Category: With All the Precision Possible

The following is excerpted from “With All the Precision Possible: Roubo on Furniture Making,” by André-Jacob Roubo, translated by By Donald C. Williams, Michele Pietryka-Pagán & Philippe Lafargue.

For the fashioning of raw timbers, we understand the manner of splitting [hewing or sawing] and squaring them, which is done in different ways, according to the nature, the quality and the thickness of the wood. They are sawn by the mills, or even by hand, by workers called long sawyers or simply sawyers. I will not speak here of the harvesting of the woods in the forests. I will be content to say only that they are sawn and cut in sizes and lengths relative to our different needs, and that wood thus prepared is called wood samples.

They are found abundantly in all types and all qualities possible in the inventories of the wood Merchants, which they ordinarily cut for themselves and for their clients, and are transported to their storage lots or shops in Paris. [Suppose you go to a lumberyard and in the lumber section you will find 2×4, 2×8, 2×6 etc. This is what is called bois díechantillons. In this case it is oak, pine, walnut etc. of various types but standard dimensions.]

Cut or squared-up woods take different names according to their sizes, and according to the place which they occupy in the body of the tree: We call them dosses [slabs], countre dosses, swinging doors, framework, chevrons and finally planks and battens.
Slabs are the first cuts removed from a log in order to square it up, after having removed the bark, like those on sides g–g, Fig. 5 and 6.

When the diameter of the tree is considerable, and you fear that the first cut slab will become too thick, you make a double-cut, which is called a contre-dosse; that is to say, that it is between the first cut dosse [slab] and cut line and the heartwood [wood between the pith and the sapwood] like those on sides h–h, Fig. 6. When the wood is beautiful, the contre-dosse are very soft, being very close to the edges of the tree [closer to the sapwood layer]. They do not have any sapwood except at their extremities, instead of the first cuts, dosse, that have sapwood all over their convex areas. The thickness of the contre-dosse is not precise. It varies from 2 to 4 thumbs. After a log is thus squared, you saw it into thin panels or lumber planks, according to its hardness or softness. You can then judge whether it is appropriate for one or the other. [That is,] [u]nless one cuts planks from the entire width of the tree, especially with soft wood, which I will speak of later.

The double doors of main entrances are ordinarily 12, 15 or even 18 feet long, by 1 foot or 15 thumbs wide, for the longest, and by 4–5 thumbs thick. They are almost always of a hard-quality wood. They should have neither knots nor splits. This may be found in the woods of Vosge, but they are very expensive and very rare.

Lumber for framing is of a length from 6, 9, 12 and 15 feet. They are 6 thumbs wide by 3 thumbs thick.
Rafters have the same length as framing, and sometimes more, by 3 to 4 thumbs squared, that is to say, they have as much thickness as their width.

Planks have 6, 9, 12, 15 and even 18 feet of length, by 1 thumb 15 lines, 1–thumb-and-a-half, one thumb-9 lines, and 2 thumbs thickness.

There are also planks of 7 feet length, but they are rarer than the others, and are difficult to find in all thicknesses.
With regards to the width of planks of French wood, they vary from 9 thumbs up to 1 foot. However, those of 1–and-one-half thumbs to 2 thumbs are ordinarily a foot wide, and those below this thickness from 9 up to 10 or 11 thumbs at the most.

There is still another type of thin French oak wood, named Entrevoux, which only has but 9–10 lines of thickness, by 6, 7 or 9 feet in length, which is appropriate for making panels, provided that it is soft and beautiful.

For the wood from Vosge, there are all kinds of lengths and thickness of which I spoke above, except that there are none of 6–7 feet, or even less. There are also those of 3 thumbs thickness by 12 feet in length. With regards to its width, that is not fixed, because in all the different lengths and thicknesses of this wood, there are from 6–7 thumbs of width up to 18, 20 and even 26 to 30 thumbs [width]. That is why Merchants do not sell this wood by measurement [of the individual boards], as with the others, but by each row of the lumber stack, which is 4 feet in width.

To facilitate the understanding of widths and thickness of woods for joinery relative to their different lengths, I have attached a table [on the next page] where all the wood types are distinguished according to their length, width and thicknesses.

The wood from Holland is not included in the number of those I have mentioned here because it is only a thin wood, which is sold by the handful or even by the cord. These lengths are of 6, 7, 9 or 12 feet by a thickness of 6 or 9 lines.

