Apologies for the following statement, but “The Woodworker: The Charles Hayward Years” is a gold mine of craft knowledge. Even though we were mired in the project for more than seven years (and I should despise it), the finished books are incredibly useful in my everyday work.
Yesterday proved that point. You might remember this blog entry where I reprinted a 1964 article on making a staked stool that was one of the thousands of articles we sorted through for our two-volume set.
In that article, S.H. Glenister recommended boring mortises for a staked stool before shaping the legs. This is exactly how I work with square mortise-and-tenon projects, but is the opposite of how I work when building post-and-rung assemblies with round tenons and mortises.
I can’t say why it never occurred to me to bore the round mortises first when the stock was square. Just a brain defect, I guess.
So when making the post-and-rung base for a new design for a chest of drawers, I followed Mr. Glenister’s advice. It worked brilliantly and everything turned out perfectly square and centered with little fuss.
The only hiccup was when turning the mortised bits. You need to lighten up your pressure on the tool as you pass the tool by the mortises. I didn’t have any of them catch, but if you use consistent pressure the areas around your mortises will end up a little skinnier.
Give it a try next time.
By the way, we are hard at work at designing the next two volumes of “The Woodworker.” Vol. III on joinery is now completely designed and needs only a final edit. Meghan, the designer, is now laying out Vol. IV, which is on the workshop and furniture. There is still a lot of work ahead, but we are plowing forward.
When John and I started this company in 2007, we each contributed about $1,500 to build our website and purchase the first press run of “The Art of Joinery.”
So when it came to designing a logo, we had exactly $0.00. I ginned up a placeholder logo using the Caslon Antique typeface and we launched our business with that. But as soon as we made some money, we planned to get a real professional logo.
During the last nine years we tried a couple times to get a logo designed, but the project was cursed (like our poster business). Both designers either flaked or were swallowed by a hole in the Earth. So we trudged on with our DIY logo.
This spring we vowed to make a third attempt. I hired Tom Lane, a designer in Liverpool, who I’d been following on Dribble for some time. He specializes in hand-drawn logos, and his aesthetic matched what I was looking for.
The curse had finally been lifted (thanks Marta Madden).
Tom drew a bunch of logos in pencil. He narrowed it down to three solid choices and we began refining things during the last two weeks. And today, it’s done.
I’ve been in the publishing business long enough to know that some of you (all of you?) might prefer the old logo. That’s cool, but this is our logo. We’re happy we got to support an independent designer, promote some handwork and get the logo that I wish we’d had in 2007.
Plate 286. Different Sorts of Sections Appropriate for Infilling Panels
This is an excerpt from “Roubo on Marquetry” by André-Jacob Roubo. Translation by Donald C. Williams, Michele Pietryka-Pagán & Philippe Lafargue. The translators’ additions to the text are in brackets. Roubo’s asides are in parentheses.
Figure 4 represents a composition with dice or cubes, placed on a background of whatever color; these dice or cubes are hexagons, placed side by side, in a manner such that their points touch each other, as you can see in this figure.
Each of these hexagons, or figures with six sides, is composed of three lozenges of any colors assembled together to make the dice or cubes appear in relief. Lozenge C (which is the daylight side) is an example of the shape in question and is made in rosewood. Lozenge D, which is the top of the cube, is of grey or yellow wood. Lozenge E, which is the shade side, is of violet wood. The remaining space [unmarked but primarily horizontal] is of some other wood that one judges appropriate, provided that it differs in the color of wood that forms the cubes. The cubes should not only differ in color from that of the bottom, but also each lozenge comprising the cube should all be different from each other. One accomplishes this by choosing pieces darker in color from one side to the other, or even by passing them over hot sand, as I will teach later.
Figure 5 represents another section, which does not differ from that of which I just spoke, except that it does not have any remaining space or background like the last one. To the contrary, all the dice or cubes fit one inside the other without leaving any void space, which works quite well. However, it is good to observe when making this last type of section, to make a space or background between the cubes on top and on the bottom, as I have shown in this figure, which works much better than to see the ends of cubes cut up, as one does ordinarily, and which I have indicated by line F–G.
In general, whether the sections of which I am speaking are with a background as in Fig. 4, or without a background, as in Fig. 5, it is necessary to take great care when making the section that a whole number of cubes is found on the length, and that the uppermost end of these same cubes reach the banding or stringwork that surrounds them, as I have shown here. This is very easy to do since it is only necessary to adjust the proportions of the cubes according to the need, it not being absolutely necessary that the hexagon of the cubes be perfectly regular. Whatever way it can be done is the better way, and is so much easier to do when the three lozenges that compose the hexagon are of a similar shape, which does not ordinarily happen when the hexagon is of an irregular shape.
If one does not wish to make dice or projecting cubes, as in Fig. 5, one could make sections of cubes to fill the lozenges in a unified wood, which does not work badly when the joints are well made, as one can see in this figure. [This is in fact my favorite manner of preparing a composition such as this. I find the subtlety much more to my taste, especially when using a wood with a fine grain pattern with a noticeable difference from early wood to late wood, such as bald cypress on the radial plane.]
Figure 6 represents a section with mixed stars, which is a section that is very complex in appearance; however, it is only hexagons, as that of H, I, L, M, N, O, which approach and penetrate each other, so that the point of whichever star, becomes the center of another. It is necessary to observe in making these sorts of sections that one finds, as much as possible, a number of hexagons complete in height as is found in this figure, so that the bottom or void remaining at the points of the stars be similar at the bottom as at the top, which could not be if the section bordered by the line P–Q , of which the distance to the top-most stringwork of the section, contains only one-and-a-half hexagons in height. As for the length of this type of section, taken in the direction that is represented in Fig. 6, it is not important only that the number of hexagons be complete. It suffices that no points of the stars be cut along the same line, so that this section be as perfect as is possible to be.
