s the one, that’s the one!” The dimensions do not offend the eye, but they didn’t tantalize it either.

Number 4 appears too squat for me, like there is something missing. Its squat appearance, to me, is less than gratifying. It just does not draw my eye to it, and when my eye does pass over it, it keeps on going, as the shape holds no interest.

Number 5, with the same dimensions as number 4, but standing on end, looks like it will fall over in the slightest wind. At these dimension ratios, there is no stability horizontally. This shape, for me, defines the reason why I have never seen a pretty telephone pole – too skinny – too tall. You could modify this shape to improve it, like give it a prominent and wider base, and that is something to be considered.

Number 6, another sized to the Golden Ratio, but this time vertically, works, but to me, it is a toss-up between it and number 7. Number 6 is well proportioned, but it does seem to me to be slightly narrow, and therefore, a tinge unstable. It is not near as unstable as number 5, but not as stable as number 7. Again a wider base would be a huge asset to it.

Number 7, the same dimensions as number 2, works for me vertically, but has only borderline acceptance horizontally. While it is wider than the one that employs the Golden Ratio, to me it has more “presence”, more “power”. Proof of this is in the viewing. When your eye wanders from one to another within the vertical samples, it keeps coming back to this one and is held there longer than with the others. Unlike numbers 5 and 6, it does not need anything added to it to give it stability; its dimensions give that all on their own.

Another thing I noticed while viewing these shapes is that many can be categorized as “masculine” or “feminine”, especially the vertical ones. Numbers 1, 2 and 8 are seriously masculine. There is power in their dimensions, and they do not require any further additions to project that feeling of power. Number 4, with its low dimension ratio, appears to me to be very feminine. It projects a “softer” connotation than the others. You could also add number 5 to the feminine category, but really, it is just too damned skinny to be anything but a bad choice. What I find a bit fascinating, though, is that the Golden Ratio ones, numbers 3 and 6, are neither masculine nor feminine in stature. Could this be one of the reasons the Golden Ratio has been a rule of thumb these last two thousand years?

So there it is. The first “test’ of a rule. With these simple forms, all based on one similar dimension, I have convinced myself that the Golden Ratio Rule should always be considered. As with any “rule”, however, you have to know it to know when to break it. From this simple test of it, I have learned a couple of things about it.

1. While there is strong evidence this ratio works in the vertical, it does not seem to me to stand-alone when it is rotated horizontally.

2. A shape conforming to the Golden Ratio is gender neutral. While some may think this observation is a bit of a stretch, the reality is, there is gender in shapes, and proportions go a long way in defining them. Applying this observation to my simple box is going to cause a quandary because the essence of this exercise is to produce just a simple box that is pleasing to the eye yet has no defined purpose. If this box were to be a man’s Jewellery box, a higher ratio might not be a bad idea. If it were to be a woman’s, however, a lesser ratio might be in the cards. This means that, to properly determine the ratio, the final usage of the item and the gender to which this item is meant for, must be determined first.

The final conclusion that I came to is that the Golden Ratio must be considered in the design as it does have a great deal of merit. I just won’t be chiseling it in stone anywhere soon.

Peace,

Mitchell

this project started with an inquiry from a prospective client who had taken a image from my blog or website and photoshopped it himself to make it into something that better fitted the dimensions of his dining room.  basically, he stretched out the table below and added another pedestal.  brilliant, imho.
even though it was early in the corresponding stage and no money or commitments had changed hands, i was intrigued by the concept.  since we still had the drawings for the original table, and its model, it was a simple matter to create the new model. 
above is the cad drawing showing the origin of the curves for the base elements and the seating and plate layout.  room for 12 good friends at least.
even though the table is over 50" wide and about 10.5 long, trevor managed to create a clever pair of interlocking 1/4 oval templates that allowed him to lay out the wood for the glue up below.
one of the boards was just about, but not quite, long enough and we lost about an inch in width and length creating the revised oval.  not bad.  11 walnut matched sets are hard to come by, even from irion lumber.
then, using the cnc, he cut the patterns for the base pieces.  on the original table, the pieces that ran the length of the table were longer than the ones that ran across the table.  after some study though, we decided that with two pedestals, the bases should be all the same.
then the pieces have to be mitered and dowels inserted to give the end grain of the curves some cross grain material for the lag bolts that attach the horizontals at the floor.  i missed it this table, but you can see photos of how that works in the post about the previous table, back in august 2010.  there is also a discussion there about strengthening the short grain where the top is attached also ...
sams sample earthquake handle  approved and good to go ... 9 more in the works ...
 reinforcing the short grain with long grain inserts to accept screws

Even as I cut my teeth with wood to wood tried and true joinery, I still remain a big fan of metal fasteners. Pneumatic nail guns rank high on my list of favorite fastening tools (I own 6 of them). Heres Fine Homebuildings introduction of a new cordless trim nailer from Senco. It looks like a revolutionary unit that Id love to pick up some day. If only the price wasnt so steep.