The thickest of these woods is called three quarters, because it should have 9 lines thickness, although often it only has 7 or 8 at the most. (The thinner ones are called feuillet [leaf] and are only 4 to 5 lines thick, while it should be 6 lines thick.)

It is to be noted that French wood is always thicker than the wood from Vosge with each sample; that is to say, that the first always has 2–3 lines more than its thickness, such that the wood of 1 thumb sometimes has 14–15 lines [thickness]. On the contrary, the latter [wood] always has 1 line less than it should have, which is a shortcoming. Also it has the advantage of being straighter than the other, and has less waste.

For the battens made of oak, wood Merchants sell them only rarely. Joiners use wood from Holland for thin panels, and they even saw [resaw] them at their shops while on edge, to the thickness and of the quality that they judge to be appropriate.

Pine is not subject to the rules of thickness of which I just spoke, at least that type used in the woodworking of buildings.

That from Auvergne ordinarily is 12 feet in length by 14–15 lines in thickness. Its width varies from 10 to 14–15 thumbs.

That from Lorraine has only 11 feet in length at the most. Its thickness is the same as that from Auvergne, but the most ordinary thickness is from 10–12 lines. Its width varies thus, from that of the latter.

There are also the little leaves of pine from Lorraine, of the same length as the planks, which have from 6 up to 8 lines thickness.

Walnut and elm are not found cut into planks like the other woods. Whenever Joiners have enough money, they buy whole logs which they cut themselves, namely the elm, into slabs of 5 thumbs’ thickness, and the walnut into slabs of 3 thumbs [thickness]. They still saw black walnut to make the panels for tables of 4 lines thickness, which have a width of the whole log, which is sometimes 2–2.5 feet in width.

Beech is found cut into planks of 15–18 lines, and even 2 thumbs thickness by 7, 9 and 12 feet in length. They also sell slabs of this wood for making woodworking benches, tables for the kitchen, and butcher tables, tables that have a length from 7–12, and even 15 feet, by 18–30 thumbs in width, and 5–6 thumbs’ thickness.

Although the wood which one chooses has by itself all the required qualities, it is still necessary to watch out for its preservation. Because wood for joinery should not be used except very dry, it is of the final consequence to Joiners to always be well provisioned with wood of all types, which they keep and dry in their yard before using them.

They should also take care that their yard not be placed too low, nor planted with grass, because the falling and gathering of leaves will prevent the run off of water, which could ruin the wood pile coverings and also the base of a woodpile.

The terrain occupied by the woodpiles should be higher than the rest of the yard, so that water does not collect there. It must be well set up and leveled, after which you put on top some pieces of wood side A, which we call chantier [beam/timber spacers] which has a length the same as the width of the pile – ordinarily 4 feet, although sometimes they make them wider. You make them the greatest thickness possible, so that they make the pile taller with the most possible space between the boards.

You put the spacers distant from each other about 3 feet. Their topsides should be squared and straight, after which you pile the wood on top, after having taken the precaution of putting the worst planks on the lowest level to save the better woods from ground moisture. You make the piles in two ways, according to whether the wood is being dried or is already dry.
In the first case, you pile them up to see through, which is done in the following two ways:

The first is to place the planks side by side with a space [between them] about equal to two-thirds of their width, and to separate each row of planks by laths [stickers] f–f, which separates them, prevents them from touching and maintains them in a solid position on top of each other, such that one can stack up the piles up to 20–25 feet in height. (Fig. 1).

The second way to make see-through piles is to make them squarely; that is to say, to give them as much width as the planks are long. You first put a row of planks spaced equally, as in the first way, always such that the width of the row of planks and the additional space between them is equal to their length.

After this, you put on top some planks in another row, in the same order and at a right angle, which means that you have no need for stickers/spacers, and that the planks have more air between them. However, you should not leave them thus piled for a long time, for fear that the wood will rot where the pieces sit on top of each other. (Fig. 2.)

Rafters of 6–9 feet are piled in this fashion, without however being see-through.

The way to pile seasoned wood does not differ from the first of these two ways, except that the planks touch each other side by side, instead of being see-through. You separate each row with some spacers which you put at an equal distance to that of the chantiers which are three feet apart, so that the planks are always straight and do not warp. However, this last term signifies more of a hollowed-out plank along its width [cupping] than a warping [bowing].