These sorts of sections can be made with a projecting appearance, or be filled with segments of the same wood, which is equal for the form and disposition of the joinery, which is always given by the parallel lines, horizontal and perpendicular, and [rather than being comprised of lozenges] by equilateral triangles, of which the tops are opposite one another. Inspecting this illustration alone is by itself better than all the explanations that one can give.
Figure 7 represents another section, composed of octagons or figures with eight sides, placed in stars with eight sides, which all come to a point in the center. The stars that compose these sections touch each other on their perpendicular and horizontal faces at two points, which produces between them a squared space. This space is filled with the point of a diamond, as in the height of this figure, made from the background veneer. The other squared voids, which produce the return of the points of these same stars, being larger than those of which I just spoke above, are filled in by other stars with four points or some other element placed on the base, which distinguishes them from the rest of the work, as I have shown in the upper part of this figure, of which the stars as much as the points of the diamonds have an obvious [apparent] relief.
The Lost Art Press storefront will be open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. this Saturday, June 11, for those of you who have woodworking questions or would like to browse our complete selection of new books or our limited selection of blemished books.
We’ll also have free stickers, free posters and (I hope) some of Katy’s soft wax for sale at the store.
I’ll be working on a contemporary chest of drawers in some highly figured oak that has some unusual joinery and will be featured in an upcoming issue of Popular Woodworking Magazine. With any luck I’ll be finishing the plinth, which is constructed like a post-and-rung chair.
Just a reminder that we can accept credit cards for all our books except the blemished ones, which are cash only. The store’s physical address is 837 Willard St., Covington, KY 41017.
I’m going to be living in Quito, Ecuador for the next six months. I wanted to bring some tools with me to try out on those notorious tropical hardwoods (and whatever else I might encounter). Unfortunately, with all that iron and steel, woodworking tools are heavy. I decided at the outset that my weight and size budget would be one standard checked bag, which is 50 lb and 62 inches, length + width + height.
The first thing that comes to mind when transporting items that need protection is a Pelican case. But Pelican cases are heavy, and one of an appropriate size would put a pretty big dent in my weight budget. So I started looking around at alternatives, including standard hard-sided luggage (mostly the wrong shape, and of questionable protective ability for a 50-lb. load), and eventually decided that I would have to build a lightweight wooden box and ship it inside a padded duffel bag. The good news is that woodworking tools generally aren’t too fragile as long as you keep them from banging into each other.
I had already started down the path of designing the box when I chanced upon an ad in a web site somewhere, advertising the new line of lightweight Pelican Air cases. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation revealed that a 1605 case would be the right size, and would weigh no more, and probably a little less, than my proposed box. So, out with the box and in with the Pelican Air case. But when I tried to order one, I discovered that the Air cases truly were new, as in, not yet released.
I spoke with Gary at Midwest Case, and after he did some checking with his supplier, we concluded that the case would probably arrive in time. So I crossed my fingers and waited, and used Pelican’s CAD drawings to design the internal dividers that I would need to keep the tools from attacking each other. (The case arrived on 24 May, in plenty of time. I heartily recommend Midwest Case for anyone who needs a Pelican or similar case in or near Ohio; the customer service I received was above and beyond.)
I’m an iron plane kind of guy, but I knew that an iron jointer plane would completely blow my weight budget, so I briefly entertained the idea of building a Krenov-style wooden jointer plane. Instead, I decided to go all-Charlesworth and take only a single jack plane, with an assortment of blades for different tasks, and a couple of low-angle block planes for small stuff. I left out things like a rough panel saw and hammer/mallet, since I knew that I could buy those things at a big box store once I arrived.
Once I got everything together and fitted, I was still a few pounds over my weight budget (as I had expected), so I had to give up a few tools that I would have liked to have, like a couple of paring chisels, a heavy-duty diamond plate, a Starrett compass, etc.
This is the final layout; the empty spaces are where tools had to be omitted:
The tray bottoms are made of 1/8″-thick paulownia plywood, chosen for its ridiculously low weight. I was also going to go with paulownia for the dividers, too, but after cutting a few pieces I decided that I didn’t like its workability, being rather coarse-grained and crumbly. So I went with basswood instead, which in addition to being lightweight (though not as light as paulownia) has a very high strength-to-weight ratio. The basswood is a dream to work with.
The end result is not exactly the Studley tool chest, and the fit and finish could best be described as “utility,” but I think overall it was a successful exercise. We’ll know for sure once TSA and the baggage handlers are through with it. I’m going to include an instruction sheet for TSA so that if they remove the trays they will (hopefully) get them back the right way. Wish me luck.
Figure 7 represents another section, composed of octagons or figures with eight sides, placed in stars with eight sides, which all come to a point in the center. The stars that compose these sections touch each other on their perpendicular and horizontal faces at two points, which produces between them a squared space. This space is filled with the point of a diamond, as in the height of this figure, made from the background veneer. The other squared voids, which produce the return of the points of these same stars, being larger than those of which I just spoke above, are filled in by other stars with four points or some other element placed on the base, which distinguishes them from the rest of the work, as I have shown in the upper part of this figure, of which the stars as much as the points of the diamonds have an obvious [apparent] relief.
