Lost Art Press

What is that Shadowy Thing? Solved.

Posted on by Lost Art Press

royale_screw

When you look at old engravings, there are going to be details that confuse. Perhaps they were drawn incorrectly. Or you just don’t have enough information to interpret the marks on the page.

Several years ago, I wrote about the French benches in the La Forge Royale catalog, which illustrates several benches with wagon vises. The images of the benches show an odd thing hanging down below the benchtops. It’s clearly a stick, but its purpose isn’t discussed in the text of the catalog.

After several years of speculation, we now know what this dangling stick is. It is the handle for the wooden screw that attaches the top and base together. Thanks to a photo from Jameel Abraham, we have this clear cut-answer.

top_screw

Of course, this answer raises some questions. Does this method of attaching the top and base adequately resist the horizontal forces from the leg vise? If you built a bench like this and attached the top and base with lag screws alone, you’d be sorry. I am sorry.

Perhaps the top and base of this French bench are attached with both the wooden screw and some dowel pins. I guess I’ll never know until I get to take apart one of these benches myself.

— Christopher Schwarz

19 thoughts on “What is that Shadowy Thing? Solved.”

  2. Doesn’t look like a leg vise application though right? I’m seeing a milkman’s bench on stand with integral clamp. The vise pushes into the top directly and not a leg vise trying to shear off the top, at least how it looks to me.

  3. I would say that it looks a lot like the vise is only connected to the top, so in that case there wouldn’t be any problems with the vise pushing the top off.
    I assume that the top is merely floating on top of the legs, because then the singe screw mounting will allow for wood movement. If the legs are mortised into the top, there could potentially be problems with splitting due to the short top stretcher.

    By the way, nice photo Jameel.Thanks for sharing

  4. I agree with bloksav. There is no apron apparent, and the screw on the wagon vice seems well centred into the depth of the bench top itself. I would assume the screw acts on some concealed captive element similar to the accompanying illustration 206 Bloc de Press.
    That raises it’s own questions – what is that an illustration of? Why is there a conical centre in part of it?

  5. I wonder if there are not stub tenons on the post tops that fit into mortises under the bench top? You make a good fit on the front two posts, and then cut the mortises a couple of mm too big on each side (front to back, not lengthwise) for the tenons on the back posts. The top is fixed solidly in front, but can move a bit across its width without too much stress on the screws or the base. That would also explain why the top rail or stretcher is so far from the bench top – you wouldn’t ordinarily need much of a gap at all, but this way the wooden screw can bend a bit

    2. For what it’s worth, that’s how I built my traveling bench. The 3″ thick oak top stays put nicely. The only real issue is the whole thing wants to move when I’m scrubbing, but that could be resolved with more weight down on the shelf.

  6. The depicted bench is un-Schwarz-worthy given the lack of flushitude betwixt the top and the front leg, methinks, unless this detail is not as critical as previously implied.(Blasphemy! Sacrilege!)
    Oh, crap, you said DON’T be a wiener.

    1. Graham,

      These are 20th-century manufactured benches. Remember what was being built at the same time in the U.S.? These are, in comparison, fantastic.

      1. granted, neither the Liberty Hill bench or the Acorn had flush legs. Nor the stamped steel legs on a bench supplied by Grainger of unknown manufacture.

  7. Are you saying the lag bolt to top on the Two-bo won’t work? I am in the middle of building it now, but haven’t put the top on yet. I was thinking stub tenons might work. I could lose two inches in height without sacrificing my back.

    1. If you have a leg vise, you need a firm connection between the top and base on that leg. A lag isn’t enough. A thick dowel (more than 1″) will do the trick.

  8. I am confused.

    Since you mentioned it “When you look at old engravings, there are going to be details that confuse. Perhaps they were drawn incorrectly.”

    I am in the planning stages of my bench build (secured some nice 10’ maple slabs) and looking at AJ’s (forgive the informality) Pl .11 and reading the translation it seems the “ 6” wide by 3’ or 4” in thickness” legs run front to back in the 6” dimension. This seems confirmed by scaling from the other referenced dimensions such as the holdfast holes, stop, and rails in Fig. 1 and 2. This in contrast to the drawing at the top of the Pl (love the super-sized tools on the wall) where the wide dimension, much greater than 6” it seems, are in the side to side or long orientation of the bench. Given the superior rendering of his other drawings I would doubt this is an error? Is it perhaps the type of work being performed on different benches? It seems the majority of work being done in the “shop” is in the long dimension of the bench.

    Also, interestingly in most of the modern design versions of this bench the wide leg dimension is with the length of the bench. I realize that given a 6×4 leg and the comparatively modest workload most benches will see it most likely not make any difference what orientation is used. Mostly just curious.

    Bruce

  9. Umm, I think you all are missing the point. This is clearly a mechanism for adjusting the flatness of the bench. It’s called a compass bench.
    Benchtop a little cupped?
    Crank a screw and BOOM, you’ve got a table top by Starrett!
    Concave, convex, con-queso! It does it all!!

    1. So, that isn’t a swing out grease pot on the side. It is a swing out guacamole pot to go along with the con-queso and bench-chips. Explains a lot.

Comments are closed.