The top of the pile is covered with planks positioned to overlap one on top of the other; one of the ends of which is positioned on another plank (side a, Fig. 4) which is called l’egout de la couverture [not quite like a gutter but more like a rain diverter] and which lies flat upon the pile. One should note, however, that it overhangs the front of the pile by 3 or 4 thumbs, and that it slopes a bit to the outside, in order to facilitate the runoff of any water. You raise it up a bit at the back to create this effect. The other end of the planks of the cover hold a piece of wood b, which is named chevet [or riser], which is positioned on edge on two pieces of wood c, in which a notch is placed, and which is stopped with wedges d, in order that it not turn. The chevet should be a foot and a half tall at least, so that the water accumulates less on the piles.

The middle of the covering should be supported by a piece of wood e, which is placed above the pile, and the two planks along the sides rs, rs should be wider by 3 or 4 thumbs than the two sides of the pile, so that the water does not fall back along its length.

When you wish to make the piles more than 4 feet thickness, you should take care to put the spacers in concert (that is, you place them such that the total length of two spacers is more than 4 feet, which is the length of the laths), overlapping such that it maintains the solidity of the pile. You will need to take care to keep everything straight and vertical in all directions, so as to avoid accidents that its fall might cause.

For thin wood, like the wood from Holland, the battens of oak and of pine, the custom is not to pile them in the open air in the middle of the yard, but to pile them under sheds and above the shop where the workers work, the reason being, they say, that they are preserved better. I believe, in spite of this practice, that they would be better in the yard, where they will receive the air from all sides, and where they will not be exposed to insects [powder-post beetles etc.].

As to their preservation, I believe they run no danger being out in the air. The piles of wood from Holland, which reside for a long time in the wood lots of the Port of Hopital and of Rapee without any damage, are surely guarantees of the truth of what I advance here.

What I am saying here is only general. I know perfectly well that all woodworkers cannot have

great wood yards nor large provisions of wood. But still, for reasons of economy, they should always do their best to be well prepared with samples, and to watch over their preservation as best as they can, so as not to be obliged to have to buy some from the Merchants. The wood that they sell is almost never dry, and the woodworker will pay dearly for what the wood Merchants have.

The more wood is hard, the more time it takes to dry. That is why one should not reasonably use wood that has not been cut at least 8 years in order to be able to do good work. It is not necessary, however, that it be too dry, especially for pieces of joinery, where the wood has no more sap and where the humidity is totally expunged: this cannot be appropriate. [Once the sap no longer is flowing from the lumber and the moisture has departed there is no need to season the lumber any further.]

The following is excerpted from “With All the Precision Possible: Roubo on Furniture Making,” by André-Jacob Roubo, translated by By Donald C. Williams, Michele Pietryka-Pagán & Philippe Lafargue.

The Fauteuil [armchair] that I am going to describe is one of those that is called a Cabriolet, because of the circular shape of its plan, [which is] different from that of the Queen’s Fauteuils [armchair], which is straight from the side of the back, as one could see in the view of which I made the description of the Queen’s Chair, page 614, etc.

I have chosen this form so that in the description of chairs and fauteuils [side chairs and armchairs], I am not required to repeat myself. What I said of the Queen’s Chairs can be applied to armchairs of the first type. What I am going to say about cabriolets can be applied to side chairs of the second.

Cabriolets are the seating [that is] the most fashionable at present, and at the same time demand the most attention on the part of the Worker, especially with regards to their construction and the cutting of the wood for the back, which being circular in plan and splayed, forms a part of the surface in a tapering shape, which the Joiners call faire la hotte [make the hood. “Unehotte” is a reference to the type of large conical basket splayed toward the top – like the back of the armchair – you cut a cone in half on its center and there you have it, a “hotte” and the back of the armchair].

To make these sorts of armchairs with all the perfection that it is possible to accomplish, one must first begin by taking account of the shape of the plan, which normally is an S in the front, and in a half-circle, or better said, a half-oval in the rear, like in Fig. 5 and Fig. 8, which represent half of the plan Fig. 5, a half larger than the latter, so as to make the operations more sensible.

After having thus drawn this plan of Fig. 8 (the half could be taken for the whole) at about 15 thumbs from the front of the seat on the line from the middle a b, you raise a perpendicular c d, which you set at 11 thumbs in height. Then from point d to point e, which is the center of the part of the circle of the back of the seat, you take a line e f, which represents the middle of the rear leg, to both sides of which line you trace the width of the rear leg parallel to the latter. Whatever be the flare, or to speak like the Workers, the reverse [the angle/tilt] of the back, the face of the upright should always present itself perpendicularly to the curve of the seat where the exterior contour is indicated by lines g, g, g and the interior (at least of the cross-pieces) by h, h, h. Then there remains to draw on the plan the length of the back seat rails and their splay. This cannot be done except after taking into account the height of the back and the form of its contours that you must first draw separately on the surface developed from the back, which is done in the following manner:

The splay of the back being determined, as in Fig. 5 from a b, from these points you lift two perpendiculars on the line of the middle of the seat, which parallels you extend indefinitely outside of the Figure. From point e, (which is the center of the arc of the back of the plan), you lift up likewise a perpendicular parallel to these latter, which you extend indefinitely on both sides. Then, at whatever distance, like in Fig. 4, you lift from this line perpendiculars f g, and g d, of which distance f g is equal to the height of the back. Then, from point d, you pass an oblique line by point h, that you extend until it meets line g f e i at point i (which is found outside the plate), from which point like the center and distances i f and i g, you describe the circular arcs f m, and g n, Fig. 4. This being done, you take on the plan, Fig. 5, the distance a l, that you transfer, Fig. 4, from f to o. From this point and from point i, you pass a line o p, which is the middle of the rear leg. You draw this as usual for both the curves and the meeting of the back rails, whether this curve is of a normal form like side A, on which I just made the demonstration, or even if it is an oval like on side B, which is no matter. The only exception is when the upright must be wider within, which I will speak of in its turn.

The curve of the back being thus drawn, you draw separately, Fig. 7, the upright of the back (which is double the proportion of Fig. 4 in order to correspond to the plan in Fig. 8), that you extend just to the total height of the back. Then you draw on the upright all the locations of rails, both at the top and bottom at their greatest width, as indicated by points a, b, c, d, from which points you lower the line i l, as many perpendiculars as the distances on this line are carried over to the plan of Fig. 8; namely, that of i h, Fig. 7, from I to 2; that of i g, from 1 to 3, which gives the splay of the bottom back rail, that of i f, from 1 to 4; and that of i e, from 1 to 5; which gives the splay of the top rail, which you draw, like the other, with the circular arcs described from center e, Fig. 8.

The lower sections of these rear legs is nothing different from the others of which I already spoke; it is only that the serpentine leg is more splayed to the outside so as to make more of a stable position to the seat, what the Joiners call shoring up [to brace], which should be 2 thumbs at least.

I said above that armchairs differ from side chairs in that the first have these armrests intended for the elbows of those who are seated within. These armrests are composed of an arm a, Fig. 3, of a bracket b, which is assembled at one end to the side seat rail and the others in the arm, which is assembled itself by mortise and tenon on the upright, with which you should take care to make it match in a smooth and gracious manner, as I have noted in Figs. 1, 2 & 3.

The assembly of the arms with the uprights is done squarely, but I believe that whatever the use, one would do very well to make a cut [an angled shoulder], which, by preventing the inconveniences of squared cuts of which I spoke above, renders the work more solid, in that the cut from below would support the arm and would prevent it from dropping further down.

The arms of Fauteuils are drawn on the plan, as are the rails of the back, with the exception that they are not splayed except at the end where they connect with the upright, the other being perpendicular, which gives it an awkward form that you must keep square, as I have indicated by punctuated lines m n and o p, Fig. 7. See also Figs. 5 & 8, where these arms are drawn on the plan, as well as the brackets, of which I will make a more extensive description afterward in speaking of the different sorts of arms of Fauteuils and their brackets.

The Fauteuil of which I am making the description here is prepared to receive a caned seat, as you can see in Fig. 1, which represents it viewed from the side. That of Fig. 2 represents it viewed from the face, the side A completely disassembled and ready for cutting out, and the other side B completely cut out and assembled but for the seat, which is installed only after being finish with the cane, because the tenon of the bracket passes through it to be pegged in the side seat rail.

See also Fig. 6, which represents the rear seat rail of the armchair which receives the seat, as I explained up above, and Fig. 8, where I indicated by punctuated lines i, i, i, the outside of the frame of the seat, of which the projection ends at both uprights, and where the interior indicated by lines l, l, l is wider at the rear to leave solid wood in front of the upright.

I said up above that the frames of seats are assembled en chapeau [capped] from the front. However, I believe that for the neatness of the work, it would be much better to assemble them mitered in the front, like line l i, and at the rear when they are curved, as in this instance by a forked joint [bridle joint], at the space of the notch of the rear feet. The height of Fauteuils is a bit the same as that of side chairs with the exception that the seat should be a bit lower and consequently the back higher in proportion, especially when they are more splayed.

As to their width, they should be more considerable than that of side chairs given that it is necessary that the person who is seated within be contained comfortably with their clothes. That is why you make some width to the seat of Fauteuils from 22 to 26 thumbs by 18 to 20 thumbs of depth, at least for ordinary Fauteuils, that is to say, in public rooms. For those that serve in particular for a single person, one must, as I said above, consult that person’s taste and needs.

The size and the cut of wood for ordinary armchairs is nothing different from that of side chairs, if only in the case of cabriolets, the rails of the backs should be cut according to their tilt, or better said, their splay, which you can do by drawing the top and the bottom with some templates, of which you should have the curve on the plan, in backing them off [to the back] as necessary. What’s more, you could, without any type of loss, take the top and the bottom rails from the same piece of lumber, sawn as nestled patterns, which is very easy to do given that they are of different curves, such that the outside of one can be the inside of the other, at least pretty close.

There you have a bit of the detail of an armchair (and consequently of a cabriolet chair), after which one could construct all sorts of seats, of whatever form they be, given that the method that I just gave for the construction and manner of drawing it here is applicable to all with some minor differences. I have greatly expanded the manner of drawing, both the plan and the elevation, of these sorts of seats, so as to be within reach of the greatest number. They would have not understood me if I would not have been so expansive if I had simply said, as would seem completely natural, that the development of the backs of seats [of cabriolet arm chairs] is only being one part of the surface of a truncated cone, of which the incline is given by the back and is elongated just to its meeting of the center of the seat which represents the axis of the cone, which determines the crown and consequently the center of its development. This simplicity supposes of my readers (at least of ordinary Joiners) some knowledge which they cannot or do not want to acquire, whether I have given the elementary principles in the second part of this work, at the beginning of the Art of Drawing. That is why I believed it necessary, to be available to all, to make all demonstrations that appeared appropriate for saving time of those who would not acquire other knowledge than that of practice, which, for as little as is reasonable, is barely sufficient in the part that I am treating.

What’s more, Chair Joiners do not take all the precautions that I recommend here for drawing the plan or elevation of their works, which [they do by] sawing as accurately as possible, and that they assemble without dressing them, for cutting them out later, after having assembled them, which they do badly. But finally it is their custom and they will not change from that easily.

The following is excerpted from “With All the Precision Possible: Roubo on Furniture Making,” by André-Jacob Roubo, translated by By Donald C. Williams, Michele Pietryka-Pagán & Philippe Lafargue.

Dressing Tables are nothing else but ordinary Tables [where] the corners are rounded and around the perimeter you add some ledges of about 3 to 4 thumbs in height and you cover it with muslin or lace, according to the wish or the opulence of those using it. We make use of other small Tables that are portable which contain all [things] which serve the grooming of Women, like the mirror, the powder box, pomades, flasks appropriate for applying perfume and other ingredients of this type, which are put on ordinary dressing Tables.

The small dressing Tables represented in Figs. 1 & 2 are composed of a base and a top, which is divided into three parts in width, namely that in the middle, which holds a mirror and opens vertically, and those on the two sides, which cover two boxes, which fall back at both sides of the Table. Beneath the mirror, that is to say, in the middle of the apron rail is placed a little writing Table about a foot wide which slides horizontally. You pull it out when you wish to use it. Below this writing Table and its two side boxes are placed three ordinary drawers of which the depth, added to that of the side boxes, is normally 6 thumbs; [specifically 3 thumbs at least for the side boxes], and the rest for the drawer and the crossbar that holds it. This reduces the depth of the drawers below the side boxes to very little, truthfully. But it is not possible to take advantage of this given that the knees of the person seated before this Table must fit easily beneath the cross-piece [rail] that holds the drawers. See Fig. 3, which represents the side view of this dressing Table taken from the middle of its length, and Fig. 4, which represents another view taken at the location of a side box, which is filled in with a second box fitted with its cover on top. See Fig. 5, which represents the Table viewed from the top and completely closed, and at Fig. 6, which represents this same Table completely uncovered.

The construction of these types of Tables is nothing special [except] the opening on top, the area that holds and supports the mirror, which is done in the following manner:

You make a groove in the two separations of the Table in which you insert a cross-piece AA, Fig. 7, by which you [open and close on a hinge] the part of the Table that holds the mirror and the exterior ridge that is beveled to give the mirror the tilt that is necessary. When you wish to make use of the latter, you pull it from the front to release it from the bottom of part B, which remains in place. You pull it out and you bring it as close to the front of the Table as you judge to be appropriate, making the cross-piece A run inside the grooves of the sides, as you can see in this Figure.

The two other parts of the top are attached on the aprons of the ends of the Table. You should take care to extend over the center or knuckle of the hinges by an equal distance to the projection of the top so that the latter can fully fold over toward the outside. See Fig. 8. The two sides of the top are closed with a lock in the dividers/separations of the Table and they hold the middle part by means of two pins [handles], a, b, Fig. 2, attached below and at the two sides of the latter.

Other dressing Tables are made totally different from those that I just described, either in general form or in the manner of making them open. But these differences are of little consequence. What’s more, those that I just described are the most convenient and are the most used.

I said up above that we make some writing Tables a bit similar to dressing Tables. These Tables do not differ from the latter except by their opening of the middle part, which folds into three parts, namely that of the rear, which remains in place, like those of the dressing Tables; that of the middle a, b, Fig. 9, which you lift in the form of a lectern; and another small part b, c, of about 2 thumbs in width, which is fitted with the middle part, such that when making this latter move around point d, where it is fastened to the Table, part b, c lifts and serves as the ledge of the lectern. You hold it up by means of a little frame support e, f, which you fold beneath the lectern when you do not wish to use it any more.

The night Tables represented in Figs. 10, 11 & 12 are composed of four legs and of two shelves, one of which is placed at about 18 thumbs high and the other at 26 thumbs at least, on top of which you protrude the legs and the three sides to hold whatever you put on these Tables, which you place next to beds and you use only in the night or in the case of sickness. Underneath the first shelf, that is to say, the lowest, you place a drawer of about 2 thumbs deep, which you make open by the right side of the Table with which it is level/flush. The three sides that surround the space contained between the two shelves of the night Table, are normally pierced [ventilated] so that they diminish all the odor that is possible. We sometimes put there some very thin marble shelves, at least on the top one, which is a very good usage given that the marble is not subject, like wood, to warping with the moisture to which these sorts of Tables are exposed, nor to absorbing any bad odor. See Figs. 10 & 11, which represent a night Table viewed from the side and the front. And Fig. 12, which represent this same Table viewed from the top, which is, I believe, sufficient to show all the necessary theory for this sort of work.

In general, these sorts of Tables are not likely to have any type of ornament. It suffices that they be neat and especially lightweight to be easier to transport. That is why a thumb-and-a-half suffices for the size of the legs, where you make the curve/corner contour connecting the side to the back and only chamfer inside, so that the little wood which remains serves to hold [support] the shelf of the top. However, it is good to make this enter by tongue and groove into the sides so as to prevent any warping. You should pay the same attention for the base, which, like that of the top and the sides of the Table, should be only 4 to 5 lines thickness at most.
When you make marble shelves for the night Tables, it is good that they be supported underneath by another wooden shelf (although this is not the custom), which prevents their breaking, as often happens.

There is still an infinity of Tables for all spaces, shapes and sizes, the detail of which I will not enter into given that they are often nothing but the whim of the Workers or of those who use them. What’s more, these sorts of Tables differ little from those that I just described, of which the usage is the most generally received, and after which you could design them in whatever form you judge to be appropriate.

Before ending all that concerns Tables and generally furniture with simple frames, and consequently moving to the description of closed pieces [furniture with closing doors], I am going to give in Plate 267 various examples of ornate leg Tables, as I just announced in the article on table legs, page 697. I will end this chapter with a description of screens and folding screens of different types.

The following is excerpted from “With All the Precision Possible: Roubo on Furniture Making,” by André-Jacob Roubo, translated by By Donald C. Williams, Michele Pietryka-Pagán & Philippe Lafargue.

Since the most exotic woods are very expensive, and for the most part difficult to work, one rough cuts them with a saw, in both their thickness and width, in order to conserve the materials by making the least waste possible, and at the same time to diminish [dress] them most easily, given that much cannot be done except by the toothed plane, at least for making them the correct size, which one cannot do with the [jointing] plane, given that these woods are often very hard, or which is even worse, of a curly grain, the iron of the standard/jointing plane cuts very little into it, causing tear-out [splinters] such than one could not remove without doing wrong to the different pieces which would be found to be too thin or too narrow. What’s more, this type of joinery being made to be polished, it is necessary that no voids be found in the entire surface, either along the length or width, which, consequently, requires the use of toothing planes, at least for the wood of an extremely hard quality, or of a grain mixed with burls, as I just said before. The wood which is less hard and more straight-grained than those of which I just spoke, one removes the material [dresses them] with jointer planes and in the ordinary manner. However, one will do very well to finish them with toothing planes, in order to avoid all types of tear-outs on their surface.

When the pieces are too small, or of a wood too hard to be planed ordinarily, that is to say, with bench [jointing] planes and other planes, after having sawn them, one squares them with rasps and Files of different types, as I will explain later. But whichever method the woods are dressed, the cabinetmakers use, for squaring them, the square made of ordinary wood. However, it would be good for the squares to be of iron or of brass/copper, named squares a chaperons [a square that has an applied fence/guide on its edge; a try square], of which one section is turned completely flat, and the other is perpendicular, like that of Fig. 2, where one would cut off part a–b–c–d, so that when orienting the square in whatever manner, the upper section is always perpendicular to the piece that one is working, as one can see in Fig. 4, where the upper section of the square, supposed to be c–f, is perpendicular to the other section, g–h, viewed from on end, in this Figure. These same squares could also serve to change direction one above the other, that is to say, the upper section above point i, and the other g–h, positioned flat on the work (see Fig. 4).

This square can also serve as an angle for drawing [laying out] the work, however it is constructed as I have supposed, or as it is represented in Fig. 2.

Figure 1 represents another type of square appropriate for marking right angles on different parts, where ordinary squares are not convenient to use.

The squares of which I just spoke cannot be used except for projecting angles [outside corners] and flat surfaces. As it sometimes happens, when one has cavities of a right angle to cut into the wood, like mortises or other works of this type, one uses for squaring them (or at least for verifying that they are pierced squarely) a square named squared cross, which is composed of two iron bars A–B and C–D [Fig. 3] ,of which the latter is set perpendicular to the first, with which it is stopped [locked] by the means of a screw E, such that this square serves at the same time to verify that the sides of the chopped [cut] holes are perpendicular to the surface of the work, and assures the evenness of depth. One lowers section C–D of the square, from F to D, of a length equal to the depth of the part which one wishes to excavate, as one can see in this figure, which I have represented by punctuated lines, the same square as the other side of the mortise.

Although I have not represented here anything but squares and right-angle triangles, it is however good to have miter squares, and bevel squares also of iron, for the reasons that I said above. If I have not illustrated them here, it is only in a desire to avoid repetitions, and to not multiply uselessly the figures, and by consequent, the Plates.

Figure 5 represents a type of square, or better said, the caliper for verifying at the same time that a piece is perfectly square and an equal thickness in all its parts, which is necessary, especially for the pieces which one squares with a File.
Marking gauges of iron are of a form a bit similar to that of Fig. 5, except that instead of the returning arm as in square G, their shank is terminated by a built-in point or by one added to the shank with a threaded screw, which is the same, as long as this point is made of hard steel and tempered, especially when one uses it for metals.

As I said above, page 810, Cabinetmakers use the same saws as other Joiners. However, for the works under question here, it is good that these saws, if they are the same, be made with a bit more care, and that their blades be tempered, so that they better withstand working hard woods. Since tempered saws require extreme stiffness, one would do well, instead of a cord/rope [to tighten the bow saw], to put there a rod of iron threaded at one end, to receive a winged nut by means of which on can tighten [tension] the saw blade to the degree that one judges appropriate. See Figs. 7, 11, 13 & 14.

It is necessary to take care that the bottom of this rod (whether of iron or of copper) be of a squared form, as well as the top section found immediately after the threading, so that it does not turn when tightening the winged nut. It is even good to fit the end of the arm of the saw, Fig. 11, with an iron plate which is pierced with a square hole through which passes the rod, as one can see in this figure.

Figure 6 represents a saw named the English Saw, of which the bow or frame is all iron. This saw is banded by means of a handle, which holds the end of the locking anvil H, which is held there by means of a screw I, a bit like the same manner as the marquetry saw of which is made the description on page 843. These sorts of saws work not only for all the little works, but also for cutting soft metals, like copper, tin, etc., as for the other materials that one uses in cabinetmaking. That is why it is always necessary that their blades be tempered.

Figure 8 represents a tool named a sawing Knife [keyhole saw], which differs from the hand saw (of which I spoke in the first part of my work, page 190) only by the size of the blade and the shape of its handle. This saw is very convenient for the small parts [and places] where one cannot use ordinary saws, and it is good that they are constructed like that represented in Fig. 8, so that one can change the blades when one judges appropriate.

Figures 9 & 15 represent another type of saw with a handle and a fence/shoulder, which cuts to only the depth that one judges appropriate [established by adjusting the fence/shoulder], and forms consequently, in many works, cuts of an equal depth. This saw is made of an ordinary blade, with a chassis or frame of iron, divided in two in its thickness, and where one of the parts enters in notches by its two ends in the part that is fixed and which, consequently, enters in the handle in a manner that they appear to be one part, the two parts are held together by means of three screws threaded in the fixed part of the frame, in the middle of which the saw is placed, being pierced itself by three corresponding slots and of a width equal to the diameter of the screw, in a way that one can lower or raise the blade as much as can be permitted by the length of the slots. Afterwards, one tightens the screw in order to hold the saw in place. See Fig. 9, where I removed the middle part of the frame, so that one can see the mortise of the blade, and consequently the results that can be had.

Figure 10 represents another type of saw with a guide/fence, where the frame is configured in a manner that one can adapt to it one or two saw blades, that is to say, one on each side. The frame of this saw enters into the first cut of the saw made previously in the work piece, and it can, as with the preceding one, serve not only to cut different pieces of the work, but also to make grooves of different depths or widths according to the thickness of the saws, in place of which one can use Floats, if one desires, especially for working hard woods, ivory, shell or other materials with which one wishes to make embellishments, by reason of which one will construct the tools you will need. Being content with the two examples that I just gave, which are, it seems to me, sufficient to help in composing the others, whether of a similar form, or laid out like tools with stock/body.

Figure 12 represents a Piercing tool. It is nothing but a point with a flattened shape, of which the exterior ridges are sharp and cutting [very similar to a die-maker’s scraper or a bird-cage awl]. This point serves to pierce little holes in pieces of thin wood, observing to position the widest part of the piercing tool perpendicular the grain line, so that these being cut present hardly any resistance to the point which is forced into the wood, which therefore diminishes the risk of splitting. The other small holes are pierced with an ordinary bit. When one fears that the pieces be too frail to tolerate the force of the latter, one pierces them with a Drill Bit, as I will explain here in speaking of the appropriate tools for piercing metals.

The tools that I just described (an abstraction made of those of Turning and Locksmithing of which I am going to speak later, and in general of all the tools of the Joiner of which I spoke in the course of this Work, which can work equally for the construction of cabinetry, which is the question here), are nearly always those which are the most useful. There are still many others that each worker makes for his own use, according to his talent and the different occasions which he has for using them with more or less success. Since most of these tools are little different from those of which I spoke in the description of the different types of Joiners, I believed to be able to dispense with entering into each detail on this subject, this information being otherwise inexhaustible.

As to the construction of solid cabinetry, it is the same thing as for the other types of joinery. The different parts which compose it are always tied one to the other by means of grooves and tongues, tenons, mortises and other assemblages [joinery]. The only difference is that of these different assemblages as well as all the rest of the construction of this joinery be made with all the perfection possible, that the fashioning of the wood, the joints and especially the assemblages, be made with the [best] precision, without being diminished in any manner so that when working on the joints they do not open/appear. I will not speak here of the quality of the wood, which should be perfect and dry as is possible; without which, whatever care one takes, one cannot do excellent work.